Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hezbollah - Houthis

[Jazny]

This is just nonsense. Organised resistance and national liberation movements have every right to resist their occupation. You may be incredulous, because you expect Palestinians to just accept their oppression in slience, but this right is in the GCs.

It fails on so many levels on international law even if Hamas wasn't designated as a terrorist organisation and instead a state actor. It wouldn't pass the Caroline test, there was no immediate necessity that would pass this test for Hamas to launch the attack. They hadn't meaningfully engaged in necessary diplomatic alternatives. Also, how could they justify the military advantage of October 7th? What were the possible military outcomes that would justify the attack? It would fail this test so hard.

October 7th even if Hamas were a state (they aren't, they are terrorists), and even if it only targeted military personnel would still be a crime of aggression under international law. Now after October 7th there is a war between the two actors, Hamas actually could attack Israeli targets in Israel if it were in line with international law. Not the way they do now with indiscriminate rockets, every single one of those are war crimes, but a more targeted attack would not be against international law.

They sent a warning message to leave their homes - then bomb the refugee camp. 69 people. There is no proportionality here, no justification. I could of course go on, almost endlessly.

Please, forgive me for once again using words to convey meaning.

I do wonder how you've managed to avoid any of the multitudes of reports and evidence of Israelis deliberately killing civilians. You've done well to keep your little head in the sand. Surely you've heard of Lavender, and 'Where's Daddy'? You know, like Robodebt but for killing people?

How about the World Kitchen aid workers? Sure, if it was one missile I could imagine claiming it was a mistake. Maaayyybe 2. But they took 3 goes to kill them. 3 different cars. That's not an error - that's policy.

Unless you're one of the many who consider all Palestinians Hamas, of course?

Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza

Amnesty International has documented damning evidence of war crimes.

www.amnesty.org

‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza

The Israeli army has marked tens of thousands of Gazans as suspects for assassination, using an AI targeting system with little human oversight and a permissive policy for casualties, +972 and Local Call reveal.

www.972mag.com

I am not saying Israel didn't deliberately murder these people, for all we know they did. But these stories aren't evidence that they deliberately targeted civilians at all, it's just evidence that civilians are being killed. Which happens in every war in an urban area with modern weapons. It's horrible, but until these incidents are fully investigated and the motives of the attacks are known and whether the strikes would pass the tests of what a reasonable commander would take (or worse, they were launched fully knowing there was no military objective) then you can't just show incidents of civilians being killed in war and say its deliberate.

If you actually look into Lavander and AI and the way its being used according to Israel, it shouldn't really even be that controversial. You would be stupid not to use AI tools in war. It's not fully automated like Robodebt, there are human checks before anything is acted on. Unless you have evidence otherwise we can look at.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It fails on so many levels on international law even if Hamas wasn't designated as a terrorist organisation and instead a state actor.

The right to resist against foreign occupation by a tyrannical government is a human right. Has been since Roman law. Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. UNGA 37/43. The list goes on. See the Algerian war for independence against France. This may seem archaic, but that's because the world has largely moved on from settler colonialism.

It is of consequence whatsoever that Australia, the US, or anyone chooses to designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Do you know of the history of the Zionist occupation of Palestine? Irgun, Lehi, Stern Gang, the Haganah? Zionists introduced terrorism to the Levant.

It wouldn't pass the Caroline test, there was no immediate necessity that would pass this test for Hamas to launch the attack. They hadn't meaningfully engaged in necessary diplomatic alternatives. Also, how could they justify the military advantage of October 7th? What were the possible military outcomes that would justify the attack? It would fail this test so hard.

There's no Caroline test for resistance to an occupation. This is not self-defence. Meaningful diplomatic alternatives were scrapped by Israel, by Sharon (Taba 2000) and Bibi after he took over from Olmert in 2008. Netanyahu has proudly stated he has spent his career preventing a Palestinian state. He famously showed a map of the region at the UN with no Gaza or West Bank.

Giving Palestinians absolutely no hope of freedom has not helped Israeli security objectives. The only aim of Hamas is to achieve self-determination, and that's all there needs to be.

October 7th even if Hamas were a state (they aren't, they are terrorists), and even if it only targeted military personnel would still be a crime of aggression under international law.

Nonsense.

Now after October 7th there is a war between the two actors, Hamas actually could attack Israeli targets in Israel if it were in line with international law. Not the way they do now with indiscriminate rockets, every single one of those are war crimes, but a more targeted attack would not be against international law.

Again - Hamas have no means of delivering 2,000 pound bombs on their enemies, and their enemies entire extended families. Resistance to occupation is allowed by any means available - you don't get to regularly bomb a people back to the stone age and then compain when they use the tools they have.

Why does only one side have to follow these rules in your mind? Do you know how many UN resolutions Israel have broken? How many international laws they break, each and every day?

I am not saying Israel didn't deliberately murder these people, for all we know they did. But these stories aren't evidence that they deliberately targeted civilians at all, it's just evidence that civilians are being killed. Which happens in every war in an urban area with modern weapons. It's horrible, but until these incidents are fully investigated and the motives of the attacks are known and whether the strikes would pass the tests of what a reasonable commander would take (or worse, they were launched fully knowing there was no military objective) then you can't just show incidents of civilians being killed in war and say its deliberate.

Are you ****ing kidding me? After the spiel you just gave me about Hamas rockets being war crimes? Your two-headedness is insane. You are not a serious person to discuss these matters with.

These attacks occured 8 months ago. These have been investigated by international human rights organisations. I gave you the link.

Israel are not investigating a thing. 15 members of a family including 7 children. Nothing. 69 people lured to a refugee camp only to be blown to pieces. Israel claims there was a Hamas person in a non-existent mosque. You can't even justify this with a 'human shield' claim, it's just cold-blooded mass murder. I could go on for days you realise.

You're perfectly happy with these? You think because Israel keeps schtum, no one can possibly criticise their actions? Just regular old war incidents? US State Department spox would be so proud of you. Utter drivel.

If you actually look into Lavander and AI and the way its being used according to Israel, it shouldn't really even be that controversial. You would be stupid not to use AI tools in war. It's not fully automated like Robodebt, there are human checks before anything is acted on. Unless you have evidence otherwise we can look at.

A 20 second check to ensure the target is male. 15 to 20 dead civilians perfectly fine as collateral damage for a target that AI spits might be a junior Hamas operative. 100 civilians OK if they think he is a commander.





Look at this indiscriminate slaughter factory:



Gotta get those bombs delivered to somebody! Your defence of this is truly sickening.

 

[Kurve]

Also the UNHCR report:

View attachment 2032792

They actually found it's the IDF who use sexual violence as a regular practice:

View attachment 2032795

Can you provide a link to this please?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Can you provide a link to this please?

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-26-auv.docx

 

[Jazny]

The right to resist against foreign occupation by a tyrannical government is a human right. Has been since Roman law. Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. UNGA 37/43. The list goes on. See the Algerian war for independence against France. This may seem archaic, but that's because the world has largely moved on from settler colonialism.

Even if Hamas would qualify as a resistance, which is very questionable considering Israel had withdrawn and Hamas were in control, then they STILL have to follow the rules of IHL which October 7th DOES NOT come close to upholding. Like I originally said:

Every death on Oct 7th committed by Hamas would be classified as a war crime, including the military personnel.

And you were completely wrong to argue against this, because there is no world, no possible shot, that even if Hamas jumps over the necessary legal hurdles to count as a legitimate resistance, or even if I granted them the status of statehood for the sake of argument to get around acts of terror, October 7th STILL did not come close to conforming to International Humanitarian Law including all the security forces that were killed.

The only aim of Hamas is to achieve self-determination, and that's all there needs to be.

Not true. Even if they qualified as a legitimate resistance, they still need to obey international humanitarian law. So they need a clear military objective for their specific acts of violence, not just a vague one.

A 20 second check to ensure the target is male. 15 to 20 dead civilians perfectly fine as collateral damage for a target that AI spits might be a junior Hamas operative. 100 civilians OK if they think he is a commander.

Israel Defence Forces’ response to claims about use of ‘Lavender’ AI database in Gaza

Statement issued after six Israeli intelligence sources speak out about AI use in Gaza war

www.theguardian.com

Israel's response to those claims. If Israel's response is correct, there isn't much that should be controversial about their use of those AI systems.

These attacks occured 8 months ago. These have been investigated by international human rights organisations. I gave you the link.

No they haven't been properly investigated. Do you read your own articles? They don't even know what the Israeli justification was for those attacks which is the important part if you are assessing a war crime or claiming a deliberate attack. All these kinds of incidents should be properly investigated by the ICC and if it turns out there was no justification, it's a war crime and should be punished. You can't just give examples of incidents of civilian casaulties in a war in a densely populated area and assume its a war crime.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Even if Hamas would qualify as a resistance, which is very questionable considering Israel had withdrawn and Hamas were in control, then they STILL have to follow the rules of IHL which October 7th DOES NOT come close to upholding. Like I originally said:

And you were completely wrong to argue against this, because there is no world, no possible shot, that even if Hamas jumps over the necessary legal hurdles to count as a legitimate resistance, or even if I granted them the status of statehood for the sake of argument to get around acts of terror, October 7th STILL did not come close to conforming to International Humanitarian Law including all the security forces that were killed.

Not true. Even if they qualified as a legitimate resistance, they still need to obey international humanitarian law. So they need a clear military objective for their specific acts of violence, not just a vague one.

Do you have a link to this law or legal opinion, or do you think if you just wish it hard enough it becomes the truth? You really sound like you're just making it up sorry. They don't have to be a state actor - Israel won't allow them to become a state, that's the whole point! The security forces are members of a foreign army enforcing a brutal occupation.

Where are you getting your information?

Israel Defence Forces’ response to claims about use of ‘Lavender’ AI database in Gaza

Statement issued after six Israeli intelligence sources speak out about AI use in Gaza war

www.theguardian.com

Israel's response to those claims. If Israel's response is correct, there isn't much that should be controversial about their use of those AI systems.

Yes, 'human shields', 'most moral army' etc. I think I'll take the world of the sources that supplied the actual details originally rather than the IDF PR Department, thanks though.

Nice of them to also say you are wrong - this covers any IDF that were attacked Oct 7th:

No they haven't been properly investigated. Do you read your own articles? They don't even know what the Israeli justification was for those attacks which is the important part if you are assessing a war crime or claiming a deliberate attack.

BECAUSE ISRAEL 8 MONTHS LATER HAVEN'T GIVEN ONE! ********** Do you think any day now Israel will explain why they bombed that entire family to pieces? Amnesty International investigated thoroughly, read the article. An investigation doesn't require the offending party to give their bullshit excuses.

Get your head out of the sand - Israel don't give a ****.

All these kinds of incidents should be properly investigated by the ICC and if it turns out there was no justification, it's a war crime and should be punished. You can't just give examples of incidents of civilian casaulties in a war in a densely populated area and assume its a war crime.

UK currently trying to argue the ICC/ICJ have no juristiction over Israel. Israel can always happily rely on peons around the western world to defend their murderous rampage with vague bullshit like this. It's pathetic.

 

[Jazny]

Yes, 'human shields', 'most moral army' etc. I think I'll take the world of the sources that supplied the actual details originally rather than the IDF PR Department, thanks though.

Nice of them to also say you are wrong - this covers any IDF that were attacked Oct 7th:

View attachment 2033885

They aren't saying I'm wrong, and I'm glad you posted this because it clears up the confusion. They are saying they are a lawful target, which is correct. But there are ways the could kill that lawful target that would be a war crime, right? They can't drop a nuke on a lawful target. They can't slowly torture him to death. They can't commit October 7th to get to him.

Even if I grant you for the sake of argument that Hamas could successfully argue they have a right to violent resistance prior to October 7th and all IDF soldiers that are not hors de combat are lawful targets for Hamas, they are still limited by IHL and October 7th fails those restrictions. The entire operation was a war crime. But I will grant that its extremely unlikely that any Hamas member that killed an armed IDF soldier who responded to the terrorist attack would face charges over that specific part of the terrorist event.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/non-state-armed-groups/

Do you think there is a world where October 7th wouldn't be considered a war crime based on the right to violent resistance? Even if they went in with the goal to just kill IDF soldiers, do you think the risk to civilians and principles of proportionality would be worth it under the IHL restrictions?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

They aren't saying I'm wrong, and I'm glad you posted this because it clears up the confusion. They are saying they are a lawful target, which is correct. But there are ways the could kill that lawful target that would be a war crime, right? They can't drop a nuke on a lawful target. They can't slowly torture him to death. They can't commit October 7th to get to him.

What do you mean 'commit Oct 7th'? They are legal and valid targets, to be engaged through small arms exactly as they were. Hamas didn't use nukes. Remove the horrendous violence against civilians and IDF trying to surrender, and I'm not sure what your issue is.

Even if I grant you for the sake of argument that Hamas could successfully argue they have a right to violent resistance prior to October 7th and all IDF soldiers that are not hors de combat are lawful targets for Hamas, they are still limited by IHL and October 7th fails those restrictions. The entire operation was a war crime. But I will grant that its extremely unlikely that any Hamas member that killed an armed IDF soldier who responded to the terrorist attack would face charges over that specific part of the terrorist event.

Could maybe argue that they weren't completely uniformed - but they were carrying arms openly. Outside of that I'm not sure what the problem is with regards to engaging IDF bases. They satisfy all of these:



If your point is that Israel don't recognise Hamas members as combatants or some such, that automatically categorises them as civilians, which raises a lot more issues.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/non-state-armed-groups/

Do you think there is a world where October 7th wouldn't be considered a war crime based on the right to violent resistance? Even if they went in with the goal to just kill IDF soldiers, do you think the risk to civilians and principles of proportionality would be worth it under the IHL restrictions?

There's nothing in that link I am seeing which backs up your argument. Yes there were regrettably way too many civilians caught up through a ridiculous decision to stage a music festival on the border of a warzone, and Israel's choice to surround Gaza with kibbutzim (who would be labelled human shields if they were Palestinian). Unimaginable cruelties were meted out in a frenzy of violence - I very much doubt that was part of any planning that was done.

Let's face it - these settlements are placed strategically by Israel for exactly this reason. If Hamas have to go through civilians to get to IDF, I'm not sure what else you could expect. I don't believe Israel care one bit about proportionality nor civilian risk, I'm not really going to expect it of a force who are currently reduced to using undetonated Israeli bombs to fight their battles.

 

[Zidane98]

What do you mean 'commit Oct 7th'? They are legal and valid targets, to be engaged through small arms exactly as they were. Hamas didn't use nukes. Remove the horrendous violence against civilians and IDF trying to surrender, and I'm not sure what your issue is.



Could maybe argue that they weren't completely uniformed - but they were carrying arms openly. Outside of that I'm not sure what the problem is with regards to engaging IDF bases. They satisfy all of these:

View attachment 2034347

If your point is that Israel don't recognise Hamas members as combatants or some such, that automatically categorises them as civilians, which raises a lot more issues.



There's nothing in that link I am seeing which backs up your argument. Yes there were regrettably way too many civilians caught up through a ridiculous decision to stage a music festival on the border of a warzone, and Israel's choice to surround Gaza with kibbutzim (who would be labelled human shields if they were Palestinian). Unimaginable cruelties were meted out in a frenzy of violence - I very much doubt that was part of any planning that was done.

Let's face it - these settlements are placed strategically by Israel for exactly this reason. If Hamas have to go through civilians to get to IDF, I'm not sure what else you could expect. I don't believe Israel care one bit about proportionality nor civilian risk, I'm not really going to expect it of a force who are currently reduced to using undetonated Israeli bombs to fight their battles.

You've effectively claimed Oct 7 was a legitimate resistance to occupation in this post and kibbutz were really just human shields against this attack. There was no warzone prior to Oct 7.

Definite signs of radicalisation in this post.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You've effectively claimed Oct 7 was a legitimate resistance to occupation in this post and kibbutz were really just human shields against this attack. There was no warzone prior to Oct 7.

Definite signs of radicalisation in this post.

Care to actually counter anything I said?

Of course it's a warzone, Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem are militarily occupied territories, ask the Israeli supreme court. Sorry you have no idea what you're talking about.

Before Oct 7th:

 

[Zidane98]

Care to actually counter anything I said?

Of course it's a warzone, Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem are militarily occupied territories, ask the Israeli supreme court. Sorry you have no idea what you're talking about.

Before Oct 7th:

View attachment 2034555

The only warzone is Gaza since Oct 8.

West Bank is not a warzone, this isn't the thread for you to post on if you honestly believe that.

 

[Jazny]

What do you mean 'commit Oct 7th'? They are legal and valid targets, to be engaged through small arms exactly as they were. Hamas didn't use nukes. Remove the horrendous violence against civilians and IDF trying to surrender, and I'm not sure what your issue is.

Do you think it would meet the IHL principle of proportionality for a commander to plan to take out one combatant who poses no immediate threat who is shopping in a crowded marketplace by running in there with small arms with the knowledge it would likely lead to a major firefight as local forces respond endangering the lives of civilians? It wouldn't, small arms isn't the issue. Neither is your target being lawful necessarily.

October 7th is like that on a large scale, no chance a responsible commander who follows IHL would plan an attack like that in civilian heavy areas for no clear immediate military gain. If the IDF were launching rockets into Gaza from the bases and Hamas only planned to take out the capability for them to continue doing it, then that would most likely be lawful even if it was very likely to lead to a proportionate amount of civilian casualties, but that's not even close to what happened on Oct 7th.

October 7th was wanton killing of all targets civilian and military as well as taking hostages, not remotely controversial the entire operation is illegal under international law and absolutely not a form of legitimate resistance. Even if the occupation of Gaza was recognized they are still bound by IHL. Resistance isn't carte blanch.

It wasn't just small arms anyway, it was supported by indiscriminate rocket fire, they had AT missiles.

 

[Kurve]

Care to actually counter anything I said?

Of course it's a warzone, Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem are militarily occupied territories, ask the Israeli supreme court. Sorry you have no idea what you're talking about.

Before Oct 7th:

View attachment 2034555

You need to post the links with these thanks.

 

[Jazny]

The only warzone is Gaza since Oct 8.

West Bank is not a warzone, this isn't the thread for you to post on if you honestly believe that.

He is arguing that the Palestinians have a right to resist so military targets in those areas are legitimate regardless. It's highly debatable but I think/hope he isn't arguing that October 7th was a legitimate form of resistance.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You need to post the links with these thanks.

2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank - occupied Palestinian territory

News and Press Release in English on occupied Palestinian territory about Protection and Human Rights; published on 18 Sep 2023 by Save the Children

reliefweb.int

Are you the one editing my posts?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The only warzone is Gaza since Oct 8.

West Bank is not a warzone, this isn't the thread for you to post on if you honestly believe that.

You're wasting my time with your nonsense.

 

[Zidane98]

You're wasting my time with your nonsense.

Says the poster coming to this thread posting radicalised rhetoric.

If you're going to continue to post in such a manner you may find more solace in the other thread where there are plenty of like minded posters.

This is about war crimes. To suggest the Wesy Bank is a war zone clearly shows you cannot discuss war crimes in good faith. See ya.

 

[Kurve]

2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank - occupied Palestinian territory

News and Press Release in English on occupied Palestinian territory about Protection and Human Rights; published on 18 Sep 2023 by Save the Children

reliefweb.int

Are you the one editing my posts?

Yep and you were notified as to the reason.

 

[Kurve]

2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank - occupied Palestinian territory

News and Press Release in English on occupied Palestinian territory about Protection and Human Rights; published on 18 Sep 2023 by Save the Children

reliefweb.int

Are you the one editing my posts?

Any further questions on moderation should be taken up privately.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Do you think it would meet the IHL principle of proportionality for a commander to plan to take out one combatant who poses no immediate threat who is shopping in a crowded marketplace by running in there with small arms with the knowledge it would likely lead to a major firefight as local forces respond endangering the lives of civilians? It wouldn't, small arms isn't the issue. Neither is your target being lawful necessarily.

Your example seems to match much more closely to the IDF modus operandi than Hamas? Except instead of small arms they use airstrikes with unguided munitions. This happens with disturbing regularity in Gaza well before Oct 7th.

October 7th is like that on a large scale, no chance a responsible commander who follows IHL would plan an attack like that in civilian heavy areas for no clear immediate military gain. If the IDF were launching rockets into Gaza from the bases and Hamas only planned to take out the capability for them to continue doing it, then that would most likely be lawful even if it was very likely to lead to a proportionate amount of civilian casualties, but that's not even close to what happened on Oct 7th.

Can I ask what you would view as a lawful and valid form of resistance? Bearing in mind Israel have 'mowed the lawn' in Gaza constantly with attacks, shelling and airstrikes in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023.

October 7th was wanton killing of all targets civilian and military as well as taking hostages, not remotely controversial the entire operation is illegal under international law and absolutely not a form of legitimate resistance. Even if the occupation of Gaza was recognized they are still bound by IHL. Resistance isn't carte blanch.

It wasn't just small arms anyway, it was supported by indiscriminate rocket fire, they had AT missiles.

The occupation of Gaza is of course recognised.

Says the poster coming to this thread posting radicalised rhetoric.

If you're going to continue to post in such a manner you may find more solace in the other thread where there are plenty of like minded posters.

This is about war crimes. To suggest the Wesy Bank is a war zone clearly shows you cannot discuss war crimes in good faith. See ya.

Palestinians are being killed and their homes destroyed constantly in the West Bank. Your ignorance is not a valid argument, sorry.

Do you need me to post some proof? Are you really not aware?

It really doesn't bother me at all whether the likes of you offer me 'solace'.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

He is arguing that the Palestinians have a right to resist so military targets in those areas are legitimate regardless. It's highly debatable but I think/hope he isn't arguing that October 7th was a legitimate form of resistance.

Much of what occurred was of course completely illegal and beyond what one human should be capable of doing to another.

Palestinians have also been on the wrong end of countless barbarities since 1948.

 

[Zidane98]

He is arguing that the Palestinians have a right to resist so military targets in those areas are legitimate regardless. It's highly debatable but I think/hope he isn't arguing that October 7th was a legitimate form of resistance.

Of course Palestinians have a right to resist military occupaton.

Oct 7 100% was not an example of exercising that right.

Ukranians have lost millions at the hands of the Russians since the late 1800s. They manage to resist without the use of terrorism. But I guess Hamas know this being a friend of Putin.

Hamas would have more respect if they tried to take Netanyahu out. I find other posters framing of their actions disturbing.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Of course Palestinians have a right to resist military occupaton.

Oct 7 100% was not an example of exercising that right.

Ukranians have lost millions at the hands of the Russians since the late 1800s. They manage to resist without the use of terrorism. But I guess Hamas know this being a friend of Putin.

Hamas would have more respect if they tried to take Netanyahu out. I find other posters framing of their actions disturbing.

Haha omfg. If only the refugees herded off their land and into a ghetto for generations had countries lining up to supply them with tanks.

The open air concentration camp that had their only airport destroyed by Israel should be flying sorties in aircraft provided by the west.

The people who are not legally allowed to collect rainwater as all rain belongs to Israel, who aren't allowed to fish outside of a tiny area of sea or get shot by Israeli warships, should be equipped with killer drone boats.

You're ****ing hilarious.

 

[Zidane98]

Haha omfg. If only the refugees herded off their land and into a ghetto for generations had countries lining up to supply them with tanks.

The open air concentration camp that had their only airport destroyed by Israel should be flying sorties in aircraft provided by the west.

The people who are not legally allowed to collect rainwater as all rain belongs to Israel, who aren't allowed to fish outside of a tiny area of sea or get shot by Israeli warships, should be equipped with killer drone boats.

You're ****ing hilarious.

You're cooked. Hamas declared war on Fatah and drove their own people out of Gaza so they had full military control of the place.

Such an action is definitely not in the interests of the Palestinian people and / or a unified Palestinian state. Neither is repeatedly declaring they want the state of Israel destroyed and Jews killed. Not that you've even mentioned this once which doesn't surprise anyone. Hamas does not care about Palestinian people, its aim is to create a caliphate and to maintain absolute hegemony over the people of Gaza to its financial benefit.

Just look at your idols who are billionaires living out of luxury hotels in Qatar. How do you think that happened?

It is becoming absolutely clear you cannot discuss anything war crime related with any degree of factuality. Why are you even in this thread? You'll find plenty willing to engage in your radicalised rhetoric in the other thread.

 

[Jazny]

Can I ask what you would view as a lawful and valid form of resistance? Bearing in mind Israel have 'mowed the lawn' in Gaza constantly with attacks, shelling and airstrikes in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023.

Like I said, any resistance group recognised by international law is still bound by International Humanitarian law. So all the guildelines and rules for their operations have to follow that law to be considered legal.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/non-state-armed-groups/

The occupation of Gaza is of course recognised.

No it's disputed prior to October 7th. The criteria for being occupied under the Hague regulations are clearly not met and the arguments to call it an occupation are not all that well grounded in international law. It's debatable, and how that relates to any right to resistance would be another argument on top of that! You can't argue they have a clear right to violently resist prior to October 7th, and even if they jump through every legal hurdle to get there, they are still bound by IHL, which they completely ignore anyway, which makes almost everything they do illegal. Terrorism is by definition illegal.

This is a good article that makes the case in both directions for occupation status under international law.

Is Israel Still an Occupying Power in Gaza? - Netherlands International Law Review

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli occupation in 1967. Both territories had been under constant Israeli control since then, until Israel decided to withdraw its land forces and settlements from the Strip in 2005. Whereas the occupied status of the West Bank still remains...

link.springer.com