Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[Lunchlady Doris]

Thats all it says.

If you can tell me whats under the paint I'll translate it for you

OK - other paint.

 

[ZEV]

OK - other paint.

Not a war crime.

 

[ZEV]

But Hamas.

"and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."

Sounds legit.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

"and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."

Sounds legit.

Would you have believed the IDF use attack dogs with cameras on them to attack Palestinian civilians, if you hadn't seen the video yourself?

Or are you one of the 'Hamas did it' people?

 

[Jazny]

I'm not sure you realise how bad it looks when someone posts like that on an internet message board.

I've had to correct you on your attempt to disregard the Times of London article (the people quoted didn't like the article, the quotes were correct; the Times are 'investigating it ).

You embarrassed yourself by linking an article that the experts interviewed in the article have come out and said misrepresented their views. It didn't even support your conclusion.

Your irrelevant Caroline test nonsense and nebulous claims about Hamas not being a state actor and their right of resistance (there is absolutely no relevance).

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

"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"

I never said that the Caroline test applies to non-state actors. Hamas are almost certainly a non-state actor imo, although it is possible to argue they can be considered a state actor under international law.

Read page 76 2nd and 3rd paragraph.

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=parameters

Your terrible attempt at an argument defending Israel's slaughter of civilians (if they really wanted they would starve them all ).

Your terrible argument that Israel is committing genocide. But then when confronted with the fact that the numbers of casaulties in the war is consistent with a modern war in an urban area and not a genocide, you have to say things like "oh but Israel has to have the appearance of showing restraint, so the numbers are consistent with showing restraint, but it's actually genocide. My friends and I have cracked the code..."

Your belief that nobody can investigate a war crime until the offending party offers their justification, or investigates themselves.

Yes a proper investigation of the proportionality of the strike will take into account the military justification. What are you doing in this thread about war crimes if you know nothing?

Your attempt to say Gaza was no longer occupied post-2005 withdrawal.

Legally, under the conventions that define occupation, it probably isn't going to be classified as an occupation. Let's have that argument if you want to lose again.

I will refer you to the article i linked above yet again.

Anything else you want to bring up that you are wrong about?

 

[ZEV]

Would you have believed the IDF use attack dogs with cameras on them to attack Palestinian civilians, if you hadn't seen the video yourself?

Or are you one of the 'Hamas did it' people?

How did Al Jazeera get the footage?

If that was an IDF dog that arm would not be attached if it were set on her.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How did Al Jazeera get the footage?

If that was an IDF dog that arm would not be attached if it were set on her.

Do IDF sharpen the dogs teeth or something?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Do IDF sharpen the dogs teeth or something?

I bet Hamas do.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You embarrassed yourself by linking an article that the experts interviewed in the article have come out and said misrepresented their views. It didn't even support your conclusion.

Their quotes are correct. The facts they spoke are still facts, regardless of the context they're used in.

Your inability to read isn't my problem.

"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"

I never said that the Caroline test applies to non-state actors. Hamas are almost certainly a non-state actor imo, although it is possible to argue they can be considered a state actor under international law.

Read page 76 2nd and 3rd paragraph.

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=parameters

The ICC/ICJ, UNGA and UNSC consider Gaza to have remained occupied - I think I'll take their guidance thanks.

Your terrible argument that Israel is committing genocide. But then when confronted with the fact that the numbers of casaulties in the war is consistent with a modern war in an urban area and not a genocide, you have to say things like "oh but Israel has to have the appearance of showing restraint, so the numbers are consistent with showing restraint, but it's actually genocide. My friends and I have cracked the code..."

You're misrepresenting the discussion, a sure sign that you've lost it. What an embarrassing gmabit you tried with that one

Yes a proper investigation of the proportionality of the strike will take into account the military justification. What are you doing in this thread about war crimes if you know nothing?

And if Israel just never offer a justification, they're in the clear! It's genius!

Anything else you want to bring up that you are wrong about?

Oh gosh you're embarrassing.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Yeah but you didn't know why Palestinians are scared of dogs.

You're Israeli I take it?

 

[ZEV]

You're Israeli I take it?

What gave it away?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You can pretend to laugh because you don't have a proper argument, but Israel's right to defense under article 51 against Hamas is extremely strong particularly with credible threats from the group to carry out more and more similar attacks. Actually, I would say it's going to be close to impossible to argue against it. You can try if you like. So the Israel Hamas is justified by October 7th and the continued threat posed by Hamas. This isn't context, it's justification.

Again you're misinformed. Actually Israel has no right to militarized self-defence against a territory it occupies.

As Gaza is already occupied, an armed attack consistent with the UN charter has already been conducted and concluded. The 1967 occupation marked a military triumph. Under jus in bello, where an occupation is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in the form of warfare in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state.

Israel can use any police powers available to it (indeed prisons are overflowing and new ones being urgently built to house the number of hostages they have taken), but this cannot be justified as self-defence in international law.

Before you try quoting Article 51 again, the ICJ already declared that Article 51 only applies to an armed attack by a foreign state, not originating within a territory over which Israel exercises control - something you already made clear many times can't be the case.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-204033/

And because the attack originated from within the Occupied Territories and is not international, UNSC Resolutions 1368 and 1373 re-affirming the right to self-defence don't apply. Article 51 is irrelevant.

Israel uses it's police powers to continue expansion and apartheid, then in defiance of international law claim a right to self-defence to also wage war against a population it has a duty to protect. This means the people of Gaza are supposed to combat one of the most powerful militaries in the world backed up by western nations flooding it with weapons and support, without any realistic way of defending itself.

And people like Zidane complain they aren't fighting like Ukraine. You've just got to shake your head.

 

[Jazny]

Their quotes are correct. The facts they spoke are still facts, regardless of the context they're used in.

Their quotes don't support your argument at all, unless you misread them. Their in-context quotes that they go on to clarify obliterate your argument completely. But I guess you want to ignore those ones. Woops.

The ICC/ICJ, UNGA and UNSC consider Gaza to have remained occupied - I think I'll take their guidance thanks.

There hasn't been a legal ruling on the status of Gaza since the withdrawal. I will go with legal experts such as the professor that I linked rather than you misrepresenting the ICC and ICJ.

And if Israel just never offer a justification, they're in the clear! It's genius!

If Israel refused to cooperate with the authority investigating the potential war crime, they won't be in the clear. But Human Rights Organisations like Amnesty International can't determine whether a war crime actually occurred, they can only highlight and raise awareness for potential war crimes through their investigations. To know if a war crime actually happened in the case you linked, you need to know if Israel can militarily justify the strike. Amnesty International can't make that determination. They can say stuff like "we couldn't find a legitimate military target" but that does not mean there wasn't one.

Like I said, it could be a war crime, or it might not. It depends on the information Israeli commanders had at the time and their justification for launching the strike. Surely you know this?

Oh gosh you're embarrassing.

It must be embarrassing not being able to read "at least prior to September 11 2001". That's a huge whoopsie. Anything else you want to be wrong about?

 

[Jazny]

And because the attack originated from within the Occupied Territories and is not international, UNSC Resolutions 1368 and 1373 re-affirming the right to self-defence don't apply. Article 51 is irrelevant.

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=parameters

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Their quotes don't support your argument at all, unless you misread them. Their in-context quotes that they go on to clarify obliterate your argument completely. But I guess you want to ignore those ones. Woops.

I merely posted an article which shows that investigators have been unable to find any evidence of sexual assault. No evidence has been presented. No survivors interviewed. No Israeli woman has testified to being sexually assaulted on Oct 7th. Israel refused to participate in an independent UN investigation. That investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Witness testimony has proven to not match the scene. These are undisputed facts.

A couple of quotes about Netanyahu using rape accusations for political purposes were entriely inconsequential - but still correct and true. Your attempts to discredit the article are so feeble.

There hasn't been a legal ruling on the status of Gaza since the withdrawal. I will go with legal experts such as the professor that I linked rather than you misrepresenting the ICC and ICJ.

International Law and the Classification of Conflicts

This book comprises contributions by leading experts in the field of international humanitarian law on the subject of the categorisation or classification of armed conflict. It is divided into two sections: the first aims to provide the reader with a sound understanding of the legal questions...

books.google.com.au

Prefiguring Peace

Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships, a longitudinal study of more than ten years (1993-2008), focuses on the major peacebuilding initiatives with an educational encounter-based approach in Israel and Palestine. It examines how non-governmental peacebuilding...

books.google.com.au

A single cherrypicked assistant professor opinion is not going to cut it, sorry.

If Israel refused to cooperate with the authority investigating the potential war crime, they won't be in the clear. But Human Rights Organisations like Amnesty International can't determine whether a war crime actually occurred, they can only highlight and raise awareness for potential war crimes through their investigations. To know if a war crime actually happened in the case you linked, you need to know if Israel can militarily justify the strike. Amnesty International can't make that determination. They can say stuff like "we couldn't find a legitimate military target" but that does not mean there wasn't one.

Like I said, it could be a war crime, or it might not. It depends on the information Israeli commanders had at the time and their justification for launching the strike. Surely you know this?

Soooooo you're again saying - if Israel don't give their justification - it can never be a war crime. It might be, but you will never agree it is, so effectively it's not.

It is incumbent on the attacker to prove the legitimacy of their military conduct. How can you not wrap your head around this. You can't airstrike a refugee camp, kill 10 children, a barber, a falafel salesman, a dental assistant and a football coach and get a pass because you provide no explanation.

Your defence of this is demented.

It must be embarrassing not being able to read "at least prior to September 11 2001". That's a huge whoopsie. Anything else you want to be wrong about?

View attachment 2037726

Yes and after September 2001 there were two UN resolutions reaffirming the US right to self-defence due to an act of international terrorism. As you keep pointing out, this is not an international conflict, so those resolutions do not apply. I didn't actually mean to attach that, not sure how it got there, but it does show that Article 51 doesn't apply.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Nobody wants to hear your flat earth rape denialism. The 40 beheaded babies was never an official Israeli claim, it came from a single reporter who was reporting live in the chaotic aftermath. How on earth are you using that to support the idea Israel fabricated rapes? There are rules against misinformation on this site.

Your valiant attempts to shutdown any possible debate are noted and pointedly ignored.

The beheaded children is just one example. IDF spokesperson repeats it, Netanyahu's spokesperson repeats it, Biden repeats it, front page of the Times, Metro, Telegraph, repeated my millions of trained monkeys around the world. It's too late to walk it back 24-48 hours later, the damage is done.

You can still find online a Newsweek piece written by Michal Herzog, wife of the Israeli president, which claims there is video footage of a pregnant woman being tortured and then having her fetus cut from her stomach. Another wild tale that is debunked but is now accepted reality amongst Israels many fervent supporters.

The 'baby in the oven' story - which actually occured at Deir Yassin during the Nakba - see below - was a story 'borrowed' by the same people claiming they found signs of sexual assault. Oven baby has been also debunked by Israeli media.



I will wait with interest for the results of Israels investigations.

 

[Kurve]

I merely posted an article which shows that investigators have been unable to find any evidence of sexual assault. No evidence has been presented. No survivors interviewed. No Israeli woman has testified to being sexually assaulted on Oct 7th. Israel refused to participate in an independent UN investigation. That investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Witness testimony has proven to not match the scene. These are undisputed facts.

It's not true. If the denial hadn't been so thick as an immediate response to allegations of sexual violence on October 7, we wouldn't have seen so much pushback #BelieveIsraeliWomen

It wouldn't have killed people to quietly accept that it probably did occur, like it always does through war and allow the men and women impacted by it some dignity.

There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023, a senior United Nations official reported to the Security Council today, as she presented findings from her visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank.

Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023, a senior United Nations official reported to the Security Council today, as she...

press.un.org

 

[Jazny]

It is incumbent on the attacker to prove the legitimacy of their military conduct. How can you not wrap your head around this. You can't airstrike a refugee camp, kill 10 children, a barber, a falafel salesman, a dental assistant and a football coach and get a pass because you provide no explanation.

Your defence of this is demented.

Nowhere did I say anything of the sort, you're genuinely confused at this point.

Yes and after September 2001 there were two UN resolutions reaffirming the US right to self-defence due to an act of international terrorism. As you keep pointing out, this is not an international conflict, so those resolutions do not apply. I didn't actually mean to attach that, not sure how it got there, but it does show that Article 51 doesn't apply.

No it doesn't. And you screencapped a section of the article you misread because you thought it supported your argument when it didn't. Pretty obvious what happened.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Nowhere did I say anything of the sort, you're genuinely confused at this point.

That's the only logical conclusion that can be made from your claims. 8 months down the track Israel have said nothing about the attack - therefore there is no war crime.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It's not true. If the denial hadn't been so thick as an immediate response to allegations of sexual violence on October 7, we wouldn't have seen so much pushback #BelieveIsraeliWomen

It wouldn't have killed people to quietly accept that it probably did occur, like it always does through war and allow the men and women impacted by it some dignity.

There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023, a senior United Nations official reported to the Security Council today, as she presented findings from her visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank.

Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023, a senior United Nations official reported to the Security Council today, as she...

press.un.org

Which part is not true? Believe which Israeli women??

Just quietly accept the narrative that Palestinian men are all degenerate slavering scum to be dealt with as Israel sees fit? I don't think that's a fair assumption at all, and I find the notion vile to be honest. You may be correct and there were horrific acts of violence of a sexual nature, but the notion that a fundamentalist muslim force in a planned attack are runnning around with their pants down raping anything that moves - AS ORDERED - is just ridiculous. This is how they have been painted.

The report and article you link to states there are 'reasonable grounds to believe'...this is a standard of proof below 'clear and convincing', which itself is below 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This would not secure a conviction in any court of law. While you may wish to think it's more likely than not to have happened, I believe that's a prejudiced view and would stick to innocent until proven guilty.

The report is actually quite damning if you read it.

https://www.un.org/sexualviolencein...uary-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf
Patten had no investigative mandate and relied entirely on whatever Israel handed to her. Even then the report spends paragraphs making excuses as to why theres no evidence.



No first hand information, not a single survivor/victim.

When the UN conducted an actual investigation, rather than a guided tour at the Israeli government's pleasure, you've already seen the results, they put it more bluntly:

 

[Jazny]

That's the only logical conclusion that can be made from your claims. 8 months down the track Israel have said nothing about the attack - therefore there is no war crime.

I will tell you again: if Israel does not offer a justification for its strike to the proper investigatory authority like the ICC, the ICC can still potentially prosecute the case relying on available evidence... but Israel not being a signatory makes it more difficult as they arent legally obligated to comply in my understanding. America probably got away with more due to this too.

A humanitarian body like Amnesty International can't determine a war crime occurred. Israel is under no obligation to provide evidence or justification to a humanitarian investigation and such bodies can't formally find a nation guilty. There are good security reasons a state in a war wouldn't give evidence to such bodies if the strike was justifiable under law. We don't know if Israel could/did justify those strikes under IHL.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I will tell you again: if Israel does not offer a justification for its strike to the proper investigatory authority like the ICC, the ICC can still potentially prosecute the case relying on available evidence... but Israel not being a signatory makes it more difficult as they arent legally obligated to comply in my understanding. America probably got away with more due to this too.

A humanitarian body like Amnesty International can't determine a war crime occurred. Israel is under no obligation to provide evidence or justification to a humanitarian investigation and such bodies can't formally find a nation guilty. There are good security reasons a state in a war wouldn't give evidence to such bodies if the strike was justifiable under law. We don't know if Israel could/did justify those strikes under IHL.

So under your little construct Israel are free to slaughter civilans at will with no recourse available to anyone. How ****ing convenient.

Luckily the world at large don't care about Israel's little legal loopholes - it's clear to anyone with a functioning brain stem Bibi and his bloodthirsty cabal have no regard for Palestinian lives, and are war criminals.

 

[Kurve]

The report and article you link to states there are 'reasonable grounds to believe'...this is a standard of proof below 'clear and convincing', which itself is below 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This would not secure a conviction in any court of law. While you may wish to think it's more likely than not to have happened, I believe that's a prejudiced view and would stick to innocent until proven guilty.

You make an error in thinking I wish it's more likely than not to have happened and probably should keep those kinds of judgements to yourself.

I'm more than happy to wait for the International Courts to decide on prosecutions and am not convinced to now, the mass rapes and sexual assaults of Israeli men and women on October 7 was systemic over opportunistic.

 

[Jazny]

So under your little construct Israel are free to slaughter civilans at will with no recourse available to anyone. How ****ing convenient.

Ummm... again no. No Israel cannot legally slaughter civilians at will, that's a violation of IHL.

In the scenario you gave where Israel does not offer a justification or cooperates with an ICC investigation, they ICC still CAN find Israel guilty based on the available evidence. This is complicated by Israel not being a signatory, so they are under no obligation to comply and if they don't comply, that non-compliance can't be used against them in any way to determine guilt like it has been in previous cases to signatories. The problem is that they still have to CONSIDER any legal justifications for Israel making the airstrike. It's not enough to say "we didn't find any evidence of a target at the site". They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Israel did not have any military justification. Difficult, but possible for sure, certain kinds of incidents would be easier to prove than others.

The point is that is that its not enough to show innocent people died to say something is a war crime. Its not the outcome, it's the process. To know if a war crime is committed in this case, it has to be determined that when Israel launched the strike they were complying with IHL. This would mean they had done their due diligence on the intel they had and the strike was proportionate and necessary. If they did, no war crime. If they didn't, it's almost certainly a war crime. Amnesty international cannot determine what Israel's process for okaying the strike was in this case. They just looked at the outcome and could not identify any military targets in the area. This does not mean there wasn't one, or that there could be no potential justification under IHL for the strike.

I get why this makes you mad, you can't just shout WAAAAAAAAAAAAR CRIIIIIIIIIIME!!!!! at everything you see on the news. But it's just the reality of the situation.

 

[Jazny]

I'm more than happy to wait for the International Courts to decide on prosecutions and am not convinced to now, the mass rapes and sexual assaults of Israeli men and women on October 7 was systemic over opportunistic.

It was systemic. What steps did Hamas take to prevent it? What actions are they taking to punish perpetrators? What systems are they putting in place to prevent further occurances? None, they are just denying and running cover while there is evidence of more sexual assaults occurring to the hostages they hold.

I think you mean you're not convinced it was an order from the top, which I probably agree with. But it was systemic.