Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[Jazny]

West Bank strike: Israel accused of targeting civilians in deadly attack

The IDF says the strike hit a “terrorist squad”, but witnesses tell the BBC the group posed no threat.

www.bbc.com

Israeli airstrike in the northern West Bank kills a Palestinian militant and wounds 5 other people

Israeli troops carried out an airstrike in the northern West Bank on Sunday, killing a Palestinian militant and wounding five other people.

www.stripes.com

View attachment 2035708

Do you either not read, or not understand the articles you link? You keep making the worst possible arguments to defend your positions, it's really bizarre.

Because if you are arguing the West Bank is a war zone, then you are making Israel's case for these kinds of strikes much stronger. If its an ongoing conflict, all Israel has to do under IHL is show that the strike in the BBC article was done against people they reasonably identified as combatants (that weren't hors de combat).

If it's not a war, then the situation is governed IHRL instead or IHL which has higher standards of protection. That's why the timing of the strikes matters. From the article: "Law enforcement is governed by international human rights law, which prohibits the intentional use of lethal force except when strictly necessary to protect life."

So Israel's case for killing those men is much harder in reality, where there isn't a recognised war, because they don't just have to prove they were members of an armed force that they are at war with, but they have to prove they were posing a threat to life. According to the witnesses, the men were just camping peacefully at the time. If that's true, then under IHRL it was a crime regardless of who those men were affiliated with.

If you are arguing it's a war zone, then you are giving Israel much more lenient sets of guidelines to work under in the West Bank than what they do in reality.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Again, this is not an act of war. There's no declared or unofficial war in the West Bank. To do so would be to say PA are at war with Israel which simply is not true.


PA themselves arrest / raid plenty of Palestiinians:

Palestinian Authority arrest campaign ‘one of the worst in years’

Lawyers say PA security forces arrested close to 100 Palestinians in two months, predominantly for political reasons.

www.aljazeera.com

This one sparked a gun battle between Hamas & PA Security forces:

Palestinian Authority arrest raid sparks deadly West Bank clashes

A rare operation by the Palestinian Authority security forces to arrest a Hamas member sparked clashes in the West Bank city of Nablus on Tuesday, killing one.

www.france24.com

Yes, let's just ignore the other occupied territory where there is no Hamas but Israelis are still destroying homes, annexing land and killing Palestinians, because we have no convenient excuses to deploy.

As if it's another world and not at all related.

An ongoing belligerent occupation is a conflict. The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law - a crime.

 

[Zidane98]

Yes, let's just ignore the other occupied territory where there is no Hamas but Israelis are still destroying homes, annexing land and killing Palestinians, because we have no convenient excuses to deploy.

As if it's another world and not at all related.

An ongoing belligerent occupation is a conflict. The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law - a crime.

Nobody is saying these things aren't bad. They are

What they are not is war crimes. PA is not at war with Israel. This is reality.

You need to discuss them in the general Israel thread. This thread is about war crimes in the current Hamas - Israel war.

 

[Lebbo73]

There’s a lot of armchair warmongers providing moral support for war crimes.

I take it you have flipped bias to support AIPAC and Mossad again?

Nah mate. I don’t support any of them. Especially a false State with a terrorist organisation created by Mossad and the CIA leading them.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Looks like twitterx is blocking some videos from being shared

Remove the space in the link to see IDF using human shields again

h ttps://x.com/hamdahsalhut/status/1807489402631020856

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Nobody is saying these things aren't bad. They are

What they are not is war crimes. PA is not at war with Israel. This is reality.

You need to discuss them in the general Israel thread. This thread is about war crimes in the current Hamas - Israel war.

I couldn't care less about your backseat modding - if Kurve wants to delete my post he is course free to.

 

[faible]

My comprehension is fine. I don't believe raping / murdering / desecrating civilians en masse in a terror attack has a context to those actions.

You clearly do. I'm comfortable not agreeing with you on this one.

I see you still don't understand the difference between context and justification. I appreciate you illustrating it again.

 

[Zidane98]

I see you still don't understand the difference between context and justification. I appreciate you illustrating it again.

I see you still believe that raping / murdering / desecrating civilians en masse has a context to it, thanks for demonstrating that to the thread.


Like we said if you believe there is a context to those actions go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. I'm comfortable that I don't share your abhorrent opinion on this one.

 

[faible]

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-human-rights-chief-deplores-new-moves-expand-israeli-settlements-occupied

UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk today deplored Israel’s latest actions regarding the occupied West Bank, saying the drastic acceleration in settlement building is exacerbating long-standing patterns of oppression, violence and discrimination against Palestinians.

“Reports this week that Israel plans to build a further 3,476 settler homes in Maale Adumim, Efrat and Kedar fly in the face of international law,” Türk said.

In a report to the Human Rights Council, Türk said that the establishment and continuing expansion of settlements amount to the transfer by Israel of its own civilian population into the territories that it occupies, which amounts to a war crime under international law.

 

[faible]

I see you still believe that raping / murdering / desecrating civilians en masse has a context to it, thanks for demonstrating that to the thread.


Like we said if you believe there is a context to those actions go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. I'm comfortable that I don't share your abhorrent opinion on this one.

context

1. the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help…

dictionary.cambridge.org

the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it

Of all the weird things you argue about, this one is by far the strangest one. Context exists for everything.

 

[Zidane98]

context

1. the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Of all the weird things you argue about, this one is by far the strangest one. Context exists for everything.

Yes and the context for a resistance to occupation would be attacking military targets. Not raping/desecrating and murdering civilians en masse like you seem to believe.


Some deliberate cognitive dissonance again on your part here also regarding the concept of contextual justification.

 

[faible]

contextual justification.

Key word bolded.

As you've been told a number of times, context and justification are different things.

You don't have to agree with the actions to understand the context they occurred in.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-human-rights-chief-deplores-new-moves-expand-israeli-settlements-occupied

A war crime without a war!

Can't wait for Zidane's explanation of this.

 

[Zidane98]

Key word bolded.

As you've been told a number of times, context and justification are different things.

You don't have to agree with the actions to understand the context they occurred in.

And as you've been told many times there is a context in what a normal response would be to an occupying force.


It certainly isn't raping / desecrating and murdering civilians en masse in a terror attack.


Otherwise Ukranians would be busy doing what Hamas did right now.

 

[faible]

And as you've been told many times there is a context in what a normal response would be to an occupying force.


It certainly isn't raping / desecrating and murdering civilians en masse in a terror attack.


Otherwise Ukranians would be busy doing what Hamas did right now.

No, this is you not understanding what context means.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

A war crime without a war!

Can't wait for Zidane's explanation of this.

Thread title says HAMAS though...

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Thread title says HAMAS though...

Israel claims everything they don't like is Hamas.

 

[Jazny]

context

1. the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Of all the weird things you argue about, this one is by far the strangest one. Context exists for everything.

How does any of the events prior to October 7th help explain the sexual assault, hostage taken, brutal murder and brutal executions that occurred? It seems like you need a whole different set of explanations to be the context of those inhumane actions.

The context you talk about only explains why they have a conflict/gripe/quarrel with Israel, it doesn't explain their actions. You act like any of the conflict between Hamas and Israel prior to October 7th would understandably/inevitably lead to mass sexual assault, wanton killing, and hostage taking. But that's completely ridiculous. If it doesn't make the atrocity more understanable, then it's not the right kind of context.

Imagine trying to give context to the My Lai massacre... totally horrible if your context for why those soldiers went on a mass killing a rape atrocity was that "well the Viet Cong were often hiding among villagers to spring attacks on the American soldiers". I mean, that's context for why they might view the villagers with suspicion, it isn't context for why they raped and killed them all! You would need some kind of psychological/sociological context to explain it.

I think Zidane is kind of right to say you are only giving context to the conflict as a whole, not the actual actions they took in the atrocity. If you try and give the kind of context you are giving, it will just sound like you're trying to justify it whether you are trying to or not.

A war crime without a war!

Poor Ghost Patrol. Maybe they should change the term for crimes that breach international laws regarding occupation to "Occupation Crimes" so you don't get confused next time.

 

[faible]

How does any of the events prior to October 7th help explain the sexual assault, hostage taken, brutal murder and brutal executions that occurred? It seems like you need a whole different set of explanations to be the context of those inhumane actions.

The context you talk about only explains why they have a conflict/gripe/quarrel with Israel, it doesn't explain their actions. You act like any of the conflict between Hamas and Israel prior to October 7th would understandably/inevitably lead to mass sexual assault, wanton killing, and hostage taking. But that's completely ridiculous. If it doesn't make the atrocity more understanable, then it's not the right kind of context.

Imagine trying to give context to the My Lai massacre... totally horrible if your context for why those soldiers went on a mass killing a rape atrocity was that "well the Viet Cong were often hiding among villagers to spring attacks on the American soldiers". I mean, that's context for why they might view the villagers with suspicion, it isn't context for why they raped and killed them all! You would need some kind of psychological/sociological context to explain it.

I think Zidane is kind of right to say you are only giving context to the conflict as a whole, not the actual actions they took in the atrocity. If you try and give the kind of context you are giving, it will just sound like you're trying to justify it whether you are trying to or not.

Poor Ghost Patrol. Maybe they should change the term for crimes that breach international laws regarding occupation to "Occupation Crimes" so you don't get confused next time.

This reads a lot like you doing the same thing Zidane is doing, struggling to understand the difference between context and justification.

You can have context to an action without it being justified by that context.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Is this a war crime? Using hospital as a military base…

 

[ZEV]

Is this a war crime? Using hospital as a military base…

Just says arabs mate.

More disinformation from you.

 

[faible]

Just says arabs mate.

More disinformation from you.

?

Using hospital as a military base…

He didn't mention the Arabs bit.

 

[faible]

Also the top portion of the graffiti on the headstone looks suspiciously like the bit that's been painted over in the Twitter image.

 

[Jazny]

This reads a lot like you doing the same thing Zidane is doing, struggling to understand the difference between context and justification.

You can have context to an action without it being justified by that context.

I know what you're saying, but the context actually has to explain the action though for it to be context. So a simple question to you would be "do you think that any of the hostilities between Israel and Hamas that lead up to the October 7th terrorist attack sufficiently explains the actions that the terrorists took like sexual assault, hostage taking, bodily mutilation, torture and executions?"

Again, whether you like it, intend it or not, as soon as you try and give context to an atrocity, you will look like an apologist. Try and give similar context to any other atrocity from the point of view of the perpetrators, My Lai, the holocaust, the Nanjing massacre... it won't be a good look unless you're talking about sociology and psychology, not historical events.

 

[faible]

I know what you're saying, but the context actually has to explain the action though for it to be context. So a simple question to you would be "do you think that any of the hostilities between Israel and Hamas that lead up to the October 7th terrorist attack sufficiently explains the actions that the terrorists took like sexual assault, hostage taking, bodily mutilation, torture and executions?"

Again, whether you like it, intend it or not, as soon as you try and give context to an atrocity, you will look like an apologist. Try and give similar context to any other atrocity from the point of view of the perpetrators, My Lai, the holocaust, the Nanjing massacre... it won't be a good look unless you're talking about sociology and psychology, not historical events.

The existence of a Palestinian terrorist organisation called Hamas has context. Their feelings towards Israel has context. Their actions towards Israeli’s on October 7th (and before, and after) has context.

We can contextualise the crimes of Israel too. The murder. The sexual abuse. The mass displacement. The starvation. The torture.

None the context justifies what Israel is doing. Not does it justify the actions of Hamas. It simply provides exactly what it says; context.

It seems to me that pro-Israel supporters only accept the existence of context one way, and that’s Israel’s way. They then confuse the existence of that context with justification for the actions.