Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[faible]

lol Jazny.

WE MUST WAIT FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF ISRAEL COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

HAMAS DEFINITELY COMMITTED SYSTEMIC SEXUAL VIOLANCE

The moral compass of a brick.

 

[Jazny]

lol Jazny.

WE MUST WAIT FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF ISRAEL COMMITTED WAR CRIMES

HAMAS DEFINITELY COMMITTED SYSTEMIC SEXUAL VIOLANCE

The moral compass of a brick.

Faible, the intellect of a brick

Is there any possible legal justification for rape? No

Is there any possible legal justification for an airstrike that killed civilians? Yes.

 

[faible]

Faible, the intellect of a brick

Is there any possible legal justification for rape? No

Is there any possible legal justification for an airstrike that killed civilians? Yes.

How many airstrikes that kill civilians before your moral compass kicks in and suggests 'hey, this is probably not an accidental thing'. How many 'legal justifications' are Israel allowed here before even you start to go 'hmm, I think I'm not OK with this'?

I know it's nice to just chalk civilian deaths up as 'collateral damage' since it's much less upsetting than other terms we could use like 'murder' or 'mass killings' or 'extermination' or 'crimes against humanity' but at a certain point - unless you're a bloodthirsty sociopath like <poster I won't name but you can guess who I mean> or incredibly ignorant like <a couple of other posters I won't name but you can probably guess who I mean> - continuing to excuse and hand wave away all the civilian deaths, injuries, mass displacements, mass destruction of every element of civilian infrastructure seems pretty strange to me.

You don't seem stupid or ignorant. You don't seem like a bloodthirsty sociopath. It's easy to understand why people like that have no issue whatsoever with what's going on, and in some cases are actively cheering it on.

 

[Zidane98]

How many airstrikes that kill civilians before your moral compass kicks in and suggests 'hey, this is probably not an accidental thing'. How many 'legal justifications' are Israel allowed here before even you start to go 'hmm, I think I'm not OK with this'?

I know it's nice to just chalk civilian deaths up as 'collateral damage' since it's much less upsetting than other terms we could use like 'murder' or 'mass killings' or 'extermination' or 'crimes against humanity' but at a certain point - unless you're a bloodthirsty sociopath like <poster I won't name but you can guess who I mean> or incredibly ignorant like <a couple of other posters I won't name but you can probably guess who I mean> - continuing to excuse and hand wave away all the civilian deaths, injuries, mass displacements, mass destruction of every element of civilian infrastructure seems pretty strange to me.

You don't seem stupid or ignorant. You don't seem like a bloodthirsty sociopath. It's easy to understand why people like that have no issue whatsoever with what's going on, and in some cases are actively cheering it on.

That's not what the poster's discussion was about. You're doing your strawman thing again which incidentally you never do for posters who are apologists for Hamas war crimes in their posts.

The poster's point was can there be a legal justification for air strikes that result in civilian deaths for which the answer is yes. You tried (unsuccessfully) to turn that into an accusation the poster believes murdering of civilians is justified. And that there was no legal recourse at all for the mass murder / rape & desecration of civilians on Oct 7. Note emphasis on civilians - if Hamas kept their fight to just IDF military bases / active members there very likely wouldn't be an ongoing war on right now.

We all would prefer there was no war at all. I haven't seen any posters who actively cheer on the war at all, everyone wants a cease fire to end it all, for all parties on both sides to be heavily punished for war crimes that have been committed. I don't see anyone who actively cheers on the war at all.

 

[DapperDon]

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

You sure about this Jazny?

 

[DapperDon]

Faible, the intellect of a brick

Is there any possible legal justification for rape? No

Is there any possible legal justification for an airstrike that killed civilians? Yes.

You seem to be claiming every war crime came from an air strike

Such intellect, such brick.

 

[DapperDon]

That's not what the poster's discussion was about. You're doing your strawman thing again which incidentally you never do for posters who are apologists for Hamas war crimes in their posts.

The poster's point was can there be a legal justification for air strikes that result in civilian deaths for which the answer is yes. You tried (unsuccessfully) to turn that into an accusation the poster believes murdering of civilians is justified. And that there was no legal recourse at all for the mass murder / rape & desecration of civilians on Oct 7. Note emphasis on civilians - if Hamas kept their fight to just IDF military bases / active members there very likely wouldn't be an ongoing war on right now.

We all would prefer there was no war at all. I haven't seen any posters who actively cheer on the war at all, everyone wants a cease fire to end it all, for all parties on both sides to be heavily punished for war crimes that have been committed. I don't see anyone who actively cheers on the war at all.

Not a single Palestinian civilian was killed by the IDF prior to Oct 7?

They only ever killed Hamas?

 

[Jazny]

You sure about this Jazny?

View attachment 2038237

Yes I am more than sure, I am absolutely certain. Why? Do you disagree with the idea that "Israel cannot legally slaughter civilians at will, that's a violation of IHL"?

You seem to be claiming every war crime came from an air strike

Such intellect, such brick.

The world must be confusing to you if that's what it seems like I am claiming.

 

[Zidane98]

Not a single Palestinian civilian was killed by the IDF prior to Oct 7?

They only ever killed Hamas?

You're on the strawmans too I see, Nobody has ever claimed that.

 

[DapperDon]

Yes I am more than sure, I am absolutely certain. Why? Do you disagree with the idea that "Israel cannot legally slaughter civilians at will, that's a violation of IHL"?

The world must be confusing to you if that's what it seems like I am claiming.

So Israel are locking up Illegal settlers then, yes?

Surely they aren't standing next to them when they fire their bullets, that would look like they are approving the slaughter of civilians.

 

[Jazny]

How many airstrikes that kill civilians before your moral compass kicks in and suggests 'hey, this is probably not an accidental thing'. How many 'legal justifications' are Israel allowed here before even you start to go 'hmm, I think I'm not OK with this'?

War is terrible. Unfortunately we live in a world where men seem to want to start and fight wars. That's just the reality, Im not okay with it. As long as they are going to fight wars, then they should at least be conforming with the international law which is what we were talking about.

 

[DapperDon]

You're on the strawmans too I see, Nobody has ever claimed that.

You seem to claim nothing before Oct 7 is relevent, so yes, that's exactly what you are claiming.

 

[Zidane98]

You seem to claim nothing before Oct 7 is relevent, so yes, that's exactly what you are claiming.

As far as the current ongoing war Oct 7 is the starting point. That's what this thread is about and associated war crimes. To answer your question, nobody is claiming Palestinians haven't been killed. That would be a lie on your part.

 

[faible]

The poster's point was can there be a legal justification for air strikes that result in civilian deaths for which the answer is yes.

Sure. When we're at ~35,000 deaths, at least half of which are civilians, plus the repeated strikes on hospitals, schools, kindergartens, residential buildings, mosques, universities. Arguing about 'justification' for some bombs seems pretty weird.

the poster believes murdering of civilians is justified.

He keeps telling us Israel's bombings are justified. The thousands of tons of them.

there was no legal recourse at all for the mass murder / rape & desecration of civilians on Oct 7.

Is there legal recourse for the mass murder / sexual assaults / crimes against humanity for Gazans? Seems a strange point to argue. 'There might not have been a legal recourse available so war crimes were needed.'

if Hamas kept their fight to just IDF military bases / active members there very likely wouldn't be an ongoing war on right now.

Highly unlikely given the long history of that not happening. It may not have escalated as rapidly as it has. There may have been less war crimes. But it was happening before October 7th, and was going to keep happening after it irrespective of the events on October 7th. And no, I don't support the events of October 7th because apparently despite repeatedly condemning it you have the memory of a goldfish and will claim I'm supporting it.

We all would prefer there was no war at all.

You might.

I haven't seen any posters who actively cheer on the war at all

I don't see anyone who actively cheers on the war at all.

Refers to ZEV's posting history. Also a few others. demons09 or whatever his name is. There's definitely posters that are more than happy to see Gazans being slaughtered because they believe they're all terrorists. No I'm not saying you're one of those people.

As long as they are going to fight wars, then they should at least be conforming with the international law which is what we were talking about.

Which Hamas are not. Which Israel are not. There's a 21-page report on it.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

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

I don't think you understand - they don't care about the 'legally' part. They can slaughter civilians, and they have and they are, daily.

They have told Palestinians to evacuate Khan Younis again, pointlessly. 250,000 people wandering Gaza with no destination, food, water.

They told people to move from the European hospital to Nasser. Today they've bombed that exact area, killing 45+ people.

This is the IDFs 460 Brigade Major Asaf Fred, in Rafah just now:



Maybe Zev can translate for us?

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.

Handy little trick.

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.

How do you prove the absence of something, in this case? Israel can literally say anything they like, and you will agree with them. If there's not a military target, what is the possible justification? Why would they bother? Israel don't care. You don't care.

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.

Are we not allowed to discuss events until the ICJ hands out their verdict? Why do we even have a thread about war crimes? Israel will never have committed any. How can the two strikes I mentioned in detail, at the very beginning of this war, possibly be necessary? Whether you think the IDF have some secret reason for them is completely immaterial to me.

This is actually just the war crimes defence thread. Here so you can just post 'rape' several hundred times while studiously ignoring Israel's longstanding tradition of using rape as a tool of oppression.

 

[Jazny]

I don't think you understand - they don't care about the 'legally' part. They can slaughter civilians, and they have and they are, daily.

They have told Palestinians to evacuate Khan Younis again, pointlessly. 250,000 people wandering Gaza with no destination, food, water.

They told people to move from the European hospital to Nasser. Today they've bombed that exact area, killing 45+ people.

This is the IDFs 460 Brigade Major Asaf Fred, in Rafah just now:

View attachment 2038399

Maybe Zev can translate for us?



Handy little trick.



How do you prove the absence of something, in this case? Israel can literally say anything they like, and you will agree with them. If there's not a military target, what is the possible justification? Why would they bother? Israel don't care. You don't care.



Are we not allowed to discuss events until the ICJ hands out their verdict? Why do we even have a thread about war crimes? Israel will never have committed any. How can the two strikes I mentioned in detail, at the very beginning of this war, possibly be necessary? Whether you think the IDF have some secret reason for them is completely immaterial to me.

This is actually just the war crimes defence thread. Here so you can just post 'rape' several hundred times while studiously ignoring Israel's longstanding tradition of using rape as a tool of oppression.

We can just go back and forth endlessly but I think really if we haven't already gotten our points across by now, we never will and will just be repeating ourselves. Better to just cut it off. If something else comes up in the future happy to discuss it.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

With the Rafah crossing still closed the famine is really starting to hit in Gaza. Mothers unable to breastfeed, babies dying of malnutrition.

Imagine the outrage if they were Israeli. The use of starvation as a weapon is a horrific war crime.

Newborn babies now have little chance of survival in Gaza, hospital director warns

Mothers are so malnourished they cannot breastfeed, so their babies are dying - literally starving to death - because they cannot get the vital nutrition they desperately need.

news.sky.com

 

[Boston tiger]

With the Rafah crossing still closed the famine is really starting to hit in Gaza. Mothers unable to breastfeed, babies dying of malnutrition.

Imagine the outrage if they were Israeli. The use of starvation as a weapon is a horrific war crime.

View attachment 2038524

Newborn babies now have little chance of survival in Gaza, hospital director warns

Mothers are so malnourished they cannot breastfeed, so their babies are dying - literally starving to death - because they cannot get the vital nutrition they desperately need.

news.sky.com

Imagine the pressure on Israel to hand back the hostages.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Imagine the pressure on Israel to hand back the hostages.

 

[Zidane98]

Sure. When we're at ~35,000 deaths, at least half of which are civilians, plus the repeated strikes on hospitals, schools, kindergartens, residential buildings, mosques, universities. Arguing about 'justification' for some bombs seems pretty weird.

There is no discussion of justification, merely the legality of air strike vs the terror attack launched by Hamas.

He keeps telling us Israel's bombings are justified. The thousands of tons of them.

He/she also states Israel should be punished for not following international law.

Is there legal recourse for the mass murder / sexual assaults / crimes against humanity for Gazans? Seems a strange point to argue. 'There might not have been a legal recourse available so war crimes were needed.'

There is legal recourse no matter the creed or religion of civilians to war crimes. Again, nobody is arguing there isn't.

Highly unlikely given the long history of that not happening. It may not have escalated as rapidly as it has. There may have been less war crimes. But it was happening before October 7th, and was going to keep happening after it irrespective of the events on October 7th. And no, I don't support the events of October 7th because apparently despite repeatedly condemning it you have the memory of a goldfish and will claim I'm supporting it.

To be absolutely clear there would not be the military operation we are seeing now from Israel if an unprovoked terror attack against civilians was not launched by Hamas with years of planning on Oct 7. The status quo from Oct 6 would have remained, infect Israel had just opened up the border to more Gazans to receive health care, education & employment opportunities in Israel.

You might.

I'd hope you would want no war too.

Refers to ZEV's posting history. Also a few others. demons09 or whatever his name is. There's definitely posters that are more than happy to see Gazans being slaughtered because they believe they're all terrorists. No I'm not saying you're one of those people.

Zev is a pro Israel zealot. Agree with you there.

Which Hamas are not. Which Israel are not. There's a 21-page report on it.

No they are not, and both should be held accountable for war crimes. I fully support ICC taking action against war criminals.

 

[faible]

air strike

Hundreds of air strikes.

In civilian areas.

To be clear.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

To be absolutely clear there would not be the military operation we are seeing now from Israel if an unprovoked terror attack against civilians was not launched by Hamas with years of planning on Oct 7. The status quo from Oct 6 would have remained...

So Palestinians killed in their hundreds yearly, cleansed from their homes and replaced with settlers while the world looks away?

 

[Zidane98]

So Palestinians killed in their hundreds yearly, cleansed from their homes and replaced with settlers while the world looks away?

This is related how to the Hamas - Israel conflict? None of that happened in Gaza or was remotely close to happening in Gaza.

 

[Zidane98]

Hundreds of air strikes.

In civilian areas.

To be clear.

If the suggestion here is air strikes were conducted with 100% intent to murder civilians and there was 100% no Hamas military targets in the area than that would absolutely be a case of outright murder.

 

[faible]

TIL Gaza was a wonderful place to live before October 7th, definitely no issues.