Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[faible]

Which posters do you think aren't anti war crimes?

The posters vehemently defending the actions of Israel. They either don't view them as war crimes (at odds with the UN), or simply don't care when 'their' side commits war crimes. You can decide which posters fall in to which category.

 

[Zidane98]

The posters vehemently defending the actions of Israel. They either don't view them as war crimes (at odds with the UN), or simply don't care when 'their' side commits war crimes. You can decide which posters fall in to which category.

Interesting you don't mention some of the posters here who often post rhetoric very similar to Hamas rhetoric on here. I'm sure you also know which posters who fall into that category are.

 

[faible]

Interesting you don't mention some of the posters here who often post rhetoric very similar to Hamas rhetoric on here. I'm sure you also know which posters who fall into that category are.

Given you seem to lump anything that supports the Palestinians right not to be slaughtered as 'pro-Hamas rhetoric' I'm not sure you're the appropriate judge of this.

 

[Zidane98]

Given you seem to lump anything that supports the Palestinians right not to be slaughtered as 'pro-Hamas rhetoric' I'm not sure you're the appropriate judge of this.

And there it is. Anyone that calls out Hamas for breaches of IHL, IHRL, war crlmes and crimes against humanity is supporting Palestinians being slaughtered.

If I'm not an appropriate judge you definitely aren't.

 

[faible]

And there it is. Anyone that calls out Hamas for breaches of IHL, IHRL, war crlmes and crimes against humanity is supporting Palestinians being slaughtered.

If I'm not an appropriate judge you definitely aren't.

There what is?

I don't have any issue whatsoever with being opposed to the actions of Hamas. I do think it's pretty strange that people try to defend and excuse the actions of Israel then pretend they have a moral compass.

There's a handful of posters who repeatedly diminish or excuse the actions of Israel. They either don't consider their actions war crimes, for <reasons> or don't care if they are war crimes for <reasons>.

Those pro-Israel posters have repeatedly diminshed, excused, or actively supported the actions of Israel even after the UN report made it very clear that Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violating IHL and IHRL.

There's not really anyone that's a regular poster that I've seen that you refer to as 'pro-Hamas' that have actually supported the actions of Hamas.

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't distinguish between criticism of the actions of Israel and support for Hamas. You think they're the same. You label them as 'Hamas talking points' or 'Hamas propaganda'.

It's really bizarre how much time and energy you've spent arguing with me, who's quite happy to condemn both Israel and Hamas, and yet completely ignore a few of the most prolific posters in this thread who are totally and utterly willing to excuse anything Israel does.

 

[Zidane98]

There what is?

I don't have any issue whatsoever with being opposed to the actions of Hamas. I do think it's pretty strange that people try to defend and excuse the actions of Israel then pretend they have a moral compass.

There's a handful of posters who repeatedly diminish or excuse the actions of Israel. They either don't consider their actions war crimes, for <reasons> or don't care if they are war crimes for <reasons>.

Those pro-Israel posters have repeatedly diminshed, excused, or actively supported the actions of Israel even after the UN report made it very clear that Israel is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violating IHL and IHRL.

There's not really anyone that's a regular poster that I've seen that you refer to as 'pro-Hamas' that have actually supported the actions of Hamas.

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you can't distinguish between criticism of the actions of Israel and support for Hamas. You think they're the same. You label them as 'Hamas talking points' or 'Hamas propaganda'.

It's really bizarre how much time and energy you've spent arguing with me, who's quite happy to condemn both Israel and Hamas, and yet completely ignore a few of the most prolific posters in this thread who are totally and utterly willing to excuse anything Israel does.

There's posters on both sides doing these things. We've heard some posters on here say that nothing Hamas does isn't provoked for example.

Which is a horrible thing to say as it excuses the actions on Oct 7 as effectively a response to Israeli occupation. We've even heard some posters say Israel building communities on Israeli territory is using them as human shields (figure that one out).

I'm willing to bet you've never once called out this out.


As we've seen from Ukraine right now we've seen that states can fight back against invaders and take some of their land without resorting to mass murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilians while treating inhabitants of the areas they've invaded with a modicum of respect even if some are not on their side.

If Hamas had done something along the lines of what Ukraine has done recently I'd view that as a reasonable response to an occupier.

 

[faible]

There's posters on both sides doing these things. We've heard some posters on here say that nothing Hamas does isn't provoked for example.

Which is a horrible thing to say as it excuses the actions on Oct 7 as effectively a response to Israeli occupation. We've even heard some posters say Israel building communities on Israeli territory is using them as human shields (figure that one out).

Is this the context versus justification argument again? I know you repeatedly replied to me with a failure to understand the difference between the two things. Something being provoked, and something being excused are also different.

Regarding the bolded, without having seen it in context to know what was being said or how it was intended.

I'm willing to bet you've never once called out this out.

There's heaps of posts I don't respond to on many topics that I disagree with. Not doing so with every post doesn't therefore mean I agree with it.

I ignore the vast majority of the toxic posts made by certain posters in this thread for a start.

As we've seen from Ukraine right now we've seen that states can fight back against invaders and take some of their land without resorting to mass murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilians while treating inhabitants of the areas they've invaded with a modicum of respect even if some are not on their side.

If Hamas had done something along the lines of what Ukraine has done recently I'd view that as a reasonable response to an occupier.

Sure, Ukraine have gone about it differently. But the situation is also different. Life in Gaza isn't really in any way comparable to life in Ukraine. Hamas isn't comparable to the Ukrainian Government, Hamas is a terrorist organisation for a start.

Palestinians have also resisted occupation in a myriad of ways over decades. The West Bank is largely non-violent resistance and it's not really working out much better for them.

mass murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilians

Israel didn't have to do this either. But they have.

 

[Zidane98]

Is this the context versus justification argument again? I know you repeatedly replied to me with a failure to understand the difference between the two things. Something being provoked, and something being excused are also different.

Regarding the bolded, without having seen it in context to know what was being said or how it was intended.



There's heaps of posts I don't respond to on many topics that I disagree with. Not doing so with every post doesn't therefore mean I agree with it.

I ignore the vast majority of the toxic posts made by certain posters in this thread for a start.



Sure, Ukraine have gone about it differently. But the situation is also different. Life in Gaza isn't really in any way comparable to life in Ukraine. Hamas isn't comparable to the Ukrainian Government, Hamas is a terrorist organisation for a start.

Palestinians have also resisted occupation in a myriad of ways over decades. The West Bank is largely non-violent resistance and it's not really working out much better for them.



Israel didn't have to do this either. But they have.

Hamas is not just a terrorist organisation. It's the recognised government of Gaza and also part of an Iranian coalition that has routinely declared its intent to erase Israel from world maps and is anti Jew.

I see Hamas eventually being reduced to a localised insurgency eventually as it is replaced by Palestinians governing Gaza who want to live alongside Israeli n peace without unrealistic goals of an Islamic caliphate in the area.

 

[faible]

Hamas is not just a terrorist organisation. It's the recognised government of Gaza and also part of an Iranian coalition that has routinely declared its intent to erase Israel from world maps and is anti Jew.

I see Hamas eventually being reduced to a localised insurgency eventually as it is replaced by Palestinians governing Gaza who want to live alongside Israeli n peace without unrealistic goals of an Islamic caliphate in the area.

The latter only happens if Israel allows for it to happen. Of which the democratically elected Israeli Government, appears very much disinterested in.

 

[SuperSub17]

Correct it isn't. Even in the last few page I engaged critically with a pro-Israel talking point by finding out where the casualty ratio number came from, I cast doubt on how seriously it should be taken, I asked a pro-Hamas poster what he thought the real numbers were, then I answered what seemed to be genuine questions from a different pro-Hamas poster, until he refused to engage with the conversation constructively at which point I just made fun of him as it was the only worthwhile thing left to do.

Nobody here is pro Hamas. And you know this.

Your attempt to deflect by labelling them as such is disgraceful.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Hasbara i’ve seen this mentioned on here wtf does this even mean.

It's a Hebrew term - closest translation is probably 'explaining'? A Zionist practice of using propaganda for branding purposes.

Hasbara is very important as Zionists are deeply insecure, and are always more worried about how something may affect their image, than the actual consequences.

 

[Demons09]

Nobody here is pro Hamas. And you know this.

Your attempt to deflect by labelling them as such is disgraceful.

You know who’s pro Hamas the Palestinian people.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You know who’s pro Hamas the Palestinian people.

On what do you base these words of wisdom?

Almost 2/3rds of the pre-Oct 7th population was 24 years or younger. They've never known anything but existence under oppressive regimes. They have no place to go, even if they were allowed to go anywhere.

Now you are telling us they support a government that was elected before they could vote, or in most cases before they were born.

Can I ask what the point of your comment is? It can't be that you've deemed them worthy of their current destruction, for this imagined support? The horrific acts of a small group of violent, hopeless men with nothing at all to lose disqualify 2m people from their right to exist?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

All unproven allegations.

Majority of which are made by repeating the lies of terrorists.

Your downplaying of terrorism, which sparked this conflict, is really disturbing and troubling.

Terror tactics will never work.

Legitimate military target.
View attachment 2076891

12 more identified from the targeted area

 

[Jazny]

Care to explain what worldview you ascribe to me for wanting proof and/or evidence of a single rape before declaring an entire people rapists?

Who is declaring an entire people rapists? Palestinians aren't all rapists for what happened on October 7th.

But it's weird how your standard of evidence changes so much between a war crime committed by Israel vs rape and gender based violence from Hamas on October 7th. UN office of the SRSG-SVC report concluded rapes occurred in multiple locations on Oct 7th, NYT reports, NBC reports, multiple witnesses, the ICC prosecutor that you guys normally think is unimpeachable all of a sudden must be wrong when it comes specifically to rape accusations that he believes have happened against the hostages taken on Oct 7th.

Its undeniable that rapes and SGBV occurred on October 7th unless you're a conspiracy theorist. To deny that on ideological grounds and nothing else just shows how deeply propagandized you are.

You know who’s pro Hamas the Palestinian people.

Most Gazans aren't and if recent reports are correct Hamas' popularity is declining. Only 1 in 4 now support Hamas in the Gaza strip.

Hamas is losing the backing of ordinary people in Gaza who are paying the human price of its war

“Hamas popularity among the populace who are actually living now in shelters, in tents and makeshift, you know, communities is declining,” one pollster told NBC News.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

There's posters on both sides doing these things. We've heard some posters on here say that nothing Hamas does isn't provoked for example.

Which is a horrible thing to say as it excuses the actions on Oct 7 as effectively a response to Israeli occupation. We've even heard some posters say Israel building communities on Israeli territory is using them as human shields (figure that one out).

I'm willing to bet you've never once called out this out.

Just want to make sure I've got this right - Palestinians huddled into one of the few building left standing after they've had their homes destroyed, then their tents destroyed and while their families have been decimated - are deemed to be human shields and therefore acceptable collateral damage?

Yet Israel creating villages dotted surrounding the border of Gaza in the late 1940s or the late 1960s, either on top of depopulated Palestinian villages or where nothing stood previously, running recruitment drives and fundraising campaigns to encourage people to move to the otherwise empty desert, and bringing people from around the world to live there - is just normal colonial behaviour?

You have literally just seen the results of this 75 year policy 10 months ago, and you still can't wrap your head around it. You are disgusted that civilians were killed, now unquestioningly support the actions of Israel, and you don't put two and two together. Amazing.

As we've seen from Ukraine right now we've seen that states can fight back against invaders and take some of their land without resorting to mass murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilians while treating inhabitants of the areas they've invaded with a modicum of respect even if some are not on their side.

If Hamas had done something along the lines of what Ukraine has done recently I'd view that as a reasonable response to an occupier.

Are you actually back to this nonsense? Why don't Hamas just co-ordinate a combined arms mechanized push deep into Israel, with their 1,500 men and AK-47s? With no air force, or even defence?

If Israel would just allow the import of the billions of dollars of military hardware the world is throwing at Hamas, we might see something similar.

Ignoring what should be obvious differences in the capability and logistics, I'm not sure you could reasonably hold lifelong refugees living under military occupation, blockade and in poverty to the same standards as a professional trained military force.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Who is declaring an entire people rapists? Palestinians aren't all rapists for what happened on October 7th.

OK - so how many rapists are there? Is it just the ~1500 Oct 7th participants? All of Hamas? Just Ahmed and Said? What is it exactly?

But it's weird how your standard of evidence changes so much between a war crime committed by Israel vs rape and gender based violence from Hamas on October 7th. UN office of the SRSG-SVC report concluded rapes occurred in multiple locations on Oct 7th

The report found 'reasonable grounds to believe conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the Oct 7th attacks'. This is the lowest standard of proof used by the UN in the verification of conflict-related sexual violence - below 'clear and convincing', which is itself below 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This report is of course based on information volunteered by Israeli national authorities and the IDF. No first hand account from victims or survivors, which is somewhat understandable given the circumstances, but sitll a problem.

The report stated the Office of the SRSG-SVC received no verified information on conflict-related sexual violence:



Sorry I highlighte some words in yellow - I realise you believe that makes them invalid, but you'll have to grin and bear it here.

With all of the hours of available video evidence for Hamas atrocities - no trace of evidence of sexual violence was found:



These people were willing to film themselves performing unspeakably terrible acts - yet not anything remotely sexual?

, NYT reports,

You're not referring to Anat Shwartz's article - centred around 'The Woman in the Black Dress' whose family denies she was r*ped and who say the NYT interviewed them under false pretences? Whose photo they harassed the photographer for, telling her how important it was for Israeli hasbara.

An article so thoroughly discredited, it's 'author' (not actually ever an author, but a filmmaker) was let go by the NYT. An investigator who admitted “I have no qualifications” for evaluating evidence of sexual violence. Didn't help that she was liking social media posts calling Palestinians 'human animals' and calling for Israel to turn Gaza 'into a slaughterhouse', of course.



This article also relies heavily on Zaka testimony, which we know is fanciful, even according to your precious UN report:

NBC reports,

Care to share this one please?

multiple witnesses,

Genuinely - who?

View attachment


It looks like they weren't that keen on speaking to the UN on the record - maybe they just felt more comfortable relaying their info to the friendly IDF soldiers?

Its undeniable that rapes and SGBV occurred on October 7th unless you're a conspiracy theorist. To deny that on ideological grounds and nothing else just shows how deeply propagandized you are.

Again I'm not concluding there was no CRSV, just that it was likely drastically less than the number of Palestinians r*ped and sexually tortured most days of the week.

Nothing about this is ideological. I've given you my reasons for doubt many times over - you seem to believe my request for an actual investigation as akin to Holocaust denial.

Protesting the mass killing of Palestinians is somehow doing the bidding of Hamas.

 

[Zidane98]

The latter only happens if Israel allows for it to happen. Of which the democratically elected Israeli Government, appears very much disinterested in.

The current government of Israel has peaceful relations with Jordan, Egypt & UAE.

Jordan & Egypt peace treaties were found with Israel after Israel returned occupied land. Do you ever ask yourself why the only ME states at war with Israel are those that are part of the Iranian coalition?

Have you ever asked yourself why Egypt & Jordan don't declare war on Israel? These are peaceful nations that are surely against genocide and could overwhelm Israel easily if they joined forces with Iran & co.

Instead we get but nothing happens in a vacuum but you apply that logic only to one side of the war. Your bias is clear for all to see.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The current government of Israel has peaceful relations with Jordan, Egypt & UAE.

Jordan & Egypt peace treaties were found with Israel after Israel returned occupied land. Do you ever ask yourself why the only ME states at war with Israel are those that are part of the Iranian coalition?

It's not peaceful to maintain an illegal military occupation.

Have you ever asked yourself why Egypt & Jordan don't declare war on Israel? These are peaceful nations that are surely against genocide and could overwhelm Israel easily if they joined forces with Iran & co.

I'm not sure even you've asked yourself that one.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The current government of Israel has peaceful relations with Jordan, Egypt & UAE.

Jordan & Egypt peace treaties were found with Israel after Israel returned occupied land.

Why did they stop there?

Why didn't they return more occupied land, to get more peace treaties?

Why does Israel keep stealing more land, in the West Bank for example?

Clearly Israel doesn't want peace.

 

[faible]

The current government of Israel has peaceful relations with Jordan, Egypt & UAE.

This is the same Government headed by Netanyahu who has repeatedly says he has no interest in a free and independent Palestinian state?

Jordan & Egypt peace treaties were found with Israel after Israel returned occupied land. Do you ever ask yourself why the only ME states at war with Israel are those that are part of the Iranian coalition?

So to confirm, you're wondering why the ME states that have issues with Israel, have joined together?

Have you ever asked yourself why Egypt & Jordan don't declare war on Israel? These are peaceful nations that are surely against genocide and could overwhelm Israel easily if they joined forces with Iran & co.

Probably because the US keeps sending aircraft carriers for overwatch.

Instead we get but nothing happens in a vacuum but you apply that logic only to one side of the war. Your bias is clear for all to see.

Sigh, back we go to you just making things up again.

 

[Zidane98]

This is the same Government headed by Netanyahu who has repeatedly says he has no interest in a free and independent Palestinian state?

This is disinformation. Netanyahu has said he would accept a Palestinian state. Right now no but that wholly isn't that surprising since Iran & co have declared outright war on Israel and their wish to destroy the state of Israel.

Netanyahu's History on Palestinian Statehood (Published 2015)

On the eve of the recent Israeli election, the prime minister said that no Palestinian state would be created on his watch. Two days later, he began to backtrack.

www.nytimes.com

So to confirm, you're wondering why the ME states that have issues with Israel, have joined together?

Coincidentally all the same states who repeatedly call for the destruction of Israel. Of course you don't mention this as it doesn't suit your rhetoric.

Probably because the US keeps sending aircraft carriers for overwatch.

An implication that the US is behind the war and would actively intervene to prevent an ally of Palestiine stepping in to prevent an alleged genocide.

Considering between Hezbollah, Iran & Hamas there has been nearly 30,000 various types of offensive munitions fired at Israel without the US stepping once one can deduct logically that the US are not stepping in here,

Sigh, back we go to you just making things up again.

Everything you post implies Israel are to blame for this war, Iran / Hamas / Hezbollah etc are simply responding to occupation.


The stark reality of this war is it was started by the Iranian coalition who repeatedly and publicly express their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. I don't think I've ever seen you call Iran out for this once, infact many of your posts imply blame at the hands of the US for the war.


That is your prerogative which everyone is entitled to. All I can say to this is you should ask why Hamas decided to embark on a murderous / raping rampage against Israeli civilians while Ukrainian forces who invaded Russia did so without managing to do any of the above.

 

[Jazny]

You're not referring to Anat Shwartz's article - centred around 'The Woman in the Black Dress' whose family denies she was r*ped and who say the NYT interviewed them under false pretences? Whose photo they harassed the photographer for, telling her how important it was for Israeli hasbara.

An article so thoroughly discredited, it's 'author' (not actually ever an author, but a filmmaker) was let go by the NYT. An investigator who admitted “I have no qualifications” for evaluating evidence of sexual violence. Didn't help that she was liking social media posts calling Palestinians 'human animals' and calling for Israel to turn Gaza 'into a slaughterhouse', of course.

Okay let's start with this disinformation. I was prepared for this attack on the NYT article, I have heard it all before and it's a total grift perpetrated mostly by the Intercept.

So to start: It' so interesting you call it the 'Anat Schwartz' story and refer to her as it's author. I guess you don't even bother to open the article for yourself in your 'research', the lead author of the article is Pulitzer prize winning journalist Jeffrey Gettleman. An extremely interesting and telling omission.

Next

Its disingenuous to say that family denies she was r*ped. This is more shoddy characterization. Some members of her family did express doubts she was r*ped.

Nevertheless, none of the victim's surviving family were there, so how would they even know? So unless you're desperately searching for something, anything, to discredit the story, why on earth would you even bring up her family's hearsay to cast doubt on what the NYT reported and what the witness to the body said, saw and photgraphed? That is extremely bizarre to say the least.

You might respond that its because of the supposed odd timing of the texts the woman in black her husband sent during the attack, as reported in the Intercept article.

There was a 9 minute window from the last time the alleged victim, the woman in black, texted her family and another text sent by her husband saying she was dead... according to Ryan Grim, the grifter who co-wrote the article, this 9 minute window somehow "makes the Israeli officials’ claims implausible", but he later appeared on a podcast where he fumbles and stumbles on the question of whether that 9 minute window does actually make the rape accusation implausible - which it obviously doesn't and he reluctantly concedes it possible. Its entirely possible to be r*ped and murdered in 9 minutes, or disgustingly even after she was killed...

The other claim that these grifters use to weirdly try to discredit the rape of the woman in black is that one of her other sisters posted a critical response to the NYT article on social media which she later deleted. Later this sister of the victim clarified to the NYT that she, understandably, was trying to protect her sister and clarified that she didn't know what really happened.

'Last week, Ms. Alter told the Times that she was upset her post had been used to question whether Hamas sexually assaulted women and that when she made it, she had been “confused about what happened” and was trying to “protect my sister."'

Not that it makes any difference to the credibility of the NYT article, but there are other members of her family who don't deny she was r*ped at all and believe she was, such as her mother.

TL;DR: It's neither accurate or relevant to say that her family denies she was r*ped.

As for the idea that the article is discredited that's just laughable: NYT have stood by it:

“She (Anat) made valuable contributions and we saw no evidence of bias in her work. We remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team’s investigation. But as we have said, her ‘likes’ of offensive and opinionated social media posts, predating her work with us, are unacceptable.”

Liking unhinged social media posts as your country is being attacked in the most horrific way is stupid and NYT are right to not use Schwartz again because liking those posts violates their code of conduct and can give an impression of bias, but it's pure cope to think that's sufficient evidence to call her part of the reporting discredited and its even worse to try and make out she is the sole author.

Also it's a weird claim that the co-authors of the NYT article "harassed" the photographer, they were doing what jounalists do and the witness thanked them and was happy to cooperate. She wasn't pressured and the intercept deliberately misrepresented her. They rely on you to not fact check their shoddy r*pe denial article, and unfortunately most people don't. Here is what she actually wrote (translated to English) which the intercept characterized as pressuring her and you have called "harrassment":



Thats not harassment or pressure, that's called journalism. Something that Ryan Grim and the Intercept wouldn't know much about.

Moreover, all of this critism discounts the rest of the NYT article, the witnesses they interviewed, the evidence they collected, all of which there is zero reason to believe was fabricated, false, or discredited.

I 100% stand by the NYT article, it's actually hilarious how bad the Intercept's 'journalism' is when they are trying to discredit a Pulitzer prize winner in a real publication like the NYT. The only way you can fall for any of this is if the Intercept is telling you what you want to hear and you don't bother fact checking because it sounds good in your head. It's pure nonsense.

 

[ZEV]

Lunchlady Doris i sent this to you in a pm but you haven't opened it.

This is Eylon Levy reacting to the short 10 minute video presented to the ICJ

There is a 47 minute length video. I have seen it. I prefer not to share details.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Lunchlady Doris i sent this to you in a pm but you haven't opened it.

This is Eylon Levy reacting to the short 10 minute video presented to the ICJ

There is a 47 minute length video. I have seen it. I prefer not to share details.

Is that the same Eylon Levy that was fired for his blatant lies?

The same guy that was trying to leverage his Hasbara position to appear on Dancing With The Stars?