Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[Lunchlady Doris]

The PA wouldn't be real tolerant of them operating in the area they govern and Israel wouldn't tolerate them the areas they control.

They wouldn't be there in huge numbers. IMO.

They're not in any meaningful numbers. Yet.

No hostages to rescue there.

This is certainly making it impossible for Fatah and the PA to maintain peace. Israel really leaving no way to claim there is any benefit to working with them. Hamas popularity will soar as Abbas becomes even more of a joke.

Won't be surprised when people with no hope, nothing left to lose, resort to whatever armed struggle they can to resist their cleansing. Third intifada may be around the corner.

Israel will play the victim again.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Incorrect. It is citing Hamas themselves stating that 10 of their fighters were killed in the west bank. It's always funny what people in the west defend Hamas on when they don't even deny some of these things themselves. The only reason we are even disputing whether 10 Hamas fighters were killed in the West Bank is because Lunchlady said the West Bank is Hamas-less, but even now he has gone on to retract that, and he is a smart guy so he isn't going to deny the reporting. So there isn't much argument left. Hamas has a presence in the West Bank, and 10 of their fighters were killed in recent action.

What exactly are you mad about?

Why do you think Israel treats West Bank settler terrorists differently to other West Bank terrorists?

 

[Jazny]

Why do you think Israel treats West Bank settler terrorists differently to other West Bank terrorists?

When you say "other West Bank terrorists" who are you referring to? If Hamas, I believe Laws of Armed Conflict apply to them wherever they are after October 7th until the war is over, and the standards for use of lethal force against them is much lower than domestic terrorists where law enforcement standards are used. Most terrorists in the West Bank whether Palestinian or Israeli are or should be treated under the more strict legal standards of law enforcement.

This is why if you care about Palestinians and Israeli forces breaches of law, you probably shouldn't be arguing that West Bank and Gaza are always conflict zones, as conflict zones are mostly governed by the laws of armed conflict that allow Israel far more leniency in their use of deadly force.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

When you say "other West Bank terrorists" who are you referring to? If Hamas, I believe Laws of Armed Conflict apply to them wherever they are after October 7th until the war is over, and the standards for use of lethal force against them is much lower than domestic terrorists where law enforcement standards are used. Most terrorists in the West Bank whether Palestinian or Israeli are or should be treated under the more strict legal standards of law enforcement.

This is why if you care about Palestinians and Israeli forces breaches of law, you probably shouldn't be arguing that West Bank and Gaza are always conflict zones, as conflict zones are mostly governed by the laws of armed conflict that allow Israel far more leniency in their use of deadly force.

These occupied territories, by definition, are conflict zones.

 

[Jazny]

These occupied territories, by definition, are conflict zones.

One of the most pro-Israel positions I have seen on here What laws do you think should govern the use of force in these conflict zones?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

When you say "other West Bank terrorists" who are you referring to? If Hamas, I believe Laws of Armed Conflict apply to them wherever they are after October 7th until the war is over, and the standards for use of lethal force against them is much lower than domestic terrorists where law enforcement standards are used. Most terrorists in the West Bank whether Palestinian or Israeli are or should be treated under the more strict legal standards of law enforcement.

This is why if you care about Palestinians and Israeli forces breaches of law, you probably shouldn't be arguing that West Bank and Gaza are always conflict zones, as conflict zones are mostly governed by the laws of armed conflict that allow Israel far more leniency in their use of deadly force.

Disappointing that you conflate Hamas and Palestinians so easily in your post. No one is overly concerned about Hamas militants being killed in combat, but Palestinian civilians remain civilians and should be protected regardless. You seem to be saying either all Palestinians are Hamas, or Israel is allowed to attack Palestinians if they are in a conflict zone?

You may say they aren't targetting civilians, but we can fill this page with evidence they have.
When confronted with evidence in the past, your stated opinion is that if Israel have bombed it, it must have been a legal target. The onus is apparently on us to prove them wrong, not on them to provide a shred of explanation or evidence. Insanity.

Of course you may retort something about human shields, but just like Cast Lead there is no evidence Hamas forced people to move or stay anywhere - a requirement to label them as 'human shields'. Hamas certainly conduct operations from urban areas, but there's nothing in IHL prohibiting that. Israel is the one who has decided, against IHL, that Hamas' presence makes all of Gaza a military target; that parliament buildings, water infrastructure, churches, bakeries, hospitals are legal targets, while providing no or false evidence.

There are debates of course about whether you can actually wage war against a territory you occupy illegally. Whether you have a right to self defence in retaliation to resistance activities from that territory. Whether bombing Gaza back to the stone age can be considered self defence.

The status however is not an argument at all - Israel have maintained an illegal military occupation for decades. This is an act of war. Every Israeli West Bank settler is a walking war crime. The fact you think the pre-Oct 7th status quo, with Israel regularly attacking Gaza and slowly cleansing the West Bank, was some sort of happy peace is really telling.

 

[Jazny]

Disappointing that you conflate Hamas and Palestinians so easily in your post.

How did you read that into what I said?

No one is overly concerned about Hamas militants being killed in combat, but Palestinian civilians remain civilians and should be protected regardless. You seem to be saying either all Palestinians are Hamas, or Israel is allowed to attack Palestinians if they are in a conflict zone?

No not at all, you can't deliberately target civilians under either standard.

My point is that in a conflict zone, the rules around use of force are much more lenient than the law enforcement standard. Under law enforcement model the use of lethal force can only be applied in extreme circumstances where the suspect/s are posing a clear and imminent threat to life. The laws of armed conflict can allow you to use lethal force you suspect are a threat even if they aren't posing an immanent threat. Do we think that would be a good idea to apply that model to the West Bank where Human Rights Watch conclude there is insufficient evidence that there is a non-international armed conflict between Israel and the armed Palestinian groups? Seems like a bad idea.

The West Bank is not currently a war zone and Israel should be using the law enforcement model in West Bank unless they are specifically targeting Hamas who are operating in the area. If you disagree, you are also disagreeing with Human Rights Watch on this and giving Israel greater scope to use deadly force in the West Bank than they currently should have under IHRL.

There are debates of course about whether you can actually wage war against a territory you occupy illegally. Whether you have a right to self defence in retaliation to resistance activities from that territory.

You don't lose all legal protections if you are doing something illegal. This applies to international law too. Also remember that the illegality of Israel's occupation hasn't been properly tested, and even the advisory opinion was ambiguous with respect to Gaza.

A fundamental principle of IHL is that the law should never impede a state's right to self defense. The attack on October 7th with the threat of more attacks AND the taking of hostages gives Israel the justification under the law to defend itself by going to war to neutralize the threat Hamas poses and to rescue the hostages. Francesca Albanese's argument that Israel does not have the right to self defense is not great and based on a part of an advisory opinion from 20 years ago which some judges disputed anyway and mostly doesn't apply to the situation in Gaza. Another case in 2005 left the question open and seems generally accepted internationally and among scholars that a state's right to self defense can apply to threats from non-state actors since the rise of terror groups like ISIL.

The idea that states can't defend themselves against non-state actors doesn't play out in the real world. This whole idea seems to be based on an open question that hasn't yet been tested properly in court, but the moment it does it seems like article 51 would be able to be used against non-state actors. That's my reading of it anyway. I'm not sure it's really worth debating considering it mostly seems an uncontroversial point in the current age.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

How did you read that into what I said?

Well mainly the way you use the two terms interchangably. Here you mention Hamas being treated as combatants:

If Hamas, I believe Laws of Armed Conflict apply to them wherever they are after October 7th until the war is over, and the standards for use of lethal force against them is much lower than domestic terrorists where law enforcement standards are used.

And in the same post you just say 'if you care about Palestinians'. Assumedly being treated as combatants. Like they are the same as Hamas. It's right here:

This is why if you care about Palestinians and Israeli forces breaches of law, you probably shouldn't be arguing that West Bank and Gaza are always conflict zones.

So it's actually impossible not to read it that way, if you're actually paying attention. Or you just think they're acceptable collateral damage, which to be fair seems to be your position.

No not at all, you can't deliberately target civilians under either standard.

My point is that in a conflict zone, the rules around use of force are much more lenient than the law enforcement standard. Under law enforcement model the use of lethal force can only be applied in extreme circumstances where the suspect/s are posing a clear and imminent threat to life. The laws of armed conflict can allow you to use lethal force you suspect are a threat even if they aren't posing an immanent threat.

Are we still talking about civilians here? You don't actually get to use lethal force against civilians if you suspect some vague future threat, no. Where are you getting this from?

Do we think that would be a good idea to apply that model to the West Bank where Human Rights Watch conclude there is insufficient evidence that there is a non-international armed conflict between Israel and the armed Palestinian groups? Seems like a bad idea.

The West Bank is not currently a war zone and Israel should be using the law enforcement model in West Bank unless they are specifically targeting Hamas who are operating in the area. If you disagree, you are also disagreeing with Human Rights Watch on this and giving Israel greater scope to use deadly force in the West Bank than they currently should have under IHRL.

Got a link to this opinon? You care about what HRW thinks all of a sudden?

An ongoing military occupation, such as in the OPTs, is an armed attack that is yet to cease. This again is self evident.

You don't lose all legal protections if you are doing something illegal. This applies to international law too.

Of course not - but sensible people understand that when a territory you occupy resists that occupation in self defence, you don't then also get a right to self-defence when you have created the need for that resistance. You have the right to end the occupation - then the resistance to occupation stops.

You can try and obfuscate that logic however you want, but it's self-evident truth.

Also remember that the illegality of Israel's occupation hasn't been properly tested, and even the advisory opinion was ambiguous with respect to Gaza.

You just blatantly lie now? You acknowledge it's an occupation, Israel have taken land through aggression, and have transferred their population to that land.

This is a new low for you. Disgraceful.

You are well aware the court determined the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that Israel's occupation since 1967, and the subsequent creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources, are illegal under international law.

There is no 'testing' this.

****ing gross.

 

[Jazny]

Well mainly the way you use the two terms interchangably. Here you mention Hamas being treated as combatants:



And in the same post you just say 'if you care about Palestinians'. Assumedly being treated as combatants. Like they are the same as Hamas. It's right here:



So it's actually impossible not to read it that way, if you're actually paying attention. Or you just think they're acceptable collateral damage, which to be fair seems to be your position.



Are we still talking about civilians here? You don't actually get to use lethal force against civilians if you suspect some vague future threat, no. Where are you getting this from?



Got a link to this opinon? You care about what HRW thinks all of a sudden?

An ongoing military occupation, such as in the OPTs, is an armed attack that is yet to cease. This again is self evident.

View attachment 2097828

View attachment 2097829





Of course not - but sensible people understand that when a territory you occupy resists that occupation in self defence, you don't then also get a right to self-defence when you have created the need for that resistance. You have the right to end the occupation - then the resistance to occupation stops.

You can try and obfuscate that logic however you want, but it's self-evident truth.



You just blatantly lie now? You acknowledge it's an occupation, Israel have taken land through aggression, and have transferred their population to that land.

This is a new low for you. Disgraceful.

You are well aware the court determined the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that Israel's occupation since 1967, and the subsequent creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources, are illegal under international law.

There is no 'testing' this.

****ing gross.

Try rereading everything I posted and have another go... This was just you misreading almost everything I said and then having a tantrum over opinions I don't hold. Seems like a huge waste of time responding to it.

What I'll do instead when I feel like I'll write up some further points regarding why law enforcement models offer better protection to Palestinians in West Bank, why LE standards do/should be applied to Israeli counter terrorist activities in West Bank for the most part, I will give a case study of an Israeli strike in West Bank I think was almost certainly illegal, and how it could be legal if interpreted under the LOAC instead.

If anyone cares I'll go further into Israel's right to self defense. It's kind of interesting I guess but also not really. I will try my best to be Hamas's lawyer too, but oh dear I think I'll have a tough time arguing that October 7th was any kind of lawful "resistance".

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Try rereading everything I posted and have another go... This was just you misreading almost everything I said and then having a tantrum over opinions I don't hold. Seems like a huge waste of time responding to it.

You're so full of shit you can't stick to an opinion or defend your positions. It's embarrassing. Every time you're shown to be ignorant, it's just you're misunderstood.

What I'll do instead when I feel like I'll write up some further points regarding why law enforcement models offer better protection to Palestinians in West Bank, why LE standards do/should be applied to Israeli counter terrorist activities in West Bank for the most part, I will give a case study of an Israeli strike in West Bank I think was almost certainly illegal, and how it could be legal if interpreted under the LOAC instead.

Can't wait.

If anyone cares I'll go further into Israel's right to self defense. It's kind of interesting I guess but also not really. I will try my best to be Hamas's lawyer too, but oh dear I think I'll have a tough time arguing that October 7th was any kind of lawful "resistance".

If the IDF hadn't approved the Nova festival location move at the last minute to between the border and an IDF base at Re'im, unknown to Hamas btw, there would be no issue with its legality.

 

[Kurve]

If the IDF hadn't relocated the Nova festival at the last minute to between the border and an IDF base, unknown to Hamas btw, there would be no issue with its legality.

I've not seen this suggested before, do you have a link?

I was of the understanding there were two other events at the same site on the 5th and 6th, that they were approved at the same time and alerts sent to Iron Dome.

 

[Jazny]

You're so full of shit you can't stick to an opinion or defend your positions. It's embarrassing. Every time you're shown to be ignorant, it's just you're misunderstood.

All you've done is fail to read and try and gaslight that I equate Hamas with Palestinians in general in the weirdest stretch I have ever seen. Then demonstrated you haven't read or understood the advisory opinion. Then you tried to equate terrorism, slaughter and hostage taking like October 7th with lawful resistance in an attempt to make a bad argument about Israel not having a right to defend itself.

It's pointless arguing with someone who not only is so wrong, but spends multiple paragraphs arguing points nobody made. I'll make my own post soon.

If the IDF hadn't relocated the Nova festival at the last minute to between the border and an IDF base, unknown to Hamas btw, there would be no issue with its legality.

^This is your brain on social media disinformation

Setting aside your claim the IDF moved the festival, please write an essay for me showing how hostage taking, killing soldiers hors de combat, killing civilians with no military justification is a legal form of resistance or self-defense. Show me how launching indiscriminate rocket attacks is lawful resistance. I look forward to it.

 

[Jazny]

Terrorists appear to have murdered 6 hostages in a tunnel only a day or so ago. Awful news.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bodies-of-6-hostages-murdered-by-hamas-just-days-earlier-found-in-rafah-idf/

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Terrorists appear to have murdered 6 hostages in a tunnel only a day or so ago. Awful news.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bodies-of-6-hostages-murdered-by-hamas-just-days-earlier-found-in-rafah-idf/

Hamas guards shot them just before the IDF arrived. Who knows what’s happened to the rest of them

 

[ZEV]

Hamas guards shot them just before the IDF arrived. Who knows what’s happened to the rest of them

Hamas threatens to release video showing six slain hostages' 'last message'​

Hamas threatens to release video showing six slain hostages' 'last message'

In the video, all six hostages whose bodies were found by the IDF on Sunday are seen confirming their identities before cutting to a still frame threatening to release their 'last messages.'

www.jpost.com

 

[Jazny]

"We say to everyone clearly that after the Nuseirat incident, new instructions were issued to the mujahideen assigned to guard the prisoners regarding dealing with them if the occupation army approached their place of detention" - Hamas military spokesperson.

Total cowardly terrorists. And some people want to think of this as a legitimate form of resistance to occupation.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Anyone able to condemn this without resorting to whataboutisms?

Hamas terrorists release footage of six slain hostages, promise to share 'last messages' | Fox News

Hamas has reportedly released hostage video to its Telegram channel on Monday. The video shows each of the six hostages who were recently found dead identifying themselves.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

All you've done is fail to read and try and gaslight that I equate Hamas with Palestinians in general in the weirdest stretch I have ever seen.

There is no other way to interpret your post.

Then demonstrated you haven't read or understood the advisory opinion.

I will really enjoy seeing how you spin this. Awaiting your clarification.

Then you tried to equate terrorism, slaughter and hostage taking like October 7th with lawful resistance in an attempt to make a bad argument about Israel not having a right to defend itself.

No, the two are completely unrelated.

Setting aside your claim the IDF moved the festival, please write an essay for me showing how hostage taking, killing soldiers hors de combat, killing civilians with no military justification is a legal form of resistance. Show me how launching indiscriminate rocket attacks is lawful resistance. I look forward to it.

Yes, let me just go and write an essay for you.

What would be a lawful form of resistance, according to you? What should Palestinians do to resist their occupation, in a legitimate Jazny approved fashion?

Why does it seem the things you've listed are a legit form of self defence, when Israel does them?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I've not seen this suggested before, do you have a link?

I was of the understanding there were two other events at the same site on the 5th and 6th, that they were approved at the same time and alerts sent to Iron Dome.

No, so will edit my post - the event was moved due to a previous site falling through according to one of the Nova performers managers, the IDF approved it despite their own objections.

Artist Manager Describes Israeli Rave Massacre: ‘It Turned Into a Nightmare’

"We saw a full bombardment everywhere," says Raz Gaster, who was at the festival where at least 260 people were killed.

www.billboard.com

https://www.timesofisrael.com/key-idf-officer-reportedly-voiced-concern-about-nova-festival-but-was-told-to-ok-it/

 

[Jazny]

Yes, let me just go and write an essay for you.

What would be a lawful form of resistance, according to you? What should Palestinians do to resist their occupation, in a legitimate Jazny approved fashion?

Do you really not know the answer to this? Why are you arguing with me about IHL if you don't understand this much? The answer to this is so simple: any resistance still has to comply with international law. Regardless of the legality of the armed conflict, all parties are still bound by IHL. I don't know why you are framing it as "Jazny approved fashion" like I invented the laws.

Why does it seem the things you've listed are a legit form of self defence, when Israel does them?

Could you please please show me a single post where I have said "hostage taking, killing soldiers hors de combat, killing civilians with no military justification" is a legit form of self defense when Israel do it? Just one post. Something even close would do. If you go looking, please don't confuse jus ad bellum with jus in bello.

Honestly, if you can't show me anything, or don't retract it, I will probably not bother engaging with you anymore. Posts like this are just pointless to even bother defending. It's just a sound bite to try and make everyone clap for you or something. You're hoping everyone goes "Yaaaaaas slay queen" before you reveal your name is Albert Einstein.

There is no other way to interpret your post.

Really? Do you seriously believe that Palestinians, whether Hamas, members of other armed groups, or civilians, are no more protected against Israeli breachesof law under law enforcement regulations than they would be under the laws of armed combat?

That's the point of my post. Where there is no hostilities rising to the level of a recognised ongoing non-international armed conflict, law enforcement models should be used. This is and has been the case for the West Bank for the most part, according to Human Rights Watch. This is important as it offers better protections to Palestinians there, regardless of their affiliations (or non affiliation), because the standards for use of deadly force under LE is much more strict than LOAC. Israel often uses a mix of LE and LOAC, but in my opinion and the opinions of people who care about excessive use of force against Palestinians (not just Palestinian terrorists, as civilians often get caught up in the fighting, see the airstrike in Jenin the is almost certainly a crime from Israeli forces), the standard should be LE specifically in the West Bank.

I don't get how you stretched so hard on that one, I was expecting you to mostly agree with that post lol.

We can talk about how the different standard might apply in this case. Even though it looks like a breach of both LE and LOAC to me, but any potential Israeli defense of this strike is easier under LOAC.

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

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Do you really not know the answer to this? Why are you arguing with me about IHL if you don't understand this much? The answer to this is so simple: any resistance still has to comply with international law. Regardless of the legality of the armed conflict, all parties are still bound by IHL. I don't know why you are framing it as "Jazny approved fashion" like I invented the laws.

Could you please please show me a single post where I have said "hostage taking, killing soldiers hors de combat, killing civilians with no military justification" is a legit form of self defense when Israel do it? Just one post. Something even close would do. If you go looking, please don't confuse jus ad bellum with jus in bello.

Honestly, if you can't show me anything, or don't retract it, I will probably not bother engaging with you anymore. Posts like this are just pointless to even bother defending. It's just a sound bite to try and make everyone clap for you or something. You're hoping everyone goes "Yaaaaaas slay queen" before you reveal your name is Albert Einstein.

Really? Do you seriously believe that Palestinians, whether Hamas, members of other armed groups, or civilians, are no more protected against Israeli breachesof law under law enforcement regulations than they would be under the laws of armed combat?

That's the point of my post. Where there is no hostilities rising to the level of a recognised ongoing non-international armed conflict, law enforcement models should be used. This is and has been the case for the West Bank for the most part, according to Human Rights Watch. This is important as it offers better protections to Palestinians there, regardless of their affiliations (or non affiliation), because the standards for use of deadly force under LE is much more strict than LOAC. Israel often uses a mix of LE and LOAC, but in my opinion and the opinions of people who care about excessive use of force against Palestinians (not just Palestinian terrorists, as civilians often get caught up in the fighting, see the airstrike in Jenin the is almost certainly a crime from Israeli forces), the standard should be LE specifically in the West Bank.

I don't get how you stretched so hard on that one, I was expecting you to mostly agree with that post lol.

We can talk about how the different standard might apply in this case. Even though it looks like a breach of both LE and LOAC to me, but any potential Israeli defense of this strike is easier under LOAC.

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

Oh so you are aware of Human Rights Watch.

Can you explain why you have refused to acknowledge everything HRW have said about the apartheid?

 

[jason_recliner]

About effing time this began...

UK suspends some arms exports to Israel​

[Foreign Secretary David Lammy] said: "The assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation on international humanitarian law.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd05pk95j2xo

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

About effing time this began...

UK suspends some arms exports to Israel​

[Foreign Secretary David Lammy] said: "The assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation on international humanitarian law.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd05pk95j2xo

Just as six more hostages are murdered. Could there be anything more tone deaf?

 

[jason_recliner]

Just as six more hostages are murdered. Could there be anything more tone deaf?

Maybe countries should have stopped selling weapons and giving aid to Israel when 5,000 children were murdered, not 10,000, or 15,000, or whatever it is now.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Maybe countries should have stopped selling weapons and giving aid to Israel when 5,000 children were murdered, not 10,000, or 15,000, or whatever it is now.

Meanwhile an endless stream of weapons pour into Gaza from Iran via the tunnels. But let’s disadvantage Israel and make its annihilation easier.

Those children wouldn’t have lost their lives if
October 7 hadn’t occurred.
The hostages had been returned.
Hamas didn’t launch their attacks from among civilians and from refugee camps..
Hamas cared even a tiny amount for the Palestinian population.