Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[jason_recliner]

I don't know it, I read exactly what you said and it was ridiculous. You were downplaying the atrocities committed by Hamas and the threat they pose. You're new point is also ridiculous. What do you think proportionate means? It has nothing to do with comparing civilian casaulties on both sides.

Anyone who judges proportionality by comparing the amount of civilians killed by either side is using the word wrong.

What do you think proportionate means? How are civilian casualties not relevant to proportionality? What realistic, material threat do you think Hamas poses to Israel? How is it proportionate to the threat Israel poses to Palestinians?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Here's Israel again being constrained by international law, targeting with their pinpoint accuracy.



Entire Palestinian families are missing, in pieces and under the sand, in one of the last remaining designated humanitarian areas.

Several craters 9 metres deep, created by 2,000lb bombs. Massacred after being herded into tents on the dunes. Slowly pushing people into the sea.

They are not even pretending anymore.

 

[Jazny]

What do you think proportionate means?

In bello proportionality means that the harm caused to civilians and objects during a military attack must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. It has nothing to do with being in relation to the amount of your own civilians the enemy has killed. Ad bellum proportionality can be said to weigh the harms of the decision to launch a war verse the threat being addressed.

There could be a situation in which ZERO casaulties on your side have been inflicted by the enemy, but you can still legally justify inflicting large foreseeable civilian casualties on the other enemy side if it is the only viable way to counter a credible immanent threat they pose. It's not particularly hard to think of scenarios like this. It's not a ratio test, it can't be analyzed like that.

That is not to say that Israel have been adhering to in bello proportionality considerations in every instance in this war, I am not making that claim at all. Just your way of analyzing proportionality by showing the difference in civilian casualties inflicted by either side makes no sense the way the word is used in international law.

 

[jason_recliner]

In bello proportionality means that the harm caused to civilians and objects during a military attack must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Yes, the civilian casualties must be justifiable relative to the threat - the other questions which you didn't answer.

 

[Jazny]

Yes, the civilian casualties must be justifiable relative to the threat - the other questions which you didn't answer.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers you posted. Proportionality in bello is a case by case consideration. It's not some abstract thing where you have to stop fighting the enemy if the ratio of civilians they have killed vs the ratio your military have killed is too far out of line.

It's not like there would ever be a situation where an enemy is firing at you, but you can't return fire because of the risk to civilians, so you have to wait until the enemy kills another of your civilians so the ratio works out proportionate again to justify you returning fire lol.

The question about how much of a threat does Hamas pose is more an ad bellum consideration when Israel launched the war. I would say significant enough to justify Israel going to war. This seems to be fairly well accepted for the most part in the global community. At least the countries who aren't completely unhinged

There is no way around it, your initial post didn't use proportionality correctly. Its okay, common mistake. It doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means you need to use a different point if you want to argue Israel's response has been disproportionate, the ratio doesn't help your case. We can either go around in circles or you can move on to the next point now.

 

[sherb]

Here's Israel again being constrained by international law, targeting with their pinpoint accuracy.

View attachment 2107927

Entire Palestinian families are missing, in pieces and under the sand, in one of the last remaining designated humanitarian areas.

Several craters 9 metres deep, created by 2,000 bombs. Massacred after being herded into tents on the dunes. Slowly pushing people into the sea.

They are not even pretending anymore.

Just shameful.

 

[jason_recliner]

It's not like there would ever be a situation where an enemy is firing at you, but you can't return fire because of the risk to civilians, .

Yes, of course. The risk to Israeli civilians is low to negligible.

 

[Jazny]

Yes, of course. The risk to Israeli civilians is low to negligible.

Great chat.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

It tells us that some bodies and vehicles were really badly burned.

Yes, by the IDF. That's what it tells us.

Take this logic to the NYTs or even the Intercept. See if they will publish this amazing evidence you have of the body count changing therefore widespread friendly fire or something. Not even sure The Intercept would run that one.

It's a truly bizarre argument.

I see you're starting to understand, so now you're going for some sort of appeal to authority logical fallacy. Probably a reflex action, but you've cracked.

You think there were no survivors? Every single person that could have possibly taken footage, whether Israeli or Hamas, from any angle or distance was killed?

So where's all the footage? We know Israeli choppers attacked 300 targets in 4 hours, according to IDF sources.



You've painted yourself into a corner nicely on this one.

If you cant produce it, are you saying none of this happened? There were no helicopter attacks on vehicles?

There were no helicopter attacks?

No helicopters?

No footage doesn't = it didn't happen, but it seems surprising there wouldn't be at least some or even eye witnesses saying they saw Israeli choppers flying around blowing up hostage vehicles left and right.

They're out there, you just don't want to see them. This lady describes seeing helicopters several times, and that helicopter firing at a vehicle carrying hostages.

'I decided to play dead ... My son is still missing': A survivor's account from Kibbutz Nir Oz - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

A survivor of Hamas' assault on Kibbutz Nir Oz describes her experience on Oct. 7.

www.jta.org

I could of course post more, but we both know it's a waste of time.

What we have is almost nothing. A changed body count. Cool?

If we ignore everything we don't like, we have nothing. Would you look at that.

 

[jason_recliner]

Great chat.

I really didn't think I'd have to dumb it down to 'the residual risk to Israeli civilians is low to negligible'. But if it helps you understand...

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Who does this guy remind you of?



IDF have found, by the way, that Aysenur Eygi was hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire which was not aimed at her.

Headshot by an IDF sniper 200m away.

 

[Jazny]

I really didn't think I'd have to dumb it down to 'the residual risk to Israeli civilians is low to negligible'. But if it helps you understand...

Thanks, my knowledge really increased thanks to your superior understanding of the topic.

"Hamas has killed maybe 1,000 civilians. Israel has killed 20,000-30,000. It's not the same thing and it's not proportionate"

Legal scholars will be referencing this quote for years

 

[Jazny]

I could of course post more, but we both know it's a waste of time.

Keep going please.

You do realize this is the woman from the OHCHR report that I already added to the 2 confirmed cases of friendly fire. This was also not at the Nova festival where 364 civilians were murdered and as I said, no evidence of helicopters shooting civilians.

The next line you left out of her story hurts your narrative significantly.

"All the terrorists were dead and we were alive, except for one for one of the women with us"

Excellent rescue effort by the IDF to eliminate all the terrorists for only one unfortunate victim of friendly fire. This helicopter attack was more successful than the Lindt cafe terrorist rescue... which wasn't a case of hannibal btw.

Why weren't they all burned to a crisp though? Strange.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The Israeli mass murdering machine has now killed 40,000 Palestinians.

Pure evil.

Death toll in Gaza surpasses 40,000, Palestinian health officials say

The Palestinian Ministry of Health says a total 40,005 people have been killed and 92,401 injured since October 7, when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people — most of them civilians — and took roughly 250 hostages to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.

www.abc.net.au

17,000 of them were Hamas terrorists, targeted. 23,000 civilian casualties, the human shields.

 

[faible]

17,000 of them were Hamas terrorists, targeted. 23,000 civilian casualties, the human shields.

To clarify; we've not yet hit a sufficient number of mass murdered Palestinian children for you to think it's not ok.

 

[faible]

If you believe October 7th was a genocidal act with subsequent threats to carry out more, what should Israel's response have been to this threat?

October 7th wasn't a genocide though, nor does Hamas have anything close to the capability to enact a genocide. Note, since I'm quite certain someone like Zidane will fail to understand what's written once again, this does not in any way make what Hamas did less horrendous or tragic.

Israel meanwhile are actually doing all the things they keep saying Hamas would do, except Hamas can't actually do them in reality. Israel are actually committing crimes against humanity on a massive scale, and are highly likely actually committing genocide against the Palestinian people, and have more than enough capability to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.

 

[jason_recliner]

To clarify; we've not yet hit a sufficient number of mass murdered Palestinian children for you to think it's not ok.

Maybe if ALL the Palestinian children are murdered that would be unacceptable. Or maybe not.

 

[Jazny]

October 7th wasn't a genocide though, nor does Hamas have anything close to the capability to enact a genocide. Note, since I'm quite certain someone like Zidane will fail to understand what's written once again, this does not in any way make what Hamas did less horrendous or tragic.

Okay no problem, thanks for clarifying. I don't think it was either. Not because they lack genocidal intent, but they couldn't realistically achieve it at the time.

Israel meanwhile are actually doing all the things they keep saying Hamas would do, except Hamas can't actually do them in reality. Israel are actually committing crimes against humanity on a massive scale, and are highly likely actually committing genocide against the Palestinian people, and have more than enough capability to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.

It looks far more like a war than genocide. I believe there are some far right Israeli leaders who might commit genocide if they had their way, but more likely they would ethnic cleanse Gaza through forced transfer. But if they did that they would lose the global support they receive from the EU, America and Australia, let alone genocide.

The numbers and facts on the ground and politically don't support genocide. Again that does not absolve Israel of breaches of IHL, but not all wars of this magnitude are genocides.

 

[jason_recliner]

It looks far more like a war than genocide.

Go back and watch that Bill Hicks video I posted. You're welcome

 

[DapperDon]

Okay no problem, thanks for clarifying. I don't think it was either. Not because they lack genocidal intent, but they couldn't realistically achieve it at the time.

It looks far more like a war than genocide. I believe there are some far right Israeli leaders who might commit genocide if they had their way, but more likely they would ethnic cleanse Gaza through forced transfer. But if they did that they would lose the global support they receive from the EU, America and Australia, let alone genocide.

The numbers and facts on the ground and politically don't support genocide. Again that does not absolve Israel of breaches of IHL, but not all wars of this magnitude are genocides.

Which previous war does it look like to you?

In numbers of bombs dropped in a 12 month time period per square kilometre?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Okay no problem, thanks for clarifying. I don't think it was either. Not because they lack genocidal intent, but they couldn't realistically achieve it at the time.

It looks far more like a war than genocide. I believe there are some far right Israeli leaders who might commit genocide if they had their way, but more likely they would ethnic cleanse Gaza through forced transfer. But if they did that they would lose the global support they receive from the EU, America and Australia, let alone genocide.

The numbers and facts on the ground and politically don't support genocide. Again that does not absolve Israel of breaches of IHL, but not all wars of this magnitude are genocides.

 

[SuperSub17]

It looks far more like a war than genocide. I believe there are some far right Israeli leaders who might commit genocide if they had their way, but more likely they would ethnic cleanse Gaza through forced transfer. But if they did that they would lose the global support they receive from the EU, America and Australia, let alone genocide.

The numbers and facts on the ground and politically don't support genocide. Again that does not absolve Israel of breaches of IHL, but not all wars of this magnitude are genocides.

Lol, we’re back on this absolute nonsense again.

Have a look at the definition of genocide:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


Are you claiming with a straight face that Israel has done none of the above?

 

[Jazny]

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


Are you claiming with a straight face that Israel has done none of the above?

I don't think you understand how those terms are applied. Let me see if you understand. Apply those criteria to the October 7th massacre and tell me how it wasn't a genocide. Which it wasn't by the way, but I want to see how you explain it. Then we can talk about how it might apply in the Israel Hamas war.

 

[Jazny]

View attachment 2108259

London death toll = 43,000 civilians, not considered a genocide.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki death toll = 150,000+ civilians, not considered a genocide

Dresden death toll = 25,000 to 35,000 civilians, not considered a genocide.

Are genocides calculated by tonnes of explosives dropped? Another great point and really well thought out argument from you, GP. Would you prefer it if Israel instead dropped two nukes on Gaza the size of those that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[SuperSub17]

I don't think you understand how those terms are applied. Let me see if you understand. Apply those criteria to the October 7th massacre and tell me how it wasn't a genocide. Which it wasn't by the way, but I want to see how you explain it. Then we can talk about how it might apply in the Israel Hamas war.

Right, so we’re back to whataboutism.

Answer the question.