Current WAR CRIMES Israel - * ICC issues warrants for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu & Yoav Gallant & for Hamas's Mohammed Deif

[Kurve]

The ICC has also issued a warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, who Israel says they have killed.

According to the ICC, the chamber “found reasonable grounds to believe” that Deif was “responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other form of sexual violence; as well as the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture; taking hostages; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other form of sexual violence”.

It also said there were reasonable grounds to believe the crimes against humanity were “part of a widespread and systematic attack directed by Hamas and other armed groups against the civilian population of Israel”.

For Netanyahu and Gallant, who was replaced as defence minister earlier this month, the chamber “found reasonable grounds to believe” that they “each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.

It also found reasonable grounds to believe that “each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population”.




INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT - Elements of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes

 

[Jazny]

Read for yourself - https://gaza-patterns-harm.airwars.org/

ISPT0783 – October 31, 2023

On October 31, 2023 confirmed Israeli strikes on the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp killed at least 126 civilians, including 68 children. A further 280 civilians were reported injured by the director of the nearby Indonesian Hospital. A second strike hit the same location the following...

airwars.org

I already knew, I just wanted you to check.

"Airwars assumes civilian status unless there is evidence to the contrary. Evidence includes any suggestion in local sources that directly associate individuals with participation in hostilities or membership of a militant group. This may include insignia belonging to militant groups active in Gaza (such as a flag on a coffin); or individuals in uniform or holding weapons. If the only source claiming militant status is the perpetrator (i.e. Israel), this is included as context in Airwars assessments but is not considered definitive evidence....Note that Hamas administrative officials (such as political activists) would generally not be considered militants by Airwars, unless there is evidence of participation in hostilities or membership in Hamas’ armed wing"

I'm a little surprised they found any airstrikes that had militant combatant deaths with that methodology. If they can't find a local reference to the people being explicitly listed as combatants in some way, they assume they were all civilians. IDF estimates of militant casaulties from an incident are not counted. This seems very unlikely to produce an accurate figure.

 

[Zidane98]

I already knew, I just wanted you to check.

"Airwars assumes civilian status unless there is evidence to the contrary. Evidence includes any suggestion in local sources that directly associate individuals with participation in hostilities or membership of a militant group. This may include insignia belonging to militant groups active in Gaza (such as a flag on a coffin); or individuals in uniform or holding weapons. If the only source claiming militant status is the perpetrator (i.e. Israel), this is included as context in Airwars assessments but is not considered definitive evidence....Note that Hamas administrative officials (such as political activists) would generally not be considered militants by Airwars, unless there is evidence of participation in hostilities or membership in Hamas’ armed wing"

I'm a little surprised they found any airstrikes that had militant combatant deaths with that methodology. If they can't find a local reference to the people being explicitly listed as combatants in some way, they assume they were all civilians. IDF estimates of militant casaulties from an incident are not counted. This seems very unlikely to produce an accurate figure.

In other words use airwars as a source if one wants to maximise alleged civilian numbers and minimise Hamas numbers.


Another chestnut ignored is Hamas must be fully aware how many of its fighters have been killed in the war yet deliberately does not separate Hamas fighters in its death statistics released by Gazan ministry of health..

There are a few obvious reasons why Hamas does not differentiate civilian deaths from military deaths.

And we know Israel does not do the same despite Ghost Patrol 's spectacular failure in accusing Israel of doing exactly that.

 

[Zidane98]

Surely it's about time the civilian population of Gaza revolts against Hamas.


This is evidence of it beginning to happen. Better a ceasefire is agreed with someone else in charge of Gaza than Hamas who should be relegated to a terrorist insurgency.

 

[Zidane98]

In essence airwars assumes every single casualty is a civilian in Gaza unless "local sources" say otherwise. They ignore any IDF data as they label IDF as the perpetrator - despite the obvious fact Hamas started the current war on Oct 7.

Obviously this is clearly not a reliable source for Hamas death figure claims. Not that the usual poster who questions sources bothered to check either for some mysterious reason.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I already knew, I just wanted you to check.

"Airwars assumes civilian status unless there is evidence to the contrary. Evidence includes any suggestion in local sources that directly associate individuals with participation in hostilities or membership of a militant group. This may include insignia belonging to militant groups active in Gaza (such as a flag on a coffin); or individuals in uniform or holding weapons. If the only source claiming militant status is the perpetrator (i.e. Israel), this is included as context in Airwars assessments but is not considered definitive evidence....Note that Hamas administrative officials (such as political activists) would generally not be considered militants by Airwars, unless there is evidence of participation in hostilities or membership in Hamas’ armed wing"

I'm a little surprised they found any airstrikes that had militant combatant deaths with that methodology. If they can't find a local reference to the people being explicitly listed as combatants in some way, they assume they were all civilians. IDF estimates of militant casaulties from an incident are not counted. This seems very unlikely to produce an accurate figure.

Yeah that seems like a lie, the IDF estimate was taken into account for the Jabalia strike we're talking about.



You ask for thorough and detailed investigations into these strikes, and then you don't like the answers they give.

Seems like a perfectly valid approach to investigating these strikes, literally every available piece of information taken into account, sourced and linked. How would you modify this methodology to be more accurate?

 

[Jazny]

Yeah that seems like a lie, the IDF estimate was taken into account for the Jabalia strike we're talking about.

View attachment 2201536

You ask for thorough and detailed investigations into these strikes, and then you don't like the answers they give.

Seems like a perfectly valid approach to investigating these strikes, literally every available piece of information taken into account. How would you modify this methodology to be more accurate?

You didn't read their methodology for the patterns of harm analysis you linked and quoted? That's pretty bad tbh, where possible you should do that and if you can't at least qualify that you can't be certain how correct the information presented is.

Instead this is how you presented it:


You have taken a quote from a specific airstrike report, not the analysis you quoted and I asked you about. This is either a bad mistake by you or very disingenuous. If you don't believe me, read their methodology for yourself:

Airwars Gaza Patterns of Harm

Airwars monitors, assesses and preserves civilian casualty claims resulting from explosive weapons use in multiple conflicts.

gaza-patterns-harm.airwars.org

This report you took this quote from:

would not show up in their analysis as a strike that killed combatants unless they can identify Hamas militants among the dead of this strike through local sources, not the IDF. The fact you don't know this is a bit concerning.

PS: That report is actually a bit funny how it takes a range of 12-24 militants reportedly killed based on "dozens" which would generally mean 24-96. 12 is a dozen. The minimum "dozens" can be is 24, yet they set this as the max? Odd side note. I get they probably don't have reason to believe 96, but the range should be 24-X(insert their upper bracket estimate here).

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You didn't read their methodology for the patterns of harm analysis you linked and quoted? That's pretty bad tbh, where possible you should do that and if you can't at least qualify that you can't be certain how correct the information presented is.

I read it, and you're wrong.

Instead this is how you presented it:
View attachment 2201545

You have taken a quote from a specific airstrike report, not the analysis you quoted and I asked you about. This is either a bad mistake by you or very disingenuous. If you don't believe me, read their methodology for yourself:

Airwars Gaza Patterns of Harm

Airwars monitors, assesses and preserves civilian casualty claims resulting from explosive weapons use in multiple conflicts.

gaza-patterns-harm.airwars.org

This report you took this quote from:
View attachment 2201552
would not show up in their analysis as a strike that killed combatants unless they can identify Hamas militants among the dead of this strike through local sources, not the IDF. The fact you don't know this is a bit concerning.

But it does show up in the list of 26, so....

PS: That report is actually a bit funny how it takes a range of 12-24 militants reportedly killed based on "dozens" which would generally mean 24-96. 12 is a dozen. The minimum "dozens" can be is 24, yet they set this as the max? Odd side note. I get they probably don't have reason to believe 96, but the range should be 24-X(insert their upper bracket estimate here).

Fairly meaningless distinction. The IDF only made announcements for 6 of the 26 strikes which airwars found militants were killed - maybe if they justified their ridiculous slaughter more often there'd be a few more, but they will always have numpties running cover for them anyway.

You didn't answer the question - how would you improve the methodology so it's satisfactory to you?

 

[Zidane98]

It's pretty obvious airwaves methodology relies on Hamas admitting they are Hamas.

Hardly reliable when Hamas withholds death information about its members in death statistics released by the Gazan MOH.

I'm still yet to hear a good reason why Hamas publishes every death as a civilian death in the Gaza war. They certainly know who has been killed in their ranks.


Even Sinwar would have been counted in the death toll as were the thousands of Hamas militants eliminated in Israel on Oct 7.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

In essence airwars assumes every single casualty is a civilian in Gaza unless "local sources" say otherwise. They ignore any IDF data as they label IDF as the perpetrator - despite the obvious fact Hamas started the current war on Oct 7.

Are Hamas airstriking themselves? JFC.

And we know Israel does not do the same despite Ghost Patrol 's spectacular failure in accusing Israel of doing exactly that.

Israel 100% count any person they shoot as a terrorist, how many times do I have to post quotes from IDF sources saying exactly that?

It's pretty obvious airwaves methodology relies on Hamas admitting they are Hamas.

Airwaves

 

[Jazny]

I read it, and you're wrong.

Lol their own methodology is a lie?

But it does show up in the list of 26, so....

View attachment 2201569

Like they said, it only shows up if they find local sources identifying that a specific militant was killed in that strike, otherwise they assume they are all civilians. It's not based on the IDF's statement according to their own methodology. They list a bunch of sources in the report which they may be basing their assessment of a militant being killed on.

For anyone that is slightly confused right here above their claim about 26 cases involving militants it says:

"Airwars does not capture incidents where militants are killed but there are no corresponding civilian deaths or injuries. Airwars assumes civilian status unless there is evidence to the contrary"

This is then reflected in their more detailed methodology:



They then say this about the 26 cases: "This includes cases where militant status is ambiguous or contested"

What do they mean by this? That they are now including IDF claims against their methodology? Well, no because this is their next sentence:

For example, an individual has been recorded as a militant if they were referred to as “mujahid” or “commander” but no definitive connection to an armed group was found. This corresponds to around four percent of incidents.

So they still seem to be basing this on cases where they have used Palestinian sources to connect a militant to an airstrike.



This is what they seem to mean by the civilian status is contested. Not by the IDF, but by the information they have gathered from local sources.




You would think that if they are disregarding their own methodology for this part of the analysis, and are now including IDF claims of combatants killed, they would explicitly say that. But they don't. Do you think that's a mistake they made?

You didn't answer the question - how would you improve the methodology so it's satisfactory to you?

It's probably incredibly hard to get accurate estimates of militant deaths in any given airstrike or even overall militant deaths. That's the nature of the war. They do a good job of sourcing their claims and outlaying their methodology though, it's a good guide, but again due to their methodology, the difficulty in determining combatant status in this war, it's not surprising they were able to only link a few airstrikes to combatant deaths.

 

[Jazny]

Israel 100% count any person they shoot as a terrorist, how many times do I have to post quotes from IDF sources saying exactly that?

This is inaccurate unless you are citing sources I haven't seen in which case I would be interested to see them. Based on the Haaretz article, they seemed to be specifically talking about people attempting to cross the Netzarim corridor. Are there other sources for this claim?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Lol their own methodology is a lie?

Like they said, it only shows up if they find local sources identifying that a specific militant was killed in that strike, otherwise they assume they are all civilians. It's not based on the IDF's statement according to their own methodology. They list a bunch of sources in the report which they may be basing their assessment of a militant being killed on.

For anyone that is slightly confused right here above their claim about 26 cases involving militants it says:

"Airwars does not capture incidents where militants are killed but there are no corresponding civilian deaths or injuries. Airwars assumes civilian status unless there is evidence to the contrary"

Which should be the approach when assessing these strikes. As it would be in any other conflict in the world in modern times involving supposed 'liberal democracies'.

You have not made any other suggestion, maybe you are a bit shy to say it, but it seems your default position is 'If Israel did it, it must be a valid target'. And somehow these organisations are supposed to prove otherwise? Or just don't pay too much attention?

This is then reflected in their more detailed methodology:
View attachment 2201599


They then say this about the 26 cases: "This includes cases where militant status is ambiguous or contested"

What do they mean by this? That they are now including IDF claims against their methodology? Well, no because this is their next sentence:

For example, an individual has been recorded as a militant if they were referred to as “mujahid” or “commander” but no definitive connection to an armed group was found. This corresponds to around four percent of incidents.

So they still seem to be basing this on cases where they have used Palestinian sources to connect a militant to an airstrike.

View attachment 2201627

This is what they seem to mean by the civilian status is contested. Not by the IDF, but by the information they have gathered from local sources.
View attachment 2201636
View attachment 2201637


You would think that if they are disregarding their own methodology for this part of the analysis, and are now including IDF claims of combatants killed, they would explicitly say that. But they don't. Do you think that's a mistake they made?

It does seem inconsistent, but short of going through the other 25, and then the 580, I can't say. Maybe I will get around to it one day.

It's probably incredibly hard to get accurate estimates of militant deaths in any given airstrike or even overall militant deaths. That's the nature of the war. They do a good job of sourcing their claims and outlaying their methodology though, it's a good guide, but again due to their methodology, the difficulty in determining combatant status in this war, it's not surprising they were able to only link a few airstrikes to combatant deaths.

The IDF don't bother making announcements for 99.5% of their strikes which kill civilians, so short of your approach of 'everything's fine guys, just a normal war, just assume the IDF are doing the right thing' there really isn't any other option. As I said, maybe if the IDF supplied some info, we could just shrug our shoulders and say 'human shields' like some sort of magic spell.


What are we to think of the Oct 31 strike on the Al-Muhandeseen Tower in central Gaza, for example.

133+ civilians killed, including 67+ children.

No statement has been forthcoming from the IDF on this attack, in fact they also never replied to a Human Rights Watch letter requesting information on the cause for this attack.

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2024/03/final%20letter%20to%20IDF%20on%20Gaza%20strike%2C%2013%20March%202024%20EN-merged.pdf

Both HRW and Airwars months-long investigations into this strike have found no trace of militant activity.

Gaza: Israeli Strike Killing 106 Civilians an Apparent War Crime

An Israeli airstrike on a six-story apartment building sheltering hundreds of people in central Gaza on October 31, 2023, is an apparent war crime, Human Rights Watch said today. The attack, which killed at least 106 civilians, including 54 children, is among the deadliest single incidents for...

www.hrw.org

ISPT0784 – October 31, 2023

On October 31st 2023, an alleged Israeli airstrike on the multistorey Al-Muhandeseen Tower (the ‘Engineers Tower’) located east of Nuseirat Camp, Central Gaza, killed between 133 and 164 civilians, including a likely estimate of 67 children. Airwars was able to identify 133 civilians belonging...

airwars.org

What can we possibly say about this? How can it be anything but indiscriminate, disproportionate, and quite possibly a deliberate vengeance strike against civilians?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Good to see the IDF are doing some investigation at least. I expect many more to follow.





The IDF fired on vehicles heading towards Gaza - might be a surprise to some.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-probe-dikla-arava-and-son-tomer-arava-eliaz-likely-killed-by-israeli-fire-on-oct-7/

 

[Zidane98]

Good to see the IDF are doing some investigation at least. I expect many more to follow.

View attachment 2201750

View attachment 2201754

The IDF fired on vehicles heading towards Gaza - might be a surprise to some.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-probe-dikla-arava-and-son-tomer-arava-eliaz-likely-killed-by-israeli-fire-on-oct-7/

Why would it be surprising that IDF fired on a vehicle heading back to Gaza on Oct 7?

Thousands of militants invaded Israel on that day and went on a rampage of mass extermination, murder and sexual violence as a large scale war crime.


Should the IDF have organised an escort back to Gaza perhaps for the surviving Hamas terrorists that were able to make it back?

 

[Jazny]

Good to see the IDF are doing some investigation at least. I expect many more to follow.

View attachment 2201750

View attachment 2201754

The IDF fired on vehicles heading towards Gaza - might be a surprise to some.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-probe-dikla-arava-and-son-tomer-arava-eliaz-likely-killed-by-israeli-fire-on-oct-7/

I thought they covered it up? So now we have four cases of friendly fire confirmed in total? Like I said the whole time, I am sure this number will increase as more information comes out, but we are a long way from this massive IDF killing spree and cover up you guys thought happened against Israeli civilians as part of the Hannibal directive. Notice how the vehicle was identified as "terrorists on the run" and not "hey, that's one of our hostages! Shoot him quick as per the Hannibal Directive!".

Friendly fire is extremely common in war. This is no surprise to anyone and there is already one other known case of this happening on the day that's been known about for many months now. What is uncommon is attack helicopters flying around deliberately shooting civilians en masse because hannibal was ordered.

 

[Jazny]

Why would it be surprising that IDF fired on a vehicle heading back to Gaza on Oct 7?

Thousands of militants invaded Israel on that day and went on a rampage of mass extermination, murder and sexual violence as a large scale war crime.


Should the IDF have organised an escort back to Gaza perhaps for the surviving Hamas terrorists that were able to make it back?

He is embarrassing himself arguing against shadows.

 

[Jazny]

What can we possibly say about this? How can it be anything but indiscriminate, disproportionate, and quite possibly a deliberate vengeance strike against civilians?

Yes based on the information about the strike, it seems likely it would be a war crime. It sounds like that strike would be very hard to justify. Obviously everything depends on the information the IDF had when they made the strike, but if there were children playing in the street in the danger area, it was known to be housing that many civilians, and the IDF knew or should have known that, there isn't going to be many realistic ways that would be considered a proportionate strike.

 

[Zidane98]

Yes based on the information about the strike, it seems likely it would be a war crime. It sounds like that strike would be very hard to justify. Obviously everything depends on the information the IDF had when they made the strike, but if there were children playing in the street in the danger area, it was known to be housing that many civilians, and the IDF knew or should have known that, there isn't going to be many realistic ways that would be considered a proportionate strike.

Were any mitigation measures undertaken by IDF before the airstrike?

Leaflet warnings, double tap warning before strike, evacuations etc etc.

If the IDF went ahead and conducted an airstrike without any measures to notify / forewarn civilians that would be a serious war crime that should be punished severely.