10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high.
Would be interesting to see what the death rates for journalists, medics, soldiers, etc was in afghan war, iraq war, vietnam war, etc. I highly doubt any reaches 10%.
> 10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare workers is ridiculously high.
Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. That makes comparing casualty rates incredibly difficult. (To my knowledge, nobody else has done this so comprehensively. Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated. Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.)
What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets? The point of any fighter using human shields is that the enemy doesn't fire because they don't want to hurt the human shields. If they're willing to kill the human shields, they don't help you, so why bother with them?
This apparent myth rubs me the same way as "there's no food because Hamas is stealing it" - really? All of it? For what purpose?
It's just noise. Scaling this to other examples: if there was a school shooter inside a school, should the school be bombed? The answer is a resounding no, but with Gaza it turns into a yes.
This is why the common rhetoric given from politicians and jingoists is that all of them are guilty and that no one is innocent. Using the same example, the workers and students of that school are de facto responsible because they allowed that school shooter to enter the school.
> if there was a school shooter inside a school, should the school be bombed?
If there were multiple school shooters inside one school, and they were coördinating with other shooters across the country, that becomes a valid trade off. (In a classic solo shooter scenario, everyone you want to save is inside the building. There is no external context.) In the same way that a hijacked plane, post 9/11, is a valid target for being shot down.
Much as I asked the other commenter, how many school shooters would need to be in the school before we believe it's valid?
Let's change the analogy: ISIS terrorists take over the MIT campus. Inside the university are 50 armed terrorists. Is it valid to now bomb the university? What if there are 100 terrorists?
There is no issue with scale here. No matter how much it scales, you won't reach a point where there is an ethical position that argues for the mass murder of people that we actually view as people. It only becomes ethical when we dehumanize the people affected.
So what do you think would happen if terrorists took over the MIT campus, students sympathized with them, rockets were launched from it, and the US police had no presence there and very sparse intelligence?
The shame here is what you described is literally Hamas' reasoning for carrying out the October attacks. Dehumanization, hyper aggression, and hiding it all behind 'the opposition is inherently evil, guilty by association, so we are fundamentally justified'.
Then a courier arrived with a message from Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, saying, in effect: Don’t worry, we have the Israelis right where we want them.
Hamas’s fighters, the Al-Qassam Brigades, were doing fine, the upbeat message said. The militants were ready for Israel’s expected assault on Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern edge. High civilian casualties would add to the worldwide pressure on Israel to stop the war, Sinwar’s message said, according to people informed about the meeting.
Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side? If so, what were the outcomes of these?
> Are there any other examples from history where the goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to maximize the destruction of their own side?
Every false flag operation designed to rally support for a conflict.
I'm not quite clear on what you're implying here, but in any case I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation.
> I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged war rather than an isolated false flag operation
During the Chinese civil war, the Maoists let the Nationalists take a shellacking when convenient. And while I wouldn’t say America was conducive to civilian deaths on “our” side in Vietnam or Afghanistan, it clearly wasn’t something we optimised for: our priority was protecting our troops.
Hamas is a paramilitary. It serves its own forces. The civilians of Palestine aren’t “its” people; they’re a battlefield element.
Apologies for my ignorance, but aren't Hamas literally the government of Gaza? Have they been renounced by the population in favor of any other government?
Up until quite recently in history, the vast majority of countries have been controlled by unelected autocrats, and as you say, some still are. But I don't recall that ever bothered us from associating conflicts with the countries as a whole.
We mostly don't waste time dwelling on the ethics of long dead people, and the few that do are usually seen as some ivory-tower kinds without any concern for present issues.
But rest assured that the people that study those things know quite well it's the country leaders declaring wars, not the people.
But I'm still wondering where we should be drawing the line. For example, Russia has arguably not had fair and free elections for over two decades, so should we refrain from saying that there's a war between Russia and Ukraine and instead say that there's a war between Putin's party (United Russia) and Ukraine"?
If you believe Russians are somehow to blame for this war, you are completely deluded.
Some (many) tens of thousands of people were arrested for complaining... But don't bother, their punishment was only half a year or so in prision... And in unrelated news, some (many) tens of thousands of Russian prisoners were sent to die at the Ukraine winter, on the frontline, without guns or even socks.
But no, all Russians are in full support of this war. You can read all about this on the news.
I apologize if that's what I implied, that was not my intent; I'm definitely not looking to put blame on regular Russians or anyone else.
I'm just asking a naive geopolitical question of whether we should in general be talking about countries being at war (and I just offered Russia vs Ukraine as an example), or whether it's more appropriate to think of wars as being between leaderships/militaries, whereas the rest of either country should be considered generally uninvolved? Or if "it depends", where should that line be?
If you select target liberally enough, classify combatants on liberal enough criteria and use munition liberal enough, as shown by IDF reports, numbers and whistelblower accounts, the colleteral damage becomes the target.
And hell, you are really surprised after everything Israel did in Gaza so far, that support for Hamas rises? Really? I suggest to whatch the first season of Andor for an in-depth explanation of why a hard crackdown is usually only hardening resistence.
Not sure what want to say, but here some dates, courtesy of wiki:
- Hamas won 42.5% in the elections in 2006, no elections took place since
- Hamas support was not strong, based in the few pols done, it increased after Israels attack
And the last bit what is so not surprising.
Edit: If you are interested in how we ended up with this cluster fuck, wikipedia is good place. Start way back so, in 50s, to get the necessary context. I don't have everything in my head, and reading up yourself is way faster than me retyping a summary.
Israel not leveling Gaza would have a great option.
> Hamas won 42.5% in the elections in 2006, no elections took place since
...because Israel (which still occupies and directly administers some of the territory involved) has refused to cooperate with joint PA/Hamas agreements on subsequent all-Palestine elections, preferring to freeze in place the current split and presence of "elected" governments that most people subject to weren't eligible to vote (and in Gaza, where the median age is about the interval since the election, its right on the edge of the the majority not even having been alive) at the last election.
Genozid and ethinic cleansing are not an act of self defence. That people fail to see that is troublesome.
And no, I won't go back to King David and the Romans. The current conflict between Palestinians and Israel can be traced back to right after WW2. That's were the interesting events start. Going back further is not helpful.
That's your choice, but it's just an arbitrary point in time, by which Arabs have airway been slaughtering Jews for generations. You could have just as well choose last week as a starting point.
> Calling what happened in 2006 “an election” is not a good idea.
From Wikipedia:
> An 84-delegate international observer delegation monitored the elections. It judged the elections to have been peaceful and well-administered.[33] Twenty-seven members of the European parliament were included. Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence".
So you’re gonna have to explain to me who the Arabs were that colonized Palestine in the 17th-19th century. And why that matters in relation to the current conflict. I don’t know whether the Ottoman Empire was a nation state or not (it obviously wasn’t; and I never claimed it was) has any bearing on the popularity of a resistance movement fighting a completely different occupying force.
> Because Hamas have physically killed all major opposition politicians prior to these elections.
The Palestinian Civil War (aka the Battle for Gaza) was after this election. The onset was much more complex then “Hamas killed all opposition”. But even if it was, this civil war had no effect on the election because it happened after it. If you are not referring the the civil war, which instances of political violence are you referring to? The dozens of international observers observing the election certainly didn’t see any? Were they all wrong? Is there some conspiracy we don’t know about?
Elected in 2006. Half the population weren't even alive then. Over then thousand dead children the last months also have had no say even if there had been a recent election. Don't try to blame this on the victims.
Yes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see that if you base your operations there the enemy is allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your civilian population that's another reason countries don't do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
yes, right. Lately they preemptively killed civilians when they were in a line for flour, because they were caring for civilians, and therefore prevented them from overeating.
After so many dead Palestinians whether combatants or not, compared to the number of killed Israelis, there is no other way? Laughable. Don't buy into IDF propaganda too much.
You have to think about the exploitability of your strategy. Both the IDF and Hamas optimize for a low exploitability number (though, Israel, really, you need to stagger your religious holidays, this is the second time this kind of thing has happened...), having a "kill count limiter" (in a value less than the mid single digit millions) is obviously a bad strategy and is extremely exploitable.
Are these civilians not their families and communities? According to Hamas does death for their cause not earn you points for your glorious after life? You have to understand their beliefs to understand how they justify their actions. I have no doubt what they are doing is sensible to them else why would they do it?
Protected sites lose their protected status under the law of armed conflict if they are used to hide/support combatants. Agree or disagree with Israel's targeting policies; that's still the law and has been for decades.
THe reason these "international laws" are accepted by majority of modern nations is because they are somewhat reasonable and allow parties to military conflicts to wage military campaigns while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.
If the laws are rewritten to state "you are never allowed to attack a hospital or a school. No exception", then what will follow is one party to the war will put their military installation insides schools and hospitals and the other party to the war to the war will say "these geneva conventions are unreasonable and we wont follow it"
In other words, nobody would respect Geneva conventions if they are unreasonable
Regardless of any second-order effects, the truth on the ground is that many thousands of innocents are suffering, and I have a hard time seeing any societal configuration where civilians can be legally blown up or starved en masse as anything but immoral. If a terrorist government is embedded in your population centers, it should not be legal to raze those population centers in retribution.
How do you distinguish "retribution" from eliminating the threat posed by (in your words) a terrorist government?
What do you propose as an alternative? Simply allow the terrorist government to continue to operate unimpeded, which enables attacks on your own citizens?
There's no population on the planet that would accept that.
Israel is already doing that (for valid reasons IMO) and it hasn’t lost support; if anything, Israel’s position with other Arab countries has never been better. They too would like to see Hamas gone.
So the UN Security Council vote for resolutions against Israel with only 1 dissenting vote (USA) is not losing international support? Or the cavalcade of countries around the world coming out in support of ending the occupation at the ICJ with only 3 countries in support of Israel versus the nearly 60 countries against? Not sure where you get your news, but you may want to consider another source. Would love to hear your valid reasons... but please before giving them to me, how about reading about the Zionism movement (est 1897) the balfour declaration (1917) the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (an ac of terrorism that killed 91 people - mostly british army officers) and the Nakba (1948) the Deir Yassin Masacre - and the many others... and maybe we can have an intelligent discourse.
Doesn't your argument boil down to "wars are not moral"?
When the Iraqis and the US were besieging and pounding Mosul, was there a lot of discussion about the suffering of the innocents? Did the US or anyone else air drop supplies to them or send aid trucks into Mosul? Maybe- but I don't recall.
Let's not forget that ISIS was thousands of miles from the US and the US was under no direct threat. Contrast that to an enemy much stronger in numbers and arms vs. ISIS 15 minutes from your cities.
This is just evidence to what is the "standard" in how wars are waged in similar situations.
Before the Geneva convention, and obviously after the Geneva convention, some countries/armies would just fire artillery into the besieged city and drop bombs and starve them until there's no more resistance. This would be the Russian or Syrian approach which they copy-pasted many times in the Syrian civil war and in Ukraine (by both sides). Israel is not doing that.
All that said, I think Israel should strive within reason to facilitate aid delivery to civilians. It is doing that but it can probably do more. There are some portions of the Israeli public that think that after Oct 7th the "enemy" should be brought to their knees by any tactic but I don't think that's the majority and I don't think that's what the decision makers are pursuing. There are challenges in getting aid to people in a war zone where random people pop up with RPGs and shoot things or steal the aid for military purposes. If something goes wrong, like it did the other day, and many people died, Israel takes flak (essentially for trying to get aid into those problematic places).
The Hamas, being the elected government of Gaza, and having hoarded provisions for their prolonged battle, is also responsible for the well being of their citizens. They don't give a damn but we shouldn't forget they're responsible (in many ways) for the current situation.
In terms of "razing" there is extensive use of bulldozers, bombs and demolition to neutralize mines, booby traps, tunnel shafts. Expose tunnels. Remove positions the enemy can utilize. This is why the IDF has managed to take over most of Gaza with relatively low casualties (still a lot but a lot less than was expected). I'm ok with this morality in this context, minimizing my casualties in a conflict that the other side insists on continuing. There is a fine line there and the line is international law (which generally allows these tactics).
Hamas was elected in 2006. Hamas was initially funded by Israel - yes they are an Israeli creation to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Let that sink in for a minute. Over 50% of Gaza's population was born after this election. Of the remaining, there was barely 40% turnout and Hamas barely won. But yet, you cling to the narrative fed to you that they are all guilty (which means you ascribe to collective punishment - a war crime).
The infrastructure destruction has been going on for decades. Israel routinely destroys Palestinian homes prior to October 7th. Is that Hamas? when they do it in the West Bank where Hamas is not active, is that Hamas too? How about the Thousands of Palestinian Men, Women and Children arrested without charge or trial and help in inhuman detention camps, is that Hamas? or are you maybe just trying to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed United States political, financial and military support so that you can sleep better at night.... it was Hamas is getting old. At some point you need to wake up and understand that the real boogeyman is Israel. They are not your friend
Hamas was not "initially funded by Israel". References?
Support for violence and Hamas amongst Palestinians is not "my narrative". It's truth supported by numerous surveys. If you want to get some color go look for the YouTube channel that interviews Palestinians on the street on topical questions over the last decade or so.
Hamas enjoys broad support and would get re-elected, that's why we didn't see any elections after 2006, because the PA would have lost to Hamas. Also the attack of Hamas on Oct 7th has broad support and previous to Oct 7th support for the use of violence against Israel was similarly broad.
"The polls shows 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching its October 7 onslaught, in which some 1,200 people in Israel, mostly civilians, were murdered and over 240 were taken hostage. A large majority believes Hamas’s claims that it acted to “defend” the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and win the release of Palestinian security prisoners. Only 10% say they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the terrorists committing atrocities."
"The poll found that 53% of Palestinians believe Hamas is “most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people,” while only 14% prefer Abbas’ secular Fatah party." (2021)
I can give you 100's of more surveys over the last decade. It might be true that Hamas' support today in Gaza is waning given the circumstances but probably rising in the west bank. Palestinians were celebrating Oct 7th.
Anyways we are talking about Gaza, how did this get to the West Bank? Your statements about the west bank are also wrong. Israel demolishes houses of terrorists that murder Israeli civilians. That's pretty much the only "routinely destroys homes" I can think of. Israel doesn't arrest children and put them in inhuman(e?) detention camps, where do you get that stuff?
Israel isn't perfect by any means, but the bad guys in this story are the Palestinians. There's no excuse for things like suicide bombers blowing up busses, malls, and restaurants. There's no excuse of Oct 7th. They chose indiscriminate violence as their way of settling the conflict and refused any peaceful attempts to settle it. You're the one that needs to wake up and at the very least learn the facts of this conflict before you make up your mind. EDIT: Also no excuse to firing 10's of thousands of rockets and mortars into Israeli population centers. All these things are war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel's actions as a whole are not.
Things are very simple in my eyes. If tens of thousands of innocents are dying without an end in sight, there is a bleed that needs to be stemmed immediately. It does not matter who started it or whether the crisis is being used as propaganda or leverage. The truth is on the ground.
It would be great to "defeat Hamas" as a solution, but I'm not sure how that's feasible at this point without razing Gaza.
Things are not simple, and a simplistic take of this matter is very prevalent, sadly. I mean, what are even the real numbers? Did you forget about the Hamas rocket hitting a hospital in Gaza, which they claimed was Israel's bombing that killed 500 civilians? Later they settled on 50, when it was widely accepted that it was their doing.
Fighting Hamas is hard, mostly because it uses civilian population and infrastructure to its benefit, but what are the alternatives? reward Hamas' actions by letting them off the hook? I haven't heard any other suggestion on how do deal with Hamas except for fighting them head on.
Are you sure that stopping it will actually minimize the number of deaths in the long run? Is it better to kill 20000 people in a short time to reach permanent peace, or to save some of those people and then repeat the whole ordeal each 2 years, with more and more bloodshed?
I don’t pretend to have an answer, but war brings up very hard to answer moral questions.
This a common misunderstanding of the international laws of war, and international law in general.
In our personal lives the government can compel us to follow the law with the threat of overwhelming force; if I break the law I will be arrested, and regardless of how much I fight back I will not be able to stop it. Laws in our everyday lives are like commands from a parent to a child; the government, as the parent, can and will compel the child's obedience.
International law is different. If a state breaks international law, there is no entity willing or capable of using overwhelming force to compel obedience. States have armies and some have nuclear weapons; the amount of force required to compel a state to behave a certain way is huge, and generating that force is extremely costly. When states break international law there are consequences, but at the end of the day violence is generally not on the table.
Effective international law is a balancing act. An international standard of warfare that placed extremely strict standards on when it was permissible to kill civilians would make fighting a war significantly harder. No state would obey such a law because winning the war is the absolute highest priority, making the law worthless. Instead, laws of war try to outlaw actions that don't affect the ability of a country to win a war. No chemical or biological weapons (high explosives are more effective), humane treatment of prisoners (discourages the enemy fighting to the death), and no killing civilians unless in the pursuit of a military objective (if it's not in pursuit of a military objective, then it's a waste of resources). The goal of the laws of war is to prevent unnecessary violence, not prevent violence altogether. It's a case of "perfect is the enemy of good."
Hamas is free to hand out uniforms to its soldiers to prevent civilians getting killed. They’re also free to build barracks instead of tunnels underneath schools to house their fighters. Until they do so civilians will continue to suffer.
The very reason these laws are there is to protect civilians. A hospital can more or less safely operate in a war zone if both parties play by the rules and actually care for their people. If you exploit these very rules for military advantage, then why not just put red crosses on your attack helicopters as well? There aren’t too many laws to war, but this just fundamentally makes sense.
GP is wrong. There is the law of proportionality in the Geneva Conventions which requires "that the expected incidental harm is not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."
>The word to pay attention to here is "military advantage" - i.e. "military value" of the target.
Seeing a "hamas" go into a hospital or a rocket being fired from it doesn't give Israel the green light to bomb it. While there is no well-defined metric or number that defines proportionality - it is safe to say that Israelis don't meet the necessary criteria by any reasonable measure. Establishing the necessary proportionality to justify an attack on a hospital, refugee camp or shelter is needless to say, extraordinarily high.
Take the recent ICC arrest warrants as an example. The ICC just ruled that Russian targeting of Ukraine's power grid constituted a war crime.“During this timeframe, there was an alleged campaign of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations, which were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine,” the court said. "The ICC said the attacks led by Koblylash and Sokolov on Ukraine’s electrical grid caused civilian harm which was excessive when compared with any expected military advantage". This even though power infrastructure has clear military value.
Now look at the siege and attack on Shifa hospital. If Shifa was a vital command-and-control hub where the head of Hamas operated from , or if it contained a major ammo depot - that may constitute sufficient military value to justify the incidental deaths caused by attacking a hospital. A calendar and a couple of AKs behind an MRI machine doesn't does not. Moreover the fact that Israelis had to go in and spend weeks on a fishing expedition to dig up (or make up) the sufficient evidence to justify the attack after-the-fact, proves that they didn't have the necessary justification to stage the attack in the first place. Thus the attack on the hospital violates the Geneva conventions and is a war crime. (But don't hold your breath for any action from the ICC - They are extremely biased and beholden to US and NATO interests).
At this point the mountain of evidence is simply undeniable. When we compare the intensity of atrocity committed by the Israelis, to those in other recent conflicts - Mosul, Homs, Mariupol, Grozny, Yemen- the israelis sails past them all with a healthy margin. Israelis killed more children in a few months than the syrians, russians did over many years. In terms of civillian/combatant ratio and the sheer intensity of civillian deaths in a short time-frame- I am not aware of any national force committing similar attrocity in the 21st century (Maybe the Ethiopian civil war, but I don't know, i am not versed on that conflict) If this was Russia or Iran we wouldn't be having this conversation.
*>When we compare the intensity of atrocity committed by the Israelis, to those in other recent conflicts - Mosul, Homs, Mariupol, Grozny, Yemen- the israelis sails past them all with a healthy margin.
According to Ukrainian sources, at least 25,000 people died in the siege of Mariupol over the course of less than three months. The current conflict in Gaza is grave, but it is not incomparable or unprecedented.
I remember 10k being the more frequently quoted number. But maybe that needs to be revisited - I was more naive about the degree of underreporting on ukrainian casualties. Maybe the truth is closer to 25k - which would make it comparable to Gaza. It will be difficult/impossible to know the real number given the reported cremations, the fact that the city is under Russian control, and that lot of the missing include residents who fled/were-transferred to Russia. The Gaza numbers are likely higher than official report given all the missing who are still under the rubble.
But the burden of proof rests on the army that attacks said protected site. They need to show that it hid or supported enemy combatants. And to date, no such proof has been provided. Show me proof of the expansive military complex with their large cache of weapons and hidden combatants and I will gladly shut-up.
The Israeli video footage showing of Hamas rocket launch sites inside Gaza schools are faked? Ditto the phone recordings of Hamas ordering ambulances for military transport those are fake as well? Do you believe Hamas follows “laws of war”? When they fire rockets at civilian populations? Are the Hamas rocket attack videos faked? Once the other side starts to bomb your cities and kill your civilians what should they expect will happen to their cities? War is an ugly brutal contest to terrorize or kill the other side to stop resisting. We try to have rules to control war but history shows once those rules start to get violated by one side you should not expect others to stick to them.
All that said I think Israel will be responsible for lots of broken innocent civilian lives and broken infrastructure when this is all done and their best policy in Gaza will be like USA had towards Germany and Japan after WW2.
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing.
And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and those warnings were intentionally being ignored to maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in seeing it.
From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it can't be done" only to end with significantly more difficult conditions.
Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals) which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused increased civilian casualty rates and the eventual almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult conditions.
The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities, where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not what most people think about when they hear "refugee camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be other reasons.
All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I don't think this that's necessarily a violation of international law given that warnings were given. It's within the realm of what I would call a military objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying their infrastructure).
I didn't say that Israel has never ordered an evacuation. I pushed back on the commenter who stated that finding a militant in a hospital or school makes it a valid target.
> From my observation
Well from Human Rights Watches observation:
> Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them, nor seen any information that would justify attacks on Gaza hospitals. When a journalist at a news conference showing video footage of damage to the Qatar Hospital sought additional information to verify voice recordings and images presented, the Israeli spokesperson said, “our strikes are based on intelligence.” Even if accurate, Israel has not demonstrated that the ensuing hospital attacks were proportionate.
Again, giving a warning doesn't make it ok to bomb a school. Notice how the HRW quote mentions the attack not being "proportionate"? That's why I seek advice from the experts.
"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."
We've seen some evidence that hospitals are used outside their humanitarian function.
It's true that even if the hospital loses it's protection that does not mean that it's ok to just go ahead and level it because of the presence of a single combatant (and that hasn't happened, I'm pretty sure e.g. no hospital in Gaza suffered a direct bombing attack e.g. but it may be ok under certain circumstances to completely level a hospital that is used for military purposes if enough warning has been given), the proportionality principles still applies. Proportionate has a very specific meaning in terms of the Geneva convention which most people aren't familiar with. I agree that the IDFs actions must be proportionate in that sense. The IDF claims its actions are. The IDF has lawyers that evaluate actions against international law.
Human Rights Watch isn't necessarily an unbiased observer here. Naturally they would not have access to the IDF's intelligence and the IDF can be justified in not sharing its intelligence to protect its sources.
My basic take is why is it beneficial for the IDF to waste time and resources attacking hospitals that have no military use? It's bad PR, it's wasted efforts that could be directed somewhere else. Doesn't make sense. It's possible it could be "more careful" in avoiding those in certain situations. Is it the highest item in the priority list (e.g. above the security of IDF soldiers), probably not.
There's certainly been no shortage of rhetoric on the Israeli side to exact revenge for Oct 7th. Some of it very extreme. The events of that day traumatized Israelis.
I don't think most Israelis really think the Palestinians are the biblical "Amalek". More like the children of "Ishmael", i.e. "cousins". They likely do view Hamas specifically as an entity that should be annihilated. i.e. all 40k or so Hamas combatants killed or captured. But even if we take this at face value it's still stupid to waste energy on a place that's known to not be a military threat while there are active military threats. First finish the military threat.
When it comes to international law, i think human rights groups are more like the "prosecuter" than a neutral party. They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
When HRW says Israel is bad, i think its a bit like when a cop says the person they arrested is bad. It may very well be true, but i wouldn't put it as a sure thing until some sort of trial is done.
P.s. in regards to "porportionate" - keep in mind that has a special definition in international law that is different from how people use it in normal conversation.
> They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very few human right groups would have an interest that aligns with that.
Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to determine truth its probably better to start from a place of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence, not the other way around.
You seem to have left out the 17 year blockade of Gaza by Israel, the intentional starvation of the population. The occasional bombings and "targeted" airstrikes... sure they just randomly attacked Israel one day because they felt like it...
That's not the order things occurred. When Israel left Gaza it left it to the Palestinian authority and it wasn't blockaded (there was some partial blockade but it was practically open). The present walls and barriers around Gaza were put in place after the disengagement as a response to specific attacks coming out of Gaza.
The previous restrictions on Gaza were also a result of attacks coming out of Gaza on Israeli civilians.
If the population was starving while Hamas, the government of Gaza, managed to smuggle in RPGs, assault rifles, lathes, trucks, rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns etc. then clearly the issue is a matter of their priorities, not Israel. Hamas stole concrete to make tunnels, used water pipes to make rockets, was the elected government, and is completely responsible if its population is starving (which I don't think was true anyways). You're also somehow conveniently leaving Egypt out of the picture. Why should Israel feed its enemies (and allow them to work in Israel, and give them water and power). Egypt could have done all that. But Hamas didn't only pick a fight with Israel- they also collaborated with ISIS in Sinai and picked a fight with Egypt.
They "randomly attacked Israel one day" because they are consumed by hate and religious fanaticism. Just listen to what they say. If they chose peace, they'd get peace, Israel has no interest in randomly attacking them.
what is "Israel"? are you referring to the people of Israel? Do you believe that 9 million Israelis have interest of killing and displacing Palestinians and crush them as a people?
and what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
Going by Israeli TV, Telegram channels and polls, unfortunately it really does seem like a large proportion of Israelis think of Palestinians as sub-human bugs to be crushed.
Already we've seen settlers building an "outpost" inside Gaza, while Israeli soldiers watch on. Meanwhile, Israeli civilians block aid to starving children, again while the IDF watch.
> what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Is it "how to Palestinians feel about Israelis?". If so, I don't know, but I can imagine how I might feel if I'd been dehumanised my entitre life; lived under brutal occupation/blockade my entire life, seen siblings carted off to be tortured in Israeli dungeons, had my father shot in front of me etc. Perhaps Israel should stop stealing land and homes, and stop their institutionalised dehumanisation of Palestinians; many Israelis seem to need de-radicalising.
You specifically asked me for a response about "one side" - I respond, and am accused of bias. I just looked at your post history, and I regret engaging with you, as well, talk about hypocrisy.
I can answer that for you, we expect Israel to abide by the 1993 Oslo Accords which provides for a two state solution agreed upon by both parties. So far Israel has breached that agreement since day one.
In reference to the same poll: "A vast majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the IDF is using an appropriate amount or not enough force" [0]. "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll said they think the IDF is using “too little firepower” in Gaza" [1]
I think most Israelis do not believe peace is possible with the Palestinians. This is a result of the suicide bombing campaign that followed the Oslo peace process.
But I don't think your survey shows what you're saying it shows. I've no doubt that more Israeli Jews want peace than Arabs. Find me a survey that asks this question to both population, do you prefer peace or a war. I have no doubt what the answer would be. You can see this in the public discourse, the Palestinian population supports "resistance" which is war. you won't find much Israeli discourse about initiating violence against the Palestinian population pre Oct 7th. See this: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians...
Palestinians could have peace at any time. On Israeli terms. They can have their freedom, their humans rights. What they can't have is the land they demand, the right of return, and the eviction of the state of Israel.
In terms of Gaza, it's not surprising Israelis are disappointed with the progress in the war. It's been 5 months and Gaza hasn't been completely retaken and Hamas has not been defeated as a military. Again I don't think this actually supports your point of view at all or necessarily paints Israelis in a bad light. If Hamas hadn't attacked on Oct 7th we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since they have Israel is using all its might to destroy them and yes there are severe consequences to the Gazans. Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal. The Russians e.g. would undoubtedly apply a lot more force. Even most of the western world would and has.
> Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal
If we're being honest, I think that perception (such that it may exist) largely depends upon the race of the subject states. Consider the recent bomb blast on Iran, attributed to Israel - if Iran responded in the same manner as Israel did after Oct 7th, our govs would be denouncing them as evil incarnate!
In any case, I really think - really hope - that's not true; surely most civilians don't think forced starvation, massacres of children, torture etc are "OK". If so, there is no hope for humanity.
And bear in mind this is not "just" about Gaza - many more people now know about Israel's illegal and dehumanising actions towards Palestinians, whipping up Islamophobia, and general land-theft and terrorism throughout the region. And we do not understand how this is allowed to happen in our name, supported by our governments.
> Even most of the western world would and has.
In the past, yes. And in times gone by, civilians were kept informed of global events by newspapers and TV news. Now, we are basically seeing a genocide, land-grab and oil-grab unfold right before our very eyes, from the normal, everyday people who are affected - people who now don't seem so different to us, people just like us.
What recent bomb blast on Iran? You're not seriously comparing slaughtering and raping party goers (to say the least), abducting woman, babies and elderly, to a clandestine operation against some infrastructure. Iran says it wants to destroy Israel (and why?) and acts towards it. Israel is allowed to counteract that.
If Israel raided Iran, raped Iranian woman, beheaded random Iranian citizens, abducted Iranian children and elderly, Iran would absolutely be justified to start a war with Israel. Many Iranians are strong supporters of Israel in this conflict by the way. In a war you do anything possible, these days within international law, to defeat your enemy and I'd fully expect Iran to try that under those circumstances.
You're insisting Israel is the bad side here. I'm going to respectfully disagree. There is no comparison between the moral positions of Israel and Hamas.
We're seeing war. The use of the word genocide in the context of this war is propaganda and is eroding the meaning of that word.
EDIT: It's also important to consider that Iran is already waging a proxy war on Israel. A war with no justification.
> that and the fact over 500 Israeli soldiers were killed by Hamas in Gaza so far
Israel are the occupying, attacking force, and have massacred thousands of civilians. You want me to care about war criminals, who routinely broadcast their depraved attrocities on TikTok? Come on now.
Israel is not defending itself. They are actively murdering civilians to the point you can claim it as genocide. [0] Hamas did not killed those civilians it was Israel who killed them.[1] Israel dehumanized Palestinians[2][3]. He is not a Jew hater, you are accusing him of something he is not and trying to deny the reality of the atrocities committed by Israel. As for all Jews, yes, they are all the same. If the Jews didn't have someone at the head of the Jews who was dedicated to building Solomon's temple by committing this atrocity, the Jews wouldn't have the courage to act.
> the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."
What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have battles with groups who want to spin the truth.
I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political system right now is that we don't have enough organizations willing to battle against our own partisan pressure groups (without siding with any of them).
Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to understand an organization that hasn't.
As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising money from private supporters there, not the Saudi government. Do you think no one in SA supports human rights?
Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the Saudis, take a look at:
Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia?
And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights.
HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. Maybe they just have profitable principles, I dunno.
Israel has bombed the designated safe areas significantly less than the other areas. This is fact. It also never promised not to bomb them and has consistently said that it will go after military targets in those areas as well. This is also fact. Israel has every right to do so according to international law. Israel's intention was to move civilians out of areas that are going to see heavier/intense fighting as the IDF moves to take them over on the ground.
Palestinian propaganda repeats this first point, it's not in good faith.
I'm not familiar with the second incident you're mentioning but I'm sure in any major war there will be plenty of examples of "things that are really bad". E.g. in the Ukraine-Russia war summary executions of surrendering soldiers, intentional bombing of civilians, are things that happen a lot and don't make the news. Give me one example of a major war where these things don't happen. For a western country the answer should be that these incidents should be investigated and the individuals punished. I think that rarely happens (e.g. you're not going to find many incidents of US soldiers, or "private security contractors", punished in the various wars the US engaged with). We should still strive for that. I'm pretty sure the IDF command does not order tanks to run over civilians, that is not policy, quite the opposite.
> Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals)
That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK sends raids into Russia to kill Russians and then retreats and mixes with civilian population in the UK, what do you feel is a legitimate move or tactic by Russia to defend its citizens in this hypothetical situation?
And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7, being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to see their family, London being half the UK capital and half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years and no one in the world does anything because the richest country in the world blindly supports Russia ?
It's less of a context than your political position or opinion. I think it's also at the very least naive and simplistic. As one example, those checkpoints you're describing did not exist before terrorism such as suicide bombers and other indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They also do not exist in Gaza. I'm finding it hard to follow the rest of your analogy.
My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times.
Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
And I can also say that your view is less context than a personal biased view on the situation. Mixing up Hamas and Palestinians as if they're all the same. Excusing Israel's response as just and proportionate, meaning that shelling entire neighborhoods, sniping people left and right, shooting at an ambulance are somehow fighting terrorism. Saying on all platforms that the goal is to "exterminate animals", from the highest personnel in positions of power. Shooting civilians who try to get food, blocking humanitarian convoys from entering, putting as part of a plan the total blockade of water, food, electricity of millions of people, that's fighting terrorism ?
> Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it.
> Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine,
EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034>
> But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably.
We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy.
Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
I think we do agree given your last sentence. I'll sign on to that.
On the details of the history this wasn't "my country come to your land and forced you to leave" it was more like "Jewish people immigrated to this region, their historic homeland, many expelled from their homes in Europe and the middle east and had no options" (compare e.g. to Chinese people from Hong Kong immigrating to Canada) and "war started by the Arab countries against the UN recognized state of Israel led to 700,000 Palestinians refugees" (I'd compare to millions of German refugees in Europe post their loss in WW-II). Jewish immigration to the region was legal and should be viewed as moral on many levels. If the Arab population were to look at it as the positive that it could have been then we'd all be living happily ever after in a prosperous middle east. If anything millions of Jews could have been saved in WW-II if Britain were to allow more of them to immigrate- that was immoral. The Arabs had, and still do, see this as a (racist) zero sum game, not a win-win (vs. how Canada looks at immigration again e.g.). Read Israel's declaration of independence to see how Israel's leadership looked at it (and keep in mind this was 1948!).
The settlements are a tricky topic. I'm opposed to them and the settlers. But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement". That's their political perspective and IMO both racist and a distortion of history.
Thanks for providing your pov, it explains a lot of things and even though I have my views I can totally understand why we disagree:
> Jewish immigration to the region was legal
This is the crux of where we disagree. It was legal based on international law, but international law is just western law: Palestinians and neighboring countries said no, and under the same international law they were in the right: they have the right to self-determination. So if we take the legal point, the argument is not receivable
> and should be viewed as moral on many levels
That's plainly subjective and my own thinking makes me say it's immoral to displace hundreds of thousands of people and take their homes, their land, their food, just because.
> But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement"
I disagree, anyone I've seen talking about the colonialist aspect of Israel is specifically all the illegal settlements outside its borders, it's the massive control of Palestinian population, it's forbidding them access to their own sea, that kind of things. Everyone who talks about it is clear.
When people talk about the existence of Israel and its racist laws, they will rather use the term "apartheid" which is closer to the truth.
In any case, those disagreements are to be put in perspective to what we both agree on, and that is the nice note of this discussion :)
I wonder if Sir William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, would be considered a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter. When England invaded and occupied and imposed ridiculous rules on them, should they have not fought back? How about the Potato Famine, how many of you know that this was caused by England INTENTIONALLY by shipping all the food out of Ireland to England. is Sinn Fein a terrorist group still? or were they so named because they fought an occupier?
I'm not familiar at all with these stories. I should read about them.
I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence.
A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.
Gaza is among the most densly populated areas on earth. By definition, any military installation is close to civilians. Same goes for a lot of IDF, and every other military, ehich has bases next to a city. Doesn't mean one just can indiscriminately bomb everything and everyone...
What you have neglected is history. The last time Israel pushed people out of their homes, they were not allowed to return. This fact is seared into the memory of every Palestinian for generations. They carry the keys to their original homes to this day. So forgive them for not wanting to abandon their only homes because they want to kill people they have been abusing for decades. Please read your history prior to making unfounded statements and justifications.
The Palestinians have their own version of history which let's just say is inaccurate. One example is they underplay the seriousness of the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 and things like the Egyptian air force bombing Tel-Aviv seem to evaporate from their version of events. They also tend to completely forget about their collaboration with Nazi Germany and the numerous attacks against Jews pre-1948. Really history in the sense of "his story". You can argue Israelis also do this, which is probably correct, but I think you'll find more diverse views in Israeli society and more access to facts. In fact many Palestinians use Israeli historians as their reference (while conveniently not pointing out what parts of their claims are still under debate/disagreement).
It's true that some people were forced to leave after the Arabs started a war on Israel in 1948 and those people generally weren't allowed back. It's also true that many people chose to leave and also weren't allowed back. That said your logic makes no sense to anyone with western values IMO. Your life is more important than your property. I.e. between the option of staying in your property and dying and leaving and not dying the choice for most people in the west is clear. It's true that if they leave they may not be allowed to return. We can argue about the morality of that given they started this current war as well. I think in practice Gazans will be allowed to go back, but time will tell and events will transpire. If anything in practice leaving their homes to allow Israel to focus on Hamas would have likely shortened the war and increased their chances of getting back home and to normality sooner.
I can't really follow your logic who is wanting to kill who and who has been abusing who.
“Refugee camp” is just a legal designation for certain areas in the Gaza Strip. It refers to “refugees” from events that took place decades before almost anyone in the Gaza Strip was even born.
It's a dense urban area, it has civilians and children.
That bomb is large enough to level an apartment block, so ~100 casualties and they don't know where it will land. Who are they targeting with that type of bomb, 1 Hamas fighter hiding among population?
It's error margin is in hundreds of meters. You are not allowed to kill 100 innocent people in the hopes (not certainty!) of getting 1 enemy soldier. That's exactly what 'indiscriminate killing of civilians' means.
That is why United States has never used this size of bomb, let alone unguided, in it's recent wars in Urban areas. They were also fighting guerrilla fighters - Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.
The act of using this weapon in Urban area is a war crime, just as it would be a war crime to use chemical weapons, etc.
I am really puzzled by you posting this and thinking it justifies bombing. Are you unable to imagine how this would look if the shoe was on the other foot?
Imagine there was happening in New York - and someone posted a video “They are using Subway and maintenance tunnels to deliver supplies” - obviously infrastructure would be used!
Next step: “therefore any building over a tonne is a valid military target”. Do you realise that would mean basically any building in New York?
If that were true, you could bomb hospitals and it would never be a war crime. You must realise that if you actually think through the logical consequences of your argument.
Military facilities are things like an arsenal, munitions depo, barracks, forward operating base, fire support base, etc. To the best of my knowledge, this was never found.
what are you talking about? my reply was to “credible evidence of a large, undergroud Hamas facility” and I posted that, and not via israeli, but via hamas own channels. I have no idea why you replied what you did.
i guess the result of that civilian smuggling is the access to food, medicine and other lifesaving goods for the civilians? oh, no, it seems like it is weapons and hostages.
I suggest that all nations everywhere blow up their roads, then. After all, they too are civilian infrastructure that is abused for the evil purposes of transporting tanks and ammunition. It must be stopped!
Former AP reporters have come forward and admitted that not only was the AP well aware of Hamas’ presence and activity in the building, but that from time to time, armed Hamas men would burst into their offices demanding they not report on some of those activities.
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Interesting. I wonder whether genocide of all people seriously harmed by IDF since Oct 7 should also be added to the list of war crimes obsoleted in this recent war. It only makes sense, since all these people are enemies of the state of Israel with a very high probability of causing harm to the civilians living there in the future. Geneva conventions are really showing their age in the past few months.
It's likely he would not be allowed to leave by internal forces. Obviously he could try to sneak away but that's what the Russia aligned guy did back in 2014...
funny, I dont recall 25 year olds forbidden from leaving the US during the last how many years and countless wars? I also dont see a general notice in israel to not leave the country.
But even if it happens other places, it does not change what it is
That assumes upper bound of published figures, 130. Lower bound is about 90. If 130 is 10%, 90 would be 7%. In my estimation post I took conservatively wikipedia's count, close to the lower bound.
Would be interesting to see what the death rates for journalists, medics, soldiers, etc was in afghan war, iraq war, vietnam war, etc. I highly doubt any reaches 10%.