Hamas terrorists fire anti-tank missile at IDF troops from Gaza hospital entrance
Hamas terrorists fire anti-tank missile at IDF troops from Gaza hospital entrance
Terrorist cell embedded itself within civilians around Al-Quds Hospital, fired from the hospital entrance at IDF soldiers, and was subsequently eliminated
You're viewing part of a thread.
The civilians can't suffer if they are dead so you're not wrong but are advocating for war crimes.
I think I'd rather be wrong.
What war crimes? There is a difference between war and war crimes and hardly anybody on this site knows the difference.
This site?
The perfectly homogenous lemmy?
I'm talking about intentionally targeting civilian population which is a defined war crime.
How do you figure it is not?
Good luck providing proof of intent. That should be a red flag right there about your narrative. Israel's narrative has never been that they are targeting civilians and they've shown on quite a few occasions in this current conflict that they have justification for their targets. They are at war right now. They don't have time to justify every single target to you personally.
They are bombing a fucking hospital, if you think that’s fine then you’re a shitty person as well.
IDF hasn't bombed any active hospital yet.
- bombing civilian infrastructure which is likely to have families, children, non combatants inside is a war crime.
- collective punishment is a war crime.
- forcible relocation is a war crime.
- ordering civilians to a new area and then bombing them en route or on arrival is intentional targeting of civilians, and therefore a war crime.
- blockading a population within an area which you are actively shelling is a war crime.
- depriving a population of non combatants of food and water and fuel is a war crime.
- bombing a convoy of ambulances is a war crime.
- bombing a refugee camp is a war crime.
- killing reporters is a war crime.
- use of white phosphorus on civilian targets is a war crime.
Israel has done all of these things. There is no excuse for war crimes. It doesn't matter how evil the enemy is, you are not allowed to do these things and not be a war criminal.
Civilian infrastructure are public works dedicated solely to civilians and does not inherently include power. You do not understand war crimes.
Collective punishment implies no military purpose. Israel is being very careful to include military purpose in all their narratives. You do not understand war crimes.
Forcible relocation is only occurring if Israel does not allow them to return after the current conflict is concluded. This is not relevant right now and is actively warned against. You do not understand war crimes.
Israel has not ordered civilians to any specific area they have then bombed. There's a lot of disinformation around this one in terms of hitting former routes well after they should've been gone. You don't understand the information space.
Israel has a border. That's not blockading a population in anymore than Egypt is guilty of the exact same thing within context. You don't understand war crimes.
Not providing food is not the same thing as depriving of food and it's been shown to go to Hamas, not the civilian population when they do. You don't understand the information space or war crimes. This does however show why they want to end the conflict as quickly as possible. It clouds decision making.
Bombing a convoy of mismarked vehicles is not a war crime. Just because you through a red crescent on your logistics vehicles and then use them to transport combatants does not make it an illegitimate target. Hamas does this because it works. The IDF has shown at least some of their intelligence supporting this. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/hamas-israel-war-articles-videos-and-more/war-on-hamas-2023-resources/hamas-terrorist-uses-ambulances-for-transportation-purposes/ You don't understand war crimes.
Something called a refugee camp for 80 years is not an active refugee camp. You don't understand the information space
Intentionally targeting reporters is a war crime. I'm yet to see anything close to intent but it is sad that reporters have been caught up and killed regardless. They are actively trying to gain more information from Gaza which does put them more at risk.
The IDF is not using white phosphorous munitions within Gaza City but have probably used it for illumination. This is perfectly legal. You don't understand the information space.
If any of these statements are inaccurate, feel free to provide a source that has actual evidence. War crimes happen in literally every army so don't think I don't think they happen. The difference is when it is planned, condoned, and unprosecuted by the supporting organization. That is my burden of proof. I have seen the Hamas operations order. The IDF have so far not been acting out of accordance with what's expected of a modern professional fighting force.
Civilian infrastructure are public works dedicated solely to civilians and does not inherently include power.
Did I say that civilian infrastructure includes power?
You do not understand war crimes.
I can read. I can read the UN charters. I understand war crimes.
Collective punishment implies no military purpose
No it does not. There is a definition in international law. Nothing is implied, it is defined.
Forcible relocation is only occurring if Israel does not allow them to return after the current conflict is concluded.
Again, relocating is defined in the UN charters. This is where you should go if you would like to understand the definitions of war crimes.
Israel has not ordered civilians to any specific area they have then bombed.
This has been independently verified by the BBC. Israel did exactly this, repeatedly.
Israel has a border. That's not blockading a population
And did Israel allow any Palestinians through that border after October 7th? Or did it close the border and bomb the Rafah crossing, thus blockading the entire Gaza Strip?
Not providing food is not the same thing as depriving of food
Not allowing any food in is depriving of food
Bombing a convoy of mismarked vehicles is not a war crime.
Vehicles were not mismarked, they were legit, as the Red Cross independently verified. You would also need some proof that they were mismarked before bombing them, which was not gathered.
Something called a refugee camp for 80 years is not an active refugee camp.
A "refugee camp" is not a refugee camp. What is it then? A tomato?
The IDF is not using white phosphorous munitions within Gaza City but have probably used it for illumination. This is perfectly legal.
It's not even remotely legal to use while phosphorus in areas where civilians are present, or even where event combatants may be present. Again, check the charters (chemical weapons).
Sources: Red Cross International, BBC, UN charters.
Your entire reply can be summed up as "no you are lying" without addressing any of the points. If you cannot admit that an 80 year old location called a refugee camp I'd not functioning as a refugee camp anymore I don't think there is anything you will accept as truth. You are very taken by propaganda and you do not validate claims, as a lot of folks on here do.
Literally all of these claims have been made against NATO countries when I've seen it personally to not be true and I've seen NATO take the same approach to the response. Insurgents and others at a disadvantage such as Hamas lie because it's the only way they can gain the information war. Find one example where Hamas admits that one of their members were killed. You cannot because according to them, all Israel hits are civilians and ambulances and they've never traveled in one. Not once.
I can accept it if I'm shown evidence. I'm a scientist, I need data and a sound hypothesis to change my mind. I don't care about personal experience or lived truth when I'm trying to find objective truth.
If you'd like to sum up my reply as three words, that's up to you. If you want to believe that I'm taken by propaganda, that's fine too, but it's more than a little bit intellectually lazy. There are laws that define war crimes. In my reading of them, and many others', there is between little and no room for the evidence we've seen to amount to anything other than a war crime. At least a huge amount of compelling evidence the other way would be needed to exonerate. Take for example the footage we've seen of entire square kilometers of Gaza completely flattened by building. There we have evidence of the war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure except if there's also evidence that all of it was a Hamas base. Now, it seems unlikely that this is possible, unless everyone in Gaza is a member of Hamas. Another extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence to be borne out.In general, my view on the situation in Israel has been that there are no good guys. In recent days, though, I'm watching a democratic state ally of my country committing horrific crimes against humanity, with weapons provided by my country and other allies. Hamas never had my support. Netenyahu's Israel has lost it.
If you are a scientist then I'll ask you to consider two things. How often do people talk to you about your expertise and get it wrong and how does that make you feel? Imagine if it's an ethical issue.
Occam's razor is how you handle what you see without sufficient evidence. What we are seeing is exactly what I would expect to see with a professional army taking two cities defended by 40,000 trained defenders with years to prepare. This includes the information space. Why would you think differently?
I don't expect to see anything, that's the point. That causes bias in your thinking. The evidence I have seen fulfils the criteria for war crimes, as I pointed out in my bullet-point list above. I accept that there can be excuses for these actions, but only when there is sufficient evidence to prove the extraordinary case. Now, we have seen the evidence that Israel has done these things, but we haven't seen the evidence that there are extraordinary factors. Occam's Razor requires that the explanation for an effect should contain as few agents as possible when considering the unknown causes. Adding in a tunnel network, or a Hamas base where there is no evidence for one is in violation of Occam's Razor. The simple explanation is that Israel is being indiscriminate in its attacks. As supporting factors, Israel has attacked indiscriminately and illegally in the past, and Israel has lied to the international media and community in the past.
When people ask me about my expertise I get excited that I get to talk about it. If someone were to refuse to believe me I would find it funny.
The tunnels are extremely well documented. Absence of solid evidence for an underground base would actually support the approach that Israel took. Otherwise they would simply bomb it. This is consistent with current doctrine and so evidence in support of their approach.
How do you feel about people who are ideologically opposed to your field and also ignorant?
The tunnels are not well documented enough for, say, a map of them, are they? We don't know if there is a tunnel under x or y building that has been flattened. So that's not sufficient evidence.
Like I said, I think they're funny.
can you tell hamas to also not be war criminals?