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.
It is neither my place, nor my responsibility to physically take part in this conflict. However, it certainly IS my place and responsibility, as a human being, to say that purposefully killing innocent civilians and blowing up functional hospitals is evil. Yes, even when there is a bad guy hiding inside.
Bless your heart, sweet summer child.
So, in your mind, rules of engagement allow destroying civilian infrastructure that currently hosts many civilians so you can kill a handful of bad guys?
Article 19 of Geneva states that if a hospital is being used to store military equipment and active military combatants, then it loses its protection.
However, it certainly IS my place and responsibility, as a human being, to say that purposefully killing innocent civilians and blowing up functional hospitals is evil
It's your responsibility to actually know what is happening before you spout false things online.
War is evil. Nothing they are doing is without military purpose. This is a justified conflict. Your perspective is naive and not based in reality and/or military law. Israel did everything they could to avoid this conflict, most of which has been misconstrued as genocide against Palestine.
They have absolutely not made any attempt to avoid conflict
Just wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies in your comment.
- This is no longer a justified conflict. A state has the right to self defence in a limited way. The right to self defence does not override the rules on collective punishment. The right to self defence does not include the right to invade a state where the enemy is a terrorist group within that state, rather than the state itself. The right to self defence does not override the rules on attacking civilian infrastructure (especially ambulances) even where there is suspicion that a terrorist organisation may be using it. The right to self defence does not override the rules on forcible relocation or blockade. In short, the response to an enemy using a human shield must not be to eliminate the shield. It's astounding that so many people seem to need this explained to them. This is borne out by international law, cf. the UN charters.
- Israel did not do everything they could do to avoid this conflict. The one thing they had to do was to abide by the Oslo accords, yet they have built settlements in Palestine every single day since signing, and restricted Gazans every single day since signing. The two state solution has failed as a result of Israel's actions. In terms of actions since October 7th, the usual way to go about dismantling an embedded terror organisation is to use counterintelligence, ground ops and precision strikes. The reasons are obvious, I hope. The only way to get those hostages back is either by freeing them in covert ops or by negotiation at a political level. Destroying entire city blocks from the air will not get the hostages back, as we all know.
- The label genocide is not misconstrued, according to the UN genocide experts. Some say there is a grave risk that this is a genocide, based on the available facts, and some say that it already fulfills the criteria.
I can provide sources for all of my claims, if you'd prefer not to do the legwork yourself.
Lol literally none this si accurate
How do you write so much and get everything wrong
It's literally all verifiable and true.
It is accurate, and I can back it up with data. Is there anything in particular you think is incorrect? Or are you just annoyed with it in general.
Literally everything you wrote is wrong so yeah, start anywhere.
Ok let's start with this one:
"Israel has built illegal settlements in Palestine every day since signing the Oslo accords"
Go ahead. Prove that wrong.
"Wrong" isn't so much the right word as "heavily misleading." Here's a good deep dive for why no one adheres to Oslo.
If you'd like to actually say anything meaningful, that would be fun. Snark doesn't get you anywhere when someone knowledgeable is in the discussion.
Ok so everything I wrote isn't wrong.
It's telling how you're accusing me of snark, when that's precisely all you've provided so far. Well, that and a rambling opinion piece on the Oslo accords in support of a tu quoque fallacy. And of not saying anything meaningful when I clearly made three substantive rebuttals above.
CheersYou've made 0 rebuttals to the fundamental fact that your claims are intentionally misleading, and thus falsehoods.
It doesn't work like that mate.
Hamas were the first to violate the accords. They launched an attack because they weren't being included in the negotiations.
the usual way to go about dismantling an embedded terror organisation is to use counterintelligence, ground ops and precision strikes.
israel has been doing that for a few decades but Hamas continues to attack until they call for a ceasefire. In which Israel agrees, and then Hamas again breaks the ceasefire.