Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[tehdang]

You'd have a stronger argument if Israel was just bombing areas where Hamas is launching rockets. The biggest issue with how Israel responds is that they go on bombing campaigns that last weeks. They target entire buildings ranging from apartments, book stores, hospitals, schools, and press buildings. It's one thing to try to neutralize a rocket offensive, but it's another to go on a vengeful bombing spree with no regard for human life.

I know, I know, "Hamas uses women and children as human shields," but intentionally targeting civilians and non-military infrastructure is still a war crime. They would be investigated for these things and probably sanctioned if the U.S. didn't shield them from international scrutiny.

Civilian infrastructure used by an army as military infrastructure becomes legitimate military targets.

And Israel's choice to warn noncombatants in buildings housing the miscreants responsible for the terrorism is just more proof that Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. All the facts go against a "vengeful bombing spree with no regard for human life." They lose out on more major wins by giving military alongside civilian occupants time to avoid destruction.

But that's just another reason people who have watched this on-off war play out for generations become inured to all the shifting excuses for why Israel can't defend itself like any other threatened country in the world. The lies change, and it's tough to keep up with the new tortured rationalizations to why common sense actions in a time or war don't apply, but the fact remains that some people are incredibly invested in making Israel the bad guy in each conflict.

And Hamas is further encouraged to use hospitals, schools, office buildings, and hotels because of the response from some international know-nothings.

well clearly it doesn't matter what I think they should do.

Hence, why I said you essentially seek to deprive Israel of their right of self defense. Take away their effective actions, and when somebody wonders what you think they're left with, dodge.

[Fandis]

My point was with the press building is that Israel targets civilians without providing any evidence of their claims. It doesn't matter if there are casualties or not the point was they target civilian places on purpose. Are you going to sit here and say there was zero chance people would die when bombing a building?

And again, this was not the topic of our discussion, you've responded with an unrelated stuff. As for for the chance of somebody dying - yeah I'd say it was pretty damn close to zero, if they were given an hour to evacuate, and the actual owner of the building has confirmed there was nobody inside. If some guy wanted to commit suicide and has hidden somewhere in the building to make sure nobody finds him I guess he's got his wish, but other than that I'd say we can be pretty sure nobody has died in that building.

No cruelty is cruelty not for the lols, you are basically denying all of human history, we are a terrible species especially when we justify our deeds. If it's not cruelty feel free to explain the logic behind Israel's actions perhaps you have some insight I do not maybe you think starving people can turn food into bombs. Oh I know maybe the vaccines they blocked the needles would be used as WMDs /s

Yes cruelty is a thing even in our time, especially with some groups like ISIS who cut people's heads, or you know, Hamas, who tie their own countrymen to the motorcycles and drag them around the Gaza city. Because that's what gets them recruits or donations from the likeminded individuals. For Israel however it has nothing but negative consequences, and even you have to admit this. Because even when say Russia or China or Turkey do stuff like that, the world would talk about it for a week and forget, but when Israel does it's remembered for decades. With massive negative implications. Do you really consider us so anti-pragmatic?

[uuuhname]

I'm really curious what makes you think the targeting of civilians is intentional (other than just wanting it to be so because you obviously just hate Israel)? Like any proof/explanation?

the IDF itself lists children as terrorists neutralized in their little propaganda posts. that two hundred number? it includes 60+ kids. their own callousness is the give away.

And before you throw the flashy word genocide, do consider that killing a couple of hundred people once so many years in a region with over 2 mil population and an explosive population growth rate is the least efficient genocide in history.

"why do you guys care if innocent people are dying?" this is it? this is the argument you want to go with?

- - - Updated - - -

And Isreal makes sure the deaths happen so they can show their braindead far right voter base they are indeed ethnically cleansing them.

But really good on making yourself seem like the victim in all of this. Maybe if you stopped supporting ejecting a ton of palestians from theirs homes in the west bank you could actually try to make a point, but no, you just ignore that part.

never mind what members of the Israeli government and random Israelis on the street think they need to do with Palestinians.

[Endus]

I'm really curious what makes you think the targeting of civilians is intentional (other than just wanting it to be so because you obviously just hate Israel)? Like any proof/explanation? I'm not arguing there are civilian casualties (like in any war in the history of mankind), so emphasize is on the word intentional.

That civilian casualties are consistent and repeated in pretty much every single attack.

If it weren't intentional, you'd think they'd be horrified that they killed innocent people after the first time, and change their tactics accordingly. They made no such changes. Which pretty strongly indicates the civilian death toll isn't undesired.

Also can you give me one reason how doing so would benefit Israel? And before you throw the flashy word genocide, do consider that killing a couple of hundred people once so many years in a region with over 2 mil population and an explosive population growth rate is the least efficient genocide in history.

Genocide doesn't have to have an end result of destroying a people by numbers. Destroying their culture and their morale is sufficient for the label. And if you prefer, we could stick with "ethnic cleansing", and the Israeli intent to make the occupied territories unlivable for Palestinians, so they can eventually unlawfully push Israeli settlers into the area.

Hamas on the other hand benefits greatly from these deaths. As they can't win vs IDF in combat they try to win politically, having people like yourself all over the world cry over these dead civilians (real or fake). So they make sure these deaths do happen.

1> Israel is responsible for Hamas' creation. They wanted an extremist counterpoint to the PLO, because the PLO were gaining such ground internationally, and Israel needed a continued excuse to keep attacking Palestinians. This is open history, not a secret or conspiracy. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/...tine-conflict/ Everything Hamas does is what Israel wanted, because it continually justifies their hard-line hostility to Palestine.

2> Again, if an opponent keeps lining up hostages and human shields, and your choice every time is to shoot all the hostages/shields so you can get at the opponent, you're not the "good guy". It doesn't mean they're the "good guy", but you're the worse of the two of you. "It's so terrible that Hamas gives us the opportunity to be monsters and we take that opportunity eagerly every time" is a really awful take.

[downnola]

I'm really curious what makes you think the targeting of civilians is intentional (other than just wanting it to be so because you obviously just hate Israel)? Like any proof/explanation? I'm not arguing there are civilian casualties (like in any war in the history of mankind), so emphasize is on the word intentional.
Also can you give me one reason how doing so would benefit Israel? And before you throw the flashy word genocide, do consider that killing a couple of hundred people once so many years in a region with over 2 mil population and an explosive population growth rate is the least efficient genocide in history.

Hamas on the other hand benefits greatly from these deaths. As they can't win vs IDF in combat they try to win politically, having people like yourself all over the world cry over these dead civilians (real or fake). So they make sure these deaths do happen.

I'm curious why you think targeting and destroying apartments, book stores, hospitals, schools, and press buildings isn't intentionally targeting civilians and non-military infrastructure. It should be self-evident to you. Destroying civilian property and killing civilians is a war crime, bubs. Claiming Hamas is hiding in these places isn't a legitimate justification for doing it. Maybe it is in your warped fascist mind but international law disagrees. I'm more apt to be skeptical of Israel when they make these claims when they've used these excuses for decades and have been called out on it by human rights groups who actually investigate their claims. I trust them a lot more than people who just take their word at face value and handwave deaths and destruction as "collateral damage" (a disgusting euphemism, to be sure).

As far as hating Israel goes, get over yourself. Criticism of Israel or the United States, or any other government, is not hatred of that country. You sound like Fox News anchors whining how "the leftists just hate America" when we point out the horrible shit it's done at home and around the world. I don't hate Israel, I hate fascism and war crimes. I want Israel and my country to do better, that's all. It's convenient for you to view everyone who disagrees with you in black and white terms but it's just a cop-out.

- - - Updated - - -

Civilian infrastructure used by an army as military infrastructure becomes legitimate military targets.

Source: trust me bro.

As I said, neutralizing a rocket attack and pre-emptively bombing civilian infrastructure under the guise of "they're military targets, trust me" are two different things.

And Israel's choice to warn noncombatants in buildings housing the miscreants responsible for the terrorism is just more proof that Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. All the facts go against a "vengeful bombing spree with no regard for human life." They lose out on more major wins by giving military alongside civilian occupants time to avoid destruction.

Roof knocking is your evidence that they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties? Come on man, we covered this bullshit on page two and three of this thread.

[Easo]

1> Israel is responsible for Hamas' creation. They wanted an extremist counterpoint to the PLO, because the PLO were gaining such ground internationally, and Israel needed a continued excuse to keep attacking Palestinians. This is open history, not a secret or conspiracy. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/...tine-conflict/ Everything Hamas does is what Israel wanted, because it continually justifies their hard-line hostility to Palestine.

So Endus thinks Israel created Hamas. Conspiracy theories are not allowed here. You wrote a conspiracy theory. I do not care what you think, or what someone else thinks, you are talking about something insane. You are talking about country which has gone to incredible lengths to safeguard it's people, to a level no one else has ever done. Airlifting thousands out of hostile countries, recapturing kidnapped plane from a foreign military airfield in a country supporting kidnappers, all of which has cost so much.
Surely what a great idea to support creation of organization which would hurt Jews! Lol.

Source: trust me bro.

Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 52. Funny thing is, it easily can be used for both sides of the argument, because real life cannot always be strictly defined, but depending on the situation at hand. One side may choose to believe the argumentation of targets, other may not. Welcome to this thread.

Yes cruelty is a thing even in our time, especially with some groups like ISIS who cut people's heads, or you know, Hamas, who tie their own countrymen to the motorcycles and drag them around the Gaza city. Because that's what gets them recruits or donations from the likeminded individuals. For Israel however it has nothing but negative consequences, and even you have to admit this. Because even when say Russia or China or Turkey do stuff like that, the world would talk about it for a week and forget, but when Israel does it's remembered for decades. With massive negative implications. Do you really consider us so anti-pragmatic?

If you haven't noticed the world has unhealthy obsession with Israel. I will leave it to you to figure out why.

[Draco-Onis]

And again, this was not the topic of our discussion, you've responded with an unrelated stuff. As for for the chance of somebody dying - yeah I'd say it was pretty damn close to zero, if they were given an hour to evacuate, and the actual owner of the building has confirmed there was nobody inside. If some guy wanted to commit suicide and has hidden somewhere in the building to make sure nobody finds him I guess he's got his wish, but other than that I'd say we can be pretty sure nobody has died in that building.



Yes cruelty is a thing even in our time, especially with some groups like ISIS who cut people's heads, or you know, Hamas, who tie their own countrymen to the motorcycles and drag them around the Gaza city. Because that's what gets them recruits or donations from the likeminded individuals. For Israel however it has nothing but negative consequences, and even you have to admit this. Because even when say Russia or China or Turkey do stuff like that, the world would talk about it for a week and forget, but when Israel does it's remembered for decades. With massive negative implications. Do you really consider us so anti-pragmatic?

Why do you keep ranting using whataboutisms? No one is talking about Hamas being saints or other war crimes or cruelty just Israel that is the topic. Feel free to make threads about other countries but you have yet to justify Israel's actions.

If Israel is justified in bombing civilians why aren't they providing proof? If they are so pragmatic why not show the evidence and silence the naysayers?

[uuuhname]

incredible how presenting evidence for your claims counts as empty conspiracy theorizing. I guess when you think the only real reason people criticize Israel is because you think they're anti-Semitic (all while lumping all Jews into one group that all think and feel the same, ironic) leads one to ignore facts they don't like.

[Endus]

So Endus thinks Israel created Hamas. Conspiracy theories are not allowed here. You wrote a conspiracy theory. I do not care what you think, or what someone else thinks, you are talking about something insane.

There was a full article linked, there, including direct admission by Israeli officials via public statements.

There's no "conspiracy theory" there. Just history.

Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 52. Funny thing is, it easily can be used for both sides of the argument, because real life cannot always be strictly defined, but depending on the situation at hand. One side may choose to believe the argumentation of targets, other may not. Welcome to this thread.

Let's check the actual Protocol;

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...2563CD0051DCD4

Article 52 [ Link ] -- General protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

So, 1> No attacking civilian buildings.
2> Only attack military sites.
And, the kicker which debunks your argument, 3> If there's any doubt as to whether the building is being used by civilians or for military action, it shall be presumed to not be a military target. No evaluation of how much doubt there is; if it's potentially used for civilian purposes, in any way, it's not a military target, period, end discussion.

I really don't know why you'd bring up a part of the Geneva Convention that directly contradicts your position and confirms that Israel's actions are war crimes, definitively.

[Fandis]

If you haven't noticed the world has unhealthy obsession with Israel. I will leave it to you to figure out why.

Oh trust me I've noticed.

[downnola]

Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 52. Funny thing is, it easily can be used for both sides of the argument, because real life cannot always be strictly defined, but depending on the situation at hand. One side may choose to believe the argumentation of targets, other may not. Welcome to this thread.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

I've seen no arguments or evidence in this thread that any of the targets during the bombings last month met this definition. Leveling an entire apartment building to get to one or two Hamas commanders, killing the families that live there in the process, would violate that article under any reasonable reading of the document.

[uuuhname]

Oh trust me I've noticed.

says the people who think Jewish folks all think and feel the same when it comes to Israel. the only ones who have to use stereotypes to make their arguments here are not the people criticizing Israel.

[Fandis]

says the people who think Jewish folks all think and feel the same when it comes to Israel. the only ones who have to use stereotypes to make their arguments here are not the people criticizing Israel.

When have I EVER said anything like that? This is as far from what I actually think as it can possibly get. What kind of bs is this?

[uuuhname]

When have I EVER said anything like that? This is as far from what I actually think as it can possibly get. What kind of bs is this?

you quoted a guy who was called out for doing so twice, in this thread. not saying you need to go back and look but just so you're aware of who you seem to agree with.

[Easo]

There was a full article linked, there, including direct admission by Israeli officials via public statements.

1. Some guys saying something means it is the truth? Lol. Never seen ex-officials trying to grab some attention? Not to mention how illogical the whole thing is considering to what lengths Israel goes to keep Jews safe.

2. You really are incapable of reading. All Israel needs to do is say there was no doubt. All you need to do is say there was doubt. Both of which directly leads of what I said about

says the people who think Jewish folks all think and feel the same when it comes to Israel. the only ones who have to use stereotypes to make their arguments here are not the people criticizing Israel.

Except most do. Do search back a bit for a survey... Also, what does your answer to him has to do with what he wrote? World's obsession with Israel clearly has nothing to do with what Jews think.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

I've seen no arguments or evidence in this thread that any of the targets during the bombings last month met this definition. Leveling an entire apartment building to get to one or two Hamas commanders, killing the families that live there in the process, would violate that article under any reasonable reading of the document.

Israel does not have to provide you with anything. And you would not believe anyway,.

[tehdang]

I'm curious why you think targeting and destroying apartments, book stores, hospitals, schools, and press buildings isn't intentionally targeting civilians and non-military infrastructure. It should be self-evident to you. Destroying civilian property and killing civilians is a war crime, bubs. Claiming Hamas is hiding in these places isn't a legitimate justification for doing it. Maybe it is in your warped fascist mind but international law disagrees. I'm more apt to be skeptical of Israel when they make these claims when they've used these excuses for decades and have been called out on it by human rights groups who actually investigate their claims. I trust them a lot more than people who just take their word at face value and handwave deaths and destruction as "collateral damage" (a disgusting euphemism, to be sure).

When you see Hamas doing it in the past, being discovered doing it in the past, and doing it in currently (video of launch sites near sides of apartment buildings), then it is easy to see that civilian buildings are in current use as military infrastructure. And that, quite easily, is not a war crime by any stretch of the definition.

Now, in a fantasy world like the one you're living in, some international group goes in after the targeting, finds the dead terrorists and burnt up launch sites, and logs it. The trouble is that Hamas doesn't allow it. They watch international visitors and strictly control what they're allowed to see and where they're allowed to go and what they're allowed to report on. See the Associated Press whistleblower for that.

When they took down the big high rise, an official in America squawked. People in the State Department hadn't seen the evidence of its military use, as compared to the Military and Intelligence departments. Netanyahu's people revealed it to him. The concerned person updated the claim after he saw the intelligence. The other sucky part about a participant in an active war hiding its warmaking capabilities in homes, schools, etc is that they watch any revealed intelligence to determine how they can better give spies the slip. So surprise surprise, you have to watch major state actors and follow the news to see proof of intelligence.

Your skepticism of military targets isn't based in fact, and skepticism by itself isn't proof of war crimes.

As far as hating Israel goes, get over yourself. Criticism of Israel or the United States, or any other government, is not hatred of that country. You sound like Fox News anchors whining how "the leftists just hate America" when we point out the horrible shit it's done at home and around the world. I don't hate Israel, I hate fascism and war crimes. I want Israel and my country to do better, that's all. It's convenient for you to view everyone who disagrees with you in black and white terms but it's just a cop-out.

I'm pointing out what amounts to a deeply irrational approach to the conflict in the Middle East. If you had any logical basis for criticism, well, maybe you should've led with that. Your repeated lies and omissions tell a very different story.

It's probably very convenient for you to compare opponents to Fox News when you're losing the argument and have nothing more to add. When you have something more than skepticism masquerading as war crimes, bring it up. I'll do my best to read it with fresh eyes not influenced by the rotten state of your past allegations.

[uuuhname]

Except most do. Do search back a bit for a survey... Also, what does your answer to him has to do with what he wrote? World's obsession with Israel clearly has nothing to do with what Jews think.

no, clearly it has more to do with the actions of the Israeli government. what a mystery.

[Easo]

no, clearly it has more to do with the actions of the Israeli government. what a mystery.

And the whole point was that it is only about what Israel does. The attention to Israel is not comparable to what anyone else received (just look at UN resolutions), even when Israel's crimes, whether real or imagined, pales in comparision to others.

[uuuhname]

And the whole point was that it is only about what Israel does. The attention to Israel is not comparable to what anyone else received (just look at UN resolutions), even when Israel's crimes, whether real or imagined, pales in comparision to others.

what??? you realize that doesn't make the situation any less dire, right? like you just want us to ignore an ongoing human rights crisis??? on top of this ongoing human rights crisis being paid for by other countries? namely the US? who gives them OUR tax dollars for this??? huh??????????????? I'm going to repeat myself:

"why do you guys care if innocent people are dying?" this is it? this is the argument you want to go with?

[Endus]

1. Some guys saying something means it is the truth? Lol. Never seen ex-officials trying to grab some attention? Not to mention how illogical the whole thing is considering to what lengths Israel goes to keep Jews safe.

Get back to me when you're willing to even consider the possibility that you're misinformed about Hamas' history. All you're doing now is refusing to consider evidence because it clashes with your assumptions, while providing fuck-all to back up your own assumptions.

I could accept if you had a counter-argument. But you don't. You're just jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting "NUH UH".

2. You really are incapable of reading. All Israel needs to do is say there was no doubt. All you need to do is say there was doubt. Both of which directly leads of what I said about

Is your position seriously that Israel could lie, and that international courts should accept the lie?

Because the buildings were clearly civilian in nature, and being used by civilians. In fact, Israel demonstrates they know they're being used by civilians, when the do a roof-knock. If there were "no doubt", they'd have no cause to do so, after all. So not even Israel agrees with you on this point.

Your skepticism of military targets isn't based in fact, and skepticism by itself isn't proof of war crimes.

No, the articles of the Geneva Convention, as conveniently brought up by Easo a moment ago, that proves they're war crimes, and that even Israel knows the buildings are civilian.

There wouldn't need to be a declaration of incoming attacks, or a roof-knock, if there weren't civilians using the building. And if there's doubt as to whether the building is civilian or military in use, you always default to "civilian". That there is also military use does not overrule the civilian use and justify attacking it. That's a breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is why we're calling it out.