Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

Israel is committing a whole lot of war crimes in Gaza.
The Hamas do as well.
I have no idea what's your point anymore (outside MUST DEFEND ISRAEL).

Again, you're going off topic.
Since when is every country responding to aggression have to do with war crime? War crime is counted as something separated. Defending yourself is not the crime.

And I'm not saying every tactic is justifiable, I would very much prefer international pressure and sanction to force Israel's hand than violence.
But when you denying someone basic human rights and you're denying any non-violent avenue to affect change, they will eventually resort to violence.
I don't like it, I don't think I would have done it personally (though you really can't know having your family killed would do to you) but shouting "OMG WHAT ANIMALS" would achieve nothing.
Outside maybe winning some HASBARA points.
That's what we're here for, no?

You aren't making this easy.

Again, can Palestinians not expect retaliation for attacking Israel civilians, in which Palestinians must accept responsibility for the war?

There's no mention of human rights. It's Palestinians making the choice to bait Israel into war by attacking their civilians.

 

[squidyj]

Again, you're going off topic.
Since when is every country responding to aggression have to do with war crime? War crime is counted as something separated. Defending yourself is not the crime.


You aren't making this easy.

Again, can Palestinians not expect retaliation for attacking Israel civilians, in which Palestinians must accept responsibility for the war?

There's no mention of human rights. It's Palestinians making the choice to bait Israel into war by attacking their civilians.

oh I see Palestinians must collectively accept responsibility for Hamas rockets, is that right?

 

[Chichikov]

Again, you're going off topic.
Since when is every country responding to aggression have to do with war crime? War crime is counted as something separated. Defending yourself is not the crime.

You have no idea how war crimes work, do you?
You can totally commit war crimes even if you were attacked.
Both sides are committing war crimes in Gaza.

Why should Israel be blamed for defending themselves?

This is the point most of you are missing. Israel is acting defensively, Hamas is acting as aggressors. Israel wouldn't attack Gaza if it weren't for alleged Hamas operatives attacking Israeli citizens.

That's fact.

So three people were murdered in the west bank by people who might be politically connected to Hamas (no evidence was provided by the way) therefore Israel should attack Gaza in an operation that would kill over a hundred innocent people?

Amazing.

The funny thing is that you think you're helping Israel's image with such crap.

You only make people think that every Israeli is an HASBARA parrot.

 

[JordanN]

The fuck? A madman killing three people isn't an act of war like you're making it out to be. An appropriate response would be to carry out an investigation and arrest the accused. Not arrest 400 people, kill 17, and demolish homes of the families of the accused.

And again, the word you used yourself is ALLEGED. We don't even know who did it.

On 26 June, the Israel Security Agency released the identities of two Hamas suspects in the kidnapping.[17] Both ISA and Palestinian authorities said that the two men have been missing since the night of the kidnapping, and the ISA stated that both had engaged in terrorism, been arrested, and served time in the past, and were considered suspects immediately after the kidnapping. A senior Palestinian intelligence official said off the record that their disappearance constituted clear evidence the two suspects have links with the abduction.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers

Israel has a track record of acting on strong evidence. If Hamas wasn't involved, why go into Gaza in the first place?

 

[Cromat]

And a Israeli shelling killed 4 8-11 year old kids on a beach today. And a few days ago Israel blew up a disabled people's shelter, killing two, because there was a "suspected militant" there. And even if there was a militant there, you don't blow up the entire fucking building. That's collective punishment. That isn't how you carry out justice.

Maybe you need to look at how this altercation started again.

3 israeli teenagers kidnapped/killed
Israel claims it was Hamas with no proof presented, kills 17 people, arrests 400, and demolishes homes as punishment (is that how the judicial system works in Israel?)
Palestinian teenager burned alive
Hamas fires rockets
Israel starts bombing Gaza, killing over 200 people, 70% of whom are civilians, destroying vital infrastructure and setting the entire population back a few years

Sounds like collective punishment to me.

The kidnapping was performed by two known Hamas members from Hebron, but you're right it might have been Finland who knows... Also I like you omit the fact that the Israeli cabinet voted to keep the calm in Gaza before the operation, to which a Hamas spokesperson responded "now is the time for fighting not calm". Them Israel accepted and maintained a ceasefire again two days ago. I have yet to hear any justification for Hamas rejecting it.

Also how is raining rockets on millions of Israelis not collective punishment?

 

[m_shortpants]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers

Israel has a track record of acting on strong evidence. If Hamas wasn't involved, why go into Gaza in the first place?

Okay, let's say those men did it. Wouldn't the correct response be to arrest those men and try them for murder?

Instead, Israel demolished their families homes (again, no guilty verdict, even still this shouldn't happen), killed 17 people, and arrested 400 others. Are you seriously defending this course of action? Strong evidence is not enough, sorry.

 

[JordanN]

You have no idea how war crimes work, do you?
You can totally commit war crimes even if you were attacked.
Both sides are committing war crimes in Gaza.

One more time: defending yourself is not war crime.

Mexico bombing the U.S is a crime. The U.S announcing they will attack Mexico in return is not a crime. The U.S wiping Mexico's capital city off the earth would be a war crime.

So three people were murdered in the west bank by people who might be politically connected to Hamas (no evidence was provided by the way) therefore Israel should attack Gaza in an operation that would kill over a hundred innocent people?

Amazing.

The funny thing is that you think you're helping Israel's image with such crap.

You only make people think that every Israeli is an HASBARA parrot.

A country either believes they have the right evidence to go to war and hope by the end of it they were right or they don't.

 

[m_shortpants]

The kidnapping was performed by two known Hamas members from Hebron, but you're right it might have been Finland who knows... Also I like you omit the fact that the Israeli cabinet voted to keep the calm in Gaza before the operation, to which a Hamas spokesperson responded "now is the time for fighting not calm". Them Israel accepted and maintained a ceasefire again two days ago. I have yet to hear any justification for Hamas rejecting it.

Also how is raining rockets on millions of Israelis not collective punishment?

Don't take my post out of context. I was specifically responding to JordanN's claim that Israel's response was due to the kidnapping/murder of the three teenagers.

 

[elhav]

Not sure exactly what you're arguing then.

The point that I was responding to is the idea that "if only they didn't resort to violence, they would've had a country", which doesn't really stand to scrutiny.

p.s.
Even the PLO, it took them about 20 years of sitting in refugee camps and getting shot by the IDF trying to go back to their homes for it to form.

I am fully aware of the innocents that are killed in Gaza, and I hate it. I am an Israeli, but I know innocents should not die. When I was a soldier(It is obligatory here) I remember the constant orders of our officers and officials to never shoot a suspect unless he is armed and with the capability of killing you.

Many soldiers have to restrain themselves from fighting to not break any order given to them, even if sometimes they have to do it.

When Israel's airforce is being told to not harm civilians on purpose, you can be damn sure it's the case. They still obviously kill innocents either without intentions, or via a careless act done by one of the pilots, which will be punished believe you me.

I know how IDF's orders are on this matter, and I remember how strict our commanders were when it came to harming innocents, giving us examples of massacres that were made by IDF officers at an arab village in Israel. These soldiers were arrested and sentenced to many years in prison by the way.

What I am trying to say here is that as someone who was inside the system, while still judging it, I know the army is trying its best to defend instead of kill senselessly. And people need to remember that the army and the government are two different entities. If the government and our idiot of a prime minister Bibi decide to continue building and occupying Palestinian territories, the army isn't really the one making the decisions.

Some of us, who actually want to defend our country from terror don't want these wars, and I know full well that those mini wars will achieve nothing for either side. I don't know what can be done to solve this, I honestly don't, but I want people to stop looking at this conflict from one point of view. I understand how the Palestinians feel, after having all these innocent casualties, but don't for a second think our soldiers don't think before they pull the trigger, or have to make tough decisions. War is vicious to both sides.

 

[m_shortpants]

One more time: defending yourself is not war crime.

Mexico bombing the U.S is a crime. The U.S announcing they will attack Mexico in return is not a crime. The U.S wiping Mexico's capital city off the earth would be a war crime.



A country either believes they have the right evidence to go to war and hope by the end of it they were right or they don't.

Your analogy is terrible, because neither the US nor Mexico would attack the other in response to the murder of three of its citizens. And your analogy lacks any context, ie neither of those countries is acting as an occupying force or holding a blockade on the other.

 

[JordanN]

Okay, let's say those men did it. Wouldn't the correct response be to arrest those men and try them for murder?

Instead, Israel demolished their families homes (again, no guilty verdict, even still this shouldn't happen), killed 17 people, and arrested 400 others. Are you seriously defending this course of action? Strong evidence is not enough, sorry.

No. Hamas will just demand those people be released while sending in more militants into Israel.

 

[Yagharek]

Again, can Palestinians not expect retaliation for attacking Israel civilians, in which Palestinians must accept responsibility for the war?

There's no mention of human rights. It's Palestinians making the choice to bait Israel into war by attacking their civilians.

This is just plain dumb logic.

Applied exactly the same, your logic would dictate that Israeli civilians should expect attacks because Palestinians are being attacked.

Can you not see how absurd (and wrong) your logic is?

Both sides need a slap upside the head in order to stop the violence, but here you are justifying (or being an apologist for) attacks on Palestinian civilians because Hamas fired rockets.

 

[NEO0MJ]

What I am trying to say here is that as someone who was inside the system, while still judging it, I know the army is trying its best to defend instead of kill senselessly.

How the hell do you explain the horrible terrorist to civilian ratio, though? This doesn't seem like someone going out of their way to make sure innocents aren't killed. And their warning attempts are pathetic. Really, people barely have minutes to escape where they are, if warnings are even given at all.

 

[JordanN]

Your analogy is terrible, because neither the US nor Mexico would attack the other in response to the murder of three of its citizens. And your analogy lacks any context, ie neither of those countries is acting as an occupying force or holding a blockade on the other.

The U.S bombed Libya when it was discovered Gaddafi had ordered attacks on a german nightclub containing 2 U.S casualties.

If Mexican soldiers broke into the U.S under government orders to kill lots of Texans, you can bet the U.S would respond even harder than Libya.

Context doesn't matter. Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states defend themselves from aggressors.

 

[elhav]

How the hell do you explain the horrible terrorist to civilian ratio, though? This doesn't seem like someone going out of their way to make sure innocents aren't killed. And their warning attempts are pathetic. Really, people barely have minutes to escape where they are, if warnings are even given at all.

I didn't serve in the airforce, so I cannot tell you exactly what are the orders they are given.

Warnings are given, of that I am pretty sure. I assume the army gives the civilians enough time to escape, and as it appears, if the airforce wouldn't have tried to warn them properly I can assure you there would be far more civilian casualties by now.

 

[m_shortpants]

.

 

[maharg]

The U.S bombed Libya when it was discovered Gaddafi had ordered attacks on a german nightclub containing 2 U.S casualties.

If Mexican soldiers broke into the U.S under government orders to kill lots of Texans, you can bet the U.S would respond even harder than Libya.

I guarantee you every year some Mexicans kill Texans. Guaranfuckingdamntee it. The US doesn't go to war over it.

Context doesn't matter.

This is pure, unadulterated, absolute, insanity. You really have fallen off the rails. You're arguing that context DOES matter, because it matters that the alleged perpetrators are members of Hamas. That is CONTEXT. And it is enough context to you to justify going to all out war. But you're cherry-picking your context.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states defend themselves from aggressors.

Israel is also an occupying power. Gaza is occupied territory and its people are under Israeli care. There is no state of Palestine to go to war with, precisely because Israel will not allow one to exist.

 

[NEO0MJ]

I didn't serve in the airforce, so I cannot tell you exactly what are the orders they are given.

Warnings are given, of that I am pretty sure. I assume the army gives the civilians enough time to escape, and as it appears, if the airforce wouldn't have tried to warn them properly I can assure you there would be far more civilian casualties by now.

Currently warnings are given something like 3 minutes before they bomb a place, sometimes using a warning shot, which some people don't ever know is meant to warn them.

 

[Discotheque]

can't believe y'all still arguing with this guy.

 

[maharg]

can't believe y'all still arguing with this guy.

Yeah. That's definitely my last engagement with this one.

 

[Chichikov]

One more time: defending yourself is not war crime.

Mexico bombing the U.S is a crime. The U.S announcing they will attack Mexico in return is not a crime. The U.S wiping Mexico's capital city off the earth would be a war crime.

Again, you do not understand how war crimes work.
The causes of war don't really factor into any of this, certain action are illegal, some of what Israel is doing in Gaza is a war crime.

I am fully aware of the innocents that are killed in Gaza, and I hate it. I am an Israeli, but I know innocents should not die. When I was a soldier(It is obligatory here) I remember the constant orders of our officers and officials to never shoot a suspect unless he is armed and with the capability of killing you.

Many soldiers have to restrain themselves from fighting to not break any order given to them, even if sometimes they have to do it.

When Israel's airforce is being told to not harm civilians on purpose, you can be damn sure it's the case. They still obviously kill innocents either without intentions, or via a careless act done by one of the pilots, which will be punished believe you me.

I know how IDF's orders are on this matter, and I remember how strict our commanders were when it came to harming innocents, giving us examples of massacres that were made by IDF officers at an arab village in Israel. These soldiers were arrested and sentenced to many years in prison by the way.

What I am trying to say here is that as someone who was inside the system, while still judging it, I know the army is trying its best to defend instead of kill senselessly. And people need to remember that the army and the government are two different entities. If the government and our idiot of a prime minister Bibi decide to continue building and occupying Palestinian territories, the army isn't really the one making the decisions.

Some of us, who actually want to defend our country from terror don't want these wars, and I know full well that those mini wars will achieve nothing for either side. I don't know what can be done to solve this, I honestly don't, but I want people to stop looking at this conflict from one point of view. I understand how the Palestinians feel, after having all these innocent casualties, but don't for a second think our soldiers don't think before they pull the trigger, or have to make tough decisions. War is vicious to both sides.

I served six years in the army, I know very well that there isn't a policy to target civilians. I never said there was.
But at the same time, Israel has been going on these mini-wars for a while now, and by now everyone should know that there is statistical certainty that they will lead to significant civilian casualties.
Had they achieved anything you could have discussed if it's worth the price, but they don't.

Let's drop the bullshit here, there was anger and bloodlust in the Israeli public after the murder of the there, and Netanyhu wanting to maintain his "STRONG ON TERROR" stance went and started another round of pointless bombing and shelling.
Over 200 dead, half of Israel under rockets, and for fucking what?

At least the IDF will now get its budget.

 

[Yagharek]

Currently warnings are given something like 3 minutes before they bomb a place, sometimes using a warning shot, which some people don't ever know is meant to warn them.

I dont know about Palestinians, but in my mind my instinct would be to stay inside if I heard a warning shot. What if you got caught in a mess of flying debris if it was another building and not yours that was being warned.

 

[JordanN]

I guarantee you every year some Mexicans kill Texans. Gauranfuckingdamntee it. The US doesn't go to war over it.

You are reading this thread too fast and not slowing down.

There are no Mexican soldiers in the U.S who've murdered lots of Texans and got away with it.

This is pure, unadulterated, absolute, insanity. You really have fallen off the rails. You're arguing that context DOES matter, because it matters that the alleged perpetrators are members of Hamas. That is CONTEXT. And it is enough context to you to justify going to all out war. But you're cherry-picking your context.

And I'm trying to tell you: Israel only went to war based off Hamas findings that even Palestinians in the West Bank agreed with. That's the only context that matters about self defense.

Israel is also an occupying power. Gaza is occupied territory and its people are under Israeli care. There is no state of Palestine to go to war with, precisely because Israel will not allow one to exist.

Hamas are clearly going to war with Israel.

Again, you do not understand how war crimes work.
The causes of war don't really factor into any of this, certain action are illegal, some of what Israel is doing in Gaza is a war crime.

You don't get it. Israel responding to an attack on their soil is not a crime. That is not a crime under any legal definition.

 

[Yagharek]

You don't get it. Israel responding to an attack on their soil is not a crime. That is not a crime under any legal definition.

What about killing children on a beach? I believe that would count as a crime.

 

[artist]

What about killing children on a beach? I believe that would count as a crime.

Clearly those kids were launching their terrorist activities and or were human shields of Hamas.

But then again I'm reminded of this nail on the head;

I don't even know why there's a debate going on here. JordanN et al. will simply keep on repeating the same lines over and over again: Hamas is responsible for the dead civilians, Israel is right in whatever the hell they're doing regardless of how many civilians are killed. Hell, if all the Palestinians were wiped out, it would only be called collateral damage by the likes of them.

Look at all the posts in this thread. That is what it all comes down to (with an added hint of dehumanizing Palestinians/Arabs).

Chichikov and others:

Don't bother with reminding them that the Palestinians were peaceful for 20 years... I've seen you guys post this exact same thing to the exact same posters for the past few days, yet all these people have either anterograde amnesia when they're reading your posts or retrograde amnesia when they are typing their posts because they then come back with the same line about Palestinians being violent and Israel merely defending itself.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I guarantee you every year some Mexicans kill Texans. Guaranfuckingdamntee it. The US doesn't go to war over it.

If Mexicans were shelling the US with rockets we would invade Mexico, 100% guaranteed. As would any nation being attacked. All nations have an absolute right to self-defense and to stop whatever it is that it attacking them.

Israel is also an occupying power. Gaza is occupied territory and its people are under Israeli care. There is no state of Palestine to go to war with, precisely because Israel will not allow one to exist.

Hah, no. The Palestinians have just as much responsibility for their not having a state as the Israelis do -- they have been very uncooperative in many negotiations, holding out for impossible goals like the "right of return", or genocidal annihilation as in what Hamas wants. Israel obviously cannot negotiate with Hamas, a group which preaches genocide and attacks Israel whenever it can gather up enough weapons. It can negotiate with the PLO, barely, but the two sides have major divisions too -- the PLO is far too antisemitic too, even if they've tamped down on the genocide-espousing that Hamas still does -- and so far neither side has been willing to make that final deal, the few times they were vaguely close, but hopefully it happens one of these days. It'll only happen once the Palestinians give up on the 1967 borders and the "right of return" and Israel gives up on expanding settlements beyond its current wall and maybe also pulls it back in places, based on negociations, but neither side is willing to make the required compromises because their right-wingers refuse to negociate. Horrible situation, and it's one which should have been resolved a long time ago really, but so far it hasn't happened yet. It needs to happen someday.

And when it does happen, I just hope that it leads to the Palestinians giving up on their constant warfare against Israel -- the rocket attacks from Gaza, the suicide bombers that the West Bank wall was built to keep out, etc. It's those attacks that give Israel 100% defensible justifications for continuing to crack down on security around Palestinian territories, after all. I know there's a circle of violence here -- the Palestinians attack something, so Israel crushes them, so it leads to more hatred and the cycle continues, etc -- but it's bad for both sides to have this continue as a never-ending conflict.

Of course, the only way to solve the problem is a bilateral treaty, as the US has supported for decades now. It's the only way, and eventually both sides will have to accept that and make the deal, after getting rid of or neutering Hamas somehow because they obviously cannot be reasoned with.

 

[maharg]

If Mexicans were shelling the US with rockets we would invade Mexico, 100% guaranteed. As would any nation being attacked. All nations have an absolute right to self-defense and to stop whatever it is that it attacking them..

I salute you on your ability to move goalpoasts. They must be heavy, but you sure did move them well.

 

[elhav]

Again, you do not understand how war crimes work.
The causes of war don't really factor into any of this, certain action are illegal, some of what Israel is doing in Gaza is a war crime.


I served six years in the army, I know very well that there isn't a policy to target civilians. I never said there was.
But at the same time, Israel has been going on these mini-wars for a while now, and by now everyone should know that there is statistical certainty that they will lead to significant civilian casualties.
Had they achieved anything you could have discussed if it's worth the price, but they don't.

Let's drop the bullshit here, there was anger and bloodlust in the Israeli public after the murder of the there, and Netanyhu wanting to maintain his "STRONG ON TERROR" stance went and started another round of pointless bombing and shelling.
Over 200 dead, half of Israel under rockets, and for fucking what?

At least the IDF will now get its budget.

Again, your foroget that Netanyahu gave Hamas 48 hours with an extra day to stop shooting.

Arguing over who started can take a long time, but I personally think that giving 48 hours of ceasefire on one end, while still recieving missiles to your country is pretty patient.

After they didn't stop, well....another mini war ensues.

There is talk of ground operation, designed to cleanse Gaza from Hamas operatives, but I am not sure the army is eager to pay the price of this operation. It will probably happen, and if it does, I sure hope Gaza will have better leaders afterwards, that will maybe allow peace talks.

I can't answer all the questions here because I am not exactly an IDF spokesperson, but I talk simply out of experience with the system itself.

Perhaps you can question the army's methods of warnings, but IDF claim that they warn the residents of each buildings via flyers and phone calls, including the small bombs on top of the roofs to add to that.

I have seen several videos that show how Palestinian civilians run away from a building when they get the warnings, after which the building is bombed.
Some civilians could still be inside the building, either because Hamas is holding them hostage as human shields, or because they have no way to escape(handicapped etc)

It's a terrible situation, I know, but I guess it's the governments' safest approach when it comes to putting Israeli soldiers at risk(Regarding a ground operation).

Netanyahu probably thinks that a rain of airstrikes every couple of years is gonna do the trick, but now he is slowly getting close to finally make a ground operation. Such an operation will potentially destroy Hamas, but from there on I am not sure where things will go.

 

[A Black Falcon]

I salute you on your ability to move goalpoasts. They must be heavy, but you sure did move them well.

Actually, strike that -- the one time the US was attacked by an armed Mexican force, Pancho Villa's in the 19-teens, we sent an army into Mexico for a year or more looking for him. He managed to elude them and we eventually gave up, but the troops were sent. More recently, the US has also invested huge amounts of money into fighting the drug war the fuels most of the violence on the Mexican border.

Also, see my last post, I added a lot to the second part of it.

 

[Chichikov]

You don't get it. Israel responding to an attack on their soil is not a crime. That is not a crime under any legal definition.

The bombing of the houses of Hamas leaders is a clear violation of Geneva Convention.
I don't think you really understand how international war crime laws work, like, at all.

 

[Random17]

What about killing children on a beach? I believe that would count as a crime.

Israel:

If it is intentional, absolutely. Especially if the order came from an officer who knew that the targets were not HAMAS members. However, it would be very difficult to pin all of Israel onto this label unless the order came from the top, which is extremely unlikely.

Terrible nonetheless, that's one incident with serious questions on the nature of the strike.

In regards to the airstrikes, it is unlikely that you could pin war crimes onto those so long as they are targeted on actual military targets as opposed to directly and intentionally targeting civilians. The moral grey area for Israel is the balance between targeting known HAMAS locations in order to disrupt their leadership vs civilian casualties. Israel knows that there are civilians present who are likely to be victim to the strike, but unless you could prove that the attacks are a direct attack on the civilians themselves, only then is it considered to be a war crime.

HAMAS:
A string of rocket firing incidents by HAMAS are multiple war crimes since technically speaking the weapons are unguided and there is no attempt to distinguish civilian and military targets (they are fired into cities). The closest example I can think of are the V1 and V2 weapons, since they were fired in the general direction of the UK and France and aimed to land on heavily populated areas. (As I said earlier, I'm purely talking about the weapon functions here, this is not a comparison to the Nazis.)

The bombing of the houses of Hamas leaders is a clear violation of Geneva Convention.
I don't think you really understand how international war crime laws work, like, at all.

Can you link the relevant part of the Geneva convention that they violated? Citation needed.

 

[Yagharek]

Arguing over who started can take a long time, but I personally think that giving 48 hours of ceasefire on one end, while still recieving missiles to your country is pretty patient.

Arguing over who started it becomes somewhat irrelevant after a while. After all, this is just the latest series of events in decades of conflict, stalled negotiations and uncertainty.

Until and unless there becomes a concerted democratic movement within Israel to move away from right wing war talk and settlements in land that is not theirs; and a movement within Palestine establishes in such a way to accept a reasonable (read: practical) compromise based on what things are like now, there's probably zero chance of peace.

Both sides are guilty in many ways, but no-one seems to stop and think about the innocent people dying this week, last week, last year, last decade etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[elhav]

Arguing over who started it becomes somewhat irrelevant after a while. After all, this is just the latest series of events in decades of conflict, stalled negotiations and uncertainty.

Until and unless there becomes a concerted democratic movement within Israel to move away from right wing war talk and settlements in land that is not theirs; and a movement within Palestine establishes in such a way to accept a reasonable (read: practical) compromise based on what things are like now, there's probably zero chance of peace.

Both sides are guilty in many ways, but no-one seems to stop and think about the innocent people dying this week, last week, last year, last decade etc etc etc etc etc.

I agree.

 

[JordanN]

The bombing of the houses of Hamas leaders is a clear violation of Geneva Convention.
I don't think you really understand how international war crime laws work, like, at all.

Oh man, I don't know what's going on here.

Do you think war exists? Do you think war is a made up term? Have you ever heard of self defense in war? Forget everything else. Israel going to war because of what Hamas did to them is self defense.
I don't need to hear anything else. I'm talking about countries being attacked first and not making any new actions yet.

 

[Yagharek]

I agree.

That's encouraging. I did appreciate your comments further up the page about distinguishing between military and political wings of a country. That's always the way it is meant to be, however it is always possible you will get some people within (any) military who are in it for the wrong reasons, or who lose the plot and disobey orders.

I just hope one day the orders the Israeli military get tend to reflect a more peace-minded government.

 

[kmag]

And a Israeli shelling killed 4 8-11 year old kids on a beach today. And a few days ago Israel blew up a disabled people's shelter, killing two, because there was a "suspected militant" there. And even if there was a militant there, you don't blow up the entire fucking building. That's collective punishment. That isn't how you carry out justice.

Maybe you need to look at how this altercation started again.

3 israeli teenagers kidnapped/killed
Israel claims it was Hamas with no proof presented, kills 17 people, arrests 400, and demolishes homes as punishment (is that how the judicial system works in Israel?)
Palestinian teenager burned alive
Hamas fires rockets
Israel starts bombing Gaza, killing over 200 people, 70% of whom are civilians, destroying vital infrastructure and setting the entire population back a few years

Sounds like collective punishment to me.

Actually it could be argued the timeline for this incident happened when the IDF shot two unarmed kids in the back. Which was caught on video so the IDF have launched an 'investigation' after their usual immediate response was shown to be it's usual absolute bullshit.

 

[curlyfriski]

Hah, no. The Palestinians have just as much responsibility for their not having a state as the Israelis do -- they have been very uncooperative in many negotiations, holding out for impossible goals like the "right of return", or genocidal annihilation as in what Hamas wants. Israel obviously cannot negotiate with Hamas, a group which preaches genocide and attacks Israel whenever it can gather up enough weapons. It can negotiate with the PLO, barely, but the two sides have major divisions too -- the PLO is far too antisemitic too, even if they've tamped down on the genocide-espousing that Hamas still does -- and so far neither side has been willing to make that final deal, the few times they were vaguely close, but hopefully it happens one of these days. It'll only happen once the Palestinians give up on the 1967 borders and the "right of return" and Israel gives up on expanding settlements beyond its current wall and maybe also pulls it back in places, based on negociations, but neither side is willing to make the required compromises because their right-wingers refuse to negociate. Horrible situation, and it's one which should have been resolved a long time ago really, but so far it hasn't happened yet. It needs to happen someday.

Palestinians accept a permanent diaspora and the blatantly illegal theft of their territory.
Israel agrees to stop stealing land beyond the (totally illegal!) wall and pull back in certain instances from that illegal boundary that they invented.
"Negotiation"

Oh man, I don't know what's going on here.

Do you think war exists? Do you think war is a made up term? Have you ever heard of self defense in war? Forget everything else. Israel going to war because of what Hamas did to them is self defense.
I don't need to hear anything else. I'm talking about countries being attacked first and not making any new actions yet.

Seriously how dense are you. A state of war does not justify certain actions, even if the war is one of self-defense.

 

[sonicmj1]

Oh man, I don't know what's going on here.

Do you think war exists? Do you think war is a made up term? Have you ever heard of self defense in war? Forget everything else. Israel going to war because of what Hamas did to them is self defense.

Are there any limits on how Israel ought to act in self-defense against an enemy within territory it occupies? Or would they be justified in turning the entire strip into a smoldering crater to end the threat of Hamas and their rockets?

 

[Chichikov]

Can you link the relevant part of the Geneva convention that they violated? Citation needed.

Protocol I Article 52

Article 52 — 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.
​

A house of a military leader is not a legal military target.

Oh man, I don't know what's going on here.

Do you think war exists? Do you think war is a made up term? Have you ever heard of self defense in war? Forget everything else. Israel going to war because of what Hamas did to them is self defense.
I don't need to hear anything else. I'm talking about countries being attacked first and not making any new actions yet.

If by "going on here" you mean "what are war crimes", then yes, I agree.
I wish you didn't speak with such confidence about shit you're obviously hilariously clueless about, but whatever, let me dispense some knowledge to you -
International laws like the Geneva convention try to put limits on what is allowed to do during a war, even during justified wars. The question whether or not Israel is justified in attacking in Gaza is irrelevant to the question whether or not war crimes are being committed.

 

[kmag]

Israel:

If it is intentional, absolutely. Especially if the order came from an officer who knew that the targets were not HAMAS members. However, it would be very difficult to pin all of Israel onto this label unless the order came from the top, which is extremely unlikely.

Terrible nonetheless, that's one incident with serious questions on the nature of the strike.

In regards to the airstrikes, it is unlikely that you could pin war crimes onto those so long as they are targeted on actual military targets as opposed to directly and intentionally targeting civilians. The moral grey area for Israel is the balance between targeting known HAMAS locations in order to disrupt their leadership vs civilian casualties. Israel knows that there are civilians present who are likely to be victim to the strike, but unless you could prove that the attacks are a direct attack on the civilians themselves, only then is it considered to be a war crime.

HAMAS:
A string of rocket firing incidents by HAMAS are multiple war crimes since technically speaking the weapons are unguided and there is no attempt to distinguish civilian and military targets (they are fired into cities). The closest example I can think of are the V1 and V2 weapons, since they were fired in the general direction of the UK and France and aimed to land on heavily populated areas. (As I said earlier, I'm purely talking about the weapon functions here, this is not a comparison to the Nazis.)



Can you link the relevant part of the Geneva convention that they violated? Citation needed.

Collective punishments
Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

4th Geneva Convention, 1949.

General protection of civilian objects

Article 52
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.

4th Geneva Convention, 1949

 

[JordanN]

Are there any limits on how Israel ought to act in self-defense against an enemy within territory it occupies? Or would they be justified in turning the entire strip into a smoldering crater to end the threat of Hamas and their rockets?

I wasn't talking about what Israel does when they go to war. I'm talking about the "why" are they in war, who started the war, and why they're allowed to fight back.

"the war is one of self-defense."

Stop right here. This is where my argument starts and ends.

Your first part of your post is imagining things. I'm not arguing the actions that follow this. I'm talking about "war in self defense" only.

 

[Random17]

Protocol I Article 52

Article 52 — 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.
​

A house of a military leader is not a legal military target.

Unless it garners Israel some form of military advantage. I'm pretty sure they've launched about 1600 airstrikes, some of them on rocket launching sites, others on suspected militants near the border, some of the houses of HAMAS members in an effort to kill off their leadership. All of these types of strikes are arguably not war crimes since they do garner Israel a military advantage, however, I cannot confirm or deny whether all of Israel's attacks fell under the safer categories listed.

Also depends on what you define as house. Is his base of operation also the place where he happens to live? Is that still covered under the Geneva convention? Certain questions need answering but the evidence isn't exactly foolproof to confirm that Israel is committing numerous war crimes in regards to some of its airstrikes.

Edit: To clarify, I'm just discussing the details here on whether or not Israel's response to the matter is proportionate or illegal in terms of the Geneva Convention. I do not support either side (Gaza, Israel) in this conflict.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Palestinians accept a permanent diaspora and the blatantly illegal theft of their territory.
Israel agrees to stop stealing land beyond the (totally illegal!) wall and pull back in certain instances from that illegal boundary that they invented.
"Negotiation"

It's been said already, but seriously people, try to understand that in a negotiation the relative power positions of the two side is crucially important!

Seriously how dense are you. A state of war does not justify certain actions, even if the war is one of self-defense.

When the enemy is intentionally hiding its weapons in the middle of civilian neighborhoods, firing from the rooves of occupied civilian houses, backyards, etc., it is impossible to avoid civilian casualties, tragically enough. Of course if Hamas is ever kicked out of Gaza the warfare would mostly stop. But really, when you're confronted with tactics like Hamas's that treat their own people as expendable tools for cultivating world opinion, what can you do? Just let them keep shooting at you, because otherwise you kill civilians? Or do what you can to minimize civilian casualties, while sadly knowing that some will happen because of the cruelty of the enemys' tactics. Israel does the latter. The US would probably do the same, though only recently did we start to care about civilian casualties in the countries we're fighting in, as you can see from the million-plus civilians killed in Vietnam versus the much smaller numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars should be avoided whenever possible, but sometimes they can't be. Civilian casualties should be avoided whenever possible as well, but sometimes they happen, particularly when fighting a total war WWII or Vietnam-style, or terrorists who hide in civilian populations. Awful stuff... but what's the alternative, in a time like this? You can't let them just keep shelling you!

Arguing over who started it becomes somewhat irrelevant after a while. After all, this is just the latest series of events in decades of conflict, stalled negotiations and uncertainty.

Until and unless there becomes a concerted democratic movement within Israel to move away from right wing war talk and settlements in land that is not theirs; and a movement within Palestine establishes in such a way to accept a reasonable (read: practical) compromise based on what things are like now, there's probably zero chance of peace.

Both sides are guilty in many ways, but no-one seems to stop and think about the innocent people dying this week, last week, last year, last decade etc etc etc etc etc.

I mostly agree, but Hamas started this and most all of the other Gazan wars. This fact matters, since the side that starts a war is more responsible for it than the side that didn't.

I certainly do agree that both sides need more moderate governance, though. Hamas needs to go on the Palestinian side, and it'd be great if moderates were in office instead of Netanhayu on the Israeli side...

 

[curlyfriski]

It's been said already, but seriously people, try to understand that in a negotiation the relative power positions of the two side is crucially important!

The alternative is to realize that the two state solution is a joke at this point.

 

[params7]

I mostly agree, but Hamas started this and most all of the other Gazan wars. This fact matters, since the side that starts a war is more responsible for it than the side that didn't.

But who started the landgrabs and who started denying an entire population basic rights people should have to survive in this world?

Also the rockets being fired by hamas are pointless and harmless. Don't you think Israel's habit of dealing damage in several multitudes of power is to a point counter intuitive due to the civilian collateral caused and highly disproportionate (besides just being sick, disturbing and in several violations of international laws).

 

[MisterFalcon]

Strictly following the Geneva convention would make Hamas invulnerable. Their launches (all violations of that same convention) are all done from areas that are full of civilians who are there either by choice or bystanders and their infrastructure is also part of the civilian one.

 

[Hyperactivity]

IDF commented on the beach strikes


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4544972,00.html

So yeah, stop this nonsense IDF doesn't care for human life.

I think the journalists in the area might've mentioned that if true

Who knows how many more casualties like this, completely unjustified, happen, but without journalists right there to make the report people just auto-label these as "human shields" or "in rocket launching site"

 

[Chichikov]

Unless it garners Israel some form of military advantage. I'm pretty sure they've launched about 1600 airstrikes, some of them on rocket launching sites, others on suspected militants near the border, some of the houses of HAMAS members in an effort to kill off their leadership. All of these types of strikes are arguably not war crimes since they do garner Israel a military advantage, however, I cannot confirm or deny whether all of Israel's attacks fell under the safer categories listed.

Also depends on what you define as house. Is his base of operation also the place where he happens to live? Is that still covered under the Geneva convention? Certain questions need answering but the evidence isn't exactly foolproof to confirm that Israel is committing numerous war crimes in regards to some of its airstrikes.

Edit: To clarify, I'm just discussing the details here on whether or not Israel's response to the matter is proportionate or illegal in terms of the Geneva Convention. I do not support either side (Gaza, Israel) in this conflict.

I never said everything Israel did in Gaza is a war crime.
And Israel destroyed residence where the family of Hamas leaders lived, it wasn't an assassination attempt (which is murky under international law) they fired a warning shot on the house, this was a punitive action and it's illegal under international law.

By the way, this is just the most clear cup example, the Geneva convention uses rather vague language when it comes to describe how much an attacker should try and avoid civilian casualties in general.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Gaza shares a border with Egypt. Nobody ever talks about that.
Israel also lets Gazans cross their border everyday but that puts Israel at risk of terror attacks.

And trying to justify terrorists from launching rockets at civilians? That's not desperate. Nobody has to put a rocket in Hamas hands and fire them at innocents.

Egypt should open that border, that would certainly help things.

That's beside the point though, Egypt isn't bombing Gaza. We're talking about the IDF killing children here. THEY are responsible. "But Egypt tho..." is just a distraction technique.

 

[neorej]

But who started the landgrabs and who started denying an entire population basic rights people should have to survive in this world?

Also the rockets being fired by hamas are pointless and harmless. Don't you think Israel's habit of dealing damage in several multitudes of power is to a point counter intuitive due to the civilian collateral caused and highly disproportionate (besides just being sick, disturbing and in several violations of international laws).

Well, over the course of history, land has switched ownership quite regularly

The most direct cause for this mess would be the British, back in 1918. The British defeated the Ottoman Empire in Palestine (Palestinians rejoiced to be free from the tiranny of the Empire) and declared the land their own (Palestinians saddened because they were once again subject to an Empire). After that, they committed the land to execute their part of the Balfour-declaration; the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine.
The Palestinians denounced the Balfour-declaration and demand Palestine to be re-integrated with Syria.

It's been a shitstorm ever since. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to force a nation onto a piece of land without consulting the locals should rethink his career.