You literally just said that Hamas is using their own civilians as human shields, so maybe put the blame on Hamas, where it belongs?
Israel has a right to self-defense and in doing so has no other choice but to hurt civilians. That doesn’t mean they’re deliberately targeting civilians like Hamas does, and international law agrees with that.
No one is saying not to blame Hamas, they have responsibilities too, that doesn’t however give Israel an ok to bomb civilian targets and starve out a civilian population, it’s been a literal war crime since at least the 1400s.
Sure, they can defend themselves. Striking civilian targets, in civilian, areas with civilian populations is still a goddamn war crime. You didn’t see England intentionally bombing civilian targets even when v2s were hitting every single goddamn day. The international community is literally telling them to stop striking civilian targets because they are in fact admitting to doing just that!
that doesn’t however give Israel an ok to bomb civilian targets
They’re bombing military targets and are causing civilian casualties in doing so, which is generally not forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. As long as civilian harm is not excessive in relation to the military objective to be achieved, an attack is valid and not a war crime.
You didn’t see England intentionally bombing civilian targets even when v2s were hitting every single goddamn day.
…what? Have you read any books on Allied strategic bombing of German cities in WW2? There were firestorms in Hamburg and cities like Bochum were basically flattened. Britain’s Air Marshal Arthur Harris even stated this:
the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany.
So you’re saying the extreme loss of civilian life is “not excessive”? Over 10,000 dead??
Also, what are “military targets” to you? Hospitals, churches, refugee camps, and homes are all fair game? Using white phosphorus bombs and hellfire missiles?
“AGM-114R9X is a non-explosive yet lethal missile due to its rotating blades that decapitate anyone within 3ft. The Minimum/Maximum fire distance is 1.5 km/8km.” That was launched at a hospital. This is despite Israeli insisting that Hamas is hiding in tunnels underneath densely populated areas and using civilians as “human shields” How is that going to kill members of Hamas?
No one except people trying to commit genocide go to these lengths to ensure civilian casualties. There are so many other options if they just wanted to kill Hamas fighters. But this is excessive, indefensible, and vile.
So you’re saying the extreme loss of civilian life is “not excessive”? Over 10,000 dead??
What’s excessive and what’s not is not clear. Hitting a hospital because there’s one Hamas member in it is certainly excessive, but if there’s a command post or even an entrenched fighting position in it that’s actively engaged in hostilities, that’s not excessive anymore. Military necessity and civilian harm have to be proportional.
As an example, Israel hasn’t used bunker busters or large JDAMs on hospitals even when there are suspected Hamas headquarters within / under them. That’s because it would be excessive to kill hundreds of people in the hospital for such a military objective. By contrast, they have destroyed whole civilian houses when there were Hamas installations within / underneath, because there are far fewer civilian casualties in such an attack.
Also, what are “military targets” to you?
Legitimate military targets are anything that is actively contributing to Hamas’ war effort, whether or not an attack on such a target is warranted depends on the collateral damage that would be caused.
There are so many other options if they just wanted to kill Hamas fighters
There are? Please enlighten me, I’m sure the Israeli General Staff would also like to know.
Maybe not to you. But when the Israeli government says they bomb a hospital because there’s a “suspected Hamas headquarters” in it, you blindly trust them. We have no reason to distrust the people saying they definitely did not just commit countless war crimes despite other countries saying they did /s
I’m sure the over 4,000 children that have died were suspected Hamas leaders too.
What’s excessive and what’s not is not clear. Hitting a hospital because there’s one Hamas member in it is certainly excessive, but if there’s a command post or even an entrenched fighting position in it that’s actively engaged in hostilities, that’s not excessive anymore. Military necessity and civilian harm have to be proportional.
It’s 100% forbidden, there are proportionality clauses. If I slap you you can’t shoot me in the face, it’s a pretty simple concept. Your excuse doesn’t make sense either, dead isrealis less than 2000, dead Palestinians 14000, you don’t think that excessive?
Blanket bombing of military targets correct, both of your examples contained military targets and military industries both valid targets at the time. Hamburg, oil yard, ship yards, sub pens, oil refineries. Bochum oil refineries, Krupp and a airfield.
Notably you could take the civilian casualties from both of those bombings and I’ll venture a guess they still won’t top the current civilian death count in Palestine.
You mean right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN charter, right?
That doesn’t apply if you’re an occupying force. And for anyone saying “Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza, there are no Israeli officials there” if you control movement, water, gas, power, food supplies, where civilians can and can’t travel to, and the territory is not allowed to exist independently, all of that “right to defend yourself” is null and void.
Israel is as much an occupying force as Egypt is. Both share borders with Gaza, so your argument holds no water. If Egypt wanted to, they could relieve all pressure on Palestinian civilians by simply opening up their border with Gaza. Israel by itself cannot enforce a blockade of Gaza.
You’re moving the goal post. I’m saying Israel isn’t an occupying force because they can’t blockade Gaza in the way you wrote. Since they’re not an occupying force, they have the right to self defense under the Geneva Conventions.
I’m not saying I like what Israel is doing. What I’m saying is they can either choose to endure attacks on their own population or defend themselves. They chose the latter, and that’s completely legal under international law.
B’tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories says the following:
Although Israel declared an end to its military administration in Gaza, it continues to control critical aspects of life there. It controls all border crossings by land, apart from Rafah, as well as Gaza’s sea and air space. This control allows Israel to exclusively monitor the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, which it regulates according to Israeli interests. This holds true even when Gaza residents wish only to transit through Israel in order to reach the West Bank or other countries.
Regarding moving of the goal post, you brought up Egypt, not me.
If you want to continue discussing in good faith, please stick to the talking points.
You mean aside from those times they said specifically they were attacking civilians to “get to” Hamas access that the civilians are “human shields”.
Just an fyi I think in a few years your georing to feel really fuckin bad about your rhetoric.
You literally just said that Hamas is using their own civilians as human shields, so maybe put the blame on Hamas, where it belongs?
Israel has a right to self-defense and in doing so has no other choice but to hurt civilians. That doesn’t mean they’re deliberately targeting civilians like Hamas does, and international law agrees with that.
No one is saying not to blame Hamas, they have responsibilities too, that doesn’t however give Israel an ok to bomb civilian targets and starve out a civilian population, it’s been a literal war crime since at least the 1400s.
Sure, they can defend themselves. Striking civilian targets, in civilian, areas with civilian populations is still a goddamn war crime. You didn’t see England intentionally bombing civilian targets even when v2s were hitting every single goddamn day. The international community is literally telling them to stop striking civilian targets because they are in fact admitting to doing just that!
They’re bombing military targets and are causing civilian casualties in doing so, which is generally not forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. As long as civilian harm is not excessive in relation to the military objective to be achieved, an attack is valid and not a war crime.
…what? Have you read any books on Allied strategic bombing of German cities in WW2? There were firestorms in Hamburg and cities like Bochum were basically flattened. Britain’s Air Marshal Arthur Harris even stated this:
So you’re saying the extreme loss of civilian life is “not excessive”? Over 10,000 dead??
Also, what are “military targets” to you? Hospitals, churches, refugee camps, and homes are all fair game? Using white phosphorus bombs and hellfire missiles?
“AGM-114R9X is a non-explosive yet lethal missile due to its rotating blades that decapitate anyone within 3ft. The Minimum/Maximum fire distance is 1.5 km/8km.” That was launched at a hospital. This is despite Israeli insisting that Hamas is hiding in tunnels underneath densely populated areas and using civilians as “human shields” How is that going to kill members of Hamas?
No one except people trying to commit genocide go to these lengths to ensure civilian casualties. There are so many other options if they just wanted to kill Hamas fighters. But this is excessive, indefensible, and vile.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/31/1209763194/the-latest-on-israels-bombing-of-the-largest-gazan-refugee-camp
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5908/Israel-hits-Gaza-Strip-with-the-equivalent-of-two-nuclear-bombs
What’s excessive and what’s not is not clear. Hitting a hospital because there’s one Hamas member in it is certainly excessive, but if there’s a command post or even an entrenched fighting position in it that’s actively engaged in hostilities, that’s not excessive anymore. Military necessity and civilian harm have to be proportional.
As an example, Israel hasn’t used bunker busters or large JDAMs on hospitals even when there are suspected Hamas headquarters within / under them. That’s because it would be excessive to kill hundreds of people in the hospital for such a military objective. By contrast, they have destroyed whole civilian houses when there were Hamas installations within / underneath, because there are far fewer civilian casualties in such an attack.
Legitimate military targets are anything that is actively contributing to Hamas’ war effort, whether or not an attack on such a target is warranted depends on the collateral damage that would be caused.
There are? Please enlighten me, I’m sure the Israeli General Staff would also like to know.
Maybe not to you. But when the Israeli government says they bomb a hospital because there’s a “suspected Hamas headquarters” in it, you blindly trust them. We have no reason to distrust the people saying they definitely did not just commit countless war crimes despite other countries saying they did /s
I’m sure the over 4,000 children that have died were suspected Hamas leaders too.
So why the fuck you simping already bud?
It’s 100% forbidden, there are proportionality clauses. If I slap you you can’t shoot me in the face, it’s a pretty simple concept. Your excuse doesn’t make sense either, dead isrealis less than 2000, dead Palestinians 14000, you don’t think that excessive?
Blanket bombing of military targets correct, both of your examples contained military targets and military industries both valid targets at the time. Hamburg, oil yard, ship yards, sub pens, oil refineries. Bochum oil refineries, Krupp and a airfield.
Notably you could take the civilian casualties from both of those bombings and I’ll venture a guess they still won’t top the current civilian death count in Palestine.
You mean right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN charter, right?
That doesn’t apply if you’re an occupying force. And for anyone saying “Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza, there are no Israeli officials there” if you control movement, water, gas, power, food supplies, where civilians can and can’t travel to, and the territory is not allowed to exist independently, all of that “right to defend yourself” is null and void.
Israel is as much an occupying force as Egypt is. Both share borders with Gaza, so your argument holds no water. If Egypt wanted to, they could relieve all pressure on Palestinian civilians by simply opening up their border with Gaza. Israel by itself cannot enforce a blockade of Gaza.
So because Egypt isn’t doing enough, Israel isn’t to blame? Right. Solid argument.
What Egypt does or doesn’t do does not in any way negate the fact that Israel is completely out of line.
What an argument “but look at them, they are also bad, which means the even badder guys must not be as bad”.
You’re moving the goal post. I’m saying Israel isn’t an occupying force because they can’t blockade Gaza in the way you wrote. Since they’re not an occupying force, they have the right to self defense under the Geneva Conventions.
I’m not saying I like what Israel is doing. What I’m saying is they can either choose to endure attacks on their own population or defend themselves. They chose the latter, and that’s completely legal under international law.
B’tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories says the following:
Regarding moving of the goal post, you brought up Egypt, not me.
If you want to continue discussing in good faith, please stick to the talking points.