Murdered vs died.

The gaslighting is infuriating.

The rest of us aren’t fucking stupid you know.

Oh so true.
This blatant disregard for the ICC and the UN really worries me.

And all this endless, tiresome, time-consuming arguing about what language we all should use and saying “words matter” is utterly exasperating. Actions speak louder than words! Don’t say you’re the most moral army in the world and you’re avoiding civilian casualties and you’re acting in self defence and Hamas is making you do this and you’re killing not murdering - while all the time you are bombing, mutilating, orphaning and making homeless thousands and thousands of innocent children.

Ah yeah, that was my mistake sorry.

“.Seeing the world powers, of which we are not one, close ranks around Israel as they kill and injure 3% of a country's total population in less than 3 months it has become clear that if you are in a certain gang you can commit horrendous, unspeakable acts with impunity. It is a terrifying new standard to set…”

It is absolutely terrifying and why the greater UN is accusing the US and some of Europe of double standards. On a side note, Gaza isn’t a country. Gaza, West Bank, and East Jerusalem are occupied territories that fall wholly under the rule of Israel.

@Hiddenmnetter
This is a decent summary on how medical facilities and transport cannot ever become a military target even when fighting terrorists that misuse them. It gives a summary on the laws and special protections that apply to clinics, hospitals, Red Cross/Crescent ambulances and medical personnel.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611028/

Again, you are confusing military targets with civilian targets.

Proportionality applies to weighing incidental damage to nearby civilans/civilian infrastructure or the risk thereof when attacking a bona fide military target.

Porportionality in regards to attacking a civilian target suspected of concealing military personnel or equipment is completely different. There is no weighing of military advantage because it’s not a military target.

I think it is incredibly important that it does. Israel are making the world a less safe place, if Israel are allowed to get away with what we are all seeing happen then that is the new standard set. When Russia began war against Ukraine the world lept into action, making it clear that it was not acceptable. Russia was sanctioned, the world opened their homes to Ukrainians, and Russia was isolated on the world stage, it was clear that this behaviour would not be tolerated.

Now, living in a small country next one with a history of violent oppression I feel worried for the first time. Seeing the world powers, of which we are not one, close ranks around Israel as they kill and injure 3% of a country's total population in less than 3 months it has become clear that if you are in a certain gang you can commit horrendous, unspeakable acts with impunity. It is a terrifying new standard to set and if this isn't the new standard that we want set Israel need to be charged for their crimes. We need to treat them as we have treated Russia. We need to speak about and condemn them and we need to be free to do so without criticism and the only way that can happen is if they are convicted of their crimes. If not people will continue shrugging their shoulders and denying that shooting people dead who are waving white flags is murder and is a war crime.

Yes it does

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20proportionality%20prohibits,and%20direct%20military%20advantage%20anticipated%E2%80%9D.

No. That’s not genocide. Genocide has nothing to do with overthrowing the nation state status of a nation or nationality status of the civilian populace.

But we were not talking about military targets, we were talking about civilian targets suspected of concealing military personnel or equipment. This is very different and rules are different in how you handle them compared to a bona fide military target.

The importance of a leader doesn’t matter to porportionality. Ie, Russia could not nuke Washington DC because Biden is there. Proportionality has nothing to do with the military advantage, btw.

@Hellenika

Well the intent of the Russian attacks on Kiev was to kill the nationality of Ukrainians which under the UN definition makes it genocide.
The intent of Ukrainian attacks on Sevastopol was to kill the nationality of Russians which again makes it genocide.
The Houthi attacks by targeting specific nationality of ships again would make it genocide.

A military target does not have to present a current threat to be a valid military target. A munitions factory with workers inside it is a valid military target. A highway, or rail line, that has civilian motorists or trains on it is still a valid military target. And yes, a hospital that conceals a command centre is a valid military target.

As for proportionality, you COULD pancake the building, provided it was not disproportionate to the military advantage to be obtained. So, maybe not for some pleb Hamas foot soldier, but if there was a senior Hamas leader considered vital to Hamas operations, that may be considered proportionate.

No, it’s not as simple as civilian objects becoming military targets when used or suspected of being used to conceal military personnel or equipment.

No, most of how wars are executed today are not war crimes or genocide.

There are legal ways to wage war and for most operations, they stay within the bounds of legal armed conflict.

Your examples aren’t very good. Houthi attacks on shipping are not genocide, they may not even be war crimes as stopping logistical supply is acceptable when it isn’t humanitarian aid. Russian bombing of Kyiv, is not genocide, if the bombing was shown to include avoidable civilians deaths or avoidable hits on civilian infrastructure, that could be a war crime, but the reports do not amount to genocide when you look at civilian deaths. Same for Sevastopol.

That is wrong- civilian objects become military targets when used to conceal military targets.

If this is unsubstantiated (despite 2 decades of Hamas practice) then the allegation that it is a war crime despite allegations that the civilian infrastructure is used to conceal military targets needs to be established to decide one way or another.

@Hellenika

"Much of how WWII was fought would be a war crime and genocide today."

+++

Actually because of the broad definition much of how any war is committed today would be classed as a war crime and genocide.

The Houthi attacks on civilian ships = war crime and genocide.
The Russian bombing of Kiev ='war crime and genocide
The Ukrainian bombing of Sevastopol in Crimea = war crime and genocide

No, you are incorrect as is your scenario.

You can return lethal fire into civilians and it not be a war crime, what you cannot do is pre-emptively fire on civilians that you think may be a threat or contain a threat hidden within them.

The porportionality is in regards to how you return fire, e.g Hamas on a roof with sniper rifle that he’s just fired at you. Do you: call in an airstrike and pancake the entire building killing the hundreds of residents or do you instruct a sniper to shoot the Hamas guy (and you know he is as he’s popped up with a rifle and fired off a shot at you). ? Porportionality states you must avoid civilian deaths as much as possible. That you cannot pancake an entire building full of civilians to get to one or a few Hamas terrorists. You cannot use a tank shell either, in case you are wondering.

This law doesn’t encourage the use of human shields. It is not my standard, it is the ICC standard.

Yes, WWII was the point at which we humans realised that total war resulted in horrific deaths of civilians that should not be repeated in future.

Post WWII is when all the international laws were written and genocide, ethnic cleansing, weaponised rape and so on were formally defined and agreed on to be war crimes.

So posters that try and justify Gaza by comparison to what the Allies did in WWII are way off the mark. Much of how WWII was fought would be a war crime and genocide today.

I believe that is incorrect. I believe that the military must weigh the proportional military gain against the death of the humans being used as shields. You do not have to be under immediate threat of death in order to justify the killing of human shields, however you have to consider the potential military gain (thus Israeli aren’t carpet bombing Gaza).

Think about it practically- you could walk down the street with all your weaponry concealed with your human shield compelled to follow you, you then open fire upon a military objective, and just as immediately throw your weapons away and wave a white flag, while moving away with your human shield between you and your one-time targets. If your standard was the required standard, it would encourage the use of human shields. It would in fact make enemy combatants virtually invulnerable as long as they made it clear moments after attempting to attack that they were now not attempting to attack.

No, it would not look any different. Most of what you have written is unsubstantiated allegations against Hamas that even if they were true do not excuse IDF targeting civilian infrastructure under the laws of armed conflict. E.g, even if Hamas were proven to be in a hospital it is still a war crime to fire on the hospital.

The same with the refusal to allow in humanitarian aid, it is not defensible due to fear of plundering or “dual use”. This is a war crime.

Israel’s excuses are illegal excuses. They are only getting away with it because there is no bigger military power on the ground to enforce the law.

“As for statements by Israeli leaders amounting to genocidal intent, I don’t think any of them have said something approaching: “we want to kill all the Palestinians”. - there are lots of examples, very easy to find. The Alamek speech by Nethanyu alone is genocidal.

@BigandBeefy I doubt they ever will. We will knight them too!

You're just being goady and awful now. Or possibly very hard of understanding.

What part of Both are horrific tragedies. But they mean different things makes you think I'm OK with war? It's literally there in the post you're quoting.

War is monstrous. War is horrific and brutal and violent. In every post I've said that.

How do you contort War And Murder Are Different into "Lena's cool with mass deaths"? That's incredibly offensive.

@Toothyfruity

I think the key word in that definition is "intent".

If the intent of the Israeli military in Gaza is just to kill Gazans then this would be genocide. If the intent of this Israeli military in Gaza is to kill Hamas but in the process ordinary Gazans also get killed then this would not be genocide. Different people will have different views as to what is the intent of the Israeli military in Gaza - Gazan civilians or Hamas?

There is also an interesting overlap between war crimes and genocide, so for example the bombing of German cities by the British in WW2 in order to demoralise the civilian population would now be classed as a war crime and it would also be classed as genocide as the intent was to target Germans. Equally the intent of the IRA on for example the Warrington bombing deliberately targeted British civilians so this would also make it genocide.

So any deliberate targeting of civilians is both a war crime and genocide by this definition.

Yes this is true- you (mostly) have to infer intent- but that’s why I’m pointing out that if their actual intent was genocide, it would look different.

Most of the things people are listing as evidence of genocide I think falls under the secondary consequence argument, because the destruction of hospitals, schools and civilian infrastructure etc is accounted for by the fact that Hamas use those locations for exactly the reason that they hope the Israelis will be afraid of being labelled genocidal and so not strike back when they hide there.

Equally, the refusal to allow aid in is defensible under the condition that it amounts to material aid to Hamas because Hamas plunder the aid trucks and the majority doesn’t reach Gazan civilians anyway.

Im not suggesting that everything is fine and it’s all wonderful- the whole situation is terrible. But on a thread about language mattering, the meaning of these terms is relevant to the facts.

As for statements by Israeli leaders amounting to genocidal intent, I don’t think any of them have said something approaching: “we want to kill all the Palestinians”. The closest I’ve seen is the denial of the Palestinian identity as a unique historical identity, on the basis of a variety of historical arguments (around the origins of political identity in the region). Even still, that doesn’t appear to be a justification that the Palestinians can be killed, but is mostly an argument around why the Jewish purchase of land in the Ottoman Empire and later British Mandate should not be returned.