This is the thing that pissed me off - the organization that has a humanitarian symbol so strong you can be legally held accountable for using it in a way that lessens its importance acknowledges that attacking a hospital being used as a military bases is a legal part of war. Meanwhile there are people whos education doesn't pass high-school screaming that this isn't legal, or its incorrect, or blaming the aggressor instead of those deliberately putting civilian lives at risk by blatantly ignoring intl rules of conflict.
If you want to throw in your argument against the red cross, spend your life and billions of dollars helping humanitarian issues world wide and then you might have some authority on the matter.
This is modern warfare. War is horrific, innocents get killed, people suffer. We put rules in place to lessen the effects on the innocent and those who circumvent those rules to try make the others look bad need to be removed in the quickest and most efficient way we can - as soon as one group gets away with ignoring the intl rules, everyone can.
I don't think any intellectually honest person that supports Palestine thinks Hamas are the "good guys", they are an evil created and grown directly and indirectly by Israel's actions.
I doubt anyone thinks they are the good guys, but there are multiple trying to justify blatant war crimes and thinking they should be able to operate with immunity because they have civilians in the cross fire.
Im also doubting some "intellectually honest" people on both sides if the arguement. Well, with this CF all six sides of the arguement...
Who is doing that? Who is saying it's justifiable for Hamas to use a hospital as a base? The only thing remotely close to that I've seen is people saying that a group like Hamas is an inevitable byproduct of Israeli occupation. Everyone knows putting a garrison in a hospital is shit, what's disturbing is how many people think that justifies murdering every civilian in there
It's the only place they could make a garrison, any other building Israel even remotely thinks is related to terrorism is summarily obliterated. If you leave people two options and one isn't plausible you can't be all too surprised they choose the other option.
The US spent 20 fucking years fighting in Afghanistan which also had hospital garrisons, I don't seem to remember a pattern or practice of leveling them though. In fact the hospital that was destroyed kicked off a three party international review, the us apologized and paid the families. Israel on thee other hand said fuck it let's go bomb hospitals.
It's the only place they could make a garrison, any other building Israel even remotely thinks is related to terrorism is summarily obliterated. If you leave people two options and one isn't plausible you can't be all too surprised they choose the other option.
/u/endlessapollo one of them just replied to you justifying garrison a hospital.
It's not a justification dude, it's still wrong but you're lying to yourself if your say you wouldn't do it either.
Take a guess where all of the known presidential bunkers are in the us.
How was saying they don't have a choice not justification of the action?
I cant comment on whether or not I would, but I haven't. I'm not the one currently using human shields to push my agenda, nor am I the one being looked at for doing so - what I would do is irrelevant because I haven't done it... like any other law in existence.
So, back on topic - how is saying they don't have a choice not justification?
Point to another place to setup a secure garrison in the open air concentration camp that is gaza. I'll wait. Similarly it's not justification because it isn't justifiable, as I said it's still shitty to do but it's easy to see why it was done. That said you should look into operation shark that was aimed at the proto Israeli terror group Lehi for the bombing of a civilian hotel that contained the Palestinian embassy in 1946. Would you like to venture a guess as to where they found insurgents and weapons? Here's a hint: chools and opitals.
Correct, you can't answer because it will destroy your argument. You would do it, I would do it, any person with a brain would which is why there are specific rules about it in international law and it isn't because it never happens I can assure you of that, quite the opposite in fact.
the action of showing something to be right or reasonable.
It isn't right, nor is it particularly reasonable so it isn't a justification. You could make a hundred legit arguments here but understanding=justification is hilariously stupid.
…/u/? On lemmy?
I have unfortunately seen comments trying to justify it- mostly around them not having a choice (edit: oh look, one just replied), or because otherwise they would be bombed, or its ok because Israel isn't good either. Whats more disturbing is my comment responding asking if they just justified a war crime because they said it was ok because they would be attacked otherwise got downvoted something like 20 times. Im also aware that isn't exactly a peer reviewed study.
I fully agree on your comment regarding how worrying it is how many people think killing them all is ok. No, it is a war crime to garrison a hospital, and it removes protection from that hospital but your response still has to be proportional and in a way that minimizes damage and civilian casualties. They could put a sniper in every window, rockets on the roof and you still can't level the building.
That's understanding not justification. Saying they get why it was done is not at all the same as saying it's morally or logically correct.
It specifically does not remove protections, it makes limited military intervention legal. I agree with the rest but that phrasing makes it seem like anything is on the table when it isn't.
Uh... well for a start one of them just replied to you.
Hi there. How about an old soldier who actually had to know this stuff and use that knowledge in a war?
First off, a single incident isn't enough. A sniper or even a squad doing stuff can be dealt with in other ways. In order to strike a hospital (or any protected target) with explosives you need evidence it's a target of "military or strategic value". This is why Israel isn't just claiming a few sporadic attacks but instead that all of the hospitals are actually command centers.
Second, the protected target can only be hit by proportional force that accomplishes a specific goal. If there's an artillery battery in the parking lot and I level the obstetrics wing with dumb bombs then I've committed a war crime. Smart bombs with very low yields absolutely exist. Another example is the eponymous claim of rooftop rockets. I can hit that with an airburst explosive to prevent structural damage to most concrete buildings. In the context of protected targets these things matter. You don't get a green light to demolish it unless it's basically been hollowed out for military use only.
Third, whoever fires on the protected target is responsible for providing the evidence it was required. And war crimes investigators take a very dim view of "they did it once a decade ago", as a reason. Israel and it's allies have yet to do anything that actually proves the existence of a military or strategic target in places like the UNRWA Gaza headquarters.
While proportionality is in LOAC, if there is ample intelligence that the hospital is being used to commit attacks, it doesn't have to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
"the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]"
"While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action."
And that's before we get into the creative reinterpreting of LOAC for terrorists in non-
international armed conflicts fought by non-state insurgent groups which were invented post 9-11.
I never said it had to be in exclusive use to get fired on.
I did say the party firing on the hospital needs to provide evidence that each hospital, at each time, was a legal target. "I said so" doesn't pass muster.
In that case, let's talk soldier to sailor as I suspect I've been out much longer than you and can provide the perspectiveof what is being seen. You're logically spoken, so I'm going to assume ~sgt rank and American.
During the US time in Afghanistan there was significant urban combat, with multiple civilians around, limited identification of combatants and a campaign to win over the local population so you had to be absolutely sure of your target and operations. This was not just the guy on the ground, but the operations planning at officer level, approval to senior command and in liason with local forces. Post patrol or fire fight the was debriefs, justification of actions, and improvement points to be discussed, remedied and distributed. This happens across theater, from rifleman to pilot to special ops. You likely sat in brief after brief, got frustrated at ops planning, and had to debrief and relive the worst day of your life in hopes lessons could be drawn to save lives down the track.
We civilians saw none of that. We saw videos of tomahawks being launched, helicopters flying, burnt out trucks. Civilians screaming, dead kids, burnt buildings. Coffins coming home, memorials, speeches.
What is happening in Israel is likely very similar. Im not Israeli intelligence so I don't see the planning that went into the attack, didn't sit in the ready room as the pilots got briefed, haven't seen the after action reports - because this information doesn't make it to the news and isn't distributed. The best we have to go off is exactly the same as we had for America - there are laws around it, civilians will get harmed in virtually any conflict, but a person who is well aware of the damage they are about to inflict, where, and who else will be affected still has to press the button or pull the trigger knowing exactly where that round is going.
The flaw in your argument is not that you are incorrect - far from it. It's the belief that because you were not directly involved to witness it it didn't happen.
I'm older than you think. I was in the 2003 Iraq invasion. And I was specifically a mortarman. I have vivid memories of listening to the fires net and the Battalion coordinator asking for exact details and then us getting exact fire mission specifics to minimize damage. ( A normal mission would be something like all guns fire 10 rounds of ground det HE as fast as possible. These missions were more like our best gun firing one airburst or smoke at a time.) The thing is, those details are all recorded because you have to be able to account for every mission fired on a protected target. They wouldn't be sensitive either, not the parts about how exactly Hamas is using the building as reported by units on the ground. The reporting method is known and Hamas' tactics are something they want to show the world.
It's the absence of these reports along with the completely lackluster post battle evidence that has me wondering what the hell the Israelis are doing.
First off, a single incident isn’t enough.
This is not an isolated incident.
We don't even have evidence of a single incident.
And before you reply with LoOk At ThE ViDeO!11
That's one guy. In the street outside a hospital. That in no way justifies anything other than the infantry going by to check it out and help the doctors. One guy with an RPG (not the sensationalist ATGM setup the headline would have us believe) is nowhere near the evidence required to drop ordinance on a hospital.
My friend, they celebrate an airstrike with multiple rocket enough to create a crater few meter wide, using it on a human target, inside a crowded refugee camp. They certainly will not listen to any reasoning.
It doesn't give them the right to bomb the hospital point blank period, proportionality clauses kick in and it's arguably reason to ground assault it but they cannot ignore the civilian cost of life when they're are other ways to go about clearing the garrison.
Ed: Jesus Christ, 3 seconds on Google prior just can't seem to do.
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.
Unfortunately as soon as they garrisoned it it became a legitimate military target and yes, they literally now have a right to bomb it. Level it, no, you are right on a proportional response and that would still be a war crime, but bombing what is now a legitimate military target prior to any invasion (like any other military target) can absolutely be justified.
Hamas knows this, and are deliberately trying to put the global blame on Israel when THEY GARRISONED A FUCKING HOSPITAL.
Lol "garrisoned". This isn't Age of Empires. Gaza is one of the most densely populated area on the planet. They have no freedom of movement, and the area is completely blockaded. Anywhere anyone in that area tries to stage a defense is a "civilian area." They're literally prohibited from having anything else.
So there is nowhere they could defend from that you wouldn't consider "human shield."
But you know that.
Edit: Corrected. Because fascist apologists love getting honest interlocutors hung up on semantics. I misspoke, and it's "just" one of the most densely populated areas. Because that changes my argument in any real way whatsoever.
Uhh... military forces holding a building and using it as a base is literally called a garrison.
I know what the word means. If you want to get all semantic about it, Hamas isn't a "military force," they're an insurgency. I'm not sure an insurgency "garrisons".
As the elected representative of Palestine they are indeed a military force, operating in a state to state conflict. Like the taliban in Afghanistan - they are the controllers of the country, no longer an insurgency. How "good" they are, morally or militarily, is irrelevant.
Its like saying the US of A is actually an insurgency because they toppled the British government and established their own. Nope - government.
How fair the elections were is up for debate, and how they stopped elections but they are thr government of Palestine.
Furthermore, why are you bring up that I'm being semantic with a word that you had a problem with using?
Gaza is not even close to being the most densely populated area on the planet, what is your source for that?
Also have you seen a map of gaza? There are many open areas hamas could use to launch attacks from, but it chooses (rather rationally I might add) to site its materiel in places where israeli retaliation will cause civillian casualties.
I apologize that I forgot to add "one of the" before "most." The point still stands.
Oh, you looked at a map of Gaza, and because of that you are an expert on the land and you know the best strategic locations for them to set up? Fuck off.
Israel made an open-air prison, and when a group of extremists react, they bomb the entire fucking prison (strangely aiming at the hospitals, and the areas where they instructed refugees to go).
Edit: After re-reading this comment, i'd like to correct something. I don't think it's even accurate to say Israel created an open-air prison, or to call Gaza a prison. The word "prison" heavily implies that the people there did something to deserve their punishment. I wonder if anyone could let me know all the terrorist acts those Gazan children performed... Was it "throwing rocks at IDF"? Because that's usually punishable by death.
Child. Glad to see you admit this is a joke to you.
Hey man, play to your audience.
I notice you still have not corrected the lie from your other post - why could that be?
I didn't lie, I misspoke and I did correct myself. But since that apparently wasn't enough, see edit.
As if the correction changes anything about the point being made.
What lie? The mistake of fact they corrected?
Open areas, you know! Those places everyone can see, who needs operational security when you have all that room for activities!
"Rather rationally I might add" what did you take this part to mean?
Hedging doesn't change your idiotic point. No one uses open areas because.... They're open fucking areas. It's like saying "why don't you go play baseball in that lake over there."
Are you retarded or just incapable of reading? Do you think I said their decision to not use open areas was rational because I thought it was dumb?
I read just fine bud, your point is still shit. It doesn't matter that there are open areas because no one would use them certainly not an insurgency that can't mass troops. It's nothing, why bring it up.
No the fuck they don't!
You just ain't right bud, do some fucking reading before you spout Israeli talking points.
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.
Medical establishments and units enjoy protection because of their function of providing care for the wounded and sick. When they are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations, and thereby cause harm to the enemy, the rationale for their specific protection is removed. This would be the case for example if a hospital is used as a base from which to launch an attack; as an observation post to transmit information of military value; as a weapons depot; as a center for liaison with fighting troops; or as a shelter for able-bodied combatants.
Source - International commitment of the Red Cross. Hamas is doing all of these.
Are you telling me you know better than the biggest humanitarian organization on the planet? I have been studying this for two years, read well over 150 peer reviewed articles on conflict and the effect it has on the civilian population, and studied multiple places where International law was not followed. I've done enough fucking reading on the topic and don't need to reply with pro-anyone agenda to discuss it.
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.
Same source, you know that's theres like thousands of laws in relation to war correct?
I don't know better boss, but I can use the search bar and read, you don't need much more than that to know you're objectively wrong and your source agrees.
Sadly I think there's just an overwhelming tendency for bias to make people think "everything my side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong".
Random people on the internet, many of whom are mostly (if not entirely) detached from realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may only just be learning about it for the first time from social media, have now formed ranks and picked a side that feels right in the moment. I'd ask people to resist the urge to do that, and instead take some time to read into the complete history of the region and the conflict, but I think it's much easier to go along with what other people on the net/TV/radio/etc are shouting.
People should keep in mind that there's a 3rd side to every conflict: the side of the innocent people who have found themselves caught in the middle of an armed conflict that they never wanted or asked for. The Israeli student who was shot to death at a festival, the old Palestinian woman whose family were buried alive in a knocked-down building, the young child who was taken hostage by Hamas scared and alone, and the Gaza teenager who has lost all possibility of the normal, peaceful life and education that so many of us take for granted. Their side is the only side that anyone should be on. And it's those very innocent civilians who Hamas are knowingly putting in danger by treating them as human shields in a way that openly invites retaliation.
When you stop to think for a minute about what's really going on here, and when you've taken even the bare minimum amount of time to read up on the history of this conflict (one of the longest-running geopolitical conflicts in modern history), it's not hard to understand that both sides really do have blood on their hands. There are no "good guys" other than the people who have managed to stay innocent, and as the conflict goes on and the desire for revenge burns in people's hearts, eventually some of those people will become "bad guys" too.
And that's just a very sad thing, because if nothing else it means that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Sadly I think there's just an overwhelming tendency for bias to make people think "everything my side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong".
The good old "they" mentality strikes again. You are completely correct in everything you have said, and I think this is one of the first major global issues where social media has really come to the forefront - just like the TV for Vietnam everyone can see it, but now everyone can put in their own opinions and with the 5-15 sec clips you don't get verifications, or balanced arguments, or anything that says this person is actually well informed and not coming in with an agenda.
I think what gets me the most is how would anyone else react if their country had a neighbor whos founding document screamed for the death of you. Who ripped up their infrastructure to send rockets against you and made you develop one of the best counter-missile battery in the world to protect your civilians. Who invaded across your boarder to shoot and abduct civilians and openly brags they wanted to get more.
I would argue that people do consider the innocents caught up in it, but the unfortunate fact is that these actions can't be allowed to continue otherwise more will be affected in the long term. I support Israeli invasion, because dragging this out, allowing Hamas immunity because they have human shields, and keeping the blockade up means help can't get to those that need it. Attacking civilian structures should be a last resort, but if they are being used to stage attacks its not something you have the luxury of shying away from.
Meanwhile there are people whos education doesn't pass high-school screaming that this isn't legal, or its incorrect
This is the thing that pissed me off - the organization that has a humanitarian symbol so strong you can be legally held accountable for using it in a way that lessens its importance acknowledges that attacking a hospital being used as a military bases is a legal part of war. Meanwhile there are people whos education doesn't pass high-school screaming that this isn't legal, or its incorrect, or blaming the aggressor instead of those deliberately putting civilian lives at risk by blatantly ignoring intl rules of conflict.
If you want to throw in your argument against the red cross, spend your life and billions of dollars helping humanitarian issues world wide and then you might have some authority on the matter.
This is modern warfare. War is horrific, innocents get killed, people suffer. We put rules in place to lessen the effects on the innocent and those who circumvent those rules to try make the others look bad need to be removed in the quickest and most efficient way we can - as soon as one group gets away with ignoring the intl rules, everyone can.
I don't think any intellectually honest person that supports Palestine thinks Hamas are the "good guys", they are an evil created and grown directly and indirectly by Israel's actions.
I doubt anyone thinks they are the good guys, but there are multiple trying to justify blatant war crimes and thinking they should be able to operate with immunity because they have civilians in the cross fire.
Im also doubting some "intellectually honest" people on both sides if the arguement. Well, with this CF all six sides of the arguement...
Who is doing that? Who is saying it's justifiable for Hamas to use a hospital as a base? The only thing remotely close to that I've seen is people saying that a group like Hamas is an inevitable byproduct of Israeli occupation. Everyone knows putting a garrison in a hospital is shit, what's disturbing is how many people think that justifies murdering every civilian in there
It's the only place they could make a garrison, any other building Israel even remotely thinks is related to terrorism is summarily obliterated. If you leave people two options and one isn't plausible you can't be all too surprised they choose the other option.
The US spent 20 fucking years fighting in Afghanistan which also had hospital garrisons, I don't seem to remember a pattern or practice of leveling them though. In fact the hospital that was destroyed kicked off a three party international review, the us apologized and paid the families. Israel on thee other hand said fuck it let's go bomb hospitals.
/u/endlessapollo one of them just replied to you justifying garrison a hospital.
It's not a justification dude, it's still wrong but you're lying to yourself if your say you wouldn't do it either.
Take a guess where all of the known presidential bunkers are in the us.
How was saying they don't have a choice not justification of the action?
I cant comment on whether or not I would, but I haven't. I'm not the one currently using human shields to push my agenda, nor am I the one being looked at for doing so - what I would do is irrelevant because I haven't done it... like any other law in existence.
So, back on topic - how is saying they don't have a choice not justification?
Point to another place to setup a secure garrison in the open air concentration camp that is gaza. I'll wait. Similarly it's not justification because it isn't justifiable, as I said it's still shitty to do but it's easy to see why it was done. That said you should look into operation shark that was aimed at the proto Israeli terror group Lehi for the bombing of a civilian hotel that contained the Palestinian embassy in 1946. Would you like to venture a guess as to where they found insurgents and weapons? Here's a hint: chools and opitals.
Correct, you can't answer because it will destroy your argument. You would do it, I would do it, any person with a brain would which is why there are specific rules about it in international law and it isn't because it never happens I can assure you of that, quite the opposite in fact.
…/u/? On lemmy?
I have unfortunately seen comments trying to justify it- mostly around them not having a choice (edit: oh look, one just replied), or because otherwise they would be bombed, or its ok because Israel isn't good either. Whats more disturbing is my comment responding asking if they just justified a war crime because they said it was ok because they would be attacked otherwise got downvoted something like 20 times. Im also aware that isn't exactly a peer reviewed study.
I fully agree on your comment regarding how worrying it is how many people think killing them all is ok. No, it is a war crime to garrison a hospital, and it removes protection from that hospital but your response still has to be proportional and in a way that minimizes damage and civilian casualties. They could put a sniper in every window, rockets on the roof and you still can't level the building.
That's understanding not justification. Saying they get why it was done is not at all the same as saying it's morally or logically correct.
It specifically does not remove protections, it makes limited military intervention legal. I agree with the rest but that phrasing makes it seem like anything is on the table when it isn't.
Uh... well for a start one of them just replied to you.
Hi there. How about an old soldier who actually had to know this stuff and use that knowledge in a war?
First off, a single incident isn't enough. A sniper or even a squad doing stuff can be dealt with in other ways. In order to strike a hospital (or any protected target) with explosives you need evidence it's a target of "military or strategic value". This is why Israel isn't just claiming a few sporadic attacks but instead that all of the hospitals are actually command centers.
Second, the protected target can only be hit by proportional force that accomplishes a specific goal. If there's an artillery battery in the parking lot and I level the obstetrics wing with dumb bombs then I've committed a war crime. Smart bombs with very low yields absolutely exist. Another example is the eponymous claim of rooftop rockets. I can hit that with an airburst explosive to prevent structural damage to most concrete buildings. In the context of protected targets these things matter. You don't get a green light to demolish it unless it's basically been hollowed out for military use only.
Third, whoever fires on the protected target is responsible for providing the evidence it was required. And war crimes investigators take a very dim view of "they did it once a decade ago", as a reason. Israel and it's allies have yet to do anything that actually proves the existence of a military or strategic target in places like the UNRWA Gaza headquarters.
While proportionality is in LOAC, if there is ample intelligence that the hospital is being used to commit attacks, it doesn't have to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28#:~:text=to%20medical%20units-,Rule%2028.,and%20protected%20in%20all%20circumstances.
"the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]"
"While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action."
And that's before we get into the creative reinterpreting of LOAC for terrorists in non- international armed conflicts fought by non-state insurgent groups which were invented post 9-11.
I never said it had to be in exclusive use to get fired on.
I did say the party firing on the hospital needs to provide evidence that each hospital, at each time, was a legal target. "I said so" doesn't pass muster.
In that case, let's talk soldier to sailor as I suspect I've been out much longer than you and can provide the perspectiveof what is being seen. You're logically spoken, so I'm going to assume ~sgt rank and American.
During the US time in Afghanistan there was significant urban combat, with multiple civilians around, limited identification of combatants and a campaign to win over the local population so you had to be absolutely sure of your target and operations. This was not just the guy on the ground, but the operations planning at officer level, approval to senior command and in liason with local forces. Post patrol or fire fight the was debriefs, justification of actions, and improvement points to be discussed, remedied and distributed. This happens across theater, from rifleman to pilot to special ops. You likely sat in brief after brief, got frustrated at ops planning, and had to debrief and relive the worst day of your life in hopes lessons could be drawn to save lives down the track.
We civilians saw none of that. We saw videos of tomahawks being launched, helicopters flying, burnt out trucks. Civilians screaming, dead kids, burnt buildings. Coffins coming home, memorials, speeches.
What is happening in Israel is likely very similar. Im not Israeli intelligence so I don't see the planning that went into the attack, didn't sit in the ready room as the pilots got briefed, haven't seen the after action reports - because this information doesn't make it to the news and isn't distributed. The best we have to go off is exactly the same as we had for America - there are laws around it, civilians will get harmed in virtually any conflict, but a person who is well aware of the damage they are about to inflict, where, and who else will be affected still has to press the button or pull the trigger knowing exactly where that round is going.
The flaw in your argument is not that you are incorrect - far from it. It's the belief that because you were not directly involved to witness it it didn't happen.
I'm older than you think. I was in the 2003 Iraq invasion. And I was specifically a mortarman. I have vivid memories of listening to the fires net and the Battalion coordinator asking for exact details and then us getting exact fire mission specifics to minimize damage. ( A normal mission would be something like all guns fire 10 rounds of ground det HE as fast as possible. These missions were more like our best gun firing one airburst or smoke at a time.) The thing is, those details are all recorded because you have to be able to account for every mission fired on a protected target. They wouldn't be sensitive either, not the parts about how exactly Hamas is using the building as reported by units on the ground. The reporting method is known and Hamas' tactics are something they want to show the world.
It's the absence of these reports along with the completely lackluster post battle evidence that has me wondering what the hell the Israelis are doing.
This is not an isolated incident.
We don't even have evidence of a single incident.
And before you reply with LoOk At ThE ViDeO!11
That's one guy. In the street outside a hospital. That in no way justifies anything other than the infantry going by to check it out and help the doctors. One guy with an RPG (not the sensationalist ATGM setup the headline would have us believe) is nowhere near the evidence required to drop ordinance on a hospital.
My friend, they celebrate an airstrike with multiple rocket enough to create a crater few meter wide, using it on a human target, inside a crowded refugee camp. They certainly will not listen to any reasoning.
It doesn't give them the right to bomb the hospital point blank period, proportionality clauses kick in and it's arguably reason to ground assault it but they cannot ignore the civilian cost of life when they're are other ways to go about clearing the garrison.
Ed: Jesus Christ, 3 seconds on Google prior just can't seem to do.
Unfortunately as soon as they garrisoned it it became a legitimate military target and yes, they literally now have a right to bomb it. Level it, no, you are right on a proportional response and that would still be a war crime, but bombing what is now a legitimate military target prior to any invasion (like any other military target) can absolutely be justified.
Hamas knows this, and are deliberately trying to put the global blame on Israel when THEY GARRISONED A FUCKING HOSPITAL.
Lol "garrisoned". This isn't Age of Empires. Gaza is one of the most densely populated area on the planet. They have no freedom of movement, and the area is completely blockaded. Anywhere anyone in that area tries to stage a defense is a "civilian area." They're literally prohibited from having anything else.
So there is nowhere they could defend from that you wouldn't consider "human shield."
But you know that.
Edit: Corrected. Because fascist apologists love getting honest interlocutors hung up on semantics. I misspoke, and it's "just" one of the most densely populated areas. Because that changes my argument in any real way whatsoever.
Uhh... military forces holding a building and using it as a base is literally called a garrison.
I know what the word means. If you want to get all semantic about it, Hamas isn't a "military force," they're an insurgency. I'm not sure an insurgency "garrisons".
As the elected representative of Palestine they are indeed a military force, operating in a state to state conflict. Like the taliban in Afghanistan - they are the controllers of the country, no longer an insurgency. How "good" they are, morally or militarily, is irrelevant.
Its like saying the US of A is actually an insurgency because they toppled the British government and established their own. Nope - government.
How fair the elections were is up for debate, and how they stopped elections but they are thr government of Palestine.
Furthermore, why are you bring up that I'm being semantic with a word that you had a problem with using?
Gaza is not even close to being the most densely populated area on the planet, what is your source for that?
Also have you seen a map of gaza? There are many open areas hamas could use to launch attacks from, but it chooses (rather rationally I might add) to site its materiel in places where israeli retaliation will cause civillian casualties.
I apologize that I forgot to add "one of the" before "most." The point still stands.
Oh, you looked at a map of Gaza, and because of that you are an expert on the land and you know the best strategic locations for them to set up? Fuck off.
Israel made an open-air prison, and when a group of extremists react, they bomb the entire fucking prison (strangely aiming at the hospitals, and the areas where they instructed refugees to go).
Edit: After re-reading this comment, i'd like to correct something. I don't think it's even accurate to say Israel created an open-air prison, or to call Gaza a prison. The word "prison" heavily implies that the people there did something to deserve their punishment. I wonder if anyone could let me know all the terrorist acts those Gazan children performed... Was it "throwing rocks at IDF"? Because that's usually punishable by death.
Child. Glad to see you admit this is a joke to you.
Hey man, play to your audience.
I notice you still have not corrected the lie from your other post - why could that be?
I didn't lie, I misspoke and I did correct myself. But since that apparently wasn't enough, see edit.
As if the correction changes anything about the point being made.
What lie? The mistake of fact they corrected?
Open areas, you know! Those places everyone can see, who needs operational security when you have all that room for activities!
"Rather rationally I might add" what did you take this part to mean?
Hedging doesn't change your idiotic point. No one uses open areas because.... They're open fucking areas. It's like saying "why don't you go play baseball in that lake over there."
Are you retarded or just incapable of reading? Do you think I said their decision to not use open areas was rational because I thought it was dumb?
I read just fine bud, your point is still shit. It doesn't matter that there are open areas because no one would use them certainly not an insurgency that can't mass troops. It's nothing, why bring it up.
No the fuck they don't!
You just ain't right bud, do some fucking reading before you spout Israeli talking points.
Source - International commitment of the Red Cross. Hamas is doing all of these.
Are you telling me you know better than the biggest humanitarian organization on the planet? I have been studying this for two years, read well over 150 peer reviewed articles on conflict and the effect it has on the civilian population, and studied multiple places where International law was not followed. I've done enough fucking reading on the topic and don't need to reply with pro-anyone agenda to discuss it.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality
Same source, you know that's theres like thousands of laws in relation to war correct?
I don't know better boss, but I can use the search bar and read, you don't need much more than that to know you're objectively wrong and your source agrees.
Sadly I think there's just an overwhelming tendency for bias to make people think "everything my side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong".
Random people on the internet, many of whom are mostly (if not entirely) detached from realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may only just be learning about it for the first time from social media, have now formed ranks and picked a side that feels right in the moment. I'd ask people to resist the urge to do that, and instead take some time to read into the complete history of the region and the conflict, but I think it's much easier to go along with what other people on the net/TV/radio/etc are shouting.
People should keep in mind that there's a 3rd side to every conflict: the side of the innocent people who have found themselves caught in the middle of an armed conflict that they never wanted or asked for. The Israeli student who was shot to death at a festival, the old Palestinian woman whose family were buried alive in a knocked-down building, the young child who was taken hostage by Hamas scared and alone, and the Gaza teenager who has lost all possibility of the normal, peaceful life and education that so many of us take for granted. Their side is the only side that anyone should be on. And it's those very innocent civilians who Hamas are knowingly putting in danger by treating them as human shields in a way that openly invites retaliation.
When you stop to think for a minute about what's really going on here, and when you've taken even the bare minimum amount of time to read up on the history of this conflict (one of the longest-running geopolitical conflicts in modern history), it's not hard to understand that both sides really do have blood on their hands. There are no "good guys" other than the people who have managed to stay innocent, and as the conflict goes on and the desire for revenge burns in people's hearts, eventually some of those people will become "bad guys" too.
And that's just a very sad thing, because if nothing else it means that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
The good old "they" mentality strikes again. You are completely correct in everything you have said, and I think this is one of the first major global issues where social media has really come to the forefront - just like the TV for Vietnam everyone can see it, but now everyone can put in their own opinions and with the 5-15 sec clips you don't get verifications, or balanced arguments, or anything that says this person is actually well informed and not coming in with an agenda.
I think what gets me the most is how would anyone else react if their country had a neighbor whos founding document screamed for the death of you. Who ripped up their infrastructure to send rockets against you and made you develop one of the best counter-missile battery in the world to protect your civilians. Who invaded across your boarder to shoot and abduct civilians and openly brags they wanted to get more.
I would argue that people do consider the innocents caught up in it, but the unfortunate fact is that these actions can't be allowed to continue otherwise more will be affected in the long term. I support Israeli invasion, because dragging this out, allowing Hamas immunity because they have human shields, and keeping the blockade up means help can't get to those that need it. Attacking civilian structures should be a last resort, but if they are being used to stage attacks its not something you have the luxury of shying away from.
So...Joe Biden and UN?
Biden graduated in 65 from uni of Delaware... c average but still passed