To be clear, staging militant attacks from a hospital is a war crime.
To make matters worse, it opens up the likelihood and justification of counter-attacks against that hospital and the people in it.
According to international humanitarian law (IHL), health establishments and units, including hospitals, should not be attacked. This protection extends to the wounded and sick as well as to medical staff and means of transport. The rule has few exceptions.
Specific protection of medical establishments and units (including hospitals) is the general rule under IHL. Therefore, specific protection to which hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used by a party to the conflict to commit, outside their humanitarian functions, an "act harmful to the enemy".
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.
Nobody should beat around the bush here. Hamas are using injured civilians as a human shield to stage attacks, and in doing so they are inviting retaliation and suffering under well-establish terms of international law. There's not really any particular gray area here. It's horrible, it's unethical, it's criminal, and it's just plain wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Ok, let's send them to the Hague I guess? Why do you think this is an important point? Hamas isn't actually a legitimate organization that signed on to international law and would ever care what "legitimate warfare" is. They just went into Israel and murdered a bunch of civilians. If these fighters are caught whether the UN thinks they were wrong is the least of their problems.
And none of that makes Israel attacking a hospital (or just the blatant collective punishment) justified.
Except it literally does justify attacking the hospital. Black on white, letter and spirit of the law.
To be clear, no one here is defending Hamas or saying that it isn't a war crime.
Proximity shielfing isn't really the classic human shield idea. It's like "human shields*" with an asterisk and six paragraphs of footnotes showing how countries like Israel use the idea of proximity shielding to commit human rights violations untouched.
Has it seriously not occurred to zionists that there's a middle step between doing absolutely nothing and leveling the entire building? Send troops in there to liberate the hospital. A lot fewer innocents will die, and yea more IDF troops will die that way, but in what fucking universe is it preferable to murder civilians than to run a risky military operation? Even if Hamas kills a bunch of patients or doctors in retaliation there will surely be more survivors than if you just bomb the place. But nope, apparently Israeli lives are worth infinitely more than those of Palestinian civilians, so the best solution is to murder all Palestinians so they're not a "threat" to Israel
When your
best solution is to murder all Palestinians
...bombing hospitals, refugee camps, schools, and endless civilians is a good thing... and explains Israel's behaviour and rhetoric in a pretty straightforward way.
...of course, killing all those kids makes the question "why are Hamas bad" a bit awkward... I know! Saying it's bad to murder children is anti-semitic now - that's not an obvious, massive self-report!
I don't personally care to judge whether Israel or Hamas are worse - they're both monstrous, genocidal murderers, killing innocent civilians... But only one of them has the ability to actually deliver on their genocidal intentions, and they're making headway.
A lot fewer innocents will die, and yea more IDF troops will die that way, but in what fucking universe is it preferable to murder civilians than to run a risky military operation?
A lot fewer innocent palestinians. Why do you expect the Israeli government to prioritise the lives of Palestinian over their own citizens when trying to smack out a terrorist threat? I agree wholeheartedly that the attacks must stop and a ceasefire should be declared but comments like this which just present a simple solution and outright ignore the obvious reason that is not happening just distract from conversations we should be having.
Why do you expect the Israeli government to prioritise the lives of Palestinian over their own citizens when trying to smack out a terrorist threat?
Because they were instrumental in creating that terrorist threat in the first place, not only by perpetrating ethnic cleansing but by directly funding Hamas in the 70s and 80s as a counterbalance against the secular PLO.
Has it seriously not occurred to zionists that there's a middle step between doing absolutely nothing and leveling the entire building?
But where's the genocide in that?
Shouldn't your reasoning mean that we should only sacrifice German, US and British soldiers there?
It is their fault Israel exists like it does now. Every Israeli or Palestinian who dies is an innocent and only US Americans, Germans and Brits should be killed by Hamas.
But what about the reasons for the world wars? So it's actually Italians who should go and die there! Since it was the Romans actions that lead to the situations which evolved into the first world war!
Beyond these crazy and terrible events, I'm left wondering what the big picture end game was here? Was it to block Israel from normalizing relationships with neighbouring foes, or is it a part of a bigger play by foes of Israel to highlight the injustices from their point of view?
This sacrifice of the innocents on all sides is a terribly high price on humanity and how long an eye for an eye will take to play out in the generations to follow.
That's exactly it. Hamas has previously and continues to do all it can to destroy any hopes for peace and Israel's far-right has been happy to leverage them for the same reason.
Palestinians and Israelis suffer and die while a few powerful men maintain or gain power from the situation.
Hamas can't have peace otherwise a more legitimate government takes over and continues toward a two-state system (they had in the past made a wave of suicide bombings to derail the peace process). Israeli far-right doesn't peace either (they've shot one of their PMs in the past over this) as that would put a stop to their ambition of power and colonizing more Palestinian land.
Israeli reporters have shown how the current Israeli PM and his party had passively allowed the financing of Hamas to come into Gaza (enemy of my enemy...) so they would keep destabilizing any peace talks and fight the more moderate Palestinian parties.
In short, Hamas is horrible and keeps provoking Israel and Israel keeps biting the bait and reacting exactly as Hamas expects them to do: doing their own round of horrible atrocities in a vicious cycle of suffering and death which breeds the next generation of extremists.
Anybody looking at this issue purely as a military problem is missing the big picture.
deposing that far-right israeli leadership would be the first step toward fixing this whole mess. many israelis (around 75%) want netanyahu gone immediately after the war and it seems like their approval ratings have gone down as a result of this conflict, in contrast to the general trend of right-wing governments benefiting from war in most situations.
if the west can put pressure on israel (and that it can, without american weapons most of the surrounding muslim countries would love to genocide the hell out of israel), this is where that pressure needs to go. finish the war, get hamas out of at least the government of gaza (fully disbanding them will be a longer process, but at least don't put them in control), and then execute a regime change in israel as well. get rid of both governing parties that caused this mess to begin with and then their successors can hopefully actually work towards peace.
So much this. The Palestinian side has been more or less in stasis politically for what, a decade? Meanwhile Israel moves further and further to the right, constantly indulging their worst right flank including continued land theft. The Republicans in the US indulge Israel without question, while the Democrats question Israel without teeth.
Hamas and Netanyahu need to go as the baseline outcome of this debacle. I'm not sure how Hamas gets removed, or more importantly what takes its place.
I don't know if there is an endgame. Just dogs chasing cars. I do know a lot of people have died.
Doubt there was any goal or forethought past 'kill Israelis'
No, there's definitely an underlying tone of "hang onto power".
Was it to block Israel from normalizing relationships with neighbouring foes
This was the goal of the October attacks, yes. This goal has failed, thus far.
The big picture is that in both countries groups/parties want to have the other people gone. Preferably with international support or the support of neighbouring countries.
Everytime they entangle themselves in a conflict, on both sides the number of radicals and extremists grows and with it the power of extremist parties.
For them peace is only when the others are gone. That is why it seems so unlikely that they are open for peace talks as long as these right-wing extremists are in power.
Many don't want to hear this, but for Hamas their biggest chance in the war is that Israel loses international support. They have no issue with sacrificing Palestinians for this, quite the opposite.
funny how when Palestine makes a claim, Lemmy just eats it all up.
but when Israel releases footage and coordinates to support their claims, everyone is suddenly questioning.
I guess it has to do with the enormous social media machine Israel has. I take both sides with a grain of salt tho
enormous compared to what? because I'm seeing so many hamas defenders in lemmy and they never concede basic facts. it looks like it's tiny and ineffectual compared with the hamas propagandists.
Man, what? Where do you hang out? My comments have a pro Israel slant to them and I get consistently downvoted.
And you have easy time believing Hamas, the other side of this conflict? Seems a little naive if that's the case
Lemmy is a hive-mind as much as Reddit is/was. Anyone who claims its somehow better here is either lurking or part of the hivemind (just find the downvoted comments in this thread and think about how you would vote)
"Israel bombed a hospital. 500 killed, 300 injured"
"Eh, actually, it was a self inflicted failed launch".
"Oh right. So as i was saying, it was just a parking lot near a hospital. About 30 killed".
Meh, I take all the news and developments with large lumps of salt for this topic especially.
I believe both that Hamas is operating behind human shields to curry favour against humanitarian law, and that the IDF is more or less indiscriminately harming civilians, refugees and militants of Palestine all in the same brushstroke to excuse extermination as merely retaliation (also against humanitarian law in case that's not clear to anyone)
Uh oh, guess that means there's no choice but to level the entire place and kill every civilian in there :(
So weird seeing people carry water for Hamas. It blows my mind.
After learning that there were indeed fighters, weapons, and tunnels just like Israel said, contrary to what a certain popular news outlet said.
If Israel rolled up without any opposition, no one would have died.
Now imagine what would happen to civilians if Hamas were allowed to roll up on an Israeli hospital unobstructed (refer to the attack on Oct. 7 for more info).
The people in the hospital can't do anything about what Hamas does and doesn't do, as unfortunately within Gaza they can do whatever they want because they have the guns. Hamas committing war crimes doesn't justify committing your own war crimes.
Now imagine what would happen to civilians if Hamas were allowed to roll up on an Israeli hospital unobstructed (refer to the attack on Oct. 7 for more info).
While there's definitely Hamas supporter and anti-jew around, when people call for humanitarian ceasefire and stop attacking hospital, they aren't supporting Hamas, but somehow it got included into one because that doesn't fulfill some people's agenda and believe, and the same people will instead carry water for IDF and Netanyahu, the force and people who disproportionately attack Gaza as a retaliation for 7th October attack, collective punish the people of Gaza and displaced millions, attacking media because they didn't show the same perspective as them, literally murder journalist that tend to publish unfavourable news against Israel, establish illegal settlement in West Bank using far right terrorist, using disproportionate force to disperse Palestinian protestor, arrest Israeli politician that criticise them, shoot a child with live bullet to disperse protest, arrest Palestinian without reason, treat Palestinian in a way that basically fit ACAB, deliver luggage-full of cash to Hamas leader, so on and so forth. Aren't your mind blown? Or is that not an issue because one side is clearly evil so the other side should be okay to conduct evil?
In the full-length interview, Porat states that the Palestinian fighters – who she says treated her and the other Israeli civilians “humanely” – intended to “kidnap us to Gaza. Not to murder us.”
Ohhh Hamas was only there to do a little light kidnapping. Please ignore the beheddings and people burned alive. It’s damaging to our current propaganda efforts.
Also ignore this call from a terrorist to his family bragging about all the Jews he killed and attempting to get his father to open WhatsApp to see the awesome photos.
You're the one that claimed i said that while my point isn't even that. You're still salty about missing the mark ehh?
No, if the IDF were allowed to roll up with no opposition, people would still have died. They want to ethnically cleanse Gaza, Hamas just gives them a "good" excuse to do so. If it weren't for the 10/7 attack they would just maintain the status quo of shooting children for throwing rocks and making it hard to get aid into Gaza
You're right, the Palestine people should just let themselves be oppressed by the state of Israel. Now that the country has been bombed for over a month, they should welcome IDF soldiers with open arms. /s
Not a good way to avoid having your hospitals bombed...
hamas has no hospitals.
In the Gaza Strip the government was the Hamas government of 2012. Following two Fatah–Hamas Agreements in 2014, on 25 September 2014 Hamas agreed to let the PA Government resume control over the Gaza Strip and its border crossings with Egypt and Israel, but that agreement had broken down by June 2015, after President Abbas said the PA government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
Let’s not pretend like they’re just some random group that just rolled in.
Nope, they are a terrorist criminal organization allowed to take over in the chaos caused by a never ending occupation intended to force People there to allow their land to be settled by the occupiers as the folks living their are systematically genocided.
but the forces bombing hospitals, escape routes, and journalists, they aren't terrorists??
Can't both be wrong?
Palestinians and isreali civilians are caught between two asshole organizations and as they say, when elephants fight, the ants suffer.
It's tiring to see everyone taking sides. Just admit that both sides are wrong: Hamas are using civilians as cover, Israel is just killing everyone to get at Hamas. The people suffer. :-(
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many people. Two sides can absolutely be in the wrong, especially over the span of generations. At such a point it really hardly matters anymore at all who started what, it's just two sides showing humanity's ugliest side non-stop.
of course that's possible, I'm pointing out that the language used in the title of this post doesn't want you to see it that way
No, didn't you get the memo?
Everything is a team sport these days, and just like you can either be team Jacob or team Edward but can't be undecided, online etiquette rules dictate that you can either be team Hamas or team IDF.
And no, team 'civilians' doesn't count. Too much grey area for people to know whether you are on their team or not. They'll need to read your entire comments to know if they should downvote you or upvote you.
Could you imagine?
That's probably a war crime in and of itself.
So hurry up and pick a side and stop making discussing international conflicts online so complicated with your 'nuance' BS.
So glad you brought this up... I am 100% team Voltari. Edward is like over 100 years old and Bella is like 16, 17 maybe? Seems a little statutory rapey. Oh then Jacob falls in love with their child at the age of like less than one...
Voltari should have ripped them all apart and threw them in the fire.
According to IDF forces, as reported in fourteenwordsnews.com, the evil terrorists did a cartoonishly convenient thing that justifies the worst atrocities we've been getting beat up in the news for
Graffiti was also found in the area that said "blacks rule"
Well, that's misleading. The article acts as if they're doing it from the hospital. They're firing from the road. There's nothing given in the article indicating they had anything to do with the hospital.
In the footage the terrorist runs into the hospital's underground carpark
At this point I need to ask: Are these all different hospitals being attacked or is everyone still reporting about 1 specific hospital that was attacked?
The IDF has targeted over 21 hospitals at this point, funny that people got caught up on the one hospital situation and don't care about the other 20 anymore.
The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants which have not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
Israel: THERE IS A COMMAND CENTER UNDER THIS HOSPITAL
World: Cool, what evidence do you have?
Israel:10 SECONDS OF BLURRY FOOTAGE!
are they sitting next to a hospital on purpose? or does this just happen to be the vantage point in an extremely dense city crammed with every type of building?
fuck Hamas, but engaging military targets isn't terrorism
Hamas clearly in public buildings using civilians as shield. Palestinians clearly know and don't care. Nothing will stop me from hating on both Hasmas and Israel. And I am slo losing patience for Palestanians for supporting Hamas and not condemning their action.
Its hard to care when you get shot for opening your mouth
Just like reddit, people here can't accept narratives other than mainstream liberal. Sure, there are Gazans that want Hamas out but they are minority. Hamas is a grassroots organization that defeated the party that preferred the two state solution. Hamas was and still is backed by majority of Palestanians. Just look at the Palestanian protesters in the west. NONE of them condemned Hamas. NONE.
To be clear, staging militant attacks from a hospital is a war crime.
To make matters worse, it opens up the likelihood and justification of counter-attacks against that hospital and the people in it.
Source: The International Committee of the Red Cross
Nobody should beat around the bush here. Hamas are using injured civilians as a human shield to stage attacks, and in doing so they are inviting retaliation and suffering under well-establish terms of international law. There's not really any particular gray area here. It's horrible, it's unethical, it's criminal, and it's just plain wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Ok, let's send them to the Hague I guess? Why do you think this is an important point? Hamas isn't actually a legitimate organization that signed on to international law and would ever care what "legitimate warfare" is. They just went into Israel and murdered a bunch of civilians. If these fighters are caught whether the UN thinks they were wrong is the least of their problems.
And none of that makes Israel attacking a hospital (or just the blatant collective punishment) justified.
Except it literally does justify attacking the hospital. Black on white, letter and spirit of the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Miramar_shootout
Same vibes
No it doesn't, and you're a shitty person for thinking that.
This is not a matter of personal opinion
To be clear, no one here is defending Hamas or saying that it isn't a war crime.
Proximity shielfing isn't really the classic human shield idea. It's like "human shields*" with an asterisk and six paragraphs of footnotes showing how countries like Israel use the idea of proximity shielding to commit human rights violations untouched.
Has it seriously not occurred to zionists that there's a middle step between doing absolutely nothing and leveling the entire building? Send troops in there to liberate the hospital. A lot fewer innocents will die, and yea more IDF troops will die that way, but in what fucking universe is it preferable to murder civilians than to run a risky military operation? Even if Hamas kills a bunch of patients or doctors in retaliation there will surely be more survivors than if you just bomb the place. But nope, apparently Israeli lives are worth infinitely more than those of Palestinian civilians, so the best solution is to murder all Palestinians so they're not a "threat" to Israel
When your
...bombing hospitals, refugee camps, schools, and endless civilians is a good thing... and explains Israel's behaviour and rhetoric in a pretty straightforward way.
...of course, killing all those kids makes the question "why are Hamas bad" a bit awkward... I know! Saying it's bad to murder children is anti-semitic now - that's not an obvious, massive self-report!
I don't personally care to judge whether Israel or Hamas are worse - they're both monstrous, genocidal murderers, killing innocent civilians... But only one of them has the ability to actually deliver on their genocidal intentions, and they're making headway.
A lot fewer innocent palestinians. Why do you expect the Israeli government to prioritise the lives of Palestinian over their own citizens when trying to smack out a terrorist threat? I agree wholeheartedly that the attacks must stop and a ceasefire should be declared but comments like this which just present a simple solution and outright ignore the obvious reason that is not happening just distract from conversations we should be having.
Because they were instrumental in creating that terrorist threat in the first place, not only by perpetrating ethnic cleansing but by directly funding Hamas in the 70s and 80s as a counterbalance against the secular PLO.
But where's the genocide in that?
Shouldn't your reasoning mean that we should only sacrifice German, US and British soldiers there?
It is their fault Israel exists like it does now. Every Israeli or Palestinian who dies is an innocent and only US Americans, Germans and Brits should be killed by Hamas.
But what about the reasons for the world wars? So it's actually Italians who should go and die there! Since it was the Romans actions that lead to the situations which evolved into the first world war!
Beyond these crazy and terrible events, I'm left wondering what the big picture end game was here? Was it to block Israel from normalizing relationships with neighbouring foes, or is it a part of a bigger play by foes of Israel to highlight the injustices from their point of view?
This sacrifice of the innocents on all sides is a terribly high price on humanity and how long an eye for an eye will take to play out in the generations to follow.
That's exactly it. Hamas has previously and continues to do all it can to destroy any hopes for peace and Israel's far-right has been happy to leverage them for the same reason.
Palestinians and Israelis suffer and die while a few powerful men maintain or gain power from the situation.
Hamas can't have peace otherwise a more legitimate government takes over and continues toward a two-state system (they had in the past made a wave of suicide bombings to derail the peace process). Israeli far-right doesn't peace either (they've shot one of their PMs in the past over this) as that would put a stop to their ambition of power and colonizing more Palestinian land.
Israeli reporters have shown how the current Israeli PM and his party had passively allowed the financing of Hamas to come into Gaza (enemy of my enemy...) so they would keep destabilizing any peace talks and fight the more moderate Palestinian parties.
In short, Hamas is horrible and keeps provoking Israel and Israel keeps biting the bait and reacting exactly as Hamas expects them to do: doing their own round of horrible atrocities in a vicious cycle of suffering and death which breeds the next generation of extremists.
Anybody looking at this issue purely as a military problem is missing the big picture.
deposing that far-right israeli leadership would be the first step toward fixing this whole mess. many israelis (around 75%) want netanyahu gone immediately after the war and it seems like their approval ratings have gone down as a result of this conflict, in contrast to the general trend of right-wing governments benefiting from war in most situations.
if the west can put pressure on israel (and that it can, without american weapons most of the surrounding muslim countries would love to genocide the hell out of israel), this is where that pressure needs to go. finish the war, get hamas out of at least the government of gaza (fully disbanding them will be a longer process, but at least don't put them in control), and then execute a regime change in israel as well. get rid of both governing parties that caused this mess to begin with and then their successors can hopefully actually work towards peace.
So much this. The Palestinian side has been more or less in stasis politically for what, a decade? Meanwhile Israel moves further and further to the right, constantly indulging their worst right flank including continued land theft. The Republicans in the US indulge Israel without question, while the Democrats question Israel without teeth.
Hamas and Netanyahu need to go as the baseline outcome of this debacle. I'm not sure how Hamas gets removed, or more importantly what takes its place.
I don't know if there is an endgame. Just dogs chasing cars. I do know a lot of people have died.
Doubt there was any goal or forethought past 'kill Israelis'
No, there's definitely an underlying tone of "hang onto power".
This was the goal of the October attacks, yes. This goal has failed, thus far.
The big picture is that in both countries groups/parties want to have the other people gone. Preferably with international support or the support of neighbouring countries.
Everytime they entangle themselves in a conflict, on both sides the number of radicals and extremists grows and with it the power of extremist parties.
For them peace is only when the others are gone. That is why it seems so unlikely that they are open for peace talks as long as these right-wing extremists are in power.
Many don't want to hear this, but for Hamas their biggest chance in the war is that Israel loses international support. They have no issue with sacrificing Palestinians for this, quite the opposite.
funny how when Palestine makes a claim, Lemmy just eats it all up.
but when Israel releases footage and coordinates to support their claims, everyone is suddenly questioning.
I guess it has to do with the enormous social media machine Israel has. I take both sides with a grain of salt tho
enormous compared to what? because I'm seeing so many hamas defenders in lemmy and they never concede basic facts. it looks like it's tiny and ineffectual compared with the hamas propagandists.
Man, what? Where do you hang out? My comments have a pro Israel slant to them and I get consistently downvoted.
People have hard time trusting a genocidal country with an incentive for its citizen to propagate its propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act.IL
And you have easy time believing Hamas, the other side of this conflict? Seems a little naive if that's the case
Lemmy is a hive-mind as much as Reddit is/was. Anyone who claims its somehow better here is either lurking or part of the hivemind (just find the downvoted comments in this thread and think about how you would vote)
"Israel bombed a hospital. 500 killed, 300 injured"
"Eh, actually, it was a self inflicted failed launch".
"Oh right. So as i was saying, it was just a parking lot near a hospital. About 30 killed".
Meh, I take all the news and developments with large lumps of salt for this topic especially.
I believe both that Hamas is operating behind human shields to curry favour against humanitarian law, and that the IDF is more or less indiscriminately harming civilians, refugees and militants of Palestine all in the same brushstroke to excuse extermination as merely retaliation (also against humanitarian law in case that's not clear to anyone)
Counter attacking with troops and killing the terrorist is a reasonable response.
Leveling the entire hospital and surrounding neighborhood with missiles is NOT.
Well it's a good thing they didn't do that, then. Israeli troops will be entering the hospital to get at the Hamas base within it
Edit: they entered last night
And then you look at reporting from doctors without borders about doctors being murdered by snipers indiscriminately
Weird that the IDF didn't indiscriminately kill civilians while raiding said hospital last night, then.
No, but they did do that to every other building in Gaza under the same pretense.
Distinguishing between civilians and combatants is anti Semitic
Apparently not because Israel is getting torn apart in the information space for that approach.
It's less a hospital at this point and more an arms stockpile with some sick people left around as fodder/bad PR for anyone that would attack it.
Uh oh, guess that means there's no choice but to level the entire place and kill every civilian in there :(
So weird seeing people carry water for Hamas. It blows my mind.
After learning that there were indeed fighters, weapons, and tunnels just like Israel said, contrary to what a certain popular news outlet said.
If Israel rolled up without any opposition, no one would have died.
Now imagine what would happen to civilians if Hamas were allowed to roll up on an Israeli hospital unobstructed (refer to the attack on Oct. 7 for more info).
The people in the hospital can't do anything about what Hamas does and doesn't do, as unfortunately within Gaza they can do whatever they want because they have the guns. Hamas committing war crimes doesn't justify committing your own war crimes.
Simple. They shell their own people alongside the terrorist.
While there's definitely Hamas supporter and anti-jew around, when people call for humanitarian ceasefire and stop attacking hospital, they aren't supporting Hamas, but somehow it got included into one because that doesn't fulfill some people's agenda and believe, and the same people will instead carry water for IDF and Netanyahu, the force and people who disproportionately attack Gaza as a retaliation for 7th October attack, collective punish the people of Gaza and displaced millions, attacking media because they didn't show the same perspective as them, literally murder journalist that tend to publish unfavourable news against Israel, establish illegal settlement in West Bank using far right terrorist, using disproportionate force to disperse Palestinian protestor, arrest Israeli politician that criticise them, shoot a child with live bullet to disperse protest, arrest Palestinian without reason, treat Palestinian in a way that basically fit ACAB, deliver luggage-full of cash to Hamas leader, so on and so forth. Aren't your mind blown? Or is that not an issue because one side is clearly evil so the other side should be okay to conduct evil?
Ohhh Hamas was only there to do a little light kidnapping. Please ignore the beheddings and people burned alive. It’s damaging to our current propaganda efforts.
Also ignore this call from a terrorist to his family bragging about all the Jews he killed and attempting to get his father to open WhatsApp to see the awesome photos.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-terrorist-calls-his-parents-with-israeli-victims-phone-to-brag-about-slaughter-your-son-killed-jews/ar-AA1iLVgN
Ohhh so that's how IDF sympathiser works, denying survivor account because it doesn't align with their view, and ignore the main point.
Maybe here's another one with viewpoint align to the IDF sympathiser will do?
Now i wonder how Be'eri are so wrecked, hmmm 🤔
Hey, what gives? I thought all Hamas was gonna do was a little light kidnapping?
https://lemmy.world/post/8965346
?
You're the one that claimed i said that while my point isn't even that. You're still salty about missing the mark ehh?
No, if the IDF were allowed to roll up with no opposition, people would still have died. They want to ethnically cleanse Gaza, Hamas just gives them a "good" excuse to do so. If it weren't for the 10/7 attack they would just maintain the status quo of shooting children for throwing rocks and making it hard to get aid into Gaza
You're right, the Palestine people should just let themselves be oppressed by the state of Israel. Now that the country has been bombed for over a month, they should welcome IDF soldiers with open arms. /s
They oppressed by Hamas
Not a good way to avoid having your hospitals bombed...
hamas has no hospitals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_government
Let’s not pretend like they’re just some random group that just rolled in.
Nope, they are a terrorist criminal organization allowed to take over in the chaos caused by a never ending occupation intended to force People there to allow their land to be settled by the occupiers as the folks living their are systematically genocided.
but the forces bombing hospitals, escape routes, and journalists, they aren't terrorists??
Can't both be wrong?
Palestinians and isreali civilians are caught between two asshole organizations and as they say, when elephants fight, the ants suffer.
It's tiring to see everyone taking sides. Just admit that both sides are wrong: Hamas are using civilians as cover, Israel is just killing everyone to get at Hamas. The people suffer. :-(
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many people. Two sides can absolutely be in the wrong, especially over the span of generations. At such a point it really hardly matters anymore at all who started what, it's just two sides showing humanity's ugliest side non-stop.
of course that's possible, I'm pointing out that the language used in the title of this post doesn't want you to see it that way
No, didn't you get the memo?
Everything is a team sport these days, and just like you can either be team Jacob or team Edward but can't be undecided, online etiquette rules dictate that you can either be team Hamas or team IDF.
And no, team 'civilians' doesn't count. Too much grey area for people to know whether you are on their team or not. They'll need to read your entire comments to know if they should downvote you or upvote you.
Could you imagine?
That's probably a war crime in and of itself.
So hurry up and pick a side and stop making discussing international conflicts online so complicated with your 'nuance' BS.
So glad you brought this up... I am 100% team Voltari. Edward is like over 100 years old and Bella is like 16, 17 maybe? Seems a little statutory rapey. Oh then Jacob falls in love with their child at the age of like less than one...
Voltari should have ripped them all apart and threw them in the fire.
It is possible for everyone to be wrong.
According to IDF forces, as reported in fourteenwordsnews.com, the evil terrorists did a cartoonishly convenient thing that justifies the worst atrocities we've been getting beat up in the news for
Graffiti was also found in the area that said "blacks rule"
Well, that's misleading. The article acts as if they're doing it from the hospital. They're firing from the road. There's nothing given in the article indicating they had anything to do with the hospital.
In the footage the terrorist runs into the hospital's underground carpark
if anyone's interested in some further reading / contextual information on this article / conflict specifically (or conflict generally):
distinction & proportionality
At this point I need to ask: Are these all different hospitals being attacked or is everyone still reporting about 1 specific hospital that was attacked?
The IDF has targeted over 21 hospitals at this point, funny that people got caught up on the one hospital situation and don't care about the other 20 anymore.
https://x.com/EuroMedHR/status/1724100972606001430?s=20
why is there a tank anywhere near a hospital
because hospitals generally dont spontaneously phase out of existence when the city theyre in becomes a warzone
they do lose their immunity if they're housing active combatants tho!
on second thought, this conversation was barely worth having the first time
Because that’s where hamas is headquartered
Israel: THERE IS A COMMAND CENTER UNDER THIS HOSPITAL
World: Cool, what evidence do you have?
Israel:10 SECONDS OF BLURRY FOOTAGE!
are they sitting next to a hospital on purpose? or does this just happen to be the vantage point in an extremely dense city crammed with every type of building?
fuck Hamas, but engaging military targets isn't terrorism
Hamas clearly in public buildings using civilians as shield. Palestinians clearly know and don't care. Nothing will stop me from hating on both Hasmas and Israel. And I am slo losing patience for Palestanians for supporting Hamas and not condemning their action.
https://www.theonion.com/dying-gazans-criticized-for-not-using-last-words-to-con-1850925657
As usual, the onion nails the satire.
Its hard to care when you get shot for opening your mouth
Just like reddit, people here can't accept narratives other than mainstream liberal. Sure, there are Gazans that want Hamas out but they are minority. Hamas is a grassroots organization that defeated the party that preferred the two state solution. Hamas was and still is backed by majority of Palestanians. Just look at the Palestanian protesters in the west. NONE of them condemned Hamas. NONE.
The video literally shows a tank out the front of the hospital so of course you're gonna have guys with rpgs defending it?
Cart before the horse
Seriously. There's an easy way to not get your tanks targeted by fighters who can retreat into a hospital: don't drive your tanks up to a hospital.