> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing.
And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?
I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and those warnings were intentionally being ignored to maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in seeing it.
From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it can't be done" only to end with significantly more difficult conditions.
Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals) which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused increased civilian casualty rates and the eventual almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult conditions.
The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities, where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not what most people think about when they hear "refugee camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be other reasons.
All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I don't think this that's necessarily a violation of international law given that warnings were given. It's within the realm of what I would call a military objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying their infrastructure).
I didn't say that Israel has never ordered an evacuation. I pushed back on the commenter who stated that finding a militant in a hospital or school makes it a valid target.
> From my observation
Well from Human Rights Watches observation:
> Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them, nor seen any information that would justify attacks on Gaza hospitals. When a journalist at a news conference showing video footage of damage to the Qatar Hospital sought additional information to verify voice recordings and images presented, the Israeli spokesperson said, “our strikes are based on intelligence.” Even if accurate, Israel has not demonstrated that the ensuing hospital attacks were proportionate.
Again, giving a warning doesn't make it ok to bomb a school. Notice how the HRW quote mentions the attack not being "proportionate"? That's why I seek advice from the experts.
"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."
We've seen some evidence that hospitals are used outside their humanitarian function.
It's true that even if the hospital loses it's protection that does not mean that it's ok to just go ahead and level it because of the presence of a single combatant (and that hasn't happened, I'm pretty sure e.g. no hospital in Gaza suffered a direct bombing attack e.g. but it may be ok under certain circumstances to completely level a hospital that is used for military purposes if enough warning has been given), the proportionality principles still applies. Proportionate has a very specific meaning in terms of the Geneva convention which most people aren't familiar with. I agree that the IDFs actions must be proportionate in that sense. The IDF claims its actions are. The IDF has lawyers that evaluate actions against international law.
Human Rights Watch isn't necessarily an unbiased observer here. Naturally they would not have access to the IDF's intelligence and the IDF can be justified in not sharing its intelligence to protect its sources.
My basic take is why is it beneficial for the IDF to waste time and resources attacking hospitals that have no military use? It's bad PR, it's wasted efforts that could be directed somewhere else. Doesn't make sense. It's possible it could be "more careful" in avoiding those in certain situations. Is it the highest item in the priority list (e.g. above the security of IDF soldiers), probably not.
There's certainly been no shortage of rhetoric on the Israeli side to exact revenge for Oct 7th. Some of it very extreme. The events of that day traumatized Israelis.
I don't think most Israelis really think the Palestinians are the biblical "Amalek". More like the children of "Ishmael", i.e. "cousins". They likely do view Hamas specifically as an entity that should be annihilated. i.e. all 40k or so Hamas combatants killed or captured. But even if we take this at face value it's still stupid to waste energy on a place that's known to not be a military threat while there are active military threats. First finish the military threat.
When it comes to international law, i think human rights groups are more like the "prosecuter" than a neutral party. They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
When HRW says Israel is bad, i think its a bit like when a cop says the person they arrested is bad. It may very well be true, but i wouldn't put it as a sure thing until some sort of trial is done.
P.s. in regards to "porportionate" - keep in mind that has a special definition in international law that is different from how people use it in normal conversation.
> They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.
You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very few human right groups would have an interest that aligns with that.
Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to determine truth its probably better to start from a place of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence, not the other way around.
You seem to have left out the 17 year blockade of Gaza by Israel, the intentional starvation of the population. The occasional bombings and "targeted" airstrikes... sure they just randomly attacked Israel one day because they felt like it...
That's not the order things occurred. When Israel left Gaza it left it to the Palestinian authority and it wasn't blockaded (there was some partial blockade but it was practically open). The present walls and barriers around Gaza were put in place after the disengagement as a response to specific attacks coming out of Gaza.
The previous restrictions on Gaza were also a result of attacks coming out of Gaza on Israeli civilians.
If the population was starving while Hamas, the government of Gaza, managed to smuggle in RPGs, assault rifles, lathes, trucks, rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns etc. then clearly the issue is a matter of their priorities, not Israel. Hamas stole concrete to make tunnels, used water pipes to make rockets, was the elected government, and is completely responsible if its population is starving (which I don't think was true anyways). You're also somehow conveniently leaving Egypt out of the picture. Why should Israel feed its enemies (and allow them to work in Israel, and give them water and power). Egypt could have done all that. But Hamas didn't only pick a fight with Israel- they also collaborated with ISIS in Sinai and picked a fight with Egypt.
They "randomly attacked Israel one day" because they are consumed by hate and religious fanaticism. Just listen to what they say. If they chose peace, they'd get peace, Israel has no interest in randomly attacking them.
what is "Israel"? are you referring to the people of Israel? Do you believe that 9 million Israelis have interest of killing and displacing Palestinians and crush them as a people?
and what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
Going by Israeli TV, Telegram channels and polls, unfortunately it really does seem like a large proportion of Israelis think of Palestinians as sub-human bugs to be crushed.
Already we've seen settlers building an "outpost" inside Gaza, while Israeli soldiers watch on. Meanwhile, Israeli civilians block aid to starving children, again while the IDF watch.
> what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Is it "how to Palestinians feel about Israelis?". If so, I don't know, but I can imagine how I might feel if I'd been dehumanised my entitre life; lived under brutal occupation/blockade my entire life, seen siblings carted off to be tortured in Israeli dungeons, had my father shot in front of me etc. Perhaps Israel should stop stealing land and homes, and stop their institutionalised dehumanisation of Palestinians; many Israelis seem to need de-radicalising.
You specifically asked me for a response about "one side" - I respond, and am accused of bias. I just looked at your post history, and I regret engaging with you, as well, talk about hypocrisy.
I can answer that for you, we expect Israel to abide by the 1993 Oslo Accords which provides for a two state solution agreed upon by both parties. So far Israel has breached that agreement since day one.
In reference to the same poll: "A vast majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the IDF is using an appropriate amount or not enough force" [0]. "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll said they think the IDF is using “too little firepower” in Gaza" [1]
I think most Israelis do not believe peace is possible with the Palestinians. This is a result of the suicide bombing campaign that followed the Oslo peace process.
But I don't think your survey shows what you're saying it shows. I've no doubt that more Israeli Jews want peace than Arabs. Find me a survey that asks this question to both population, do you prefer peace or a war. I have no doubt what the answer would be. You can see this in the public discourse, the Palestinian population supports "resistance" which is war. you won't find much Israeli discourse about initiating violence against the Palestinian population pre Oct 7th. See this: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians...
Palestinians could have peace at any time. On Israeli terms. They can have their freedom, their humans rights. What they can't have is the land they demand, the right of return, and the eviction of the state of Israel.
In terms of Gaza, it's not surprising Israelis are disappointed with the progress in the war. It's been 5 months and Gaza hasn't been completely retaken and Hamas has not been defeated as a military. Again I don't think this actually supports your point of view at all or necessarily paints Israelis in a bad light. If Hamas hadn't attacked on Oct 7th we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since they have Israel is using all its might to destroy them and yes there are severe consequences to the Gazans. Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal. The Russians e.g. would undoubtedly apply a lot more force. Even most of the western world would and has.
> Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal
If we're being honest, I think that perception (such that it may exist) largely depends upon the race of the subject states. Consider the recent bomb blast on Iran, attributed to Israel - if Iran responded in the same manner as Israel did after Oct 7th, our govs would be denouncing them as evil incarnate!
In any case, I really think - really hope - that's not true; surely most civilians don't think forced starvation, massacres of children, torture etc are "OK". If so, there is no hope for humanity.
And bear in mind this is not "just" about Gaza - many more people now know about Israel's illegal and dehumanising actions towards Palestinians, whipping up Islamophobia, and general land-theft and terrorism throughout the region. And we do not understand how this is allowed to happen in our name, supported by our governments.
> Even most of the western world would and has.
In the past, yes. And in times gone by, civilians were kept informed of global events by newspapers and TV news. Now, we are basically seeing a genocide, land-grab and oil-grab unfold right before our very eyes, from the normal, everyday people who are affected - people who now don't seem so different to us, people just like us.
What recent bomb blast on Iran? You're not seriously comparing slaughtering and raping party goers (to say the least), abducting woman, babies and elderly, to a clandestine operation against some infrastructure. Iran says it wants to destroy Israel (and why?) and acts towards it. Israel is allowed to counteract that.
If Israel raided Iran, raped Iranian woman, beheaded random Iranian citizens, abducted Iranian children and elderly, Iran would absolutely be justified to start a war with Israel. Many Iranians are strong supporters of Israel in this conflict by the way. In a war you do anything possible, these days within international law, to defeat your enemy and I'd fully expect Iran to try that under those circumstances.
You're insisting Israel is the bad side here. I'm going to respectfully disagree. There is no comparison between the moral positions of Israel and Hamas.
We're seeing war. The use of the word genocide in the context of this war is propaganda and is eroding the meaning of that word.
EDIT: It's also important to consider that Iran is already waging a proxy war on Israel. A war with no justification.
> that and the fact over 500 Israeli soldiers were killed by Hamas in Gaza so far
Israel are the occupying, attacking force, and have massacred thousands of civilians. You want me to care about war criminals, who routinely broadcast their depraved attrocities on TikTok? Come on now.
Israel is not defending itself. They are actively murdering civilians to the point you can claim it as genocide. [0] Hamas did not killed those civilians it was Israel who killed them.[1] Israel dehumanized Palestinians[2][3]. He is not a Jew hater, you are accusing him of something he is not and trying to deny the reality of the atrocities committed by Israel. As for all Jews, yes, they are all the same. If the Jews didn't have someone at the head of the Jews who was dedicated to building Solomon's temple by committing this atrocity, the Jews wouldn't have the courage to act.
> the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."
What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have battles with groups who want to spin the truth.
I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political system right now is that we don't have enough organizations willing to battle against our own partisan pressure groups (without siding with any of them).
Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to understand an organization that hasn't.
As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising money from private supporters there, not the Saudi government. Do you think no one in SA supports human rights?
Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the Saudis, take a look at:
Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia?
And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights.
HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. Maybe they just have profitable principles, I dunno.
Israel has bombed the designated safe areas significantly less than the other areas. This is fact. It also never promised not to bomb them and has consistently said that it will go after military targets in those areas as well. This is also fact. Israel has every right to do so according to international law. Israel's intention was to move civilians out of areas that are going to see heavier/intense fighting as the IDF moves to take them over on the ground.
Palestinian propaganda repeats this first point, it's not in good faith.
I'm not familiar with the second incident you're mentioning but I'm sure in any major war there will be plenty of examples of "things that are really bad". E.g. in the Ukraine-Russia war summary executions of surrendering soldiers, intentional bombing of civilians, are things that happen a lot and don't make the news. Give me one example of a major war where these things don't happen. For a western country the answer should be that these incidents should be investigated and the individuals punished. I think that rarely happens (e.g. you're not going to find many incidents of US soldiers, or "private security contractors", punished in the various wars the US engaged with). We should still strive for that. I'm pretty sure the IDF command does not order tanks to run over civilians, that is not policy, quite the opposite.
> Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you mention, more below, and including all those hospitals)
That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK sends raids into Russia to kill Russians and then retreats and mixes with civilian population in the UK, what do you feel is a legitimate move or tactic by Russia to defend its citizens in this hypothetical situation?
And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7, being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to see their family, London being half the UK capital and half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years and no one in the world does anything because the richest country in the world blindly supports Russia ?
It's less of a context than your political position or opinion. I think it's also at the very least naive and simplistic. As one example, those checkpoints you're describing did not exist before terrorism such as suicide bombers and other indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. They also do not exist in Gaza. I'm finding it hard to follow the rest of your analogy.
My context is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 as a pilot for a plan for complete disengagement from the Palestinians, effectively the two state solution everyone talks about. It handed this region, that used to be occupied (from Egypt) to the Palestinians to make their own. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers left. Nobody was being watched or harassed by Israel. Hamas took control of Gaza by force and turned it into a mini-Caliphate with the sole purpose of killing all Jews in the middle east. Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
What I will agree with you is that the history of the conflict has relevance to the morality of Israel's actions. I would say though that Hamas' conduct is: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and immoral. This does not need any context. It's absolute. I would also be inclined to say, in this light, that Israel's response to Oct 7th is moral regardless of previous context. I don't think there's any "oppression" or "occupation" that justifies the violence we've seen from the Palestinian side. I can't think of any similar historical examples of these levels of indiscriminate violence against civilians. It's not just their violence towards Israel but their violence towards each other (using children or people with mental problems as suicide bombers e.g.). At least not in modern times.
Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine, following the British Mandate, following the Ottoman Empire's collapse. I don't think Israeli settlements in the west bank (occupied from Jordan but historically part of the British Mandate, so complicated story there) are useful. I also don't like the settlers harassment of Palestinians (which is really a relatively recent phenomena, not going all the way back to 1967) in the west bank. But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
And I can also say that your view is less context than a personal biased view on the situation. Mixing up Hamas and Palestinians as if they're all the same. Excusing Israel's response as just and proportionate, meaning that shelling entire neighborhoods, sniping people left and right, shooting at an ambulance are somehow fighting terrorism. Saying on all platforms that the goal is to "exterminate animals", from the highest personnel in positions of power. Shooting civilians who try to get food, blocking humanitarian convoys from entering, putting as part of a plan the total blockade of water, food, electricity of millions of people, that's fighting terrorism ?
> Launching suicide bombers from it and launching 10's of thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. I think this is a more accurate context than yours.
If you want to put context, put context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co... . But a fight on numbers is stupid so let's not go there. You want to put context as to why 10's of rockets explode on Israel cities, you have to explain why for each rocket Israel retaliates with 10 deaths on Palestinian side. It's all part of it.
> Israel is not "colonizing" anything. The state of Israel is the UN recognized legal entity in Mandatory Palestine,
EDIT: I'm not even making this up: "Israel approves plans for 3,400 new homes in West Bank settlements" -- "Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land the Palestinians want as part of a future state - in the 1967 Middle East war" <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034>
> But Palestinians have been attacking Israelis all along as well in some pretty bad ways and refusing to try and settle.
Oh come on. Let my country come to your land, force you to leave by hundred thousands, harass you, beat you, kill you, and let's see if you accept me settling there nicely and comfortably.
We could go on and on and on but please put the context if you want to talk about it, the real one, not the one you pick. The one that is internationally recognized but no one says anything because of interests. The one that is plain visible for all to see. There is suffering on all sides, please don't pretend it's easy.
Maybe we don't even disagree. The real conflict is between the Israel State and the Palestinian "State", or governing bodies. Let those far-right atrocities who know and help each other fight in a cage and leave the population, on both side, alone.
I think we do agree given your last sentence. I'll sign on to that.
On the details of the history this wasn't "my country come to your land and forced you to leave" it was more like "Jewish people immigrated to this region, their historic homeland, many expelled from their homes in Europe and the middle east and had no options" (compare e.g. to Chinese people from Hong Kong immigrating to Canada) and "war started by the Arab countries against the UN recognized state of Israel led to 700,000 Palestinians refugees" (I'd compare to millions of German refugees in Europe post their loss in WW-II). Jewish immigration to the region was legal and should be viewed as moral on many levels. If the Arab population were to look at it as the positive that it could have been then we'd all be living happily ever after in a prosperous middle east. If anything millions of Jews could have been saved in WW-II if Britain were to allow more of them to immigrate- that was immoral. The Arabs had, and still do, see this as a (racist) zero sum game, not a win-win (vs. how Canada looks at immigration again e.g.). Read Israel's declaration of independence to see how Israel's leadership looked at it (and keep in mind this was 1948!).
The settlements are a tricky topic. I'm opposed to them and the settlers. But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement". That's their political perspective and IMO both racist and a distortion of history.
Thanks for providing your pov, it explains a lot of things and even though I have my views I can totally understand why we disagree:
> Jewish immigration to the region was legal
This is the crux of where we disagree. It was legal based on international law, but international law is just western law: Palestinians and neighboring countries said no, and under the same international law they were in the right: they have the right to self-determination. So if we take the legal point, the argument is not receivable
> and should be viewed as moral on many levels
That's plainly subjective and my own thinking makes me say it's immoral to displace hundreds of thousands of people and take their homes, their land, their food, just because.
> But this is not what most people talk about when they say Israel is a colonist. What most people mean is the existence of the state of Israel is the "settlement"
I disagree, anyone I've seen talking about the colonialist aspect of Israel is specifically all the illegal settlements outside its borders, it's the massive control of Palestinian population, it's forbidding them access to their own sea, that kind of things. Everyone who talks about it is clear.
When people talk about the existence of Israel and its racist laws, they will rather use the term "apartheid" which is closer to the truth.
In any case, those disagreements are to be put in perspective to what we both agree on, and that is the nice note of this discussion :)
I wonder if Sir William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, would be considered a Terrorist or a Freedom Fighter. When England invaded and occupied and imposed ridiculous rules on them, should they have not fought back? How about the Potato Famine, how many of you know that this was caused by England INTENTIONALLY by shipping all the food out of Ireland to England. is Sinn Fein a terrorist group still? or were they so named because they fought an occupier?
I'm not familiar at all with these stories. I should read about them.
I think there's a fairly clear delineation between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A terrorist's goal is to sow terror among the target entity. It does so by random indiscriminate violence (and barbarism). The more random the target is and the more barbaric the attack is the better. 9/11 is a good example. A terrorist has no moral qualms. The goal justifies anything. It's almost certain that the terrorist is losing in any measurable objective. E.g. the Chechen attacks in Moscow leading to Russia essentially levelling Chechnia, or the Sri Lankans destroying the Tamils. It's kind of a lost cause made worse by violence.
A freedom fighter, to contrast, will weigh the morality of their actions vs. what they can accomplish and other non-violent alternatives. They will weigh the violence they use, their targets, against specific "freedom" goals. They will not sacrifice their own humanity to pursue their goal. They have some reasonable chance of achieving some real "freedom" goals out of the targeted acts of violence. WW-II Partisans come to mind.
Gaza is among the most densly populated areas on earth. By definition, any military installation is close to civilians. Same goes for a lot of IDF, and every other military, ehich has bases next to a city. Doesn't mean one just can indiscriminately bomb everything and everyone...
What you have neglected is history. The last time Israel pushed people out of their homes, they were not allowed to return. This fact is seared into the memory of every Palestinian for generations. They carry the keys to their original homes to this day. So forgive them for not wanting to abandon their only homes because they want to kill people they have been abusing for decades. Please read your history prior to making unfounded statements and justifications.
The Palestinians have their own version of history which let's just say is inaccurate. One example is they underplay the seriousness of the Arab attack on Israel in 1948 and things like the Egyptian air force bombing Tel-Aviv seem to evaporate from their version of events. They also tend to completely forget about their collaboration with Nazi Germany and the numerous attacks against Jews pre-1948. Really history in the sense of "his story". You can argue Israelis also do this, which is probably correct, but I think you'll find more diverse views in Israeli society and more access to facts. In fact many Palestinians use Israeli historians as their reference (while conveniently not pointing out what parts of their claims are still under debate/disagreement).
It's true that some people were forced to leave after the Arabs started a war on Israel in 1948 and those people generally weren't allowed back. It's also true that many people chose to leave and also weren't allowed back. That said your logic makes no sense to anyone with western values IMO. Your life is more important than your property. I.e. between the option of staying in your property and dying and leaving and not dying the choice for most people in the west is clear. It's true that if they leave they may not be allowed to return. We can argue about the morality of that given they started this current war as well. I think in practice Gazans will be allowed to go back, but time will tell and events will transpire. If anything in practice leaving their homes to allow Israel to focus on Hamas would have likely shortened the war and increased their chances of getting back home and to normality sooner.
I can't really follow your logic who is wanting to kill who and who has been abusing who.
“Refugee camp” is just a legal designation for certain areas in the Gaza Strip. It refers to “refugees” from events that took place decades before almost anyone in the Gaza Strip was even born.
It's a dense urban area, it has civilians and children.
That bomb is large enough to level an apartment block, so ~100 casualties and they don't know where it will land. Who are they targeting with that type of bomb, 1 Hamas fighter hiding among population?
It's error margin is in hundreds of meters. You are not allowed to kill 100 innocent people in the hopes (not certainty!) of getting 1 enemy soldier. That's exactly what 'indiscriminate killing of civilians' means.
That is why United States has never used this size of bomb, let alone unguided, in it's recent wars in Urban areas. They were also fighting guerrilla fighters - Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc.
The act of using this weapon in Urban area is a war crime, just as it would be a war crime to use chemical weapons, etc.
I am really puzzled by you posting this and thinking it justifies bombing. Are you unable to imagine how this would look if the shoe was on the other foot?
Imagine there was happening in New York - and someone posted a video “They are using Subway and maintenance tunnels to deliver supplies” - obviously infrastructure would be used!
Next step: “therefore any building over a tonne is a valid military target”. Do you realise that would mean basically any building in New York?
If that were true, you could bomb hospitals and it would never be a war crime. You must realise that if you actually think through the logical consequences of your argument.
Military facilities are things like an arsenal, munitions depo, barracks, forward operating base, fire support base, etc. To the best of my knowledge, this was never found.
what are you talking about? my reply was to “credible evidence of a large, undergroud Hamas facility” and I posted that, and not via israeli, but via hamas own channels. I have no idea why you replied what you did.
i guess the result of that civilian smuggling is the access to food, medicine and other lifesaving goods for the civilians? oh, no, it seems like it is weapons and hostages.
I suggest that all nations everywhere blow up their roads, then. After all, they too are civilian infrastructure that is abused for the evil purposes of transporting tanks and ammunition. It must be stopped!
Former AP reporters have come forward and admitted that not only was the AP well aware of Hamas’ presence and activity in the building, but that from time to time, armed Hamas men would burst into their offices demanding they not report on some of those activities.
I'm still waiting on a single shred of evidence to drop about the AP building from 2-3 years ago https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe...
> Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
Even if Hamas was fighting from hospitals and schools that is not how this works. Israel would be required to give those schools and hospitals warning first which they have not been doing.
And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs? Why not guided bombs?