> Do you know how many of those killed were soldiers and security personnel?
Do I need to?
If October 7 had solely engaged military targets, the moral contours of the war would have be clear. It didn't. I'd argue it couldn't. The political forces that sustained Hamas and Sinwar did not allow for targeted, strategic strikes. Just acts of vengeance played out for an audience. (Hamas doesn't have a place in a peaceful, prosperous Palestine.)
Like, let's reverse it. Do you know how many of those killed by the IDF are bona fide militants? I don't. But I also don't think that's germane to e.g. "the Israeli military opening fire on crowds of Palestinians as they tried to make their way to the fenced enclosure to get food" [1].
Please provide sources. Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion. People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Don't bother. He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means. War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes. No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
> He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war
No, this is not what I've said.
> because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means.
The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
> War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes.
When a hospital is used for military purposes and then attacked, it is not a war crime from the PoV of international law. You may not like it, but it is a fact.
> No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
I think you are irrational here. Your reasoning is based on emotions, and not facts.
> The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
This is wrong. Hospitals can only be valid targets if they are used to launch "acts harmful to the enemy". There are countless military purposes that still don't rise to that level. Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough. Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm. Small arms fire from a hospital window does not justify bombing the entire building into rubble.
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
> Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough.
It is enough for the hospital to loose its protection.
> Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm.
This is completely different question though: proportionality of response vs. protected status of various institutions and buildings at war.
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
So, given that Palestinians used schools consistently to hide weapons, are you saying that it never happens? It seems to me completely unreasonable to claim that Israelis destroyed "all the schools, hospitals, universities because they want genocide" very questionable given that Palestinians used civilian infrastructure and NGOs for its resistance in the past. If they did it, why won't they do it again?
> Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion.
Of course not. It is also not a a single %.
> People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Absolutely. However, people here are using the term genocide as it is a settled matter. Moreover, their whole reasoning boils down to metrics that either show that any war is a genocide, or have no bearing at all.
"Israeli fighter planes have also attempted to kill children by dropping thousands of booby-trapped toys on Lebanese villages and towns. The Israeli occupying forces have used this method through the years and continue to do so, the most recent example being when booby-trapped toys were dropped on the town of Nabatiyah, killing and injuring children and permanently disfiguring others."
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180386/
Yes. Except there are credible reports of Israel also doing this in the past.
"Israeli fighter planes have also attempted to kill children by dropping thousands of booby-trapped toys on Lebanese villages and towns. The Israeli occupying forces have used this method through the years and continue to do so, the most recent example being when booby-trapped toys were dropped on the town of Nabatiyah, killing and injuring children and permanently disfiguring others."
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180386/https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/227779/Mariam%252C_res...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47444297 "Villagers have been whipped with belts, attacked with machetes, beaten unconscious with bamboo sticks, sexually assaulted, shot, and murdered by WWF-supported anti-poaching units, according to reports and documents obtained by BuzzFeed News."
I agree, but let's not forget that the more (semantically) obvious reason why people get locked out of wealth has more to do with not being able to take it than with not being able to produce it.
I upvoted when I had read up to where you wrote "doesn't help with." I felt I was reading my own thoughts when I read the last two sentences. I think it is not just software design that will become shortsighted we may even see less interest in improving programming languages. I've always hoped for people to come up with some mathematical insights (beyond functional programming) that will describe code organizing structures in a more sensible way, so that experience no longer appears as the main argument for software patterns being tools to manage complexity. Now a programming language is just another language to be modeled, and its texts generated and proofread by a fallible human.
> I think it is not just software design that will become shortsighted we may even see less interest in improving programming languages.
I believe in the contrary. AI code generators and modern languages that enforce type and memory safety are a great match, since the compiler ensures the mess doesn't grow too much.
reply