214
submitted 11 months ago by sirboozebum@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

First of all, no it isn't. Second of all, nobody's forcing the IDF to go through with the bombings anyway, sacrificing thousands of civilians while gaining nothing but the potential deaths of a few replaceable terrorists.

[-] Knightfox@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago

Oddly enough it's not a war crime to attack a military target that is using a civilian population as cover. The military action has to use the principle of proportionality to limit risks to civilians, but doesn't ban the attack. Attacking such a site would only be a war crime if there is no valid military target.

The use of a civilian population as soft cover (as in not actively being human shields, but not getting out of the way) could be a war crime depending on the amount of obfuscation the hiding party is using. In the instance of Hamas they built their bases directly under hospitals so I'd say that meets the bar for war crimes.

Also, the current news is that Hamas is blocking evacuations from this region. So that moves it from soft human shields to forced human shields.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

it's not a war crime to attack a military target that is using a civilian population as cover

It absolutely 100% is.

The military action has to use the principle of proportionality

Which Israel doesn't do either, not even close

Attacking such a site would only be a war crime if there is no valid military target.

Which we only have the word of a notoriously dishonest government that there always is

Also, the current news is that Hamas is blocking evacuations from this region. So that moves it from soft human shields to forced human shields.

You mean like when Israel told Palestinians to go somewhere and then bombed them as they complied?

You can try all the whataboutism you'd like to excuse the atrocities of the apartheid regime but, apart from the fact that the atrocities of Hamas doesn't justify any of those of Israel, most of the time the IDF have done the same thing (including for example using human shields) or something even worse.

[-] Knightfox@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago

It absolutely 100% is.

The Geneva Convention disagrees: "Geneva Convention IV: Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: 'The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.'"

"Additional Protocol I: Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations"

Which Israel doesn’t do either, not even close

That's not true, obviously Israel is using the principal of proportionality or else they would have just leveled the entire place. Whether this constitutes a war crime would be if their level of response was appropriate enough, that's why people say it "may" constitute a war crime. The truth is that this is a subjective argument that would need to be determined in an international court of law to be certain of.

Which we only have the word of a notoriously dishonest government that there always is

Amnesty International reported the same in 2014 (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/) and the Palestinian Health Ministry in 2009 (www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3668018,00.html).

You mean like when Israel told Palestinians to go somewhere and then bombed them as they complied?

Maybe you should actually check the news, Hamas leadership has been telling it's people to stay and, while you don't believe the IDF, they have satellite and surveillance footage of vehicles and barricades to block travel in Gaza. Also, reporters inside of Gaza are reporting that Hamas is shooting evacuating people.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/ryjyna7qa

You can try all the whataboutism you’d like to excuse the atrocities of the apartheid regime but, apart from the fact that the atrocities of Hamas doesn’t justify any of those of Israel, most of the time the IDF have done the same thing (including for example using human shields) or something even worse.

I've not tried to excuse any atrocities, I'm clearly pointing out that the term "War Crime" has a specific meaning of which you have twice incorrectly used. Throughout our discussions I have used a number of reasonable sources and references. It funny you accuse me of an argument I haven't made and for using whataboutisms, but the only whataboutisms have come from your own post. I don't like what the IDF is doing either, but you can't call things war crimes that would literally take a prolonged international league case to determine (principle of proportionality). Likewise when something is very clearly defined as a war crime, you can't say that it isn't (perfidy). Also, it's a really poor argument to say that sources (albeit biased) are illegitimate because they came from Israel (I showed that an outside entity and the Palestinian Health Ministry backed up the IDFs claims a decade earlier).

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Aaand we've reached the point where you repeat bullshit I've already refuted and insist that two war crimes would make a justified military action. We're done here, genocide apologist.

[-] Knightfox@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

1.) Presented with sources, definitions, and a fairly detailed description of war crimes.

2.) Presented with third party sources about claims.

3.) Clearly told that the person they are arguing with doesn't support the IDF

4.) Uses strawman attacks on the person they are arguing with

5.) Provides no real source, argument, or rebutall

6.) Says they refuted my argument

7.) Puts words in my mouth

8.) Calls me a genocide apologist when I clearly am not

You're clearly a troll and I'm done feeding you

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
214 points (92.8% liked)

News

23281 readers
4242 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS