Ok, so where are the reports of evidence that Hamas is using human shields.
Not just reports that say Israel accuses Hamas, show us the news stories with proof that Hamas used human shields.
Back up your claim.
Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Not just reports that say Israel accuses Hamas, show us the news stories with proof that Hamas used human shields.
Back up your claim.
I just asked frank if there are any news outlets like Reuters or CNN or NY Times have reported/confirmed this story.
If they haven't then I suspect that your intelligence would come to the same conclusion. It's a fake report.
And yet there have been consistent reports going back years that they have. (Including by Amnesty International.)
Mads is very careful about his phrasing here and that's fine.
I don't know whether it is, and even if it is, that doesn't make bombing it obviously correct, as DM has explained more than once.
Which isn't what I was talking about.
War crimes by Hamas don't justify war crimes by Israel (and vice versa).
And on TERB you have as much burden of providing proof as I do. To repeat, neither of us actually knows.
At some point, the truth will come out. Be patient, Grasshopper.
I agree, no news source has confirmed any Israeli claim of using human shields.
There are lots of reports repeating IDF claims, but none confirming whether they are true.
There is zero evidence, only IDF claims, they are as useful as Hamas claims.
I've gone through those reports.
They have only ever found Israel guilty of using human shields.
But feel free to prove me wrong, just back it up.
You know how to properly credit sources, do it.
That shows how little Hamas cares for their own people. They are doing something to their own people that nobody has ever done before.
Hamas are savages.
Intentional misinterpretation. For the umpteenth time. You need a new strategy.
That example sucks ass.
It provides zero proof that Hamas were not embedded in that camp.
You mean the people who support the violent terrorist attack of Oct. 7? We already know what they think of violence when someone disagrees with them.
Instead of suicide by police, it'd be suicide by Hamas supporters.
You are so warped that you think not wanting to die or get injured makes me a coward. How ridiculous.
The only coward here is you who refuses to answer any question.
Here's one that you're guaranteed to run away from..........like a coward.
Do you think that more Gazans would die either A) waiting out a BDS boycott of Israel (your idea of a solution) while there is still no peace or B) if Hamas surrendered today and returned all the hostages (my idea of a solution).
Regardless of who is in the right or not, which is it frank A or B? Which "solution" would result in less Gazan casualties?
frank, show us what you're made of. Don't be a COWARD.
A or B?
Then tell us the name of the Hamas member that was using this little girl’s mother as a human shield.
Use the intelligence reports you rely on.
Don’t be a coward.
Ok. So let's think this through.
If Israel became a secular democratic state, how long do you think it would be before the Muslims would form a single party, which would then be elected by the Muslims, who would easily have the majority votes required to become the governing party of Israel.
THEN you would see real apartheid, if not total expulsion of all the Jews in that new Muslim controlled state, as it is in every other Muslim controlled nation in the region.
And then the Muslims could rename it "Palestine, From The River To The Sea"...
There is literally no other scenario. There will be an exodus of the Jews and the country is going to become a shithole like its current neighbours.
Yes, that was in my preamble as well. Which is why I say if you're not going to accomplish anything, maybe don't kill thousands of civilians.
Yeah, with less than 2 years of heavy sanctions. What would 75 years worth have done?
Maybe. But if we sanction Iran and Russia helps them bypass sanctions then we sanction Russia more. But that still involves breaking the objections to Israel's illegal settlements.
No. I literally laid out a framework to deal with it.
Instead of riddles just say what your point is.
I said it was unlikely to happen.
Allow to me be clear...
People here have championed for Israel to kill more Gazans and argued that Hamas needs to give in first. I said they are a terrorist organization and that it's unreasonable to expect them to give in. People asked me what my view was, and I think that's fair of them. It's unfair of me to criticize other people's views if I don't offer my own. So I did.
I think it is less insane to expect Israel to be reasonable than it is to expect terrorists to be reasonable. Neither will happen in my life time. But at the very least, I'm not championing for a bigger and bigger and bigger bodycount only for the status quo to be maintained. Yes, my proposal is almost as unlikely as theirs, but at least it isn't cheering for more dead civilians and at least I'm not expecting terrorists who have only ever committed war crimes by killing civilians to be reasonable people. All I'm offering is an alternative to hope for rather than killing more civilians to achieve nothing different from the status quo.
Political pressure can go a long way. I may have been in he military and I may think we should be harsher with Russia, but I'm hardly a bloodthirsty warlord that thinks we should go to war at the drop of a hat. When political pressure fails and no feasible options exist, yes. But I still believe in the power of political pressure. And if enough people helped Israel see the maybe the illegal occupations and the bigger bodycount are hurting more than they help, something might change. I know some people think that's silly. I've been called worse things than silly, naive and optimistic.
I don't know why you put "dire necessity" in quotes. It's not a term I used and it doesn't appear in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention either, nor is it in the commentary. There is no allowance for that. It would still be a war crime. Article 49 is clear. You can't move them against their will. But if you do, it must be a military imperitive and you have to keep them in the area if you can. As soon as possible, you have to let them go back. The other paragraphs are what you would expect: you have to provide shelter for them, you can't mistreat them, etc. There are no other accommodations. In other words, it is only lawful to move them against their will in order to conduct a specific military operation, and you have to move them back when the operation is over. It does not mean you can say "I have a military reason to deport them forever whether they want to go or not".
Honestly, I don't know why people keep asking me what if's. The Geneva Conventions are specifically written in language that even dumb soldiers can understand. I give the references so people can go check them out if they're interested. If they're not interested and don't care if war crimes are committed then they should just stop arguing with me and trying to find loopholes. If you think Israel is justified in carrying out a war crime just say so, but there's no reason to try and hunt and peck and search out loopholes. If you support the action just say you support the action.
That's what happens in war anyway. I don't know if people think I'm saying committing a war crime is going to result in the world attacking you and murdering everyone involved or what. In WWI Canada basically took the Hague Conventions and used them as a checklist trying to see if we could do them all and we're still here.
War Crimes were agreed upon by everyone involved to be things everyone should refrain from doing. I personally agree with them and won't encourage or cheer for them. They all come down to the same thing, "Be a decent human to other humans who aren't fighting you, and don't be inhumane even towards those who are, even if they are to you."
The rationale behind all of them is that lives of the innocent and lives that you are responsible for (ie POWs) must be held to a higher value than those of your own soldiers because that is how you maintain a moral high ground. So you sacrifice soldiers to save civilians. You sacrifice soldiers to protect POWs. You sacrifice soldiers to protect the wounded.
I personally cannot abide senseless killing of civilians. I don't understand the logic of killing 10,000 civilians to save the lives of 1,500 civilians because they are all civilians and all have equal right and value. Kill 10,000 terrorists or soldiers to save 1,500 civilians I understand, but people asking if it's justified to bomb a hospital full of civilians if there's a single enemy leader in there are missing the whole point as far as I'm concerned.
So if you support the war crime, just say you support the war crime. But I think people should know when what they are supporting is a crime against humanity and a violation of international law. If you know but don't care because you think the situation warrants it, it's fine to just say so. No one is going to come arrest you for it. I might think someone who supports a war crime is an asshole, but I doubt anyone here gives a shit what I think of them.
I believe you think this is a recent event given your wording. It is not. I also regret using it as an example because of the confusing application of humanitarian law to organizations like the USSR but luckily nothing like it exists now.
Crimea had autonomous status in the USSR. The Russian SFSR aided by the Uzbek SSR engaged in a forced deportation and detartarification. Both the forced deportation and the cultural genocide were war crimes.
The forced deportation of illegal immigrants and refugees is not a war crime. And while it's not a war crime for a nation to forcibly relocate people to within it's own borders for various reasons outside of war, it is still a crime against humanity to do it when the reasons for doing so are discriminatory, such as being based on cultural or ethnic grounds, as was the case with Crimean Tartars.
Which isn't an argument that exists in the context of forced deportation and doesn't apply to the forced deportation of Tartars. The Soviet Union didn't even pretend it was necessary, they straight up said they were doing it as a punishment.
International recognition. In the case of the Israeli occupied territories, that would have to start with Israel claiming they actually own them first. The world can't recognize them as a legitimate, permanent part of Israel before Israel does.
Quebec isn't occupied territory because of the Constitution of Quebec, The Constitution Acts of Canada, the British North America Act and international recognition. Because Canada claims Quebec to be part of Canada and the rest of the world recognizes that, it is. Georgia is part of the US by the US Constitution and the Constitution of Georgia. Because the US claims Georgia is part of the US and the rest of the would recognizes that, it is.
Here's another example. To which nation does Crimea belong today? (Note how I don't pose the riddle and move on but rather continued to make my point?) It depends who you ask to a certain extent. Russia has formally annexed it (18 March 2014 announcement from the Kremlin) and a few countries have recognized that. But if Russia had never annexed it, it would simply remain Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation and there would be nothing for anyone to recognize. It's the difference between territory, occupied territory, and disputed territory. Quebec and Georgia are just territory. Gaza and West Bank are occupied. Crimea is disputed.
A few examples...
In 1914, the German Empire conquered and occupied Belgium, but it made no claim of annexation and no one ever considered Belgium to be part of the German Empire.
In 1945, the US conquered but never occupied or annexed Japan and no one ever considered Japan to be part of the US.
In 1836, Texas declared independence from Mexico and applied for annexation into the US. In 1845, the US accepted and announced the annexation. Much of the world didn't recognize that, including Mexico, so Texas was disputed territory. The American Mexican war ensued, Mexico lost, Texas was incorporated and integrated into the Union, recognition followed. Texas is now part of the US.
There is no Israeli legal document declaring Gaza is part of Israel. Therefore there is nothing for the world to recognize. Israel has to start this process if that's the road they want to go down.
Under international law, they have not.
Just as unlikely as my solution, but perhaps equally viable for Gazans. Though that would involve getting two countries to agree to an unlikely thing instead of just one. But still. It is at least something new. It's also still a war crime unless the Gazans want to go. But as I said, if you don't care if I think it's justified that's fine.
Given a choice between "murder more civilians" and "deport all the civilians", is I certainly pick deport. Not all war crimes are equal just like not all regular crime is equal. At least it's not just more of the status quo.
