8 ms·

Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, e.g.: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-rescind-order-to-evacuate-al-quds-hospital-israel-says-i

by nsguy 3y ago

Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, e.g.: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-rescind-order-to-evacuate-al-quds-hospital-israel-says-its-used-as-hamas-command-center/ https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-resc... 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).

adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
if Russia says that everyone in the UK has to leave the UK that doesn't give them the right to bomb every hospital in the UK
- kaba0 3y ago
  [flagged]
- nsguy 3y ago
  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?
  - rakoo 3y ago
    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 ? Context, always.
    - nsguy 3y ago
      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.
- almogo 3y ago
  That's absolutely not a reasonable comparison.
hmcq6 3y ago
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. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-hospital-strikes-worsen-health-crisis https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-ho... > I don't think 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.
- jonbodner 3y ago
  You are aware of Human Rights Watch’s history with Israel, right? Here’s a taste: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fundraising-corruption-at-human-rights-watch/21345/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fu...
  - leereeves 3y ago
    > 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: https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia
moogly 3y ago
> 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) Evacuated to where, exactly?
- sharikous 3y ago
  Southern Gaza, Israel considers a part of Southern Gaza an humanitarian zone and dropped fliers explaining that.
  - moogly 3y ago
    OCHA (UN org) were not impressed: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/pauses-corridors-and-safe-zones-gaza-rhetoric-vs-reality https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/... Like lambs to slaughter.
incognos 3y ago
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.
- nsguy 3y ago
  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.
GordonS 3y ago
> Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians Yes, they have repeatedly dropped leaflets telling civilians to move to "safe" areas - and have repeatedly proceeded to bomb those areas. > including those "camps" you mention Like the one where an Israeli tank drove over inhabited tents?
- nsguy 3y ago
  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.

by nsguy 3y ago

adgjlsfhk1 3y ago

if Russia says that everyone in the UK has to leave the UK that doesn't give them the right to bomb every hospital in the UK

kaba0 3y ago
[flagged]
nsguy 3y ago
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?
- rakoo 3y ago
  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 ? Context, always.
  - nsguy 3y ago
    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.
almogo 3y ago
That's absolutely not a reasonable comparison.

hmcq6 3y ago

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. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-hospital-strikes-worsen-health-crisis https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-ho... > I don't think 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.

jonbodner 3y ago
You are aware of Human Rights Watch’s history with Israel, right? Here’s a taste: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fundraising-corruption-at-human-rights-watch/21345/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fu...
- leereeves 3y ago
  > 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: https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia

moogly 3y ago

> 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) Evacuated to where, exactly?

sharikous 3y ago
Southern Gaza, Israel considers a part of Southern Gaza an humanitarian zone and dropped fliers explaining that.
- moogly 3y ago
  OCHA (UN org) were not impressed: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/pauses-corridors-and-safe-zones-gaza-rhetoric-vs-reality https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/... Like lambs to slaughter.

incognos 3y ago

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.

nsguy 3y ago
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.

GordonS 3y ago

> Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be evacuated from civilians Yes, they have repeatedly dropped leaflets telling civilians to move to "safe" areas - and have repeatedly proceeded to bomb those areas. > including those "camps" you mention Like the one where an Israeli tank drove over inhabited tents?

nsguy 3y ago
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.