4 ms·

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 v

by 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
  - jonbodner 3y ago
    Oh, you sweet summer child. 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.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      HRW should be "tough" on any nation that violates people's human rights. That's their mission. And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.
      - jonbodner 3y ago
        Sure. But it’s hard to ignore that they are far harsher on Israel than any other country. But don’t take it from me. Take that from a senior editor who left HRW after 13 years: https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-senior-editor-blasts-groups-infected-work-on-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-se...
        leereeves 3y ago
        Her objections include: "HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks...included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" And "political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence." It sounds like she wanted their coverage to be more one-sided. Explaining "the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" is perfectly valid.
bawolff 3y ago
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.
- erokar 3y ago
  > 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.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Israel would and has claimed otherwise. 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.
  - gryzzly 3y ago
    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?
    - GordonS 3y ago
      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.
nsguy 3y ago
"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.
- hmcq6 3y ago
  > [It] Doesn't make sense It does when your enemy is Amalek. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-israel-amalek-netanyahu/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-is...
  - nsguy 3y ago
    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.

by hmcq6 3y ago

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
- jonbodner 3y ago
  Oh, you sweet summer child. 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.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    HRW should be "tough" on any nation that violates people's human rights. That's their mission. And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.
    - jonbodner 3y ago
      Sure. But it’s hard to ignore that they are far harsher on Israel than any other country. But don’t take it from me. Take that from a senior editor who left HRW after 13 years: https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-senior-editor-blasts-groups-infected-work-on-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-se...
      - leereeves 3y ago
        Her objections include: "HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks...included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" And "political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence." It sounds like she wanted their coverage to be more one-sided. Explaining "the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" is perfectly valid.

bawolff 3y ago

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.

erokar 3y ago
> 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.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Israel would and has claimed otherwise. 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.
- gryzzly 3y ago
  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?
  - GordonS 3y ago
    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.

nsguy 3y ago

"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.

hmcq6 3y ago
> [It] Doesn't make sense It does when your enemy is Amalek. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-israel-amalek-netanyahu/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-is...
- nsguy 3y ago
  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.