4 ms·

Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional - and Israel has repeatedly, deliberately targeted civilians, including children. There is an abundance

Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional - and Israel has repeatedly, deliberately targeted civilians, including children. There is an abundance of evidence, and yes you are right that they should be condemned - except Israel and their stooges always cry "antisemitism!", before going straight back to more war crimes and genocide. Not to mention how Israel has destroyed nearly every (or every, now?) hospital in Gaza to prevent civilians from being treated. Or how Israel haa prevented aid from entering Gaza. Or how bulldozer drivers drive over hundreds of Palestinians, dead and alive. Or... gods, there is so much more, Israel is a deeply sick society.

bawolff 2y ago
> Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional Well close, they are a violation if that is the intended goal of the attack, they are not necessarily a violation if they were done intentionally as part of an attack against a military target and the porportional military gain outweighs the expected civilian damage (this is a bit of an oversimplification) > There is an abundance of evidence, I think this overstates things. There is definite evidence that civilians have died. Whether there is evidence that those deaths were the illegal under the rules of war is much more ambigious. There is probably evidence for some isolated incidents, i'm not sure i agree there is strong (i.e. sufficient for a conviction) of widespread illegal civilian death. I'm not saying it for sure didn't happen, just that the publicly available evidence is mixed and often requires making unverified assumptions. (Truth is the first casualty of war)
- GordonS 2y ago
  Isolated incidents?! We've seen daily war crimes just on social media for the past year! The Hind Rajab foundation alone* has found clear evidence of war crimes committed by over one thousand individuals - that's just the ones that were stupid enough to post blatant war crimes on Facebook/Instagram and have been identified! The process to identify many, many more is ongoing. Come on now, there is a wealth of evidence of institutionalised war crimes, and you know it. * BTW, the Hind Rajab foundation was setup after Israel deliberately targeted and killed a 5-year old girl (along with family members, and even paramedics who tried to help).
  - bawolff 2y ago
    For any cases where there is solid evidence, i hope the perpetrators face appropriate justice. However the Hind Rajab foundation isn't exactly a neutral party here. There is nothing wrong with that, its important to have non-neutral parties to push justisce forward. However i would view them the same way i might view a persecutor in a normal court case - they are trying to prove the guy did it, but i'm not convinced until some sort of more neutral party weighs in (ideally a judge during a trial, but failing that even more neutral academics/civil society groups)
    - kombine 2y ago
      > For any cases where there is solid evidence, i hope the perpetrators face appropriate justice. Yeah, you are trying to make it sound as if these are isolated incidents. There is plenty of evidence that this was a systematic campaign of extermination, this is why the ICC is seeking arrests for Israel's leadership.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        To quote the ICC press release: "On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met" https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...
  - Qem 2y ago
    > * BTW, the Hind Rajab foundation was setup after Israel deliberately targeted and killed a 5-year old girl (along with family members, and even paramedics who tried to help). Forensic Architecture published a detailed report on this heartbreaking case: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-killing-of-hind-rajab https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-killing-... Unfortunately that was not an isolated case. It was systematic policy. The ICC staff has a lot of work in their hands.
cbeach 2y ago
Hamas makes no secret of using hospitals, schools and other civilian amenities as bases for weapons and terrorists. It's part of their "bare chests" ideology that uses the Gazan population as human shields.
- computerthings 2y ago
  IDF soldiers, singing: "there are no schools in Gaza, because there are no kids in Gaza", posing with underwear of women they displaced, saturating TikTok with war crime videos, blowing up infrastructure with controlled demolition en masse. "But Hamas"
- GordonS 2y ago
  Right, because in the absence of credible evidence, just saying a thing makes it true... at least for Israeli Hasbara...
  - bawolff 2y ago
    Generally the burden of proof for a crime is to prove guilt not innocence. Innocence is presumed.
    - GordonS 2y ago
      I mean, that's my point? Innocense should be presumed, but Israel says "that hospital is a terrorist hotbed of evil!", the western media parrots it verbatim, and then the IDF blows up a hospital - all without credible evidence, and sometimes with fabricated evidence.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        You are acting like this is an either-or, but its not. You can presume innocence for both alleged crimes. It is entirely logically consistent to say - i do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that hamas was illegally using this particular hospital for military purposes when israel blew it up. Without proof of that, its unfair to conclude the hamas violated the rules of war. And at the same time say: i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either. Presuming innocence doesn't mean you take one side over another. It means you presume neither side comitted a crime until you see evidence to the contrary.

bawolff 2y ago

> Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional Well close, they are a violation if that is the intended goal of the attack, they are not necessarily a violation if they were done intentionally as part of an attack against a military target and the porportional military gain outweighs the expected civilian damage (this is a bit of an oversimplification) > There is an abundance of evidence, I think this overstates things. There is definite evidence that civilians have died. Whether there is evidence that those deaths were the illegal under the rules of war is much more ambigious. There is probably evidence for some isolated incidents, i'm not sure i agree there is strong (i.e. sufficient for a conviction) of widespread illegal civilian death. I'm not saying it for sure didn't happen, just that the publicly available evidence is mixed and often requires making unverified assumptions. (Truth is the first casualty of war)

GordonS 2y ago
Isolated incidents?! We've seen daily war crimes just on social media for the past year! The Hind Rajab foundation alone* has found clear evidence of war crimes committed by over one thousand individuals - that's just the ones that were stupid enough to post blatant war crimes on Facebook/Instagram and have been identified! The process to identify many, many more is ongoing. Come on now, there is a wealth of evidence of institutionalised war crimes, and you know it. * BTW, the Hind Rajab foundation was setup after Israel deliberately targeted and killed a 5-year old girl (along with family members, and even paramedics who tried to help).
- bawolff 2y ago
  For any cases where there is solid evidence, i hope the perpetrators face appropriate justice. However the Hind Rajab foundation isn't exactly a neutral party here. There is nothing wrong with that, its important to have non-neutral parties to push justisce forward. However i would view them the same way i might view a persecutor in a normal court case - they are trying to prove the guy did it, but i'm not convinced until some sort of more neutral party weighs in (ideally a judge during a trial, but failing that even more neutral academics/civil society groups)
  - kombine 2y ago
    > For any cases where there is solid evidence, i hope the perpetrators face appropriate justice. Yeah, you are trying to make it sound as if these are isolated incidents. There is plenty of evidence that this was a systematic campaign of extermination, this is why the ICC is seeking arrests for Israel's leadership.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      To quote the ICC press release: "On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met" https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-p...
- Qem 2y ago
  > * BTW, the Hind Rajab foundation was setup after Israel deliberately targeted and killed a 5-year old girl (along with family members, and even paramedics who tried to help). Forensic Architecture published a detailed report on this heartbreaking case: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-killing-of-hind-rajab https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-killing-... Unfortunately that was not an isolated case. It was systematic policy. The ICC staff has a lot of work in their hands.

cbeach 2y ago

Hamas makes no secret of using hospitals, schools and other civilian amenities as bases for weapons and terrorists. It's part of their "bare chests" ideology that uses the Gazan population as human shields.

computerthings 2y ago
IDF soldiers, singing: "there are no schools in Gaza, because there are no kids in Gaza", posing with underwear of women they displaced, saturating TikTok with war crime videos, blowing up infrastructure with controlled demolition en masse. "But Hamas"
GordonS 2y ago
Right, because in the absence of credible evidence, just saying a thing makes it true... at least for Israeli Hasbara...
- bawolff 2y ago
  Generally the burden of proof for a crime is to prove guilt not innocence. Innocence is presumed.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    I mean, that's my point? Innocense should be presumed, but Israel says "that hospital is a terrorist hotbed of evil!", the western media parrots it verbatim, and then the IDF blows up a hospital - all without credible evidence, and sometimes with fabricated evidence.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      You are acting like this is an either-or, but its not. You can presume innocence for both alleged crimes. It is entirely logically consistent to say - i do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that hamas was illegally using this particular hospital for military purposes when israel blew it up. Without proof of that, its unfair to conclude the hamas violated the rules of war. And at the same time say: i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either. Presuming innocence doesn't mean you take one side over another. It means you presume neither side comitted a crime until you see evidence to the contrary.