4 ms·

A lot of that ambiguity would vanish if Israel did not have a habit of drastically overstating their case and quietly walking it back after they end up killing

A lot of that ambiguity would vanish if Israel did not have a habit of drastically overstating their case and quietly walking it back after they end up killing more journalists and toddlers than active combatants in hospital bombings. Also if reports didn't deliberately conflate 'armed man' with 'Hamas militant' and euphemize about the 'Hamas-run Interior Ministry' like that one does.

HappyPanacea 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  > Israeli forces dressed in doctors’ scrubs and women’s clothes have killed three Palestinian militants in an undercover operation in a hospital in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-disguised-women-medics-storm-hospital-jenin-west-bank https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-... Hmm.
  - HappyPanacea 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy > It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy… The following acts are examples of perfidy… The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status... (Assassinating a paralyzed patient in a hospital is also not typically - ahem - kosher. Even if you're in uniform!)
      - HappyPanacea 7mo ago
        Why was it decided that feigning of civilian, non-combatant status is bad? because it led to death of civilians who had no part in the fight; pretending to be your enemy's civilians bring no such issue. Although assassinating a patient is also not kosher it less relevant to the discussion about use of uniforms.
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > pretending to be your enemy's civilians bring no such issue Could you clarify where in the Geneva Conventions this very important exemption is stated? > Why was it decided that feigning of civilian, non-combatant status is bad? Because people start shooting civilians thinking they're infiltrators, and even enemy civilians are protected persons.
        HappyPanacea 7mo ago
        > Could you clarify where in the Geneva Conventions this very important exemption is stated? The spirit of the law is more important then its letter. Also I think Israel never signed that part of the Geneva Conventions. > Because people start shooting civilians thinking they're infiltrators, and even enemy civilians are protected persons. When did that happened in the Israel-Arab conflict? (When did that happened elsewhere? It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily?)
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > Also I think Israel never signed that part of the Geneva Conventions. You, earlier: "A lot of that ambiguity would vanish if Hamas did not have a habit of not putting uniforms in combat." Now it's suddenly not a problem? I can't imagine Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions. > It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily? German Jews in the 1930s/1940s would probably disagree. > When did that happened elsewhere? It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily? I mean, the IDF killed three Israeli hostages in Gaza, while with their hands up and holding a white flag, because they thought they were infiltrators. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67745092 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67745092
      - nickff 7mo ago
        As it stands, the Geneva convention only applies to acts when both countries are signatories, or one is, and the other follows the convention (which Hamas unfortunately does not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Common_Article_2_relating_to_international_armed_conflict_(IAC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Common_Arti... Is there another treaty which proscribes perfidy, which Israel has ratified?
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        If Israel wants to take that position, they’ll need to denounce the Nuremberg trials. “Crimes against humanity” were invented for them, as the Holocaust was legal under German law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip). As the article indicates, prohibitions against perfidy and other war crimes predate the Conventions. (And I’d note that, as occupying power, Israel is subject to other requirements.) (And if this is truly your argument, “Hamas doesn’t have to follow the rules either” is the logical conclusion. Which makes whining about their uniforms a bit odd; there is no scenario where "Hamas has to follow the Conventions, but Israel does not" is a coherent position.)
  - LorenPechtel 7mo ago
    Yeah, Israel has done some infiltration like that. Not proper, but you're pointing out a molehill while ignoring the mountain.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      When the molehill is a war crime, sure.
      - anderber 7mo ago
        So is the mountain, though
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        Yes. You will not find me defending Hamas war crimes, of which there are many too.
        eli_gottlieb 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        SiempreViernes 7mo ago
        Not falling for an obvious distraction from the extremely blatant pattern of dehumanising Palestinians. > In leaked recordings, Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva — then head of Israeli military intelligence — stated that for every person killed on Oct. 7, “50 Palestinians must die,” adding that “it doesn’t matter now if they are children.” He described mass Palestinian deaths as “necessary” to send a deterrent message. > Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration of a “complete siege” on Gaza — cutting food, electricity, fuel, and water — was accompanied by explicitly dehumanizing language. Announcing the policy on Oct. 9, Gallant stated: “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s assertion that “an entire nation out there is responsible” further blurs the institutional line between civilian and combatant. > Such statements do not determine individual targeting decisions, but they shape the environment in which those decisions are made: how civilian life is valued, how much civilian harm is expected to be scrutinized, and how much is implicitly excused.
- cess11 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- esseph 7mo ago
  Why would an insurgent force against an occupier ever wear uniforms? Ever? Is there any case of this happening in history?
  - dijit 7mo ago
    Pretty much all of them. National Guard and HomeGuard in every allied country has a uniform. The ones that don't are using what would be considered unlawful tactics these days. You're an 'unlawful combatant' if you don't wear one: the Geneva Convention still technically applies to you, just not in any way you'd find comforting.
    - kakacik 7mo ago
      Why should they play by some foreign made up book just because it would suit the oppressor who massively overpowers you in every aspect? Come on, lets get real, if you defend your homeland from invader any tactic is good tactic. Thats not some higher moral ground just basic logic. Geneva convention is just a piece of paper, sometimes adhered to by some parties, and thats about it. And thats something coming from a person living and working in Geneva lol. russians keep breaking those rules every day for years on ukraine and not much is happening, is it.
      - dijit 7mo ago
        The Geneva Convention wasn't written by oppressors to protect oppressors; it was written largely because of what happens to civilians and prisoners when there are no rules. The protections run both ways: your wounded, your captured fighters, your civilian population all benefit from it. Tear it up and you're not sticking it to the powerful, you're just guaranteeing that nobody on either side has any protection at all. And yes, Russia breaks the rules constantly in Ukraine. The response to that is not 'therefore rules are worthless,' it's 'therefore we need better enforcement.' A legal system with imperfect enforcement is not the same thing as no legal system; by that logic you'd abolish murder laws because people still get murdered. 'Any tactic is a good tactic' is also, incidentally, exactly what the oppressor says.
      - 7mo ago
- a-french-anon 7mo ago
  Grossly asymmetric warfare promotes and "kinda" justifies guerilla tactics from one side. Necessity knows no law and all that. Of course, that does mean the bigger side has to get dirty too, sometimes. Just not to the extent that Israel is, who clearly just want to cleanse the land in order to own it. I mean, this is Boer war territory, not (e.g.) Algerian war where torture was used but civilians were mostly left intact.
LorenPechtel 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  > Drastically overstating their case? Israel estimates tend to be pretty close to accurate. What's been walked back? From the article we're discussing: "The Israeli military was forced to change its story about the ambush several times, following the discovery of the bodies in a mass grave, along with their flattened vehicles, and the emergence of video and audio recordings taken by the aid workers. An internal military inquiry ultimately did not recommend any criminal action against the army units responsible for the incident." I would describe that as a walk-back.
  - LorenPechtel 7mo ago
    I was talking about casualty estimates.
- cholantesh 7mo ago
  >"Hamas-run Interior Ministry" is accurate. It's admitting the figures are basically enemy propaganda. I guess we're in agreement that Reuters isn't engaging with the topic neutrally.

HappyPanacea 7mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 7mo ago
> Israeli forces dressed in doctors’ scrubs and women’s clothes have killed three Palestinian militants in an undercover operation in a hospital in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-disguised-women-medics-storm-hospital-jenin-west-bank https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/israel-forces-... Hmm.
- HappyPanacea 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy > It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy… The following acts are examples of perfidy… The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status... (Assassinating a paralyzed patient in a hospital is also not typically - ahem - kosher. Even if you're in uniform!)
    - HappyPanacea 7mo ago
      Why was it decided that feigning of civilian, non-combatant status is bad? because it led to death of civilians who had no part in the fight; pretending to be your enemy's civilians bring no such issue. Although assassinating a patient is also not kosher it less relevant to the discussion about use of uniforms.
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > pretending to be your enemy's civilians bring no such issue Could you clarify where in the Geneva Conventions this very important exemption is stated? > Why was it decided that feigning of civilian, non-combatant status is bad? Because people start shooting civilians thinking they're infiltrators, and even enemy civilians are protected persons.
        HappyPanacea 7mo ago
        > Could you clarify where in the Geneva Conventions this very important exemption is stated? The spirit of the law is more important then its letter. Also I think Israel never signed that part of the Geneva Conventions. > Because people start shooting civilians thinking they're infiltrators, and even enemy civilians are protected persons. When did that happened in the Israel-Arab conflict? (When did that happened elsewhere? It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily?)
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > Also I think Israel never signed that part of the Geneva Conventions. You, earlier: "A lot of that ambiguity would vanish if Hamas did not have a habit of not putting uniforms in combat." Now it's suddenly not a problem? I can't imagine Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions. > It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily? German Jews in the 1930s/1940s would probably disagree. > When did that happened elsewhere? It sounds like it should be very rare, people don't kill their own so easily? I mean, the IDF killed three Israeli hostages in Gaza, while with their hands up and holding a white flag, because they thought they were infiltrators. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67745092 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67745092
    - nickff 7mo ago
      As it stands, the Geneva convention only applies to acts when both countries are signatories, or one is, and the other follows the convention (which Hamas unfortunately does not): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Common_Article_2_relating_to_international_armed_conflict_(IAC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Common_Arti... Is there another treaty which proscribes perfidy, which Israel has ratified?
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        If Israel wants to take that position, they’ll need to denounce the Nuremberg trials. “Crimes against humanity” were invented for them, as the Holocaust was legal under German law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip). As the article indicates, prohibitions against perfidy and other war crimes predate the Conventions. (And I’d note that, as occupying power, Israel is subject to other requirements.) (And if this is truly your argument, “Hamas doesn’t have to follow the rules either” is the logical conclusion. Which makes whining about their uniforms a bit odd; there is no scenario where "Hamas has to follow the Conventions, but Israel does not" is a coherent position.)
- LorenPechtel 7mo ago
  Yeah, Israel has done some infiltration like that. Not proper, but you're pointing out a molehill while ignoring the mountain.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    When the molehill is a war crime, sure.
    - anderber 7mo ago
      So is the mountain, though
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        Yes. You will not find me defending Hamas war crimes, of which there are many too.
        eli_gottlieb 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        SiempreViernes 7mo ago
        Not falling for an obvious distraction from the extremely blatant pattern of dehumanising Palestinians. > In leaked recordings, Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva — then head of Israeli military intelligence — stated that for every person killed on Oct. 7, “50 Palestinians must die,” adding that “it doesn’t matter now if they are children.” He described mass Palestinian deaths as “necessary” to send a deterrent message. > Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s declaration of a “complete siege” on Gaza — cutting food, electricity, fuel, and water — was accompanied by explicitly dehumanizing language. Announcing the policy on Oct. 9, Gallant stated: “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s assertion that “an entire nation out there is responsible” further blurs the institutional line between civilian and combatant. > Such statements do not determine individual targeting decisions, but they shape the environment in which those decisions are made: how civilian life is valued, how much civilian harm is expected to be scrutinized, and how much is implicitly excused.
cess11 7mo ago
[flagged]
esseph 7mo ago
Why would an insurgent force against an occupier ever wear uniforms? Ever? Is there any case of this happening in history?
- dijit 7mo ago
  Pretty much all of them. National Guard and HomeGuard in every allied country has a uniform. The ones that don't are using what would be considered unlawful tactics these days. You're an 'unlawful combatant' if you don't wear one: the Geneva Convention still technically applies to you, just not in any way you'd find comforting.
  - kakacik 7mo ago
    Why should they play by some foreign made up book just because it would suit the oppressor who massively overpowers you in every aspect? Come on, lets get real, if you defend your homeland from invader any tactic is good tactic. Thats not some higher moral ground just basic logic. Geneva convention is just a piece of paper, sometimes adhered to by some parties, and thats about it. And thats something coming from a person living and working in Geneva lol. russians keep breaking those rules every day for years on ukraine and not much is happening, is it.
    - dijit 7mo ago
      The Geneva Convention wasn't written by oppressors to protect oppressors; it was written largely because of what happens to civilians and prisoners when there are no rules. The protections run both ways: your wounded, your captured fighters, your civilian population all benefit from it. Tear it up and you're not sticking it to the powerful, you're just guaranteeing that nobody on either side has any protection at all. And yes, Russia breaks the rules constantly in Ukraine. The response to that is not 'therefore rules are worthless,' it's 'therefore we need better enforcement.' A legal system with imperfect enforcement is not the same thing as no legal system; by that logic you'd abolish murder laws because people still get murdered. 'Any tactic is a good tactic' is also, incidentally, exactly what the oppressor says.
    - 7mo ago
a-french-anon 7mo ago
Grossly asymmetric warfare promotes and "kinda" justifies guerilla tactics from one side. Necessity knows no law and all that. Of course, that does mean the bigger side has to get dirty too, sometimes. Just not to the extent that Israel is, who clearly just want to cleanse the land in order to own it. I mean, this is Boer war territory, not (e.g.) Algerian war where torture was used but civilians were mostly left intact.

LorenPechtel 7mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 7mo ago
> Drastically overstating their case? Israel estimates tend to be pretty close to accurate. What's been walked back? From the article we're discussing: "The Israeli military was forced to change its story about the ambush several times, following the discovery of the bodies in a mass grave, along with their flattened vehicles, and the emergence of video and audio recordings taken by the aid workers. An internal military inquiry ultimately did not recommend any criminal action against the army units responsible for the incident." I would describe that as a walk-back.
- LorenPechtel 7mo ago
  I was talking about casualty estimates.
cholantesh 7mo ago
>"Hamas-run Interior Ministry" is accurate. It's admitting the figures are basically enemy propaganda. I guess we're in agreement that Reuters isn't engaging with the topic neutrally.