6 ms·

"The main thrust targeted military installations"— of 1,139 confirmed dead, 828 were civilians. That's 72%. They also massacred 364 people at a music festival,

by dijit 8mo ago

"The main thrust targeted military installations"— of 1,139 confirmed dead, 828 were civilians. That's 72%. They also massacred 364 people at a music festival, which Hamas later described as a "coincidence" because they "may have thought" ravers were soldiers "resting". That's the defence you're endorsing. Nobody serious disputes that Gaza's suffering is real or that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny. But "genocide since Israel was created" is doing a lot of work for you; the ICJ found Palestinian rights were "plausibly" at risk, not that 1948 was a genocide. Words mean things. Overreaching doesn't help the people you're claiming to defend, it just makes it easier for the other side to dismiss everything else you say.

Cyph0n 8mo ago
So the best you can say about Israel’s conduct over the course of the past 2.5 years is that it “warrants scrutiny”? And if you want to play the number of victims game, even pre Oct 7 one side has always had it significantly worse than the other. After all, one side is a sovereign state that has a technologically advanced military, an air force, a navy, and air defense systems.
- dijit 8mo ago
  Remarkable. You've managed to read a comment that cited the ICJ, called out Israel's non-compliance with binding provisional measures, and explicitly said there's "plenty to condemn"; and concluded the position is that Israeli conduct merely "warrants scrutiny." This isn't a conversation, it's not even engagement: that's just not reading. On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard. A nuclear-capable state with F-35s, Iron Dome and a $3.8bn annual US military subsidy [1] bears more responsibility for its choices than a militia in a blockaded strip of land; not less. That's what asymmetry actually means. What it doesn't mean is that a music festival full of civilians somehow doesn't count. But nice try. [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587
  - Cyph0n 8mo ago
    > that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny. Was this not your choice of words? > On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard. Huh? Are you replying to someone else? Israel has killed 10s of thousands of civilians, a large portion of which are children. This along with many other factors - in addition to the higher standard expected from a sovereign state fighting an occupied people - is the reason we call it a genocide.
    - dijit 8mo ago
      No, I think you're accusing me of a position I don't really have because I don't like Hamas or Israel, but you think my condemnation of Hamas is support of Israel or that by pointing out Israeli suffering I am turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering. It's almost as if we genuinely believe that because there are more deaths on one side, that the other is deserving and should not be condemned despite innocence. Isn't that interesting.
holmesworcester 8mo ago
A reminder: Israel counts Hamas soldiers as military targets, even when they are out of uniform and in civilian life. If we apply the civilized world's standards of war then yes, Israelis who are also off-duty soldiers or reservists don't count as military targets. If we apply Israel's standards, however, they are. Are Gazans not allowed to apply the same standards to their adversaries that their adversaries openly apply to them? Would you be this courteous, in their position?
- dijit 8mo ago
  Of the 378 people killed at and around Nova, 16 were off-duty soldiers attending the rave and 4 were killed fighting [1]. That's 20 out of 378 ... so about 5%. So even by the standard you're proposing, Hamas massacred around 358 people who wouldn't qualify as military targets under anyone's rules of engagement. Including theirs, apparently, since Hamas's own explanation was that they "may have thought" the ravers were soldiers "resting"; i.e. they didn't know and killed them anyway. The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-okayed-nova-music-festival-but-didnt-inform-troops-deployed-at-border-probe-finds/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-okayed-nova-music-festival...
  - JasonADrury 8mo ago
    Ah, so they'd only previously been members of the IDF? Do you suppose Israel doesn't consider previous members of Hamas legitimate targets? >The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire. But that's effectively indistinguishable from the Israeli targeting framework where everyone connected to Hamas is a legitimate target.
    - dijit 8mo ago
      This is settled in international humanitarian law. Per Human Rights Watch, citing ICRC guidance: "reservists of national armed forces are considered civilians except when they go on duty." [1] Off-duty at a music festival unambiguously qualifies as not on duty. The argument that prior military service permanently strips civilian status has no basis in IHL. If it did, every Israeli who'd ever served (which is nearly all of them, given conscription) would be a legitimate target forever. So: not a targeting framework, more like a justification for killing the entire population. On your second point: Israel's targeting decisions are also subject to IHL, and where they kill civilians unlawfully that's also a war crime. That's not a defence of Hamas... it's the same standard applied consistently. "They do it too" doesn't make either lawful. For what it's worth, joining Hamas is a choice; IDF service is compulsory. The cases aren't analogous. [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-answers-october-2023-hostilities-between-israel-and-palestinian-armed-groups https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-answers-oc...
tovej 8mo ago
[flagged]
- dijit 8mo ago
  For onlookers: the final paragraph is in Swedish. It calls me a far-right nationalist and racist. Draw your own conclusions about how that fits the pattern of this exchange. On substance: 72% of October 7th victims were civilians by Israel's own social security data [1]. tovej's argument that this was primarily a military operation depends on not counting them. The Hannibal directive is a separate and legitimate concern. It has nothing to do with whether Hamas targeted civilians — it addresses what Israel did in response. [1] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social...
  - tovej 8mo ago
    I'm going to call a racist a racist when I see it. I've had enough interactions with you on this site (and have given you many second chances to show good faith) to see a blatant pattern. You're playing devils advocate any time a white supremacist, Israel, or racist bigot is under scrutiny. And every time you deploy bad faith debate tactics. E.g. here you're strawmanning my argument to say I ignore the percentage of civilians dead. That's not true at all. My argument does not depend on not counting civilian victims. October 7th was a military operation, a guerilla warfare operation. Most of the Supernova ravers Hamas killed on October 7th who died that day did not die at the rave, but at ad hoc checkpoints far away from the rave. Military checkpoints set up to intercept military re-inforcements. The rave was not announced until the 6th of October, and Hamas was not aware of it. When people fled the rave, this triggered a massive flow of car traffic. And based on Hamas' limited intelligence, it is not unreasonable to assume that a sudden rush of car traffic could be related to the conflict. The IDF also set up a road block near the rave, which led to a huge throng (3000 ravers) being caught near the site of the firefight. In other words, the biggest tragedy of October 7th, the Supernova rave, was not a target, and the deaths in this tragedy seem to have been due to an unfortunate coincidence. And the Hannibal directive absolutely plays a role. We don't actually know how many civilians died due to it. It could easily be hundreds. The only actor who could verify this is Israel, and they are not keen to do so.

by dijit 8mo ago

Cyph0n 8mo ago

So the best you can say about Israel’s conduct over the course of the past 2.5 years is that it “warrants scrutiny”? And if you want to play the number of victims game, even pre Oct 7 one side has always had it significantly worse than the other. After all, one side is a sovereign state that has a technologically advanced military, an air force, a navy, and air defense systems.

dijit 8mo ago
Remarkable. You've managed to read a comment that cited the ICJ, called out Israel's non-compliance with binding provisional measures, and explicitly said there's "plenty to condemn"; and concluded the position is that Israeli conduct merely "warrants scrutiny." This isn't a conversation, it's not even engagement: that's just not reading. On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard. A nuclear-capable state with F-35s, Iron Dome and a $3.8bn annual US military subsidy [1] bears more responsibility for its choices than a militia in a blockaded strip of land; not less. That's what asymmetry actually means. What it doesn't mean is that a music festival full of civilians somehow doesn't count. But nice try. [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587
- Cyph0n 8mo ago
  > that Israel's conduct warrants scrutiny. Was this not your choice of words? > On asymmetry: you've accidentally made the case for holding Israel to a higher standard. Huh? Are you replying to someone else? Israel has killed 10s of thousands of civilians, a large portion of which are children. This along with many other factors - in addition to the higher standard expected from a sovereign state fighting an occupied people - is the reason we call it a genocide.
  - dijit 8mo ago
    No, I think you're accusing me of a position I don't really have because I don't like Hamas or Israel, but you think my condemnation of Hamas is support of Israel or that by pointing out Israeli suffering I am turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering. It's almost as if we genuinely believe that because there are more deaths on one side, that the other is deserving and should not be condemned despite innocence. Isn't that interesting.

holmesworcester 8mo ago

A reminder: Israel counts Hamas soldiers as military targets, even when they are out of uniform and in civilian life. If we apply the civilized world's standards of war then yes, Israelis who are also off-duty soldiers or reservists don't count as military targets. If we apply Israel's standards, however, they are. Are Gazans not allowed to apply the same standards to their adversaries that their adversaries openly apply to them? Would you be this courteous, in their position?

dijit 8mo ago
Of the 378 people killed at and around Nova, 16 were off-duty soldiers attending the rave and 4 were killed fighting [1]. That's 20 out of 378 ... so about 5%. So even by the standard you're proposing, Hamas massacred around 358 people who wouldn't qualify as military targets under anyone's rules of engagement. Including theirs, apparently, since Hamas's own explanation was that they "may have thought" the ravers were soldiers "resting"; i.e. they didn't know and killed them anyway. The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-okayed-nova-music-festival-but-didnt-inform-troops-deployed-at-border-probe-finds/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-okayed-nova-music-festival...
- JasonADrury 8mo ago
  Ah, so they'd only previously been members of the IDF? Do you suppose Israel doesn't consider previous members of Hamas legitimate targets? >The argument you've constructed requires Hamas to have been applying a targeting framework. The evidence is that they found a large crowd of Israelis and opened fire. But that's effectively indistinguishable from the Israeli targeting framework where everyone connected to Hamas is a legitimate target.
  - dijit 8mo ago
    This is settled in international humanitarian law. Per Human Rights Watch, citing ICRC guidance: "reservists of national armed forces are considered civilians except when they go on duty." [1] Off-duty at a music festival unambiguously qualifies as not on duty. The argument that prior military service permanently strips civilian status has no basis in IHL. If it did, every Israeli who'd ever served (which is nearly all of them, given conscription) would be a legitimate target forever. So: not a targeting framework, more like a justification for killing the entire population. On your second point: Israel's targeting decisions are also subject to IHL, and where they kill civilians unlawfully that's also a war crime. That's not a defence of Hamas... it's the same standard applied consistently. "They do it too" doesn't make either lawful. For what it's worth, joining Hamas is a choice; IDF service is compulsory. The cases aren't analogous. [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-answers-october-2023-hostilities-between-israel-and-palestinian-armed-groups https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/09/questions-and-answers-oc...

tovej 8mo ago

[flagged]

dijit 8mo ago
For onlookers: the final paragraph is in Swedish. It calls me a far-right nationalist and racist. Draw your own conclusions about how that fits the pattern of this exchange. On substance: 72% of October 7th victims were civilians by Israel's own social security data [1]. tovej's argument that this was primarily a military operation depends on not counting them. The Hannibal directive is a separate and legitimate concern. It has nothing to do with whether Hamas targeted civilians — it addresses what Israel did in response. [1] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social...
- tovej 8mo ago
  I'm going to call a racist a racist when I see it. I've had enough interactions with you on this site (and have given you many second chances to show good faith) to see a blatant pattern. You're playing devils advocate any time a white supremacist, Israel, or racist bigot is under scrutiny. And every time you deploy bad faith debate tactics. E.g. here you're strawmanning my argument to say I ignore the percentage of civilians dead. That's not true at all. My argument does not depend on not counting civilian victims. October 7th was a military operation, a guerilla warfare operation. Most of the Supernova ravers Hamas killed on October 7th who died that day did not die at the rave, but at ad hoc checkpoints far away from the rave. Military checkpoints set up to intercept military re-inforcements. The rave was not announced until the 6th of October, and Hamas was not aware of it. When people fled the rave, this triggered a massive flow of car traffic. And based on Hamas' limited intelligence, it is not unreasonable to assume that a sudden rush of car traffic could be related to the conflict. The IDF also set up a road block near the rave, which led to a huge throng (3000 ravers) being caught near the site of the firefight. In other words, the biggest tragedy of October 7th, the Supernova rave, was not a target, and the deaths in this tragedy seem to have been due to an unfortunate coincidence. And the Hannibal directive absolutely plays a role. We don't actually know how many civilians died due to it. It could easily be hundreds. The only actor who could verify this is Israel, and they are not keen to do so.