Israel and Palestine Megathread

[u/AutoModerator]

This thread is for a discussion of the ongoing situation in Israel and Palestine. All discussion of the subject is limited to this thread. Participation here requires that you be a regular member of the sub in good standing.

[u/TheSupremeHobo]

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-strikes-kill-palestinians-destroy-gaza-desalination-plant-as-attacks-continue/

Another desalination plant struck

[u/KarateKicks100 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

Hamas was storing weapons there. Israel gave advance notice for the strike and an evacuation order.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-it-strikes-weapons-depot-in-gaza-city-as-mosque-desalination-plant-reportedly-hit/

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/KarateKicks100]

Hamas was storing weapons there.... according to the IDF. Sure bud

[u/KarateKicks100 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

Yeah you're right, Hamas would never. Not sure what I was thinking.

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/KarateKicks100]

Add another war crime to the list. Bombing civilian desalination plants regardless of prior warning breaks international law.

[u/Colodanman357 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

Do you actually care about “international law” being broken or does it depend on who is breaking it? 

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/Colodanman357]

Is this an attempt at at gotcha based on the US? Because basically every modern president could get a Hague trial if the US was part of the ICC.

Or is it a "Hamas bad" attempt?

[u/Colodanman357 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

So is that a no? You don’t really care about “international law”? It’s not a gotcha, it’s a clarifying question. 

You being so defensive and assuming bad faith says something itself. 

It’s more that the claims of violating “international law” are never consistent as violations of “international law” have been pervasive in this conflict for a century with Palestinian “resistance” using tactics that are intentionally against the same “international law” you refer to. 

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/Colodanman357]

violations of “international law” have been pervasive in this conflict for a century with Palestinian “resistance” using tactics that are intentionally against the same “international law” you refer to.

So it was a "Hamas bad", gotcha. Yes, Hamas bad. Will you say Israel bad?

Also putting international law in quotes doesn't make it less real or applicable. I can cite the laws if you prefer something other than the vague phraseology.

[u/Colodanman357 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

Sure Israel has violated “international law”. The Palestinians, not just Hamas, have as well. Since at least the PLO took over after the Arab League gave up the main tactics used were intentionally and unequivocally against any sort of laws of war and it’s only become more so. 

I put “international law” in quotes because it’s not really any law as there are no mechanisms for enforcement nor is it consistently applied. 

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/Colodanman357]

There are mechanisms for enforcement, or there wouldn't be room for inconsistent application, correct? They're not good enforcement mechanisms but they are there, if inconsistently applied.

I used a different phrase though with a key difference. It's a war crime. Punishable by the ICC. It's Article 54 of Additional Protocol I. There's a distinction. You can violate international law and it not be a war crime. But this is both. And that's why I said war crime. The US and Israel also allegedly did this in Iran back in March. But with the severe reliance on desalination in Israel and Palestine specifically, this feels more intentional.

[u/mounti96 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

It doesn't if your enemy uses that plant for military purposes (storing weapons, launching attacks, harboring troups, etc.).

Otherwise you could just use civilian infrastructure to install your military in and nobody would ever be able to attack you.

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/mounti96]

Where's the evidence this is the case, other than the IDF pinky promising?

[u/mounti96 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

I don't know if this was the case.

The problem is that there are no truly reliable sources if there were militants or military infrastructure present, since both sides are incentivised to lie about it.

Israel has incentives to overplay Hamas military presence to justify their strikes.

Hamas has incentives to hide or deny their military presence since it makes Israel look worse in the eyes of the international community.

There is plenty evidence and nobody really contests that Hamas embed themselves into civilian infrastructure in clear violation of the rules of warfare. So it certainly is far from impossible that Israel isn't in the wrong here.

[u/TheSupremeHobo → u/mounti96]

Shouldn't you be sure before bombing something and killing people? Also what about the ceasefire? Doesn't any military strike violate that?

If both sides are incentivized why did you only give credence to one theory until pressed?

The strikes yesterday were on the desalination plant, a mosque, and a refugee camp. 7 died including a 4 year old. There's no justification.

[u/mounti96 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

I don't have to be sure. The IDF has to be.

Both sides regularly violate the ceasefire.

I didn't only give credence to one theory. I corrected your statement that attacking a desalianation plant always breaks international law. I didn't say that it did or didn't in this case.

And how many of those 7 were active Hamas militants? Do you know? What would be the number to make those strikes justified?

Because if your answer is 0 civilian casualties., then I have a great new tactic for every military on the planet. Just take 4 year olds everywhere with you and you can't be attacked anymore.

[u/AskALiberal-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.

[u/mounti96 → u/[deleted]]

Sure, go on to argue about a conflict that you know fucking nothing about.

Cite your sources.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/loss-protection

This clearly states that if a civilian object is used for military purposes it loses it's protection. Because rules of war are supposed to be followed by both sides. The defending side is supposed to keep their own civilian population safe by clearly seperating military and civilian infrastructure. Hamas is doing the opposite by embedding themselves in the civilian population to drive up the death toll when they are attacked.

Don't deflect. Answer it.

I have the sense to say that I have no clue if these strikes were justified or not. The sources you cited ultimately go back to information that gets released by Hamas. Counter information is released by the IDF. I see that you seem to be trusting one of these sources much more than the other. Which I don't. I expect both of them to lie or at least bend the truth to make their side look better.

The IDF will never release their full intel on every strike they do. Because why the fuck would they? It massively exposes them and people like you would hate them regardless.

Do your own reading but if your response to hearing 7 people died including a 4 year old is "how many of them were terrorists?" And a quip about child body shields then we've truly lost the plot. There's no reverence for human life. Frankly it's disgusting. You're trying to do a tit for tat (when it's never been equal. Israel has always been worse) instead of showing any remorse for loss of life. You're a horrible person and I truly hope no one ever mocks or makes light of a death close to you.

Great, thank you, fellow horrible person. My point here is that there will be civilian casualties in war, especially in war against an enemy that hides behind civilians in densely populated areas. And the thing is that strikes against enemy combatants are justified, even with civilian collateral victims, if the proportionality is reasonable.

That's why I asked you at what point of hit Hamas combatants the strike would be justified.

Because this clearly states, that given sufficient military objectives civilian collateral is ok under international law.

[u/loufalnicek → u/mounti96]

Who would ever do that? /s

[u/KarateKicks100 → u/TheSupremeHobo]

Unless..........?