Israel/Palestine thread

the Resistance is not Islamofascist. they are not trying to "genocide the Jews" lol. Oct 7 was a legitimate attack on military targets.

Lol

What a perfect illustration of the point of my post.

you are just misinformed. thats what happens when you get your info from guys like Ryan Mcbeth.

what in the wide world of sports is this

and this is what happens when you get all your news from the lowest Israeli Hasbara

music festival = legitimate military target?

you think the festival was the target?

Damn you racist af

One side is facing imminent destruction as a result of genocidal policies

One side is not.

The UN has ruled you can do pretty much whatever you want to protect yourself from eradication, which is different than genocide

Is Israel about to get eradicated? No, so their actions are war crimes.

With regards to the terrorists attacks Israel has perpetrated on Palestine, where does the Oct 7 military incursion rank?

What’s your point? If you target illegal things then you’re a terrorist country?

PW: point out the racism. Thanks.

Well it’s about the standard

Saying Oct 7 was an awful terrorist attack is racist and not consistent with your previous posts nor that of other posters

If you call Oct 7 a terrorist attack, then Palestine doesn’t have a military and Hamas is full of civilians

Do you understand that? Militaries cant commit terrorist attacks, only terrorists can and terrorists have to be civilians by legal and dictionary definition

So before we continue further, was it a terrorist attack by civilians or a military attack by a military?

Saying October 7 was a terrorist attack is in no way racist.

Calling me inconsistent here is top lols. Try to compare your views here to Ukraine.

I have not seen a definition of the word which claims that only civilians can commit terrorism. Not that there is any importance in this wordplay as Hamas not being a legal military is not at all important to any of my arguments, and in no way makes anything I've said inconsistent.

that a music festival isn't a military target

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray...

M declared, "You have judged according to the very sentence of God above the seven heavens."[29][28] Consequently, 600–900 men of Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to Najd to be sold. The proceeds were then utilized to purchase weapons and horses for the Muslims.[a]

--Wikipedia leaves this part out, but the women slaves were made concubines (sex slaves who are raped, in case you need me to spell it out), including the most beautiful princess who was made his personal concubine.

--We can dance around this all we want, but at the end it always will come back to this. The Medina Koran is word for word more antisemetic than Mein Kampf. And M, the perfect man, sets a perfect example for religiously motivated hate and bigotry we have witness for 1300 years, and continues to this day.

--I get that individual Muslims are like everyone else, and get along and for the most part and put all the Stone Age bullshit behind them. But the people preaching hate are always going to have the moral high ground, because a reasonable reading of the source documents of the religion indicate they are the ones practicing the religion correctly, and will always have the spoiler veto to drag everyone else into their world.

Sam Harris is absolutely correct, that words matter, and the literal words of the manuscripts that are the source documents of this religion is what makes Islam the worse of the Abrahamic religions (that all suck).

Given this, it is actually insane that the Europeans and Zionists thought it was a good idea to form a Jewish state in the midst of all this hate and intolerance. Did any of them ever read the Koran? What did they think was going to happen?

But what is done is done. And unfortunately the saying, "you become what you hate" may be coming true for Israel. The hope of progressives is that through globalism we can make the intolerant, hateful places in the world more like us. However, the reality is it seems to be going the other way around.

hmm ok. lets say this then, are hamas terrorists or a military? Cant be both

it is well known that militaries are separate from terrorists. They are in different UN and geneva convention classifications

As a professional, I am telling you they are different. you can choose to ignore my professional opinion, thats up to you.

So in your mind, hamas did a terrorist act when they killed concert goers during a terrorist operation?

and this is bad because 700 people who werent active duty military were killed? Trying to figure out why you think its bad and then apply that same logic to the israelis.

I mean the israelis say hosptials are targets cause they have hamas in them, so if there were any hamas equivalents at that concert then it makes it fair game no?

Article 1 makes explicit reference to Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land (Hague IV),[3] of October 18, 1907, to define who are lawful combatants and so qualify as prisoners of war (POW) on capture. In addition to combatants covered by Hague IV, some civilians are also covered in the section of this Convention called the "Application of the Convention to certain classes of civilians".

Articles 2, 3, and 4 specifies that POWs are prisoners of the Power which holds them and not prisoners of the unit which takes their surrender; that POWs have the right to honor and respect, and that women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex, and that prisoners of a similar category must be treated in the same way.

Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information. Prisoners' personal possessions, other than arms and horses, may not be taken from them.

The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally altered from that of the 1929 convention so that soldiers who "fall into the power" following surrender or mass capitulation of an enemy are now protected as well as those taken prisoner in the course of fighting.[4][5] (see Disarmed Enemy Forces)

Articles 7 and 8 states that prisoners should be evacuated from the combat zone within the shortest possible period, and that belligerents are bound mutually to notify each other of their capture of prisoners within the shortest period possible.

Articles 9 and 10 covers the type of camp in which POWs can be detained. They must be constructed in such a way so that the conditions are similar to those used by the belligerent's own soldiers in base camps. The camps must be located in healthy locations and away from the combat zone. Also, "Belligerents shall, so far as possible, avoid assembling in a single camp prisoners of different races or nationalities." Prisoners may not be used as human shields by being sent to an area where they would be exposed to the fire of the fighting zone or be employed to render by their presence certain points or areas immune from bombardment.

Articles 11, 12, and 13 states, "Food must be of a similar quality and quantity to that of the belligerent's own soldiers, and POWs cannot be denied food as a punishment; A canteen selling local produce and products should be provided. Adequate clothing should be provided; and that sanitary service in camps should be more than sufficient to prevent epidemics."

Articles 14 and 15 covers the provision of medical facilities in each camp.

Articles 16 and 17 covers the provision of religious needs, intellectual diversions and sport facilities.

Articles 18 and 19 covers the internal discipline of a camp which is under the command of a responsible officer.

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.

Article 24 covers the rate of pay of prisoners of war.

Articles 25 and 26 covers the responsibilities of the detaining authority when transferring prisoners from one location to another. Prisoners must be healthy enough to travel, they must be informed to where they are being transferred; and their personal possessions, including bank accounts, should remain accessible.

Articles 42 to 67 covers the prisoners' relations with the authorities. Most of these provisions are covered by the provision that prisoners are under the detaining power's own code of military regulations, with some additional provisions which cover specific prisoner of war issues and some other provisions to protect prisoners of war if the military regulations of the detaining power do not meet a minimum standard. Two specific regulations which differentiate prisoners of war from the detainees' own military regulations, is that no prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the detaining Power, and escaped prisoners of war who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or to leave the territory occupied by the army which captured them shall be liable only to disciplinary punishment.

Articles 68 to 74 states that seriously sick and seriously injured prisoners of war must be repatriated as soon as their condition allows and no repatriated person may be utilized in active military service.

Article 75 covers release at the end of hostilities. The release of prisoners should form part of the armistice. If this is not possible then repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace. This particular provision was to cause problems after World War II because as the surrender of the Axis powers was unconditional (unconditional surrender) there was no armistice, and in the case of Germany a full peace treaty was not signed until the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany in 1990.

Article 76 covers prisoners of war dying in captivity: they should be honorably buried and their graves marked and maintained properly. Wills and death certificate provisions should be the same as those for the detaining power's own soldiers.

Articles 77 to 80 covers how and how frequently the Powers should exchange information about prisoners and the details of how relief societies for prisoners of war should be involved in their relief.

Articles 82 to 97 covers the implementation of this convention. Articles 82 and 83 contained two important clauses. "In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto", and that the provisions of this convention continue to cover prisoners of war after hostilities up to their repatriation unless the belligerents agree otherwise or a more favorable regime replaces it.

Ok... so instead of finding a definition which says this, we're just going to act like that's the definition and I should just trust you? Off to a predictably ridiculous start, but OK... the Hamas members who committed the October 7 massacre are terrorists. (I still reject that definition and think militaries can perform terrorism, but go with it.)

In my mind and the mind of just about everyone who is capable of looking at the October 7 terrorist attack objectively in the least bit. Even if they were active duty this would be bad, but yes murdering civilians made it far worse. It was also bad to kill the active duty members. This was a major escalation and made the conflict far worse.

The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was first adopted in 1929, but significantly revised at the 1949 conference. It defines humanitarian protections for prisoners of war. There are 196 state parties to the Convention.

Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognised by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

ok. So israel in response killed 30k+ civilians. You surely think this is about 40 times worse, since about 40times as many civilians were killed, is that correct?

If you dont think it is 40times worse, how much worse do you think it is? Or do you disagree that it is worse?

I've seen pretty much no stats which suggest that. A good percentage of that is Hamas combatants.

I think that killiing civilians is awful though.

ok, what numbers are you using as your reference point for civilians killed?

before we quantify, qualitatively, do you think Israel's response was worse, the same or better than what happened on oct 7?