Israel/Palestine thread

Isn't Bibi up for election in February? Or are my dates mixed up?

Even if a kibbutz were a valid military target (none were, for reasons discussed), that does not mean that ALL kibbutzes are then valid military targets. They would be evaluated on a target by target basis.

And even if all kibbutzes were valid military targets (they aren't), one would still need to explain the music festival.

October 7 was a terrorist attack. It is possible to believe that Israel's military response is incorrect without endorsing terrorism.

A couple pro Israel propaganda accounts I follow indicate that there is some belief that once they are satisfied they control all/most of the smuggling tunnels, Israel may be willing to negotiate a peace that involves all the hostages returned (or at least their bodies as none may still even be alive) and Hamas leaders going into exile.

It is propaganda so who knows how true it is. And who knows if Hamas leadership would even go for this.

Still, thought it interesting how Israel taking control of the borders could change the dynamic enough peace is possible.

Islamists like Hamas dont care what you, I or some powerless court in Netherlands think is a valid military target. And neither do the Western leftists and Muslims who are sympathetic to Hamas. So I admit I miss what the whole point of this tangent is.

I know you're already taking that with a grain of salt, but just look at how meaningless that is.

If Israel controls most of the tunnels (estimates are they have found 1/3 at the moment) then there's probably very few Hamas leaders left living.

Under this situation Israel MIGHT let those leaders go into exile.

What that really means is that if Israel can gain control of most of the tunnels then Israel can do whatever they want. Not really anything new there. The problem is that they're never going to control all of the tunnels.

It is insulting to posters ITT to suggest Oct 7 was a legitimate military operation and that civilians going about their peaceful life were actually military targets, which has been argued several times now. It is also impossible to have any kind of productive discussion with someone who believes this.

I have no idea how it is a "tangent" when the past few pages were dedicated to discussing it, for at least the third time.

Who was saying that? I said it’s possible. I didn’t say it was one way or the other.

Literally everyone in Hamas is a civilian so what’s your point about civilians?

Being an occupier in occupied land where the indigenous population was killed in order for you to lay your claim to the ground IS NOT PEACEFUL

I also said they were possibly legal under the Geneva convention. That’s diff than military targets and what you’re implying.

Doesn't that just make it a long tangent?

Anyways, at the end of the day "laws of war" only exist to the extent that the people who make them have the power to back them up. And in an increasingly multipolar world where Europe has chosen to make itself weak and irrelevant on the world stage, and the US has shown either an unwillingness or inability to build coalitions to enforce its will, I dont think we should expect that the "laws of war" that were contrived during the height of Pax Americana will be followed any more.

The ICJ and UN can make all the biased rulings they wants. They have shown themselves to be toothless and no one cares. Not Putin, not Assad, not Xi, not the Ayatollahs, not all the dictators in Africa, not the Houthis, not Netanyahu, etc. etc. etc.

If you want to tell someone how they are allowed to conduct war, you better be prepared to back it up (carry a big stick, as it were); and if you aren't, then it is all hot air anyways.

This is completely false.

I suggest phrasing this differently next time then:

And no, it is not different from what I'm implying. This would not be legal under Geneva Convention.

Two people talking with absolute certainty about a a place where neither of them lives. I've worked with many Muslims and to say they haven't integrated is laughable. Maybe your experiences are different, but don't extrapolate from them.

No need - Israel is investigating with its missiles. So far no luck but they ain't giving up yet.

I guess it's a tangent so long that it has become a conversation multiple times. It's clear that most people don't consider it a tangent at all though. There's a strong desire ITT to dumb things down to "Well this happened so my side is allowed to do whatever they want." This is another example of such an argument.

The reality is that both sides are in an awful situation due to both sides doing plenty to make the situation worse and will need to figure out how to work together to make it any better. No side is completely in the right here, both sides are very much in the wrong.

Are you seriously responding with the Mizrahim are 'Arab Jews'?

Hate to inform you, but this is incorrect.

Individuals who engage directly in hostilities can be considered combatants during the time they participate in these activities. If you are a civilian but pick up a gun and start shooting you become a combatant.

So while what you're pointing out is great evidence that the Palestine's military didn't make a lawful attack on October 7, it does not prove that no civilians in Palestine have become combatants.

The Palestinian nation is a stateless nation but they are a nation.

Insurgents are not civilians. They're combatants.

Combatants aren’t armed forces soldiers.

Combatant” describes those persons with a right to directly participate in hostilities between States. The following persons are combatants in an international armed conflict:

Members of the armed forces, except medical personnel and religious personnel.

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

Militias are civilians too

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossar...

A civilian is someone who is not a member of a nations military. I don’t know why this is hard for you guys to understand.

Either that or one side will just win, and it isn't a lock it will be Israel, as it seems unlikely Israel will ever have the internal will or external support to win while it still can. And I have little doubt the Palestinians and other members of the Ummah will ever lose the resolve to destroy Israel if/when it becomes feasible.

Israel has been around less than 80 years. The Crusader Kingdoms lasted around 200 years. The Moors controlled parts of Spain for 800 years before they were removed. Maybe in 300 years the Jewish State of Israel will be just another footnote in history too.

Rome/ the Catholic Church has been around for 2k+ years bro

Sorry. If you aren't a member of a formal military, you can undergo any violence you want, and it is illegal for a military to respond. Those are the rules.

Check Mate.

This is not correct. A civilian cannot be engaged in hostilities, they become a combatant.

80 years today is probably closer to 800 in the other time periods you are mentioning.

Maybe in 300 years USA will be a footnote in history as well, it's a long time.

PW, the Palestinians are literally a nation. They are a stateless nation but a nation, nonetheless.

And people engaged in hostilities are legitimate targets as combatants. They are not civilians. Insurgents are combatants. Not civilians. Counterinsurgency is a legitimate strategy of war which directly aims to eliminate insurgents via assassination, while winning the hearts and minds of the population.

Israel is not engaged in a COIN mission. But there is a legitimate option toward assassinating Hamas combatants.

I could be wrong but I’m almost positive civilians with guns are not the same as people on the military

A civilian is someone that is not actively in the military. That’s it.

Raise your hand if you’ve ever been professionally trained on the difference