What If Hamas were hiding in Israel?

[Winston]

so I guess you have nothing to say to respond to what was actually written. So noted.

You want to tango, let's tango. From your piece.

IN IHL, there are four basic principles that are meant to guide the actions of the parties on the battlefield: distinction, military necessity, unnecessary suffering and proportionality.

Here, let me list them for you.
1. Distinction: Your source clearly defines that here,

The principle requires that the object/person being attacked is part of the military apparatus of the enemy and is accordingly a military objective.
But then it gets squirrely.

For our purposes, the term military objective includes all Gazan terrorists, from the lowest of foot-soldiers to the heads of the organization and their entire terror infrastructure.

International law makes no concessions to such a broad definition. "The lowest of foot soldiers", in other words, a ten year old kid throws a rock at an IDF soldier and suddenly, why international law gives the IDF the right to shoot the ten year old kid, bomb the fuck out of his home, and wipe out his entire family, including his two year old sister. That is the flippin reality here.

2. Military necessity. Your linked article complete ignores that requirement. Wonder why.

3. Unnecessary suffering. Again, the Op-Ed completely ignores that. Interesting really, and quite illuminating that someone like you is too damn stupid to realize it. Nope, the OP jumps right to,

4. Proportionality. Here is their definition,

In IHL, proportionality refers to a situation in which a military target is attacked and that attack causes incidental or collateral damage. Attacks of this nature are perfectly legitimate, so long as the loss of life and damage to property incidental to the attacks are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.

Here is what you need to do, not like I am holding my breath. You need to show that the direct military advantage the IDF has gained from killing thousands, you got that, THOUSANDS, of civilians, mostly women and children because, quite honestly, that is about the only people the IDF are interested in fighting, somehow justifies that loss of civilian life. The reality is Israel is not going to get rid of Hamas with this offensive action. The reality is there is absolutely no justification for bombing a refugee camp in the pursuit of one lone commander. There is no justification for bombing an ambulance convoy to target a single Hamas fighter.

There is no doubt, Israel is committing war crimes on a scale not seen since, yeah, I am going to say it, Hitler. This offensive is little more than collective punishment and Israel needs to be called out on it and held accountable. Refusing fuel shipments, a land, sea, and air embargo that has been going on for years. It is past time Israel is held accountable and if not for the US constantly vetoing UN resolutions, they would have long ago.

 

[rosends]

You want to tango, let's tango. From your piece.

IN IHL, there are four basic principles that are meant to guide the actions of the parties on the battlefield: distinction, military necessity, unnecessary suffering and proportionality.

Here, let me list them for you.
1. Distinction: Your source clearly defines that here,

The principle requires that the object/person being attacked is part of the military apparatus of the enemy and is accordingly a military objective.
But then it gets squirrely.

For our purposes, the term military objective includes all Gazan terrorists, from the lowest of foot-soldiers to the heads of the organization and their entire terror infrastructure.

International law makes no concessions to such a broad definition. "The lowest of foot soldiers", in other words, a ten year old kid throws a rock at an IDF soldier and suddenly, why international law gives the IDF the right to shoot the ten year old kid, bomb the fuck out of his home, and wipe out his entire family, including his two year old sister. That is the flippin reality here.

2. Military necessity.

Strange how you take the legal positions that are substantiated by case law and presented by an expert and decide that some of it is too "squirrely" for you and you know what things mean and what they refer to better than anyone else. I didn't realize I was discussing this with an expert on international law.

 

[Winston]

Strange how you take the legal positions that are substantiated by case law and presented by an expert and decide that some of it is too "squirrely" for you and you know what things mean and what they refer to better than anyone else. I didn't realize I was discussing this with an expert on international law.

Provide a decent rebuttal are STFU idiot.

 

[Shusha]

2. Military necessity. Your linked article complete ignores that requirement. Wonder why.

Here is what you need to do, not like I am holding my breath. You need to show that the direct military advantage the IDF has gained ...

Let's break this down (should you care to indulge me). First, what military necessities must Israel accomplish as a response to the atrocity committed against its citizens on October 7? I would like to address the others, but let's get this nailed down first.

There is no doubt, Israel is committing war crimes on a scale not seen since, yeah, I am going to say it, Hitler.

You probably should have left that unsaid. There is no possible comparison, and it is vile in the extreme to suggest it.

 

[rosends]

Provide a decent rebuttal are STFU idiot.

a rebuttal for your personal feelings about things? You don't understand how this works, do you? I posted an expert who made points. You did not refute the points but instead imposed your sensibility and imputed motives that you invented. I don't have to refute your personal brand of crazy and you still haven't brought any expertise to bear.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Hamas is only 20,000.

Israel deceived the world in 1967, and paid the price for it in 1973

Israel pretended to be the victim during the Six-Day War, and succeeded in deceiving the world. But it failed to prepare properly for the Yom Kippur War, fearing it would be blamed for starting the next war

www.haaretz.com

That is not the figure I heard.

 

[Winston]

Strange how you take the legal positions that are substantiated by case law and presented by an expert and decide that some of it is too "squirrely" for you and you know what things mean and what they refer to better thanG

a rebuttal for your personal feelings about things? You don't understand how this works, do you? I posted an expert who made points. You did not refute the points but instead imposed your sensibility and imputed motives that you invented. I don't have to refute your personal brand of crazy and you still haven't brought any expertise to bear.

You are a fucking idiot. You posted an Op-ed, from a physicist, that has no knowledge of international law whatsoever. From the Jerusalem Post no less, not like there is any bias there.

But hell, I ran with that. I took your Op-ed's actual definitions. Tell me, why the fawk did your Op-ed ignore military necessity and unnecessary suffering? And honestly, I believe I ripped to shreds the whole distinction and proportionality clauses. I mean you really suck at this and you probably need to find a better hobby.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Justify the bombing of a refugee camp in order to eliminate one Hamas leader. Hundreds of civilian casualties, mostly women and children, in a FAWKING REFUGEE CAMP, for one Hamas leader that will easily be replaced. You can't, you won't, and instead you want to throw out bullshit. You ain't worth tits on a boar hog.

 

[Winston]

That is not the figure I heard.

Then document it or STFU.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are a fucking idiot. You posted an Op-ed, from a physicist, that has no knowledge of international law whatsoever. From the Jerusalem Post no less, not like there is any bias there.

But hell, I ran with that. I took your Op-ed's actual definitions. Tell me, why the fawk did your Op-ed ignore military necessity and unnecessary suffering? And honestly, I believe I ripped to shreds the whole distinction and proportionality clauses. I mean you really suck at this and you probably need to find a better hobby.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Justify the bombing of a refugee camp in order to eliminate one Hamas leader. Hundreds of civilian casualties, mostly women and children, in a FAWKING REFUGEE CAMP, for one Hamas leader that will easily be replaced. You can't, you won't, and instead you want to throw out bullshit. You ain't worth tits on a boar hog.

Nothing but bullshit in any of your posts. Israel has followed all the rules in Law of Armed Conflict, so now you want to hold Israel to an even higher standard?

 

[Winston]

Nothing but bullshit in any of your posts. Israel has followed all the rules in Law of Armed Conflict, so now you want to hold Israel to an even higher standard?

Wait, let me look for it. Uh, nope, failed to even attempt to rebute any of my contentions. You suck.

 

[eagle1462010]

You want to tango, let's tango. From your piece.

IN IHL, there are four basic principles that are meant to guide the actions of the parties on the battlefield: distinction, military necessity, unnecessary suffering and proportionality.

Here, let me list them for you.
1. Distinction: Your source clearly defines that here,

The principle requires that the object/person being attacked is part of the military apparatus of the enemy and is accordingly a military objective.
But then it gets squirrely.

For our purposes, the term military objective includes all Gazan terrorists, from the lowest of foot-soldiers to the heads of the organization and their entire terror infrastructure.

International law makes no concessions to such a broad definition. "The lowest of foot soldiers", in other words, a ten year old kid throws a rock at an IDF soldier and suddenly, why international law gives the IDF the right to shoot the ten year old kid, bomb the fuck out of his home, and wipe out his entire family, including his two year old sister. That is the flippin reality here.

2. Military necessity. Your linked article complete ignores that requirement. Wonder why.

3. Unnecessary suffering. Again, the Op-Ed completely ignores that. Interesting really, and quite illuminating that someone like you is too damn stupid to realize it. Nope, the OP jumps right to,

4. Proportionality. Here is their definition,

In IHL, proportionality refers to a situation in which a military target is attacked and that attack causes incidental or collateral damage. Attacks of this nature are perfectly legitimate, so long as the loss of life and damage to property incidental to the attacks are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.

Here is what you need to do, not like I am holding my breath. You need to show that the direct military advantage the IDF has gained from killing thousands, you got that, THOUSANDS, of civilians, mostly women and children because, quite honestly, that is about the only people the IDF are interested in fighting, somehow justifies that loss of civilian life. The reality is Israel is not going to get rid of Hamas with this offensive action. The reality is there is absolutely no justification for bombing a refugee camp in the pursuit of one lone commander. There is no justification for bombing an ambulance convoy to target a single Hamas fighter.

There is no doubt, Israel is committing war crimes on a scale not seen since, yeah, I am going to say it, Hitler. This offensive is little more than collective punishment and Israel needs to be called out on it and held accountable. Refusing fuel shipments, a land, sea, and air embargo that has been going on for years. It is past time Israel is held accountable and if not for the US constantly vetoing UN resolutions, they would have long ago.

Only crime they committed was Stupidity. They should have Never given back the land after the Wars fought in the past.

Your gonna see a real occupation soon. Flushing the rats in the tunnels as they go.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Wait, let me look for it. Uh, nope, failed to even attempt to rebute any of my contentions. You suck.

You had no contention, just rambling nonsense aimed at accusing Israel of war crimes you know it didn't commit.

 

[Shusha]

Justify the bombing of a refugee camp in order to eliminate one Hamas leader. Hundreds of civilian casualties, mostly women and children, in a FAWKING REFUGEE CAMP, for one Hamas leader that will easily be replaced.

"Refugee Camp" is just a weasel word to attempt to garner unwarranted sympathy for Gaza* and demonize Israel. There are no refugee camps in Gaza in any normative or legal sense of the word. What you have are urban centers. Jabalia is a Hamas stronghold with an extensive tunnel network underground. There are plenty of military objectives (necessities) that would be valid targets in that particular location.

*There are PLENTY of reasons to sympathize with Gaza, labelling ordinary urban centers as "refugee camps" is not one of them.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Then document it or STFU.

Document you own figure, you stupid twat.

 

[rosends]

You are a fucking idiot. You posted an Op-ed, from a physicist, that has no knowledge of international law whatsoever. From the Jerusalem Post no less, not like there is any bias there.

I posted a piece by this guy
"The writer, an IDF Lt. Col. (res.), is the director of legal strategies for Palestinian Media Watch. He served for 19 years in the IDF Military Advocate General Corps. In his last position, he served as director of the Military Prosecution in Judea and Samaria."
"Lt. Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch is the director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; a senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices; and a member of the Israel Defense and Security Forum."
"Maurice Hirsch, an international lawyer and director of legal strategies for Palestinian Media Watch, (PMW),"

No knowledge of international law? And you calim "bias" in a piece informed by international law. Gosh, you must see bias everythere.

But hell, I ran with that. I took your Op-ed's actual definitions. Tell me, why the fawk did your Op-ed ignore military necessity and unnecessary suffering? And honestly, I believe I ripped to shreds the whole distinction and proportionality clauses. I mean you really suck at this and you probably need to find a better hobby.

So not only do you deny that someone has authority but you thinking that giving your opinion about what makes sense to you, without adressing any of the actual legal issues is ripping anything to shreds. You know nothing about the issue and can't compete with those who do.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Justify the bombing of a refugee camp in order to eliminate one Hamas leader. Hundreds of civilian casualties, mostly women and children, in a FAWKING REFUGEE CAMP, for one Hamas leader that will easily be replaced. You can't, you won't, and instead you want to throw out bullshit. You ain't worth tits on a boar hog.

And again, you think you get to decide what is happening and what its value is. Thing is, you are just an anonymous and uneducated keyboard jockey who wants to impose his stupidity on the world. Sorry, the world isn't having it.