[wat0n]

Civilians are not being "bombed at will" if they're being incidentally killed while hitting a legitimate military target.

You have not refuted anything.

There's plenty of evidence of how Hamas fortified itself within Gaza's cities, particularly of its tunnel network. Yes, tunnels are also a form of fortification.

There's also evidence of Hamas launching rockets from civilian areas.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the target is being willfully attacked and the attacker knows there are civilians there and they will be killed by said attack, the attacker is willfully attacking civilians. They are simply deciding that the deaths of the civilians are justified.

This is why there is the doctrine of proportionality.

So even if Hamas is shielding, the IDF and Israeli government have an obligation to not kill a disproportionate number of civilians.

[wat0n]

Correct, and do you know and understand how proportionality is assessed?

[Pants-of-dog]

I see that we no longer have a problem with describing the IDF as bombing civilians at will.

The concept of proportionality is not being respected by the IDF and Israeli government. This can be shown by the fact that no temporal, spatial, or numerical limits are being placed on such attacks.

[wat0n]

And now you show you do not understand proportionality @Pants-of-dog

Hint: It's not about pre-set temporal, spatial or numerical limits.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the civilians in the war can be attacked at any time, no matter how far removed from the battle in space, at any numbers, there is no way to have proportionality.

All civilians can then be described as necessary collateral damage,which makes a mockery of international humanitarian law.

[wat0n]

None of what you've mentioned defines proportionality either.

When Ukraine attacks Russian military installations without affecting any civilians at all, those installations are far removed from the battle in space (hundreds or thousands of kilometers away) yet those attacks are not war crimes.

[Deutschmania]

Ok, now you are both going around in circles for absolutely no reason beyond extreme pettyness.

While many Hamas members are willing to die for their cause, most are not actually suicidal. The second the Israeli state wanted these theoretical military bases wiped out, the far superior Israeli Air Force would drop everything but the kitchen sink on them. Not only are they uncontested in Gaza, they regularly bomb targets in Lebanon and Syria with virtual impunity.

Can one of you be the bigger man soon and find a little common ground?

I just came here to post something along similar lines . I had just read this discussion conducted within the pages of The Guardian , and was sort of impressed by how well it went . I thought to myself that I wish that @Pants-of-dog and @wat0n could both take some cues from it , in terms of constructive dialogue . It's lengthy though , so I'll just post a link to it here . https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/13/israel-palestine-7-october-gaza-orna-guralnik

[wat0n]

Well @Deutschmania it's kind of hard to have that "constructive" dialogue when one side says something like "well, we're not saints, we've committed crimes of our own but we want to exist and be free" and the other is like "you suck, it's sad but you had it coming", which is how that interview played out.

From what I see, the Israeli is very much willing to criticize her own countrymen but the Palestinian is not.

[Pants-of-dog]

The example of bombing military installations far removed from civilian populations shows proportionality since the risk of civilian deaths and casualties is reduced by attacking targets that are spatially removed from civilian populations.

The IDF ‘s habit of attacking densely populated areas (such as the areas they have told Palestinians to take refuge in) is in contrast to said efforts at proportionality.

[wat0n]

Ukraine has also hit targets in Russian cities, even Moscow itself, and nobody has claimed the attacks were disproportionate. Not even Russia, which claims Ukraine did not go after a military target but that the attack was carried out to deliberately target civilians.

Are you done showing you do not in fact understand what is compared in a proportionality assessment of an attack?

[Pants-of-dog]

The two situations are not comparable.

The important thing is that Zionists also seem to agree that the IDF and Israeli government do not place temporal, spatial, or numerical limits on the collateral damage associated with any attack.

This means that they can attack any Palestinians at any time and with any number of civilian casualties at any place in Gaza and it would be considered proportional to the military objective.

If this is not a justification for genocide, then what is?

[wat0n]

Why aren't they comparable?

Oh yes. Ukrainians and Russians are not Jews, so you cannot for example justify bludgeoning them to death.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because Russia did not occupy the Ukraine territory and set up a blockade around it and enforce conditions arguably amounting to genocide prior to the attack. The IDF and Israeli government have done so to Palestine.

These are important arguments in the SA case at the ICJ.

Now, the complete lack of proportionality indicates genocide.

[wat0n]

What does that have to do with proportionality in the Ukraine war?

Also, Russia has in fact imposed a blockade on all Ukrainian maritime trade and attacked all sorts of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, including essentials. Ukraine has responded in kind.

[Pants-of-dog]

What exactly is the purpose of discussing Russia or Ukraine? Please be specific.

Is there any disagreement that the IDF’s complete lack of temporal, spatial, or numerical limits on collateral damage create a complete lack of proportionality?

[wat0n]

The purpose is to discuss what does it mean for an attack to be "proportional", and how you evidently don't know what that means.

There is also no "complete lack of temporal, spatial or numerical limits on collateral damage" by the IDF, and it's not my fault if you don't know what is being compared when making proportionality assessments and by extension how limits in expected collateral damage are determined. I have also shared the definitions in this thread before, it's not my fault if you are too lazy to read or too stupid to understand them.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does the Russia tangent help to understand proportionality?

This thread is full of justifications for attacks against civilians that ignore spatial, temporal, and numerical limits. It was argued that all hospitals could be attacked because of the footage of one militant holding an RPG near one hospital.

[wat0n]

The Ukrainian example shows that distance has nothing to do with proportionality.

Again, it is not my fault you did not read the definition of proportionality I have provided ITT, or that you lack the intelligence to understand it.

By the way, I provided the footage of some of Hamas' men carrying RPGs in the Rantisi hospital as evidence of the use of hospitals by Hamas for shielding. Thank you for reminding us of that.

If there's a single person with a RPG, I agree bombing a hospital may be disproportionate. Yet if there are many combatants in the hospital, chances are that it is not disproportionate to attack it if civilians are allowed to evacuate as Israel did. Even more so if the hospital is used as a base like Al Shifa was (even Amnesty has said Al Shifa has a history of being used as a torture center by Hamas).

I also find it extremely unlikely there would be just a single guy openly carrying a RPG in the hospital. Chances are that he was one of many.

Even then, I think Israel does have the obligation to let patients, doctors and other civilians evacuate before taking it. But, as I said, by all accounts that is what happened.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does the Ukraine example shows that distance and proportionality have nothing to do with each other?

Now, please provide evidence that the IDF considers the nu:her of civilian deaths when considering an attack.