[ingliz]

@wat0n

So your justification for killing thousands of Palestinians in Gaza in 2023/24 is the sixty-seven Jews killed in the Hebron massacre in 1929.




As to your random comment concerning tanks, surely you would agree that a random comment deserves an equally true* and random response.

* The Israeli army’s repeated killings of Palestinian civilians by deliberately running them over alive with military vehicles was vehemently denounced by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor on Sunday.

— ReliefWeb 4 Mar. 2024


Reason for edits: Formatting and the odd word here and there.

[Pants-of-dog]

The argument is that the IDF already knew about the tunnel. This argument seems to be without any criticism or rebuttal.

Consequently, the “discovery “ of this tunnel is dubious and seems like a contrived attempt to justify atrocities after the fact.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

So your justification for killing thousands of Palestinians in Gaza in 2023/24 is the sixty-seven Jews killed in the Hebron massacre in 1929.

No. I think deliberate targeting of civilians is unjustifiable. It was wrong when Irgun and Lehi did it in Mandatory Palestine, and it is also wrong when Hamas does it now.

But it's interesting how "explanations" don't count here, heh? Only when Hamas does it it's you're so quick to "explain" it.

As to your random comment concerning tanks, surely you would agree that a random comment deserves an equally true random response.

The Israeli army’s repeated killings of Palestinian civilians by deliberately running them over alive with military vehicles was vehemently denounced by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor on Sunday.

— ReliefWeb 4 Mar. 2024

Richard Falk's NGO is hardly doing to be an objective source of anything given his tendency to post antisemitic cartoons.

The argument is that the IDF already knew about the tunnel. This argument seems to be without any criticism or rebuttal.

Consequently, the “discovery “ of this tunnel is dubious and seems like a contrived attempt to justify atrocities after the fact.

Certainly it is a discovery, again assuming your hypothesis is correct, if it turns out the tunnel was being used by Hamas' military wing. You admitted Israel had no way to know from aerial surveillance alone.

[ingliz]

given his tendency to post antisemitic cartoons.

I'd say a dog pissing on a lamp post sums up Israel's attitude to international law and breaking it nicely.

I'd call it fair comment.

[Pants-of-dog]

There has been no argument about whether or not Hamas was using it.

To start the argument now, it would be useful to point out that it is a tunnel. Tunnels, being viaducts, are not occupied except in a transitional manner. Thus. it is very difficult to determine who is using them and how without witnessing said usage.

Therefore, it is very difficult to say that this tunnel was used for military purposes, or even how much it was used or when. To use this as a justification for the bombing of a nearby refugee camp is tenuous.

[wat0n]

I'd say a dog pissing on a lamp post sums up Israel's attitude to international law and breaking it nicely.

I'd call it fair comment.

Odd coming, again, from someone who justifies violations of international law like mass rape and mass murder.

There has been no argument about whether or not Hamas was using it.

To start the argument now, it would be useful to point out that it is a tunnel. Tunnels, being viaducts, are not occupied except in a transitional manner. Thus. it is very difficult to determine who is using them and how without witnessing said usage.

Therefore, it is very difficult to say that this tunnel was used for military purposes, or even how much it was used or when. To use this as a justification for the bombing of a nearby refugee camp is tenuous.

Unless, of course, things belonging to the user were found. Or learning who could access them.

So:

1) Hamas' military wing admitted to having a battalion in Nuseirat, you still pretend it did not.

2) A hostage said she was taken to Nuseirat along with others and that Hamas seemed to have already established plans for what to do with the hostages taken, you still ignore her.

3) Now you make claims about the tunnel found in Nuseirat without providing more evidence than "trust me bro".

[ingliz]

someone who justifies violations of international law like mass rape and mass murder.

Repeating bollocks over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

It's just more bollocks.

[Pants-of-dog]

No evidence has been presented that would show that these tunnels somehow make the Nuseirat refugee camp bombings lawful.

[wat0n]

Except if you ignore Israel's footage.

But you do, just like you unjustifiably choose to ignore:

1) Hamas' military wing admission of having a Nuseirat battalion

2) The first hand testimony of a hostage saying she was taken to Nuseirat

Repeating bollocks over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

It's just more bollocks.

Follows from your own posts.

[RealPolitic]

@Rich

But that's the whole point here, there are not two states. If the Israelis had given the Palestinians a state and then they had attacked it would be different. If Gaza was part of Egypt and Egypt had attacked it would be different. If the Israelis had given Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank full Israeli citizenship and then Hamas had done this, then they could and should be arrested as criminals, but none of those cases apply.

In 1967 Nasser asked the peace keepers to leave the Sinai. In such circumstances Israel were perfectly entitled to make a preemptive strike. In my book its perfectly reasonable that they grabbed extra territory. What's not reasonable in my book, is denying people, their children and their grand children proper citizenship for over half a century.

That's not the point! What kind of rubbish have you been thinking? The point is that Israel is stronger, the Palestinians are weaker and elected Hamas to represent them and then Hamas attacked Israel. So, because the Palestinians are weaker, they now have to suffer what they must. Hamas did not take actions that served the best interests of Palestinians. Instead, Hamas took actions that served the best interests of a state actor: Iran.

Hamas is a proxy of Iran and Iran heavily influences Hamas. Now, Hamas might have had social programs to help Palestinians but at the end of the day, they never had the best interests of Palestinians at heart at all. They were merely manipulating them to gain power as part of a wider strategy to serve Iran's interests. If they had the best interests of the Palestinians at heart, they would have never launched that terrorist attack on Israel. Taking an action that sets off a chain reaction that causes the deaths of 30,000 Palestinians does not serve the best interests of the Palestinian people.

That's THE point. It's not about morals. Nobody gives two shits if the Palestinians have a state. Nope, in international relations, its about INTERESTS and SHARED INTERESTS. That's it. Its not about morals or justice. The Palestinians are merely pawns that are manipulated and used in this whole mess. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, it is just and lawful to bomb refugee camps in October when a tunnel is discovered later in March. That seems to be the argument.

This is an obvious example of twisting the law to justify bombing refugee camps.

[wat0n]

No, the argument is that Hamas was already known to operate in Nuseirat, things like:

1) Hamas' military wing 2014 eulogy of a Nuseirat battalion commander;

2) The finding of a tunnel in January; and

3) The witness testimony of a hostage taken to Nuseirat in late October made public this week

...Are only supporting evidence of this. More straw men from someone who's unable to muster a decent argument.

[RealPolitic]

@Pants-of-dog

Justice is not part of international relations. If they were, Putin would be in prison at the Hague. But he is not. The reason why is because he is the head of a powerful state that has a lot of nuclear weapons. He is the head of a strong state. Really, this is simply a case where the Palestinians are the weaker warring party. So, given they are weaker, they now suffer what they must. And in the case of Israel, the stronger party, takes what they can. And that's international relations. International law is not effective in international relations.

[Rich]

That's not the point! What kind of rubbish have you been thinking? The point is that Israel is stronger, the Palestinians are weaker and elected Hamas to represent them and then Hamas attacked Israel. So, because the Palestinians are weaker, they now have to suffer what they must. Hamas did not take actions that served the best interests of Palestinians. Instead, Hamas took actions that served the best interests of a state actor: Iran.

Nationalists normally put the interests of the nation, before the interests of the people of the nation. I see nothing unusual in this about Hamas. in fact its Zionists who expressed this sentiment with greatest clarity, saying that they would rather half the Jews of Europe were exterminated if the surviving half went to Palestine, rather than they all survived and went else where. Iran serves Hamas, Hamas does not serve Iran,

That's THE point. It's not about morals. Nobody gives two shits if the Palestinians have a state. Nope, in international relations, its about INTERESTS and SHARED INTERESTS. That's it. Its not about morals or justice. The Palestinians are merely pawns that are manipulated and used in this whole mess. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is.

The Palestinians that crossed the borders on 10/7 are not pawns. no they've shaken the councils of the great. Before 10/7 western leaders laughed at the Palestinians. We can ignore them they thought. Well I don't think they are laughing now. Maybe Hamas's gamble will fail, that's the nature of gambles. But maybe Hamas can survive this. Maybe Hamas can still be standing at the end. Maybe they can spit in the faces of western leaders and say we going to keep on fighting. They claim that they've lost 30000 of their population, well that's no big deal, they've still got roughly one million nine hundred and seventy thousands lives left to play with.

Hamas's demands are not reasonable or realistic, but the onus is not on them to be reasonable first. No the onus is on the Israeli apartheid state. I don't feel like I'm anti Israel. I'm not saying they should give back Jerusalem. I'm not saying they should give back the western strip of the West Bank which is heavily populated with Jewish settlements. I don't think any time or breath should be wasted on land swaps from pre 67 Israel, that's a recipe for guaranteed failure if ever there was one. If Gaza were returned to Egypt then I'd even be happy for Israel to take the top off of Gaza to improve their strategic depth.

[Pants-of-dog]

The bombing of the Nuseirat refugee camp occurred on October 20th.

Since the hostage testimony and the supposed discovery of the tunnel occurred after that, these cannot possibly explain the bombing. Cause must necessarily occur before effect.

This leaves the supposed presence of a Hamas battalion in the camp as a justification for the attack.

This is contradicted by the fact that the IDF designated Nuseirat and surrounding refugee camps as safe zones shortly before the bombing. If the IDF is sending people into close proximity of battalion headquarters before bombing them, this is unjustified.

—————-

@RealPolitic

Yes, I completely agree that justice has nothing to do with this conflict. It is about power dynamics. Specifically, settler colonialism in an oil rich region.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog again, the fact Amit Soussana was taken to Nuseirat following protocol means Hamas already operated there.

[RealPolitic]

@Pants-of-dog

Yes, I completely agree that justice has nothing to do with this conflict. It is about power dynamics. Specifically, settler colonialism in an oil rich region.

Yup. All states want more power. And in many cases its because more power gives more security for a state. International relations is the process of states or stateless groups seeking to gain more power. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is about power dynamics as well and not any sort of "protecting Russian speakers."

[Pants-of-dog]

@RealPolitic

Israel gains three important things by killing or removing all the Palestinians:

1, Land
2, Resources
3. Security

In that sense, it is logical to commit genocide and/or ethnic cleansing.

[wat0n]

Leaving ethical considerations aside, 3) is very questionable since just committing genocide or ethnic cleansing against all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank would destabilize Egypt and Jordan. This in turn would undermine the other two and threaten Israel proper.

[Pants-of-dog]

According to the IDF and Israeli government, there can be no security in Israel without a certain amount of killing Palestinians, driving them off their land, and taking it over.