[Pants-of-dog]

The fact that the list of UNRWA workers that can be accused of being Hamas militants can be continually expanded corroborates the claim that the IDF and Israeli government are targeting UNRWA.

And now the intentional bombing of a refugee shelter is justified on the grounds that the people providing humanitarian aid were passively engaged in combat.

[wat0n]

Or maybe it means new intelligence has been learned after almost a year long war.

I will reiterate that even the UN fired some of the employees Israel claimed were members of armed groups.

I will also note that the people Israel alleges were part of Hamas were, in fact, engaged in a continuous combat function.

[Pants-of-dog]

Providing humanitarian aid to refugees is not a combat function.

And accusations without evidence are not evidence. They are just accusations.

[wat0n]

Commanding troops is a combat function.

And it is a continuous combat function at that.

Right, for instance, accusations Israel is trying to destroy the UNRWA are not evidence. I agree with that.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one asked if commanding troops was a combat function, which is not necessarily true, either. Nor is it continuous.

The question was whether or not providing humanitarian aid was a combat function. It obviously is not.

Consequently, the UNRWA workers were not fulfilling a combat role, even if we accept the unsubstantiated accusations of being Hamas militants.

And while it is true that the mere accusation of trying to destroy UNRWA is not evidence of the fact that the Israeli government is doing so. The three laws going through the legislature are evidence, though.

Since we have evidence that the Israeli government is trying to destroy UNRWA, and no evidence that the UNRWA workers were militants, it is illogical to deny the former and believe the latte.

[wat0n]

And now @Pants-of-dog does not even understand the meaning of "continuous combat function". Allow me to teach you:

Continuous combat function requires lasting integration into an organized armed group acting as the armed forces of a non-State party to an armed conflict. Thus, individuals whose continuous function involves the preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function. An individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities on its behalf can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before he or she first carries out a hostile act. This case must be distinguished from persons comparable to reservists who, after a period of basic training or active membership, leave the armed group and reintegrate into civilian life. Such “reservists” are civilians until and for such time as they are called back to active duty.

Individuals who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group, but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities, are not members of that group within the meaning of IHL. Instead, they remain civilians assuming support functions, similar to private contractors and civilian employees accompanying State armed forces. Thus, recruiters, trainers, financiers and propagandists may continuously contribute to the general war effort of a non-State party, but they are not members of an organized armed group belonging to that party unless their function additionally includes activities amounting to direct participation in hostilities. The same applies to individuals whose function is limited to the purchasing, smuggling, manufacturing and maintaining of weapons and other equipment outside specific military operations or to the collection of intelligence other than of a tactical nature. Although such persons may accompany organized armed groups and provide substantial support to a party to the conflict, they do not assume continuous combat function and, for the purposes of the principle of distinction, cannot be regarded as members of an organized armed group. As civilians, they benefit from protection against direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities, even though their activities or location may increase their exposure to incidental death or injury.

In practice, the principle of distinction must be applied based on information which is practically available and can reasonably be regarded as reliable in the prevailing circumstances. A continuous combat function may be openly expressed through the carrying of uniforms, distinctive signs, or certain weapons. Yet it may also be identified on the basis of conclusive behaviour, for example where a person has repeatedly directly participated in hostilities in support of an organized armed group in circumstances indicating that such conduct constitutes a continuous function rather than a spontaneous, sporadic, or temporary role assumed for the duration of a particular operation. Whatever criteria are applied in implementing the principle of distinction in a particular context, they must allow to reliably distinguish members of the armed forces of a non-State party to the conflict from civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities, or who do so on a merely spontaneous, sporadic or unorganized basis. As will be shown, that determination remains subject to all feasible precautions and to the presumption of protection in case of doubt.

Commanders exercise a continuous combat function by definition. Combatants who have repeatedly taken part in hostilities in the past are also exercising a continuous combat function, even if they are not doing so at the time of an attack.

You should thank me for educating you.

I will also note that legislative bills that have not been approved in Israel's Knesset are not evidence of anything.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, if we assume that they were militants, and we assume they were commanders, ,and we assume they were acting in a command role.

None of which is supported by any evidence.

What we do know is that they were employed by UNRWA, at a UNRWA refugee shelter, providing humanitarian aid to refugees.

Now that we have clarified the string of assumptions needed to believe the IDF claims, we can ask ourselves if these assumptions make sense.

On the other hand, this attack on an UNRWA facility can be described as an attack on an UNRWA facility (which is very easy to support) consistent with the attacks on UNRWA as an institution (which is also easily supported with evidence).

I am still waiting for evidence that the names released by the IDF match up with the list of the dead.

[wat0n]

So you do not dispute Israel's goal was to kill those 9 Hamas combatants?

[Pants-of-dog]

The goal of the IDF and Israeli government is genocide and complete and uncontested access to the land and resources.

To this end, the destruction of, and attack on, UNRWA is a logical tactic.

There is no evidence that the people killed were Hamas militants.

And even if they were, it is difficult to argue that this is justified.

[wat0n]

I don't see why it wouldn't be justified to kill Hamas' commanders.

The rest seems to be speculation, one that is used to justify actions like the October 7th massacre and bludgeoning American Jews to death.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we have justified the bombing of a refugee camp because Hamas supposedly infiltrated the place by working as humanitarian aid workers and providing humanitarian assistance.

And this is what justifies the bombing of children.

And we are still waiting for evidence that the list of IDF targets matches up with the list of the dead. We already knownthey are not providing any evidence of involvement with Hamas.

[wat0n]

The list is itself Israel's evidence.

I will note that the bombing is legal if Israel is being honest about its intelligence.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we have to take the word of the killers that they killed legally.

This is reason enough to doubt their honesty.

[wat0n]

As opposed to what, taking the word of Hamas for example?



But anyway, I do agree Israel should show its intelligence after the war has ended.

[Pants-of-dog]

The IDF could have supplied evidence for all the suspected Hamas militants in UNRWA, when said evidence was promised and expected.

It would still not justify this attack against aid workers, since these aid workers were never on any suspect list until after they were killed by the IDF.

But it would make it more reasonable to take the word of the people accused of war crimes.

[wat0n]

Israel did hand out that evidence, some of which is public.

UNRWA did fire employees it assessed were, in fact, part of armed groups after doing its own inquiry. Note that since they were fired, they were also alive.

...

The U.N. watchdog charged with investigating UNRWA, called the Office of Internal Oversight Services, said it drew on evidence provided by Israel in discussions with Israeli authorities. It said it could not independently corroborate that evidence since it did not have direct access to it. The investigators also reviewed internal UNRWA information, including staff records, email and other communications data.

It said it found sufficient evidence pointing to nine employees’ potential involvement in the Oct. 7 attack.

An Israeli official with knowledge of the discussions, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media, said that Israeli authorities spent hours on each accused UNRWA staffer when briefing U.N. investigators on their findings.

“I have decided that in the case of these remaining nine staff members, they cannot work for UNRWA,” the agency’s head Philippe Lazzarini said in a statement.

“The agency’s priority is to continue lifesaving and critical services for Palestine refugees in Gaza and across the region, especially in the face of the ongoing war, the instability and risk of regional escalation,” said Lazzarini, who also said he condemned the Oct. 7 attack.

In nine other cases, the evidence was insufficient, and in one other case there was no evidence pointing to involvement.

...

[Pants-of-dog]

The quoted text in the article clearly says that no one other than the IDF was given access to the evidence.

Nor does the evidence show anything beyond a potential involvement in the October attack for a few individuals. It does not show that the other few hundred humanitarian aid workers killed by the IDF were involved. It also shows that the IDF were only able to provide some sort of basis for less than half of the people accused.

Not does it change the fact that the Israeli government never supplied evidence to the UN investigative committee charged with analyzing the accusations against UNRWA workers made by the Israeli government about involvement in the October 7 attack.

Perhaps it needed the time between April and August to come up with a story good enough to get nine people fired.

And again, the aid workers recently killed by the IDF were not on that list of 19 people.

Nor were the hundreds of aid workers killed in their family homes by IDF bombs.

[wat0n]

It seems @Pants-of-dog is not just lazy but possibly illiterate given he missed "The investigators also reviewed internal UNRWA information, including staff records, email and other communications data" i.e. they did not base themselves solely on Israeli data.

Note the people fired were also alleged to have participated in the October 7 massacre, and the UN found those allegations credible after conducting the aforementioned inquiry.

At last, nobody said the IDF provided an exhaustive list of UNRWA employees involved in terrorism. It may have just provided lists of employees who are alive.

[Pants-of-dog]

The discussion is about the IDF and Israeli government providing evidence for their claims. The fact that other groups had to do some of this work for them is not surprising or relevant.

It does not say that UNRWA found the evidence to support the claim of involvement in the October 7 attack. It only says they were fired. This could be for simply violating the neutrality policy in social media, which would have been uncovered in the internal investigation. It is an assumption that these people were fired for involvement in Hamas.

Also note that the aid workers recently killed were alive up until a few days ago and so were also alive at the time that the IDF provided their initial list of 19 supposed militants.

And we are still waiting for evidence that the aid workers recently killed or the hundreds bombed in their family homes were involved with Hamas.

[wat0n]

The discussion is about the IDF and Israeli government providing evidence for their claims. The fact that other groups had to do some of this work for them is not surprising or relevant.

It is definitely important that they are simply corroborating Israel's allegations.

It does not say that UNRWA found the evidence to support the claim of involvement in the October 7 attack. It only says they were fired. This could be for simply violating the neutrality policy in social media, which would have been uncovered in the internal investigation. It is an assumption that these people were fired for involvement in Hamas.

Also note that the aid workers recently killed were alive up until a few days ago and so were also alive at the time that the IDF provided their initial list of 19 supposed militants.

And we are still waiting for evidence that the aid workers recently killed or the hundreds bombed in their family homes were involved with Hamas.

No.

The very article of the reports says they were fired because of possible involvement in the October 7 attack, and that they belonged to the armed groups (not necessarily or exclusively Hamas).

Also, nothing makes it impossible new intelligence emerged with more UNRWA workers involved in the armed groups since Israel sent its latest list. New intelligence emerges as documents are captured on the ground by Israeli soldiers, for example.