Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, they did not disengage! That is a lie!
Im ex military Navy. While that isnt Seals, you open fire from a hodpital or make it your HQ its a target.Sorry, even used as an ammo dump, you still cannot target a hospital. Period.
You fuckin' dumbass!
Hamas must be held accountable for civilian deaths. Targets on the Israeli military are perfectly legal.
Why do the Palestinians then not get your wrath for deliberately targeting innocent, non-combatant Israelis? And, sorry, when you store armaments and launch attacks from hospitals, you invite backlash.It doesn't matter! Hospitals are off limits, period! Under no circumstances may you target a hospital.
Were you surprised to find out Israel didn't actually bomb the hospital? You might want to validate things before you go off like a roman candle at them.How many posts does it take for you to answer a single point? Fuck!
Which means that targeting Palestinian weapon storage and from where they launch attacks is also perfectly legal. Did you realize you just destroyed your own rant?Hamas must be held accountable for civilian deaths. Targets on the Israeli military are perfectly legal.
It is not collective punishment unless the civilians are targeted by the siege, which they are not; denying food and water and fuel to Hamas is legal, and the damage to the civilian population is considered collateral damage and is not illegal if it is proportionate to the military advantage gained by the action.Fuck you! I mean fuck you! It is NOT legal under IHL! You cannot collectively punish 2.2 million Gazans who have committed no crime.
Bullshit! The blockade is immoral and illegal!Hmmm. Interesting. I believe this speaks to the difference between an occupation and a blockade.
An occupation assumes that the occupier has some level of control over the conditions of the occupied. As examples: an occupier could prevent the use of water pipes being used as weapons; an occupier could prevent the misuse of medical supplies; an occupier could ensure fertilizer was used for agricultural purposes, rather than making bombs.
On the other hand, a blockade intends to withhold, as much as possible, the materials that could be used as weapons. And yes, even some luxury items as a deterrent. But a blockade does not prevent misuse of material.
It is my opinion that holding one party RESPONSIBLE while that party does not have CONTROL is not only grievously unfair, but is in direct opposition to the definition of "occupation".
Israel does not occupy Gaza. It hasn't since 2005. Israel can't be held responsible for things it has no control over. If you want to argue for Israel having responsibility over Gaza, you have to also offer Israel control over Gaza. Which translates to re-occupation or to annexation, both of which seem to be in opposition to your main argument that Israel needs to "end the occupation". Which is why I believe your argument is inconsistent.
Wrong! You cannot target hospitals under any condition.Which means that targeting Palestinian weapon storage and from where they launch attacks is also perfectly legal. Did you realize you just destroyed your own rant?
War is immoral and illegal. But here we are huh??Bullshit! The blockade is immoral and illegal!
Set up HQ and hide ammo there its no longer a hospitalWrong! You cannot target hospitals under any condition.
Not at all. I am not defending Israel's poor actions.Is there something wrong with your heart?
And you cannot target innocent civilians under any condition, which means the Palestinians are in the wrong and deserve pushback. When you put munitions in hospitals, they become targets. Why do you have such a hard time seeing that?Wrong! You cannot target hospitals under any condition.
And you cannot target innocent civilians under any condition, which means the Palestinians are in the wrong and deserve pushback. When you put munitions in hospitals, they become targets. Why do you have such a hard time seeing that?
War is immoral and illegal. But here we are huh??
Could you again tell the class how it started again..
1. They send warnings to give civilians time to get out of the way. You don't do that if, like the Palestinians, you are trying to maximize death and destruction.The Zionists have been targeting innocent civilians for years...and no one cares.
No evidence that there were munitions in that hospital, BTW. The Zionists just targetted it and then pretended they didn't do it.
Interesting. Those "refuse" have turned what the Palestinians were happy to leave as desert and swampland into a modern, successful state.Sure. It started when the Jewish Refuse of Europe showed up in Palestine and stole the land.
The way IHL states, targets must be of military necessity. If one Hamas accountant lives in a 12 story building, that would not be considered military necessity. But rockets fired from a cemetery behind a hospital, would be a legal strike by the IDF, as long as there was no damage to the hospital. Hospitals are off limits under any condition.Agreed. Targets on Hamas military are also perfectly legal, yes?
The point of disagreement is whether Hamas military targets embedded in civilian infrastructure render them invalid targets. I'm sure you can see the problems with this. If you want your military to be shielded, you just have to place your military targets in places where civilians will be grievously harmed. Instant invincible army which can not legally be targeted while your military can act with impunity.
What, do you think, in keeping with this thread, would be the CORRECT response to military targets acting from areas embedded in civilian infrastructure?
