Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Someone asked what age is considered to be a "child soldier".

According to the IDF, it seems that the age of a child terrorist starts at conception:

RTE:

The Palestinian health ministry has said that Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank shot dead three people, including a woman who was eight months pregnant, while the military said it had "targeted terrorists" in a raid.

"Medical teams were unable to save the baby's life due to the (Israeli) occupation preventing the transfer of the injured to the hospital," it added.

Murad Alyan, a member of the popular committee in the Nur Shams camp, told AFP that the couple was "trying to leave the camp before the occupation forces advanced into it. They were shot while they were inside their car."

The Palestinian foreign ministry condemned what it described as "a crime of execution committed by the occupation forces", accusing Israeli forces of "deliberately targeting defenceless civilians".

Many thanks for your response. Hope you had a nice weekend. Your response misrepresents both the legal definitions at play and the complexities of the situation.

The Definition of Genocide – You assert that my understanding is "narrower" than the actual definition, yet you do not specify in what way. The UN definition includes intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. You imply that Israel's actions meet this threshold, but intent is key, as per my original post. Engaging in military operations, even with civilian casualties, which destroy infrastructure such as hospitals does not automatically equate to genocide. If it did, many nations—including those fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan—would also meet this threshold. Do you agree with me on that? For me, the burden of proof lies in demonstrating that Israel’s primary objective is extermination, not military engagement with an enemy embedded in civilian areas, which is what Israel has done during this war, I would argue.

Warnings and Compliance with International Law – You dismiss evacuation warnings as meaningless, but they are a crucial element of compliance with international law. No military operation is flawless, and tragic losses occur, but issuing warnings and facilitating evacuations—despite Hamas actively preventing civilians from leaving as proven by the UN—undermines the claim of deliberate extermination. You mention "bombing safe zones," but this is a battlefield where Hamas operates precisely from those locations, using civilians as shields, as proven by the UN. The moral and legal responsibility does not rest solely on Israel when its adversary deliberately violates the laws of war. Do you agree that Hamas violates the laws of war?

Aid Access and Claims of Famine – While the humanitarian situation is undeniably severe, assertions that Israel has denied entry for anything other than a fraction of what is required against established international criteria are not valid. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), developed in 2004 for assessing famine in Somalia, sets clear thresholds for a crisis to be classified as famine. To meet this classification, an area must experience extreme critical levels of acute malnutrition and mortality, with a Crude Death Rate (CDR) exceeding 2 per 10,000 people per day from non-traumatic causes (excluding deaths from weapons or violence).

• For all of Gaza (2.3 million people) to meet famine conditions, at least 460 non-traumatic deaths per day would be required.

• For northern Gaza (300,000 people) to meet famine conditions in March-April 2024, at least 60 non-traumatic deaths per day would be required.

• As of March 15, 2024, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported a total of 31 deaths due to malnutrition and dehydration since October 7, 2023—a tragic number, I'll give you that but far from the famine threshold.

• If we look the first quarter of 2024, as a data sample, the number of calories of food delivered between January and April 2024 constituted a mean of 3,268 calories per person per day. This is over 50% more calories than required by the Sphere guidelines for humanitarian food to conflict-affected populations, which set out a daily requirement of 2,100 calories per person. Fyi, I'm getting the calorie count from the following resource (https://biochem-food-nutrition.agri.huji.ac.il/arontroen/publications/nutritional-assessment-of-food-aid-delivered-to-gaza). It's the best data I can find on this.

The figures above do not support the claim that Gaza is experiencing a famine by any standards or that Israel has only provided a fraction of the aid that was required. While food shortages and malnutrition are serious concerns, they result from multiple factors, including Hamas' documented seizure of aid, logistical challenges in distribution, and the reality of war conditions. Blaming Israel alone ignores the role of Hamas in exacerbating the crisis by hoarding supplies and obstructing aid distribution. Furthermore, Israel has facilitated aid deliveries despite security risks, including opening new routes for humanitarian convoys and increasing aid flow under international pressure.

The ICJ and Legal Proceedings – The ICJ’s preliminary ruling does not confirm guilt as you say; it merely recognizes that a case has enough merit to be heard. The provisional measures were broad and subject to interpretation, and Israel has provided evidence of compliance, such as increased aid efforts and investigations into military conduct. To claim Israel has “ignored” the measures presumes a definitive ruling where none exists. I'll have a lot more to add about the validity of this case and the manner in which it has been presented in my replies going forward.

Ultimately, I put it to you that labeling this as genocide is not a factual conclusion but a political stance. There is an ongoing war with civilian casualties, but that does not automatically meet the legal threshold for genocide. Assertions should be based on evidence, not predetermined narratives.

Fair bit of genocidal rhetoric has come from the mouths of important Israeli figures (elected reps., upper echelons of their military) since October 2023.

OTOH ones I recall are Netanyahu referencing the Torah and biblical destruction, talk of dropping "atom bombs" from more minor politcians, closing up the Gaza strip so nothing at all comes in or out etc. (with obvious consequences)

It is not on the scale or volume of what you might hear from Russian leaders and state media etc. concerning Ukraine, but fairly bad.

I think getting the Palestinians out (i.e. ethnic cleansing - and if they decide they don't want to go, we've plenty of bullets and bombs and we can make life a living hell) must be a "primary" goal here.

I observe the way Netanyahu was grinning ear to ear, almost dancing, when Trump went and publically blessed that goal. Awful, as it doesn't matter if Trump himself does nothing towards it, the Israeli leadership and military now know they have a green light, effectively a free hand to apply whatever pressure they see fit to clean out the Palestinians for good.

I suppose it would look like that when taken out of context.

The leaflet statement was in reply to a post suggesting dropping leaflets exonerated Israel of being guilty of genocide.

Israel is innocent until proven guilty as regards a court of law. In the court of public opinion (I've been clear I hold an opinion), they are on very very shaky ground. I gave reasons for my opinion of Israel being guilty. I've asked those who think Israel is innocent of genocide to list out why they think they are innocent.

Tumbleweed.

But here's your opportunity to have the debate rather than attempting to pick holes in posts and quote them out of context.

The holes demonstrate why it is a false debate.

I can sit here and point out that the crime of genocide requires a high threshold to prove and that threshold hasn't been reached.

That doesn't mean I approve of Israel's actions, or that I find them morally justified, but it does mean that I don't go around throwing out serious accusations that haven't been proved.

For example, we know that the dropping of leaflets was carried out by Israel which demonstrates a level of intent to avoid civilian casualties. Do you claim the legal expertise to determine whether or not that was sufficient?

That the court of public uniformed legal opinion thinks Israel is guilty of genocide is no great surprise, you are indicative of that, but that is a long long way from being a court determined outcome.

Is carrying out the Hannibal Directive a war crime?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

"We know Hamas is guilty"….

Evidence of Genocidal intent and therefore probable guilt of Genocide - just the first few paras. Read the full article to see all the evidence - there's a lot of it.

As part of the case Defense for Children International-Palestine et al v. Biden et al, Holocaust historian Barry TrachtenbergBarry Trachtenberg testified that there is a consensus among genocide historians that the situation in Gaza is a genocide, mainly because Israeli officials' statements make this clear. He said: "We are watching the genocide unfold as we speak. We are in this incredibly unique position where we can intervene to stop it, using the mechanisms of international law that are available to us."

In an open letter published on 15 October on Opinio Juris and the website of the Third World Approaches to International Law Review, scholars wrote that Israeli officials' statements since 7 October indicate intent to commit genocide.[233] The NGO Law for Palestine compiled more than 500 statements by Israeli political and military officials that reportedly call for genocide.

On 11 June 2024, the official Israeli X (formerly Twitter) account tweeted that "Gazan civilians participated in the horrific events of October 7", later citing a statement in a clip that "there are no innocent civilians there".

On 7 October, Netanyahu said that Israel would "exact a huge price from the enemy" and turn Hamas hideouts "into rubble". Omer Bartov, a Holocaust and genocide professor, interprets these statements as genocidal intent.

Gosh - Lebanon has also accused Israeli of not abiding that ceasefire either.

Could it possibly be that Israel are not to be trusted to hold up their end of any bargain?

I'd imagine Pro-Israelis are all ready typing their spleen venting diatribes at how Israel is a paragon of virtue and wouldn't dream of throwing any spanner in the works to banjax the return of their beloved brothers and sisters. No way would Israel do that. Ever.

Are you saying that Hamas are not guilty of war crimes?

Ha, If only the same logic of innocent until proven guilty was applied with dropping bombs on refugee camps.

No.

I'm saying that someone who claims everyone charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty, then immediately claims someone is guilty of a crime before trial, is a hypocrite.

Of course, that's because they support Israel who therefore must of course be innocent. But Hamas are as guilty as sin.

I said it in a previous post - let Deif answer to the ICC warrant for arrest and let The Hague try him and administer justice. Same goes for Gallant and Netanyahu. They are all innocent until proven guilty.

But certainly, as I already posted, even Holocaust Professors are stating publicly that Israel has committed Genocide. With the evidence mountain against Israel, proving them guilty is not going to be difficult.

Deif is dead. Hamas confirmed it last week

Perhaps the ICC will identify another senior Hamas leader who they charge.

Until then, seems it's only Gallant and Netanyahu charged with War Crimes.

Israelis are rising up against a government that has never cared for the hostages.

Haaretz:

Hundreds of Israelis have begun blocking roads in Tel Aviv, calling for the return of all hostages. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum said that they had asked cease-fire mediators for an immediate and effective intervention to "restore the deal's implementation" and called on the government to "refrain from actions that jeopardize" the deal.