Not that it justifies the Hamas attack, but it goes a long way explaining it.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Isr...
Yes, such as "throwing stones" at armoured vehicles - truly despicable! Many are held without charge too. And many are held under "administrative detention", which means they can be held in a dungeon, without charge, forever. These are not the actions of a modern, progressive, democratic country.
I'm sure that some are imprisoned for good reason, buy many are there for spurious reasons - and none of them should be tortured or subject to sexual abuse, regardless of their supposed crimes.
Holding people without charges is defenitely not that. If it were, whatever Russia is doing with people opposing the war Ukraine would totally swell as well. And it isn't.
You onw what else kills people, and is illegal by international law? Throwing bombs on civilians. Espesially if said civilians didn't do anything.
Restraint is the word and appriach that would allow Israel to project strength and maintain support. What Israel is doing now is a) butthurt and pathetic and b) a despicable disregard of human rights. No amount of stone throwing justifies, or explains, any of that. At best using stome throwing as a justification is excusing conduct that amounts to war crimes. And I hope we can agree those are unacceptable, regardless of whom and which conflict. They happen as it is way too often, if we accept them as justified onxe, we risk opening a door to a place everyone is ok with conducting war in a criminal way. Infor one don't want a world like that, the last time rules of warfare were systematically ignored by everyone, it was incredibly ugly.
Israel’s campaign against Hamas is, in international law terms, an exercise of national self-defense. Like all other nations, Israel has an inherent right to use military force based on this legal justification (although there are some scholars who continue to believe that self-defense arises only in response to an armed attack from another state, an interpretation that is increasingly considered impermissibly restrictive). But what exactly does self-defense justify in terms of the scope and duration of military action?
The most common criticism of the IDF campaign is that it is too aggressive, producing too many casualties and too much physical destruction in Gaza. The ever-growing chorus of demands for an immediate and unconditional cease fire is the most obvious manifestation of this criticism. Those who embrace this view fail, however, to explain how it aligns with the inherent right of self-defense, or perhaps embrace some flawed conception of self-defense as some type of tit for tat equation requiring a proportionality of harm between the aggressor and the defender.
These understandings miss the point. Self-defense for a nation is analogous to self-defense for an individual: it legally justifies measures that would otherwise be unlawful when acting in response to an actual or imminent unlawful attack. But there is an important limitation on those measures: they must be reasonably necessary to reduce the threat and restore the status quo ante of safety and security. Indeed, self-defense is derived from the general legal justification of necessity, which means simply that if a measure is necessary it is justified; if it is not then it exceeds justification and remains illegal. This is another way of saying that the response must be proportional to the threat.
This is why tit for tat self-defense is so highly misleading: it is the threat that dictates the permissible scope of self-defense, not the suffering inflicted by the unlawful aggression that triggers the right. It is logical for a state to assess the scope of an imminent or ongoing threat by considering not only the opponent’s capability to inflict harm, but its motivation and intent. To this end, it is important to remember that the express goal of Hamas is to annihilate Israel and kill as many Jews as possible, and that the only reason they didn’t succeed in killing more on Oct 7 and the following days is because Israeli security forces were able to repel the invasion. Translated into military terms, this really leads to a very simple question: what scope of military action is necessary to secure the safety of the Israeli population from the Hamas (and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) threat emanating from Gaza?
That question cannot be answered by simply comparing casualty numbers. Even assuming some validity to the numbers provided by the Hamas controlled health ministry in Gaza (numbers which from inception have conflated civilian and enemy deaths), the mere fact that more civilians have been killed in Gaza than were killed in Israel on October 7th or since does not indicate an excessive or disproportionate response. Instead, the more logical question is focused on whether it is reasonable to assess a necessity to destroy Hamas as a fighting force capable of projecting violence against Israel? And in this regard, it is highly significant that in prior conflict flare ups, Israel attempted more limited military self-defense actions. October 7th proved that these limited responses failed to security Israel from the Hamas threat and render reasonable the conclusion that nothing short of a full-scale campaign to destroy this enemy’s military capability was necessary. Indeed, it is likely that historians will question whether Israel exercised unnecessary restraint up to this point, thereby exposing their population to constant rocket attacks, cross-border assault tunnel incursions and other attacks over the 16 year period in which Hamas has controlled Gaza.
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/ground-truth-the-disconnect-c...
Basically everytjing in your wall of text is either wrong or so turned on its head and misunderstood it could as well be wrong.
The key word you don't seem to understand is this: proportinality.
FWIW, there is a "mute" button, but it still allows Hasbara drones to harass you, claim you're a terrorist supporter, antisemite etc - you know, the usual slander they resort to once facts are in the way. The level of denial and falsehoods coming from pro-Israeli accounts is awful, especially here, a place renowned for inspiring curiosity and research.
Today is the first day I've wished for an HN block button too :(
That's quite a rich comment in light of the Dahiya doctrine. It's times like these that I'm glad HN won't let you delete comments for posterity's purpose.
> what scope of military action is necessary to secure the safety of the Israeli population from the Hamas (and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) threat emanating from Gaza?
When you define it like that, literally any military action, up to and including the destruction of all of Israel and it's inhabitants (a-la Samson option) is excusable. The "we have to go to their country and kill them all to protect our way of life" mindset is the fascistic seed of genocide.
Nobody is going to play by that definition. You're delusional if you think the scope of a perceived threat justifies the intensity of an actualized retaliation - it's a misunderstanding of strike warfare. The laser-focus on total war has impaired the IDF's ability to respond to precision threats in a dignified way. It's impossible to argue that Hamas hasn't exploited this obsession, and it's destroying foreign support at an unprecedented rate. You can only massacre so many Qibyas before your government's long-term strategy comes into question.
> Indeed, it is likely that historians will question whether Israel exercised unnecessary restraint up to this point
Here's a thought-exercise for you; how does the world look at America for developing the nuclear bomb? Do you think they love us, for subjugating the world under the ironclad-rule of a nuclear age? Do you think historians criticize America for showing too much restraint in Nagasaki?
Food for thought, may it nourish your starving soul.
Yes, and the list of crimes was made public. Many of them were indeed "throwing stones".
As I said, some are definitely held because of terrible crimes they actually committed; however, it must be noted that Palestinians are tried under an apartheid system, by a military court. Furthermore, it seems that many are held for no good reason, and many are tortured or sexually abused - confirmed by human rights groups.
BTW, if a convicted prisoner dies before they complete their sentence, they keep the body on ice until the sentence expires - that is just... evil.
I hope that this is not the standard we hold, because if it is, there is no moral ground anymore to stand on when it comes to denouncing terrorism.
I think it's pretty clear that Hamas would prioritize the release of a high ranking terrorist with civilian blood on their hands over someone that may be wrongfully detained.
None of that justifies, again, the levelling of Gaza, the starving of around 500,000 people and the deliberate targeting of civilians who have nothing to do with any of that.
You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that, Israel started levelling Gaza right south of the border and continue southwards, hoping people flee to Egypt which would allow Israel to close the doors behind them. There is a term for this: ethnic cleansing. That is undefensible, period.
ah, yes, it's that simple, just press the magic button that makes all Hamas disappear and all uninvolved civilians live well and prosper...
To me it seems that if those who care about innocent civilians were more focused on demanding Hamas to surrender and release the hostages promptly would be do more to save lives than constantly criticizing Israel, which gives Hamas hope they can survive this (and do what they did again later on)
You know what makes, maybe, Hamas go away? Open and free election, a cease fire followed by a peace treaty followed by international recognition of Palestine as a nation with free access to the sea and everything else that entails. With a neutral, demilitarized zone between Israel and Palestine, a zone save guarded by an international force with a very robust mandate. Because by know, both side need to be seperated to avoid future conflict. That would also mean a full review by an international court of all sentences by Israeli military courts against Palestinians, in cases a general amnesty is not applicable.
Oh, I almost forgot: A rebuilding plan for Gaza and other Palestinian territories. A massive one, comparable to the Marshall Plan after WW2. A plan in which Israel would have a keen interest in paeticipating if peace is the goal. Oh, yes, and a complete abandonnent of Israels illegal settlement policy and the settlements.
In exchange for Israel recognizing all of the above, and international support of that, the new Palestinian nation agrees to recognize Israel as well.
How does that sound? Not magic, I know, but something that worked in principle in Northern Ireland for example.
I'd also add that there needs to be an end to apartheid in Israel. There may also be need of a deradicalisation program.
[0] https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/sites/socsci-english.ta...
Actually the term for this is: war
Hamas can surrender and release the hostages to end the war. Until then Israel is justified in pursuing their 'complete and utter destruction'
I tired so tryong to get that point across to people. And worried what that attitude might mean for the future.
Presence of civilians does not render an area illegal to attack. Using civilian cover to initiate attacks is a war crime, not wearing uniforms is also a war crime - both things Hamas does. Using civilian buildings for military purposes makes attacking those areas legal and within the rules of war. You don't get to change the definition of words or invent laws of war when convenient to attack Israel.