Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[forgetful]

Good call out.  And I'll clarify cause you're right, I blended it a bit.

"free Palestine" is to me, just any benefit of the Palestinian people and self rule, ideally a solid and relatively peaceful two state solution.  I don't think its fundamentally anti-Israel in any way, and its more focused on self determination.

"Free Palestine" was, IMO, not really different from the above, until recently.  And not everyone who is loudly and proudly proclaiming FP right now is anti-Israel/Zionism/etc.. but its been co-opted by many who, at best, are ill informed and just looking to get riled up about something.

And there is not "good and evil" holistically, except for Hamas, IMO.  I think there are people within Israel government/the IDF who can be thought of as having evil intentions, but I don't think Israel is evil in totality.

I think Israel is an oppressor, but some of what is oppressive I don't necessarily blame them for.  But at the same time, I think Hamas and the government of the West Bank are oppressive as well.  There is a multitude of unfortunate and oppressive factors that are affecting the Palestinian people, but its usually just funneled all into venom at Israel.

Thanks for the clarification. I figured you meant what you have now written above, as the above is more clear/consistent with your sentiments/tones, but always good to make it clear to everyone.

[4everwarriors]

Certainly plenty of room in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Lebanon for a Palestinian state. Oh chit, they don't want their brothers and sisters, hey?

#fromtherivertothesea

[21Jumpstreet]

Good call out.  And I'll clarify cause you're right, I blended it a bit.

"free Palestine" is to me, just any benefit of the Palestinian people and self rule, ideally a solid and relatively peaceful two state solution.  I don't think its fundamentally anti-Israel in any way, and its more focused on self determination.

"Free Palestine" was, IMO, not really different from the above, until recently.  And not everyone who is loudly and proudly proclaiming FP right now is anti-Israel/Zionism/etc.. but its been co-opted by many who, at best, are ill informed and just looking to get riled up about something.

And there is not "good and evil" holistically, except for Hamas, IMO.  I think there are people within Israel government/the IDF who can be thought of as having evil intentions, but I don't think Israel is evil in totality.

I think Israel is an oppressor, but some of what is oppressive I don't necessarily blame them for.  But at the same time, I think Hamas and the government of the West Bank are oppressive as well.  There is a multitude of unfortunate and oppressive factors that are affecting the Palestinian people, but its usually just funneled all into venom at Israel.

Great post. Appreciate this, as I think we can all see how a word here and there can be twisted and weaponized, or rather just misinterpreted or misused.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You ignore all them, because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. So you make up crap instead.

So again, you are making up history.

He.doesn't.care.

[MuggsyB]

I'm curious why no one ever mentions both the Christian and Jewish refugees in the Middle East since 1948? 

[Heisenberg]

I've posted previous plans offered by Palestinians here multiple times. Even commented on the fact that even the Hamas charter also proposes a 2-state solution, which I admitted that I view it as an empty offer as they want to use it as a way to get independence, and then to continue to fight Israel.

You ignore all them, because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. So you make up crap instead.

And regarding the Clinton negotiations. They didn't end because Arafat walked away. That is revisionist history and BS. Barak walked away, because they were having new elections and he was polling very low and was likely to lose, in part because of the negotiations. He was replaced by Sharon.

And Arafat largely was against some aspects of the plan, like giving the entire Temple Mount to Israel, including the El-Aqsa Mosque. Those disagreements were considered outside of the "Clinton Parameters," as the parameters all included the Temple Mount being given to Israel.

So again, you are making up history.

Everyone in the room said the opposite of you.



May 23, 2002

Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now, for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while secretly plotting the destruction of Israel.
—-
The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism."

Clinton was speaking of the two-week-long Camp David conference in July 2000 which he had organised and mediated and its failure, and the eruption at the end of September of the Palestinian intifada which has continued since. Halfway through the conference, apparently on July 18, Clinton had "slowly" - to avoid misunderstanding - read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement. The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

Today Barak portrays Arafat's behaviour at Camp David as a "performance" geared to exacting from the Israelis as many concessions as possible without ever seriously intending to reach a peace settlement or sign an "end to the conflict".

"He did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counterproposals of his own," he says. Barak shifts between charging Arafat with "lacking the character or will" to make a historic compromise (as did the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1977-79, when he made peace with Israel) to accusing him of secretly planning Israel's demise while he strings along a succession of Israeli and Western leaders and, on the way, hoodwinks "naive journalists".

"What they [Arafat and his colleagues] want is a Palestinian state in all of Palestine," says Barak. "What we see as self-evident, [the need for] two states for two peoples, they reject. Israel is too strong at the moment to defeat, so they formally recognise it. But their game plan is to establish a Palestinian state while always leaving an opening for further 'legitimate' demands down the road. They will exploit the tolerance and democracy of Israel first to turn it into 'a state for all its citizens', as demanded by the extreme nationalist wing of Israel's Arabs and extremist leftwing Jewish Israelis. Then they will push for a binational state and then demography and attrition will lead to a state with a Muslim majority and a Jewish minority. This would not necessarily involve kicking out all the Jews. But it would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. This, I believe, is their vision. Arafat sees himself as a reborn Saladin - the Kurdish Muslim general who defeated the Crusaders in the 12th century - and Israel as just another, ephemeral Crusader state."

[Heisenberg]

Great post. Appreciate this, as I think we can all see how a word here and there can be twisted and weaponized, or rather just misinterpreted or misused.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-bad-faith-behind-free-palestine-619547

One of the most common and insidious catchphrases in the anti-Israel campaign is "Free Palestine," a notion seemingly of liberation but actually a negation of Jews' rights to land that has been included in daily prayers for thousands of years. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace use the call to "Free Palestine" as a rallying cry on college campuses. The phrase is often adopted by other progressive groups – such as Black Lives Matter and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organizations – under the aegis of intersectionality.

The bad faith nature of the "Free Palestine" movement revealed itself in November 2019 at the University of California, Berkeley's "Protest Gaza" event. Club Z alumni invited the founder and executive director of the organization, Masha Merkulova, to attend the event and show her support for Israel. To expose the hypocrisy of the movement, Merkulova held a sign that read, "Free Palestine = Kill Jews."

[Pakuni]

Everyone in the room said the opposite of you.

Everyone in the room = an interview with Ehud Barak.
And people say you're not serious?

[Heisenberg]

1. Show me Israel's maps for a two-state solution.
2. We don't have a deal because the dealmakers either died (Arafat), were murdered (Rabin), left office (Clinton, Barak) or were pushed to the side and had their power diminished (Abbas) by hardliners on both sides (Hamas, Hezbollah, Netanyahu, Sharon) who were intent on spiking any agreement.

The reality is - as with most things - far more complex than you present it. The deal didn't fall apart because Arafat walked away from one negotiating session. Heck, two months after that occurred, Arafat and Barak held face-to-face meetings at Barak's home.The deal fell apart because hardliners on both sides took power and wanted it to fall apart.

Dinner was September 26,2000
https://www.deseret.com/2000/9/26/19530805/barak-and-arafat-talk-and-joke-151-but-make-no-progress

Three days after the dinner the PLO started the Second Intifada, which slaughtered thousands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

So, now we know, when Palestinians start slaughtering Jews, without provocation, its both sides at fault.

Just like October 7.

So by your logic, there's no Possible Way, Palestinians could ever be at fault, even if they were to completely genocide. 8 million Jews.

It would be both sides fault.

[Heisenberg]

Everyone in the room = an interview with Ehud Barak.
And people say you're not serious?

I understand you have your worldview and it can never be violated. But this unserious person was also in the room and thinks Arafat walked away because he never wanted a deal.

This was the best deal they were ever going to get. And after October 7 this will never happen again.

——

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[37][38][39] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[40] In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

[21Jumpstreet]

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-bad-faith-behind-free-palestine-619547

One of the most common and insidious catchphrases in the anti-Israel campaign is "Free Palestine," a notion seemingly of liberation but actually a negation of Jews' rights to land that has been included in daily prayers for thousands of years. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace use the call to "Free Palestine" as a rallying cry on college campuses. The phrase is often adopted by other progressive groups – such as Black Lives Matter and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organizations – under the aegis of intersectionality.

The bad faith nature of the "Free Palestine" movement revealed itself in November 2019 at the University of California, Berkeley's "Protest Gaza" event. Club Z alumni invited the founder and executive director of the organization, Masha Merkulova, to attend the event and show her support for Israel. To expose the hypocrisy of the movement, Merkulova held a sign that read, "Free Palestine = Kill Jews."

Appreciate the post, and I'll ask you the same question. How do we have a conversation about a free Palestine and a free Israel without using/misusing charged words or have them be misperceived even when explained or qualified? There is a real discussion for two free and independent states, is disallowing is disavowing the use of the words a free Palestine simply ignoring that option? Is it dismissive? Inhumane? Racist? Islamophobic? Naive?

[Heisenberg]

Appreciate the post, and I'll ask you the same question. How do we have a conversation about a free Palestine and a free Israel without using/misusing charged words or have them be misperceived even when explained or qualified? There is a real discussion for two free and independent states, is disallowing is disavowing the use of the words a free Palestine simply ignoring that option? Is it dismissive? Inhumane? Racist? Islamophobic? Naive?

Two-state solution where both sides agree to land that is their sovereign state, and live in peace with theor neighbor.

A good start a good start would be for the Palestinians to put down their weapons and stop talking about murdering Jews. But they won't.

——

In 1948 a two-stage solution was offered, by the UN, to the Palestinians, as part of the creation of the state of Israel. They rejected it and the next day they attacked Israel declaring war.

In 2000, as noted in the posts above, Arafat with given probably the best two state deal they will ever get. He walked away from the table without even proposing a counter offer. Two months later was the second intifada that killed thousands.

For 75 years Palestinian leaders of talked about one-state solution, which illuminates, the Jews and gives the Palestinians the land that is now Israel.

The term free Palestine is a highly charged phrase, just like from the river to the sea.

[Heisenberg]

More than 1,600 Jewish Harvard alumni threaten to withdraw donations over antisemitism concerns

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/11/economy/harvard-alumni-donations-antisemitism/index.html

[forgetful]

I understand you have your worldview and it can never be violated. But this unserious person was also in the room and thinks Arafat walked away because he never wanted a deal.

This was the best deal they were ever going to get. And after October 7 this will never happen again.

——

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[37][38][39] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[40] In My Life, Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."

You link to a wikipedia article, ignore all the aspects saying the exact opposite of your stance, and then cherry pick one blurb that supports your assertion (including ignoring what one of Clinton's lead people said).

And negotiations continued at the Taba Summit, where Barak walked away because of impending elections.

You repeatedly take dishonest approaches to discussion.

[21Jumpstreet]

Two-state solution where both sides agree to land that is their sovereign state, and live in peace with theor neighbor.

A good start a good start would be for the Palestinians to put down their weapons and stop talking about murdering Jews. But they won't.

——

In 1948 a two-stage solution was offered, by the UN, to the Palestinians, as part of the creation of the state of Israel. They rejected it and the next day they attacked Israel declaring war.

In 2000, as noted in the posts above, Arafat with given probably the best two state deal they will ever get. He walked away from the table without even proposing a counter offer. Two months later was the second intifada that killed thousands.

For 75 years Palestinian leaders of talked about one-state solution, which illuminates, the Jews and gives the Palestinians the land that is now Israel.

The term free Palestine is a highly charged phrase, just like from the river to the sea.

I assume you agree another good start would be to end the occupation, lift the blockades, give control of water/supplies/medicine/electricity to the Palestinians, too. Not as an indictment of Israel, but rather to your point of land agreement and a good start.

Why do you think the two state proposals up to this point are fair for either Israel or Palestine? Israel has also rejected proposals and overstepped on others, so clearly they don't think the proposals or even agreements are fair. Who "controls" the holy sites equally important to both?

I realize you want a free Israel, only Israel, but that is also flawed and charged. I will refrain from saying free before Palestine, as I hear you and want to continue a dialog that doesn't continue to spiral back to weaponizing words. So I will say, I want a self-governing Palestine with access to clean water, supplies, medicine, electricity, free from internal terrorists and external control, free from bombings both internal and external, free to peacefully exist alongside Israel.

[4everwarriors]

More than 1,600 Jewish Harvard alumni threaten to withdraw donations over antisemitism concerns

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/11/economy/harvard-alumni-donations-antisemitism/index.html

Here, here 👏🏻, hey?

[Uncle Rico]

https://www.the-express.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/118093/Taylor-Swift-Charlie-Kirk/amp

[Pakuni]

Dinner was September 26,2000
https://www.deseret.com/2000/9/26/19530805/barak-and-arafat-talk-and-joke-151-but-make-no-progress

Three days after the dinner the PLO started the Second Intifada, which slaughtered thousands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

The PLO did not start the Second Intifada. Yet another lie.
And did anything significant happen between these dates? Something that Arafat specifically warned Barak would kill any chance of a deal? Something he urged Barak not to let happen? Something done by someone who wanted to kill the deal?
Think about it for a bit and get back to me.

So, now we know, when Palestinians start slaughtering Jews, without provocation, its both sides at fault.

Just like October 7.

So by your logic, there's no Possible Way, Palestinians could ever be at fault, even if they were to completely genocide. 8 million Jews.

It would be both sides fault.

Dishonest as always.

[Heisenberg]

You link to a wikipedia article, ignore all the aspects saying the exact opposite of your stance, and then cherry pick one blurb that supports your assertion (including ignoring what one of Clinton's lead people said).

And negotiations continued at the Taba Summit, where Barak walked away because of impending elections.

You repeatedly take dishonest approaches to discussion.

I showed what Bill Clinton's opinion was. He blamed Arafat for walking away because he was never serious because they don't want a two-state solution.

——-

And if you're talking about, Robert Malley, the only person who blamed the west, you do know that he was fired in May, sorry I need to put on forced leave, and is under investigation for being an Iranian spy.

So do you have any other sources that say it was the America/Israel's fault other than an Iranian spy?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/06/rob-malley-iran-security-clearance-investigation/

[Heisenberg]

The PLO did not start the Second Intifada. Yet another lie.
And did anything significant happen between these dates? Something that Arafat specifically warned Barak would kill any chance of a deal? Something he urged Barak not to let happen? Something done by someone who wanted to kill the deal?
Think about it for a bit and get back to me.

Dishonest as always.

The rioting have been going out for weeks and weeks and Arafat did nothing to stop it. Because he wanted it to escalate.

[Heisenberg]

I assume you agree another good start would be to end the occupation, lift the blockades, give control of water/supplies/medicine/electricity to the Palestinians, too. Not as an indictment of Israel, but rather to your point of land agreement and a good start.

Why do you think the two state proposals up to this point are fair for either Israel or Palestine? Israel has also rejected proposals and overstepped on others, so clearly they don't think the proposals or even agreements are fair. Who "controls" the holy sites equally important to both?

I realize you want a free Israel, only Israel, but that is also flawed and charged. I will refrain from saying free before Palestine, as I hear you and want to continue a dialog that doesn't continue to spiral back to weaponizing words. So I will say, I want a self-governing Palestine with access to clean water, supplies, medicine, electricity, free from internal terrorists and external control, free from bombings both internal and external, free to peacefully exist alongside Israel.

Israel did this in 2005. They used to occupy the Gaza Strip. They completely pulled out even digging up a graves of dead Jews and took them back to Israel. It was 100% Palestinian with no Israeli involvement.

So in 2005, the Palestinians had a state called Gaza. What did they do with it? They turned it into an open air prison and used it to launch terror attacks against Israel culminating with October 7.

The constant attacks  and rocket barrages against Israel is why they put up a blockade to protect themselves from the terrorist attacks.

So they tried that once, and it turned into a disaster. Why would they do that again unless there's major changes, and to the government in charge of Gaza, and a committment to peace.

[Pakuni]

The rioting have been going out for weeks and weeks and Arafat did nothing to stop it. Because he wanted it to escalate.

I wonder why you didn't answer the question. Smart guy like you surely has the capacity of figuring out the answer. Might it violate your worldview?

[Heisenberg]

A little long, but a good explanation of what a war crime is, and why we haven't seen any yet in Gaza.

https://x.com/cptallenhistory/status/1723037202458857836?s=61&t=Kba4MD7iUYHMRlrUOaqrng

Hi, I'm a lawyer. Do want to know what is really meant by a "#proportionate response" under international law? Then read on - and feel free to ask questions!

Under International Humanitarian Law, #proportionality requires that any degree of damage (up to and including death) to #civilians not be "excessive" in relation to the "military advantage anticipated from a strike against a military target."

We are going to break that down, so everyone understands what exactly that means.

However, first, you should be aware that it is a misnomer that anytime #Palestinian civilians die after an #Israeli strike, it is automatically evidence of an Israeli war crime. This is completely false - the law does not work that way.

Simply, and unfortunately, the international rules of law recognize that civilians are often killed during war; and, most of the time, those deaths are actually not indicative of a war crime.

Instead, the legal test for "proportionality" requires that each individual strike be looked at with a particular balancing analysis.

First, here is a hard and fast rule: the strike must be intended to target a military objective; it is, therefore, an unlawful war crime to strike with the intent of targeting civilians without any military objective whatsoever.

Now, let's get a little technical while still keeping it simple.

Under the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 at both Article 51(5)(b) and Article 52(2), we know that when #Hamas uses its own population (or Israeli #hostages) as #humanshields - either by using them to shield themselves or to shield their weapons depots - Hamas has, under international law, turned civilians targets into military targets.

That means that when Hamas places weapons caches in and under schools, hospitals, mosques, etc., Hamas has made each of those places legitimate military targets.

So, it has been well-known for many years that Hamas purposefully placed its headquarters underground beneath the al-Shifa Hospital. In doing so, international law holds that the hospital is no longer just a civilian target, it is a legitimate military target.

That does not necessarily give the IDF carte blanche to attack hospitals, schools, mosques, etc.; however, it does mean that an IDF attack on a civilian target that has been made into a military target by Hamas' use of human shields is not per se illegal under international law.

Instead, such a strike (as is the case with any strike conducted by a military like the IDF), must be analyzed through a balancing test.

One part of this balancing test performed by Israel before each strike is to determine whether the human shields in question are being used voluntarily or involuntarily.

If the human shields are being used voluntarily - meaning the human shields are there protecting Hamas and its weapons of their own volition - then the target remains a completely legitimate military target.

If the human shields are being used involuntarily - meaning Hamas is forcing people to act as human shields to protect themselves and/or their weapons - then the IDF must go back to the balancing test to determine whether the anticipated military advantage of a successful strike would outweigh the reasonably anticipated loss of civilian life.

Importantly, the IDF rules state that if it cannot determine whether a human shield is being used voluntarily or involuntarily, it must presume the civilian is being used against his or her own will and treat the civilians as an involuntary participant.

Assuming that there is a military target & that there may be human shields that are there involuntarily, the next step in the proportionality analysis for each individual strike (remember, proportionality is determined on a strike-by-strike basis, and not as the accumulation of strikes over time) is to try to determine the likely amount of damage to civilian persons and/or property as a result of the strike.

In other words, under international law, Israel must be able to give a sort of "value" to the anticipated impact on civilians (including potential civilian deaths). Simply, a smaller number of anticipated civilian casualties may make the strike proportionate if there is a significant military advantage to be gained by conducting the strike.

However, if Israel determines that the anticipated impact of a strike may cause many civilian casualties, it must make the difficult determination of whether the anticipated military advantage is so significant that it warrants carrying out the strike anyway.

So, if Hamas has a weapons depot underneath a house with two civilians inside, and that house has been used to fire 500 rockets at Israeli civilians, and it is reasonably expected that there are hundreds more rockets under that house, Israel can almost certainly carry out the strike within the confines of international law.

If that same house, however, had 10 families living inside, including many children, it could - and likely would - tip the scales of the proportionality balancing test toward Israel not being permitted to carry out the strike, even though the house has been used to attack Israeli civilians and can be expected to continue to be used to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians.

Now, that balancing test can always change. If that same house is being used to fire long-range, precision-guided missiles at Israel's major population centers in places like #TelAviv (effectively putting millions of Israeli civilians in danger), the balancing test may tip back in favor of Israel being legally permitted to carry out the strike.

This all suggests the third and final step in the proportionality balancing test: the #IDF must determine and place a "value" on the anticipated military advantage that would be gained if it were to carry out a particular strike.

An attack on Hamas leadership and/or its weapons manufacturers would be considered a high value target. An attack on a single Hamas member who has no special skill, would be a much lower value military target.

Similarly, an attack on a small cache of mortars would have less military value that an attack on a large cache of advanced rockets that can reach large Israeli civilian population centers.

Once the @IDF determines the anticipated "value" of the likely effect on civilian persons and property and the anticipated "value" of the likely military advantage to be gained if the strike is carried out, the balancing test can be performed, and a certain amount of judgment must go into the determination of whether that strike would or would not be "proportionate."

Importantly, this decision is so vital that the IDF does not simply permit a single solder on the ground with his or her hand on the proverbial (or actual) "trigger" to make that determination.

In fact, the decision of whether a strike is proportionate is not even left up to IDF officers. It's not even left up to IDF Generals.

Instead, before any IDF strike can take place, IDF Guidelines provide that the proportionality balancing test must be presented to and analyzed by IDF military lawyers who then determine whether the strike is legally permissible as "proportionate" under international law and the rules of war.

And these IDF military lawyers are not mere patsies or people who simply "rubber stamp" what the IDF requests.

In fact, the IDF's military lawyers work entirely independently of the IDF. They are outside of the chain of command and do not answer to anyone in the IDF, including a General (for example).

Plus, every IDF military lawyer knows he or she may very well be held to account if he or she makes a wrong decision based on the evidence available at the time.

Furthermore, sometimes the decisions to be made while balancing the likely military advantage against the likely civilian casualties can be so difficult that the legality of the strike is first brought to the Israeli Supreme Court for instant review.

Another important concept: the comparison of civilian body counts of #Israelis versus #Palestinians (to the extent those numbers can be trusted since they come directly from Hamas-only) is not relevant to a proportionality analysis. Each strike must be viewed individually to determine proportionality. It is not a test of the cumulative nature of the strikes.

Also, by simply comparing body counts, it does not factor in how many people killed were actually #HamasTerrorists, how many were Hamas collaborators there voluntarily, and it does not consider what military advantage was gained by Israel carrying out any individual strike.

As Israel is now in the process of seeking to secure the military advantage of preventing Hamas from having the capacity to carry out repeated attacks of the kind and nature seen on October 7th, Israel is permitted to act proportionately insofar as necessary to achieve that military objective (the elimination of Hamas and/or its ability to make war).

One more important fact people do not know, but that they should know: according to UN statistics of global conflict, the average civilian to combatant killed ratio is a rather appalling nine civilians killed for every one combatant killed.

That's why civilian body counts in and of themselves are never indicative of a war crime. Each individual strike has to be analyzed, and unfortunately civilians always suffer disproportionately in wars.

In fact, while Israel is routinely criticized for any of its strikes that kill civilians, you may be surprised to know that Israel's civilian to combatant ratio is routinely much lower than the nine to one average.

In the very last operation carried out by the IDF prior to October 7 (in Jenin), 0.6 civilians were killed for every one combatant killed.

In that conflict, not only were the IDF's ratio numbers nowhere near the nine to one international average, but the IDF actually managed to kill more combatants than civilians - something that is extremely rare.

In truth, Israel is targeted by accusations of war crimes almost immediately by the media, by politicians, and by the UN General Assembly despite the fact that those accusations are near 100% of the time based neither in fact nor in law.

Since a proportionality balancing test must be used to determine whether a single specific Israeli strike falls within the confines of international law, someone providing an analysis must have all of the facts Israel considered before carrying out that strike as to the anticipated impact on civilians and the anticipated military advantage. Obviously, anyone who is making a snap judgment critical of Israel could not possibly have that information.

Understand then, that when you see talking heads accusing Israel of "war crimes" immediately after and/or during Israeli strikes, that is not an actual legal analysis under international law of what constitutes a war crime.

Much more likely, what you are witnessing is part of Hamas' ongoing psychological and propaganda warfare campaign of demonizing and delegitimizing the State of Israel in the eyes of public opinion.

[MU82]

The term free Palestine is a highly charged phrase, just like from the river to the sea.

I do agree with this, Douchey, especially with the way many are throwing around those phrases today. Dismissive, disingenuous and probably bigoted.

In that way, it's like when an American is presented with the phrase, "Black lives matter," and immediately responds, "All lives matter!"

[MuggsyB]

I do agree with this, Douchey, especially with the way many are throwing around those phrases today. Dismissive, disingenuous and probably bigoted.

In that way, it's like when an American is presented with the phrase, "Black lives matter," and immediately responds, "All lives matter!"

What do you think of the Reproductive Justice/Free Palestine signs or Gays for Gaza?   This seriously confuses me.