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

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053691#Comment_122053691

Hot take? No, it's just ignorant, one sided and quite evil. Israel is not trying to kill more civilians and they are not to blame for the higher number of civilian casualties. Hamas is the one to blame, they are the ones hiding among civilians and using them as human shields.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053481#Comment_122053481

White phosphorus is banned as a weapon, but not as a smoke screen.

So it's legal to drop it in a field to provide cover but it's illegal to drop on civilians or even soldiers with the intent to harm.

Now there is the question of whether it's legal to drop it on a densely populated area to use as a smoke screen since civilians will probably be hurt. I'm not a lawyer but I'd say it probably is. It's a war crime to perform an action that knowingly hurts civilians even if it's targeting the enemy.

It's back to the accusations that Hamas use human shields. That's illegal under international law. But if Israel bomb hamas when they're using human shields and they know the civilians are there, then Israel are committing a war crime.

So in the case of white phosphorus, I'd say there are definitely times Israel have used it and it's legal and almost certainly times they've used it when it's been illegal. Because let's face it, they don't seem to actually care about collateral damage.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053349#Comment_122053349

Nonsense.

Is China under international sanctions for the way they treat millions of Ughyers?

But I never knew that one cannot receive or send a letter to Russia because of sanctions…

The fact is, people see the only Jewish state as 'different' to the rest and must be treated 'different' to the rest.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053419#Comment_122053419

Why should that information be discussed in schools? This wouldn't be the usual procedure would it? I don't recall discussions about the Gulf war when I was in primary school at the time, or the Iraq invasion after 9/11. No, we just followed the curriculum and got on with things. Why is this different?

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053630#Comment_122053630

Boycotting products is different from refusing to handling mail. It’s a country, not everyone there would even agree with the war or the government. It’s a basic service that everyone is entitled to. I find it more troubling that people think these types of things are acceptable.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053715#Comment_122053715

Hang on a second. I say that civilians shouldn't be killed and you're calling me evil? Really?

I am willing to condemn the killing of civilians and say it's bad. I don't care who does it.

You're only willing to condemn it if one side does it.

And I'm evil.

Jesus wept.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053714#Comment_122053714

These people were already behind bars in many cases. You do realise that literally thousands of palestinians are detained without trial? A practice that well predates the Oct 7th attack.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053721#Comment_122053721

why, yes, they are, why didn’t you check before flapping?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56487162.amp

Quite the off topic whataboutery.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053608#Comment_122053608

Is much Russian mail handled by An Post?

Yes.

yet these same schools and ages are seen a fit time and place to learn about Hitler and the Holocaust. What’s the difference here?

Isn't it obvious?

WWII happened more than 80 years ago and there has been plenty of time to come up and revise the content for an agreed-upon curriculum to be taught in schools.

This conflict is happening now and a bunch of people want to use it to push a political agenda in schools.

That is the difference.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053729#Comment_122053729

….you don’t recall???? I certainly do. While it had not made it to the textbooks yet or by extension the curricula, there were indeed myriad discussions about it, Shiite Muslims, planes legging over in Shannon, etc etc.

Your poor memory or insular experience is noted I guess.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053745#Comment_122053745

Do you mean they sanctioned a few individuals, not the entire country?

Not the same thing is it?

The sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, target senior officials in Xinjiang who have been accused of serious human rights violations against Uighur Muslims.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053738#Comment_122053738

About as bad as the way LGBT+ folks are treated by the palestinians so. No sympathy from here.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053746#Comment_122053746

Bollocks. School is a grand place to discuss contemporary issues. Plenty of examples of it. Students aren’t oblivious to the world around them, just as in my day lessons were routinely contextualized with what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and Post 9/11

Please quantify how much Russian mail An Post handles vs. Russian mail. Justify this off topic whataboutery.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053768#Comment_122053768

There's a difference between 'discussing contemporary issues' and the drive that flyer is pushing to promote a particular angle in schools throughout the country.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053734#Comment_122053734

I didn't call you evil. Maybe I shouldn't have used it at all, but my point was that it is evil wrong to condemn a country that is just trying to prevent any more attacks on its civilians by any means necessary. Israel should not stop until its population is safe, and at the moment it isn't. Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are still active, and also hostile countries like Iran are still a threat. Hostages are still held by Palestinians. Hamas rockets are still flying - that became so normalized it's not even in the news anymore.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053814#Comment_122053814

It is wrong to use any means necessary. It would be wrong to drop biological or chemical weapons. it would be wrong to drop a nuke. It would be wrong to starve millions.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053174#Comment_122053174

Unfortunately I have not the slightest problem in comprehending Israel's actions. It's wanton killing for the sake of assuaging the blood lust of the settler factions Netenyahu needs onside to stay in power. Genocide, because we hate those inferior Palestinian scum. An accelleration of the kill them, or drive them out, and take their land and homes policy that has held sway since the state of Israel was formed.

scottser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053524#Comment_122053524

Well now. You might believe such utter lies but please don't assume the rest of us are as trenchantly ignorant of the basic facts of the situation as you are. The IDF has admitted that there are an acceptable number of civilian casualties when taking out a suspected Hamas target. It could be up to 1,000 to take out one suspect. Why do you think they were using 1,000 lb bombs? Civilian casualties don't mean anything to Israel, because Israel do not see Palestinians as human.

And while casualties are usually inevitable in war, protagonists on both sides are bound to do their utmost to limit civilian deaths. The people Israel weren't allowed to bomb or shoot, they are starving to death instead.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053843#Comment_122053843

I don't know if you just don't see the lack of logic or you do see it but you're arguing in bad faith.

riffmongous

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053814#Comment_122053814

That's just infantile logic tbh, 'by any means necessary', really?? You've just justified wiping out the state of Israel to make Palestinian lives safer, well done.

Its madness how many of the extreme Israel supporters have Hamas logic in their heads, they just happen to be on the other side. Like the other guy sayings it's fine that Palestinian detainees were beaten to death, sickening.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053762#Comment_122053762

So how does Israel using blackmail to turn gay Palestinian into informers sit with you?

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053720#Comment_122053720

No, it's not. It is lawful to use WP against personnel and equipment both. It's extremely unpleasant, and so most Western nations tend to restrict its use as a matter of general policy for political purposes and its unlawfulness has turned into something of a common myth as a result, but there is no convention which prohibits its use in such a manner.

There may have been times Israel used it unlawfully, but no more or less so than any potentially unlawful use on any other weapon such as bombs which fall under generally the same rules of responsibility to minimise civilian casualties. The one exception is the use of air delivered incendiaries on military targets within concentrations of civilians, those are blanket prohibited under protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (same convention which covers booby traps, coincidentally). Since I haven't seen a single reference, however, to WP being delivered by any form of Israeli aircraft, that specific prohibition does not apply.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053814#Comment_122053814

define safe. Until everyone else is dead? Half? 100,000? A million?

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053714#Comment_122053714

Israel bombed gaza on September 26. Just one of a number of bombings prior to Oct. 7.

Oct. 7 was an attrocity and retribution is not a problem, however Israel has sought to destroy the entirety of Gaza and in doing so killed 34,000 people and wounded another 75k and created a humanitarian situation that they need never have.

They can surgically strike a consulate in syria, but they have to absolutely level gaza? Doesn't make much sense

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053755#Comment_122053755

My school has someone come in to address us about the rendition flights in Shannon.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053762#Comment_122053762

And they treat millions of palestinans as sub human.

Lazy, tired, but Israel is progressive because eof LGBT rights.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054026#Comment_122054026

The usage of white phosphorus is restricted under international humanitarian law. Although there can be lawful uses, it must never be fired at, or in close proximity to, a populated civilian area or civilian infrastructure, due to the high likelihood that the fires and smoke it causes spread. Such attacks, which fail to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and fighters and military objectives, are indiscriminate and thus prohibited.

Given that gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth, there was no way it's use could ever be considered anything but unlawful by Israel

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054179#Comment_122054179

No more rockets launched from Gaza would be a good start. Until that happens no one have the right to tell Israel to stop.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053907#Comment_122053907

I'm not arguing in bad faith. You don't seem to get it. You say it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed so long as results in Hamas being Killed. You are arguing that the end justifies the means. And therefore any means can be used. You literally said "By any means necessary". So where does that stop for you? Is it chemical weapons? Would it be ok to drop toxins on them?

Is it ok to starve millions? Is it ok to cut off water from millions of civilians in a desert environment? Is it ok to bomb as many civilians as possible on the off chance someone from Hamas might be present? How many children's deaths are ok?

What war crimes do you think is acceptable? Because you literally said "By any means necessary" and I'm wondering if you mean it literally.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054672#Comment_122054672

Again ignoring Israel was firing rockets first in all this.

Also, how about all stolen lands and houses are returned and an agreement that all illegal settlements won't happen in future.

It's a 2 way streetz however, Israels side of the street is a 10 lane motorway compared to a regional road in terms of what's being inflicted

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122044024#Comment_122044024

I really can’t let this one go. So they’ll deliver post to rapists, murders and pedos in this country but won’t deliver post to or from anyone in Israel from Ireland. This is indefensible. Are our post office overlords going to decide what political parties are allowed to send fliers through the post next? This is a very slippery slope.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054799#Comment_122054799

Possibly, but people feel the need to act when there's inaction towards a grave injustice.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054829#Comment_122054829

Postal workers really don’t have the right to make that call and keep their jobs. It doesn’t matter how firmly they believe in any cause it’s far outside their remit. Even the most abhorrent criminal is entitled to receive and send mail it should be screened as appropriate by the relevant authorities not some busybody.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054829#Comment_122054829

Not acting - it's virtue signaling, accomplishing nothing.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054798#Comment_122054798

"Again ignoring Israel was firing rockets first in all this"

That's news. Israel's been firing rockets into Gaza since 2001?

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054672#Comment_122054672

Maybe Israel should leave if it cant get on with its neighbours? - Since we are throwing out stupid suggestions.

Or maybe Israel could treats her captives as equals, by captives I mean the Palestinian people she keeps locked up in Gaza and the others in the west bank who are treated as third class citizens at best, just before Israel decides to steal more land and give it to some fat American who wants to reconnect with their god - how holy of them. An unbelievably ironic group of land grabbing a-holes(Israelis' who agree and benefit with current policy NOT THE JEWISH PEOPLE they are not the same) especially considering the history.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054964#Comment_122054964

The Postal workers will feel better by boycotting the Israeli mail.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054867#Comment_122054867

Everyone has the right to strike if they have a union.

Weepsie

Well Israel fired rockets at Palestinian targets on 70s and 80s. "Preemptive" airstrikes how it gets framed by people tying themselves up to say violence and terror from one side is okay

Immediately prior to Hamas starting it's first rockets, the IDF fired approx 1 millions rounds.of munitions and Palestinians protesting in the gaza and the west bank. This was 1999/2000. So what point will we arbitrarily designate as the start of this, as it in reality goes back to well before the creation of the state of Israel when there were extreme Zionist groups fighting extreme groups of a Palestinians persuasion and the only common thing they had was a dislike of British rule.

Weepsie

And maybe have a read of the 54th session of the UN general assembly which is unequivocal in it's criticism of Israel and its less than stellar treatment of Palestinians, particularly in the 1990-1999 period, a time of relative peace. A time in which Israel was being heavily criticized for illegal settlements and a practice of "interning" Palestinians without charge , generally for years and years.

We must always acknowledge the terror coming from groups such as Hamas, PLO and whomever next fills the role, but it's not happening, and has never happened in a vacuum. Israel has been guilty of terrorism and colonisation. They have been repeatedly told their colonisation was illegal, that they are an occupying force, yet they carry on, emboldened by people who want to trip over themselves to accuse anyone who dare calls it out as antisemitic or a hater of Jewish people because they can't have an adult discussion about it

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054235#Comment_122054235

Two items:

1. The initial post I responded to flatly stated that the use of WP as a weapon was banned. This is not the case, and the text you quote does not refute this.

2. When discussing authorised ways to kill and maim people, Amnesty International (At least, that's what the text googles back to) may be just a teensy bit biased. When discussing international law, it's always better to go look at… well.. the law.

https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/PROTOCOL%2BIII.pdf

If you read only AI's text, you might get the impression that "it is […] prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons". However, the very next words of the law are "except when…". You can certainly make an argument (non-definitive, mind), that Israel has not been keeping to the 'except when' caveats as applied, but as a matter of international law, Amnesty's interpretation in that paragraph (at least as taken in isolation as quoted) is not correct. You can't argue with the text of the treaty.

Weepsie

And if we add the except when, you can see that AMnestys text is different, but it's actually not all that different in meaning. It even says they're are permitted uses.

except when such military objective is clearly separated from the
concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the
incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing,
incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

There is virtually nowhere in Gaza , due to its population density than can not be considered civilian infrastructure

Israel really has no leg to stand on in terms of it's use of incendiary devices.

If you're going to try and say well this is what the law says but not actually say it because it backs up that Israel is wholly in the wrong using such weapons then don't bothr

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054672#Comment_122054672

So Israel has an inalienable right to commit genocide (which they describe as "self defense"), but the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves? Make it make sense.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054799#Comment_122054799

Since you used the words "Slippery slope" it's only fair that I post the wiki article about it so you can see what bull a slippery slope argument is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053119#Comment_122053119

Who is going to teach them?? I think the clue is in their name “TEACHERS for Palestine.”

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053715#Comment_122053715

Was Hamas hiding in the car with Hind when Israel murdered her? We they using the doctors and other medical staff being used as human shields when Israel bound their hands behind their backs and executed them? What about the Catholic nuns murdered by Israeli snipers, did they have Hamas hiding under their habits??

You’re excusing the worst one of the worst genocides since The Final Solution. History won’t be kind to you.

Sir_Name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054026#Comment_122054026

Related to the use of white phosphorus - under article two - point 2 & 3 is quite clear in this definition.

Two fundamental components of Protocol III are often overlooked, and this has added to the confusion regarding WP and Protocol III. First, Protocol III does not ban the use of incendiary weapons during armed conflict, but it proscribes their use in four specific ways, which are described below. Second, Protocol III’s four specific limitations on the use of incendiary weapons are designed to protect civilians, not combatants.

Article 1 of the protocol defines an “incendiary weapon” as “any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.” Article 1(b)(i) excludes from the definition munitions “which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling [sic] systems.”

White phosphorus is primarily designed to take advantage of its smoke-producing properties to mark or illuminate targets, mask friendly force movement, and the like. The incendiary effects of WP are incidental to the illuminant and smoke effects it is designed to produce. Thus, WP munitions fall squarely into the exclusions of Protocol III’s definition of an “incendiary weapon.”

Napalm is the most infamous example of an incendiary weapon that is governed by Protocol III. Napalm is specifically designed to set things on fire. However, while napalm meets the definition of an “incendiary weapon,” its use, like all other Protocol III-governed weapons, is not per se prohibited but is only subject to the four specific and narrow limitations found in Article 2.

Article 2, titled “Protection of civilians and civilian objects,” prohibits four uses of incendiary weapons:

- Making civilian or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

- Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with air-delivered incendiary weapons.

- Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with a non-air-delivered incendiary weapon, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken to minimize collateral damage.

- Making forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055026#Comment_122055026

Maybe Israel should leave if it cant get on with its neighbours? - Since we are throwing out stupid suggestions.

Maybe you should find some stupid person to reply to your stupid question.

Or maybe Israel could treats her captives as equals, by captives I mean the Palestinian people

They tried, but there's no living in peace with people who wants the destruction of Israel.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054221#Comment_122054221

Israel existed for thousands of years. Hamas (and their funding from Iran, amongst others) is probably around for 50 years. There is no fully recognized palestinian sovereign state, nor has there ever been (british colonial holdings or ottoman provinces don't qualify). I'm willing to bet that Hamas fired the first shot. Not that that matters. Israel is a sovereign state, hamas is a bunch of terrorist morons who hide behind the population that elected them.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056041#Comment_122056041

it’s perfectly valid and if the party names were swapped it would have great support.

They didn’t try, if they wanted to try they would stay within their own borders and not continue to steal land on the West Bank and continue to impose an open air prison in Gaza.