Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

I was wondering why Israel hasn't moved in yet, then just read Biden will travel there and meet with Egypt Jordan and some Palestinian representatives as well. I am thinking maybe the US has intel that Iran means business and are offering a face-saving way for Israel to not go Old Testament on Hamas. Which would be good for the civilians but would greatly embolden Hamas.

[Sheilbh]

I also read that the estimates of Hamas' tunnel network within Gaza is that it's over 500km long. So I imagine there is a fair bit or preparation - plus giving a more realistic chance for residents in the North of Gaza to get out.

It's worth pointing out there are fairly significant casualties from the air campaign already.

But yeah I believe Blinken's done something like 10-15 stops in 5 days in the region and now Biden is going for a one day trip where he'll met at least Netanyahu, Sisi, Abbas and King Abdullah. So the US has been incredibly active on shuttle diplomacy.

[Zoupa]

Wtf. They dug 500 km of tunnels and now cry about Israel turning off the water? They couldn't dig wells?

[crazy canuck]

Professor Byers as now written an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail

As a democracy, Israel should exercise restraint
MICHAEL BYERS
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY


Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

There is no equivalency between Hamas and Israel.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that deliberately targets civilians. The Oct. 7 attacks were designed to cause horrific suffering. War crimes were committed, and Israel has the right to pursue the perpetrators – to capture them if possible, and kill them if not. Israel, in contrast, is a democratic state with an unwritten constitution, a still mostly independent judiciary, peaceful changes of government, and a tradition of spirited debate.

Two decades ago, as a visiting professor at Tel Aviv University, I taught a course on the laws of war. The Israeli Defense Forces sent a dozen of their young lawyers to study with me. We had many spirited debates.

It was during the Second Intifada. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, had recently been assassinated in Gaza by an Israeli missile. The strike was an attempt to stop a wave of suicide bombings in buses and cafés in Tel Aviv. Mr. Yassin was partly blind and confined to a wheelchair. Could he be part of the kill chain and therefore a legitimate target?

Thanks to my students, I learned that where you stand on this question depends on where you sit – in an office in Vancouver, or on a bus in Tel Aviv.

Israelis are feeling even more vulnerable today. They are also burning with rage. The nature of the Oct. 7 atrocities and their dissemination on video have ripped open Holocaust scars that were never fully closed.

But while the demand for retribution is understandable, it must be resisted.

Israel governs itself under the rule of law. A sovereign state, it has also chosen to ratify numerous international treaties, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Unlike the United Nations Charter, which sets out the rules governing the recourse to force, including self-defence, the Geneva Conventions concern international humanitarian law – the rules governing the conduct of armed conflicts.

At the moment, it is impossible to say whether Israel's target selection in Gaza complies with those rules.

It is at least conceivable that Israel is only targeting Hamas's military infrastructure, its leadership and militia members. It is even conceivable that Israeli military lawyers have, in each instance, balanced the military necessity of the strike against the anticipated deaths and injuries to civilians.

However, we can say that, when bombs are dropped in densely populated neighbourhoods, the military advantage would have to be enormous to exceed the civilian harm.

We can also say that in no circumstance may attacks on civilians or civilian infrastructure be justified by similar violations on the other side. Hamas's use of civilians as human shields is illegal, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Finally, there are two rules which Israel is clearly violating.

The first is the prohibition on collective punishment, which extends beyond "collective penalties" to include "all measures of intimidation." Cutting off water, food, fuel, and electricity to more than two million people is collective punishment. The siege of Gaza cannot be justified because Hamas is holding hostages: again, two wrongs do not make a right.

The second clearly violated rule is the prohibition on forcible transfers within or from an occupied territory, for instance, from Gaza City to southern Gaza. An alleged violation of this rule is the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year.

Israeli lawyers will point out that there is an exception to the rule, namely that transfers may occur "if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But even then, the transferring power "shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."

Clearly, those responsibilities are not being fulfilled in southern Gaza today.

Democratic countries adopt laws to control their own futures. Crafted in times of peace that allow for reflection and debate, laws are intended to guide our actions during moments of crisis and raw emotion.

The same is true among the community of nations.

Hamas seeks to drag Israel into a downward spiral of suffering and retribution, but Israel can prove that it is better than that.

As U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last Thursday: "We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard – even when it's difficult – and holding ourselves to account when we fall short."

Here is the gifted link

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/SECSX6V7NBASVFKBL6QWFZACRY/

[Barrister]

Wtf. They dug 500 km of tunnels and now cry about Israel turning off the water? They couldn't dig wells?

That's been Hamas' MO since 2006 - their own population are hostages, and every depravation their citizens suffer can then be blamed on Israel.

And if I recall correctly - Hamas has polluted the ground water in any event?

[Jacob]

Wtf. They dug 500 km of tunnels and now cry about Israel turning off the water? They couldn't dig wells?

If Israel turns off the water, Gaza will still have access to well water as I understand it. It's just that well water isn't safe to drink unless treated, and Gaza doesn't have water treatment capacity.

[grumbler]

If that story is true most gazans will be dead in 5 to 6 days. If they're not we'll know the story was false.

  You didn't read the story, did you?  Nowhere in it does it say that "most gazans [sic] will be dead in 5 to 6 days."

[grumbler]

The reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.

Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority.  Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption.  The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.

[Sheilbh]

Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority.  Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption.  The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.

Reduction in corruption and also in normal political terms Hamas were the change party to Fatah - and you can easily understand why people might want to kick out Fatah.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.

Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority.  Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption.  The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.

on the other hand: you don't vote for a piece of a (terror-)party's program, but for all of it.

[Maladict]

Reports of Israel bombing a hospital full of refugees, hundreds of casualties.

[Grey Fox]

Reported by Hamas.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There is wider reporting on the hospital strike, but most of it coming from Hamas or Palestinian related groups, Israel has said they have no details on whether they bombed it or not.

[Maladict]

IDF is now saying it was a failed Hamas launch.

[Gups]

IDF is now saying it was a failed Hamas launch.

That seems vanishingly unlikely.