Israel-Hamas War 2023

[The Brain]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

You are conflating Palestine with HAMAS, HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Not a state.

I don't follow.

[crazy canuck]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

You are conflating Palestine with HAMAS, HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Not a state.

I don't follow.

We were talking about the terrorist attack of Hamas on October 7th of last year.

[The Brain]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

You are conflating Palestine with HAMAS, HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Not a state.

I don't follow.

We were talking about the terrorist attack of Hamas on October 7th of last year.

The attack by Palestine on Israel?

[crazy canuck]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

You are conflating Palestine with HAMAS, HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Not a state.

I don't follow.

We were talking about the terrorist attack of Hamas on October 7th of last year.

The attack by Palestine on Israel?

I am not sure why any informed person would post such nonsense.

[The Brain]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

You are conflating Palestine with HAMAS, HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Not a state.

I don't follow.

We were talking about the terrorist attack of Hamas on October 7th of last year.

The attack by Palestine on Israel?

I am not sure why any informed person would post such nonsense.

`

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

[crazy canuck]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

[Iormlund]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

Are you really trying to say Hamas was not the government of Gaza when it orchestrated the Oct 7 attacks?

[The Brain]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

If your government/armed forces are terrorists you get to attack other countries without consequence? I'm just not sure on the details of the rules of war.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't follow.

To the extent a Palestinian state exists, either de jure or de facto, it is associated with the Palestinian Authority.  But the PA has no army.  So, there is no Palestinian "resistance" organization that could be a lawful belligerent. It certainly can't be Hamas, which has no recognition at all.

Even absent a lawful belligerent, however, if an organized resistance movement exists within the jurisdiction of a state (here, Israel), it can be entitled to claim certain rights under the Geneva conventions. But that requires that the organized resistance movement adhere to certain standards.  Hamas does not.  Therefore, it cannot claim protections under the Geneva Conventions.  But Gazan civilians can because the rules of war that protect civilian populations still apply to the IDF.

[Barrister]

Are you really trying to say Hamas was not the government of Gaza when it orchestrated the Oct 7 attacks?

So as I understand it - the Allies weren't (or shouldn't) be able to say that "well the Nazis are monsters, therefore we don't give them Geneva Convention protections".

Hitler and the Nazis aren't a super-great example because some of these rules and norms developed right after WWII, but you start to get the idea.

Hamas (and Hezbollah) are terrorist organizations.  They make that clear every day.  To the extent they operate as a more organized military force they get the protections of the "rules of war".

The problem is - they don't.  No uniforms, attack civilians, hide amongst civilians, civilian hostages - they seem to reject all of those rules and conventions.

It's not because of who they are though.  Hamas, as the de facto government of Gaza could and should certainly use those "rules of war" protections if they so wished - even although they've carried out terrorist attacks in the past.

The problem is they do almost everything they can to reject those rules, except to the extent it benefits them.

[Iormlund]

It's not because of who they are though.  Hamas, as the de facto government of Gaza.

Not just de facto. They won the 2006 elections.

[Grey Fox]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

Are you really trying to say Hamas was not the government of Gaza when it orchestrated the Oct 7 attacks?

That's been CC's point since day 1.

[Barrister]

It's not because of who they are though.  Hamas, as the de facto government of Gaza.

Not just de facto. They won the 2006 elections.

So just to be clear - those elections were for Gaza and West Bank together.  Hamas won overwhelmingly in Gaza, while the results were mixed in West Bank, leading to a narrow Hamas victory overall.

But rather than Hamas try to rule a divided Palestinian Legislative Counsel with a narrow majority, Hamas preferred to just take control over Gaza, while Fatah took control over the West Bank.  No elections have been held since.  Nobody recognizes Gaza as an independent country.

So de facto seems correct here.

[Iormlund]

It's not because of who they are though.  Hamas, as the de facto government of Gaza.

Not just de facto. They won the 2006 elections.

So just to be clear - those elections were for Gaza and West Bank together.  Hamas won overwhelmingly in Gaza, while the results were mixed in West Bank, leading to a narrow Hamas victory overall.

But rather than Hamas try to rule a divided Palestinian Legislative Counsel with a narrow majority, Hamas preferred to just take control over Gaza, while Fatah took control over the West Bank.  No elections have been held since.  Nobody recognizes Gaza as an independent country.

So de facto seems correct here.

That's ... a way of looking at it.

Another is that Haniyeh was the de iure prime minister of Palestine.
After the elections the international community freaked out (wonder why) and moved to help Fatah overthrow Hamas (the legitimate government). Which they were unable to do in Gaza.

Which makes Hamas the de iure government of Palestine, and (until recently) de facto government of Gaza.

[Barrister]

Which makes Hamas the de iure government of Palestine, and (until recently) de facto government of Gaza.

This sounds like that conspiracy group in Germany that maintains the present government is illegitimate because the German Reich (lef by the Kaiser, not Hitler) still exists and the current Federal Republic is illegitimate.

Hamas never ruled all of Palestine through the PLC.  The PLC collapsed shortly after that 2006 election.

Who knows - maybe some day Hamas will rule all of Palestine - either the west Bank/Gaza version, or the entire "River to the Sea".  But it will not be on the strength of the 2006 Palestinian election.

So I think de facto rulers of Gaza is the most correct description.  At least until recently.