At Least 300 Dead In GAZA HOSPITAL BOMBING

That's all he's got. And he's going by a 22 year old newspaper article, to boot; which was from before Hamas took over in 2006-- allowing them plenty of opportunity since, to dig tunnels, and store munitions in places that aren't so well known that they've been reported on, in the Washington Post.

Jack Hays does not let facts lead to his opinion, but rather has his predetermined opinions dictate what speculations, he will accept to be, "the facts."

 

Again: so speaketh Jack Hays.
Do you not realize that your personal word about this, is meaningless? Or that such a grand statement as yours, requires backing with substantial supporting evidence?

But quite clearly, providing proof to verify your claims, is just not your style-- which is why, it is so easy to just discard your random remarks. As far as the rules of debate are concerned, my saying "you're wrong," has a validity, equal to that of any of your unsupported claims.

 

I thought of that possibility earlier. In fact I typed something to the effect that the only possible motivation for Israel doing such a thing might be they were looking for an excuse to take all their enemies out in one fell swoop. An attempt to provoke them all, if you will. But I dismissed the thought and deleted it because I just can't see it being the case. I did think that someone might come up with that theory and surely enough, you did.

 

No, you are wrong: the killing of civilians is nowhere justified, in international humanitarian law, that is, in the Law of Armed Combat (LOAC), by the fact that some of the enemy may be hiding among them. As I already explained to you, this is judged by the Principle of Proportionality, which is based on the military gain achieved, balanced against the civilian toll. There is no way (to repeat) that any potential weapons store-- which is already quite a speculative jump, we would be assuming to have existed (& burden of proof would be on Israel)-- would have amounted to such a tremendous military gain, as to have justified 500 civilian deaths, or anything similar, as well as the destruction of one, of only a dozen hospitals, for all 2.2 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. See Articles 9 & 10, below*:


<Snip>
Note-1: All civilians are protected from being made the object of an attack. There are no subcategories of civilians. For instance, there is no category of “innocent civilians” as distinct from other civilians. Nor is any allowance given to attacking civilians who politically support an organized armed group or a State. They all count the same as any other civilian.

Note-2: The only time there is an exception to this rule, which is likely to have little or no relevance to the central issues in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, is if and for such time as a civilian takes up arms (ie., joins the fight on either side). Only in that circumstance can a civilian lose their immunity from attack, and only for so long as they are directly participating in hostilities.

Note-3: The obligation to direct attacks only against combatants and military objects and never to direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects is known as the “basic rule” of international humanitarian law and comes under the “principle of distinction.” A related prohibition is that of indiscriminate attacks. Attackers must refrain from using weapons that cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets. For example, firing a missile that is of a nature to strike a military objective and civilians or civilian objects without distinction can amount to a war crime (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 51(4)).

*9. Attacks that disproportionately harm civilians = war crimes
A fundamental precept in LOAC is the rule of proportionality.

The rule is straightforward: *Combatants must refrain from a military attack if the expected loss of civilian life or injury to civilians incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.

Violations of this rule can be a war crime.

It is important to recall the state of mind required for conduct to be criminal. Purposefully or recklessly killing civilians in violation of the rule of proportionality can amount to a war crime. In contrast, an attack that results in disproportionate loss of civilian life due to negligence would be unlawful, though not criminal.

Proportionate to what? In public discourse, commentators often compare the number of civilians lost on one side of a conflict versus the other. That is not what is meant by proportionality under the laws of war applicable during armed conflict. Those comparisons may be best discussed in terms of morality or in terms of a separate body of international law governing the necessary and proportionate use of force in self-defense. In LOAC, a proportionality assessment takes into account the expected civilian harm as compared to the concrete and direct military advantage that is expected to be gained as of the time of the attack.

*10. Targeting civilian infrastructure and disproportionality targeting civilian infrastructure = war crime
The same two rules just discussed with respect to civilian persons (8 and 9) also apply to civilian objects. The protection of civilian infrastructure is often a vitally important issue in urban warfare.

*Directly targeting civilian objects is strictly forbidden and constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflict. Likewise, combatants must refrain from a military attack if the expected damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Violations of that rule of proportionality may amount to a war crime if done purposefully or recklessly.

Important note on residential apartment buildings with military units inside

Israel apparently adopts a highly unusual view of LOAC that would allow greater license to destroy an
entire residential apartment building in which an enemy military facility is found — and to do so without the standard proportionality analysis. The generally accepted view is that an attack on a civilian apartment building in such cases must consider whether the civilian infrastructure that is expected to be destroyed is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage (ICRC, United States, International Law Association; ICRC report surveying States’ views and leading scholarship). The outlier position adopted by Israel is that “as a matter of law, the building is a single military objective, and therefore damage to other parts of the building need not be considered as collateral damage” (Merriam & Schmitt 2015; Eli Bar-On 2021). This conception of the rule does not appear to include a limiting principle that would apply to other civilian objects, including medical facilities, houses of worship, schools, and the like.
[/QUOTE]

https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/...ict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/#:~:text=Directly targeting civilians is strictly,the object of an attack

 

interesting theoretical possibility.......and ever so callous. But longstanding fear and rage can warp a mind to behaving just that way.
It iseasy to become reactive to a sensational event like the terrorist attack (Hamas). But the total picture needs to be kept in perspective. This is a culminating of a long history of hatred and prejudice. The dynamics are complicated.

 

I am not advocating this, as my position, but only thinking logically about the argument that numerous members have put forth, "what would be in it for Israel?" While I don't think that it is even a realistic expectation, that all things that happen in war, can be seen through a strictly rational lens of risk vs. reward, nevertheless-- if we assume all of: Israeli culpability, Israeli intention, and Israeli calculated benefit-- then that would be the most obvious explanation.

 

Jesus-- this is why I have urged you, in the past, to be more clear, in your meaning. All you had written, was " Explain." So I gave a general explanation of the post you had quoted. Now, I realize that you had bolded some words at the bottom of my post-- but not in such a way, as to make them stand out, to me-- which is really all you were asking about.

Though I like that you are changing your previous habit, of only quoting a few words from my posts-- you do not necessarily need the whole post if, within it, I talk about different things, as I had, here. IOW, either you should have added to your reply, "(Explain) what you're saying about my <WB Kelso's> link," or you should have only quoted the part, about your link. Or, you could have quoted the whole thing, but made the beginning part, obviously smaller, than the part you were asking about; or you could have colorized the part, about which you were asking.

Anyway, yeah-- read the thread; I explain, a couple of times, why your link does not point to what you purport it does. I saw no rocket, from among the fusillade, that went so far off course, as to head in the hospital's direction. Also, all the intercepted rockets, had much, much, much smaller payloads, than whatever hit the hospital.

Subsequently, another of B. Newhart's links, at the top of page 3, shows the same scene, but focused on the rocket that supposedly went off course. After showing its destruction, the camera pans quickly down to the hospital, which we see is already ablaze.

I might as well update you, at this point (though I've yet to look more deeply into this, myself) that I later found out from a post (on page 8 ) by Izzy, who seems to be following these developments rather closely, that the explanation blaming Islamic Jihad's rockets, put out by some Israeli source, with a video of those rockets passing over the hospital, was pointed out by a NY TIMES reporter, to have a time stamp of 20 minutes after the hospital had been struck. So the manufacture of false evidence, certainly is a poor reflection on the honesty and trustworthiness of Israeli sources-- and I see the same mentality, in this thread, among some who just automatically assume Palestinians are always to blame, and always lying (even when there are foreign journalists, confirming the story), and that Israel is never at fault, no matter how many times they need to change the explanation, to justify them. IOW, these are not credible, or even sincere arguments.

 

Not in the video which I had seen. I have heard of another one, but that was debunked by a reporter from the NY Times, who pointed out the video's timestamp, was 20 minutes after the hospital had been hit. See Izzy's post, on page 8.

 

I expect you already know, but to be clear, I definitely don't assume any Israeli culpability. I'm more inclined to believe their version of events. But I have an open mind and feel it's of utmost importance that we learn the truth. I'm hearing that Israel has intercepted recordings of Jihadists that corroborates their story so maybe that will help. It also sounds like the number of victims was drastically inflated. I also read that the hospital is still standing. Not flattened and most of the explosion may have hit a courtyard that was being used as a shelter. Maybe the rocket fuel burning since it would not have been depleted?

 

Saying that the hospital was not destroyed, is a ridiculous contention-- as if that wasn't something verifiable.































You realize that all these photos were not taken by Hamas, right?

 

Oh, did you go recently to Hamas's Jihadist summer camp, as well?

 

All the missiles were fired over the hospital. One fell short and landed on the hospital. It didn't change directions.

 

A terrorist organization claims 500 people have been killed in one strike. The world believes them, without proof. Why? Why would anyone believe what a terrorist organization says? They also say that terrorists killed in action go to paradise and enjoy eternal bliss with the generous help of 72 virgins. Do you believe that too?

I'm waiting for the list of 500 names.

 

Would 100 people be ok? Earlier that day the hospital courtyard was shown with hundreds sheltering there while a doctor was being interviewed regarding the impossible request of moving all the patients south. The inside of the hospital was packed with people. Now the site is just rubble. Where do you think those people went?

 

Well, since it's you, who says so...


What about the other ten hospitals that have been hit, so far?

 

I don't use my imagination to form a belief either way. I'm just waiting for proof.

 

Except it's not just "a terrorist organization," which is claiming that it was Israel which hit the hospital: Palestinian authorities have, as well-- but they're all terrorists, right?

Can I get your take on this Wall Street Journal video? It is only 2 1/2 mins., and the last 30 secs. is about Biden-- so it will take 2 minutes of your time. It gives the claims of both sides. The Palestinian envoy to the U.N., Riyad Mansour, points out that just a week ago, the spokesperson for the army had told them to "clear out the hospitals-- the hospitals are targets." This was because Israel wanted the people out of the area, not in the hospitals. And now, a week later, a hospital gets clobbered. Are you unable to see that, from an objective perspective-- that is, one not beginning with the assumption that all Palestinians are liars, and that all Israelis are beyond reproach, if it is possible for you to think of both as just "humans"-- there's certainly reason to be less than certain of what happened? Or even to feel that the Palestinian case, for an Israeli strike, might seem a bit stronger than the Israeli case, for a rocket of Islamist Jihad, being able to cause as much damage as photos suggest was done to the building?






Then, there's this bit of corroborating evidence, in the statement from the World Health Organization:

<Snip>
WHO strongly condemns the attack on Al Ahli Arab Hospital in the north of the Gaza Strip. The hospital was operational, with patients, health and care givers, and internally displaced people sheltering there. Early reports indicate hundreds of fatalities and injuries.

The hospital was one of 20 in the north of the Gaza Strip facing evacuation orders from the Israeli military. The order for evacuation has been impossible to carry out given the current insecurity, critical condition of many patients, and lack of ambulances, staff, health system bed capacity, and alternative shelter for those displaced.

WHO calls for the immediate active protection of civilians and health care. Evacuation orders must be reversed. International humanitarian law must be abided by, which means health care must be actively protected and never targeted.
<End Snip>

https://www.who.int/news/item/17-10...-hospital-and-reported-large-scale-casualties

 

@Pisa (continued, from last post)

This is why Israel actions have been counterproductive: if Israel really wanted the civilians to evacuate-- again, if you could forget about the nationalities involved-- wouldn't it make more sense to allow that to happen before the air strikes, which might injure some of them; and so, also, to allow them to evacuate without fear of being struck by Israeli missiles? This guarantee, your country was not giving to Palestinian civilians-- even now, it only has given them assurances for some 3-hour windows. And, again, maybe not cut off the fuel, for those who might have vehicles, to drive (thereby speeding their exits). Or are least not cut off food and water, then expect a rush out of the north, on foot, by people who who've been worn down & sleep deprived, from 24 hour air strikes, possibly a lack of food, unavailability of important or even vital medicines, and perhaps quickest to take a toll: suffering from dehydration? And they're supposed to run, with their children, and elderly relatives, carrying what they'll have to assume will be their only possessions in the world, across say 12 miles or maybe much further, in 80 degree heat, beneath potentially strafing fighters, if they can't cover the distance in 3 hours? Let me assure you, that is not the way that any athlete would prepare for a race.

 

How can anyone trust someone with Stockholm Syndrome?

 

Oh, is that how you MAGAs are now referring to yourselves?

 

Do you hear planes in the video? I don't.

What I do hear, reminds me of my personal experience during the first Gulf war. During a missile attack, I was quite close to one of the Patriot batteries. The sound made by the Patriot missiles was very similar to the sound I heard in the video. My suspicion that what hit the hospital were actually rockets fired from the ground was boosted by the nature of the sound - very strong at first, then weaker. A bomb dropped from a plane should make a weaker to strong sound.

Oh, and please don't ever refer to Pisa as a "he". You make Pisa angry.

 

Yes… Hamas did it…. Not Israel.

 

Make America Great Again… why do you hate America?

 

“You realize that all these photos were not taken by Hamas, right?”

So please verify who took these pictures.

 

Sounds more and more like this was a hamas dud. Even al Jazeera is reporting as much.