Followup on alledged Israeli war crimes

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.law.idf.il/163-7596-en/Patzar.aspx

Pretty long and dry but some important points from it:

The Siyam family that had 13 killed in a mortar attack despite being non-combatants:

Oops, those were shortfalling Hamas rounds.

The powerplant that got hit:

A tank fired on a Hamas anti-tank squad right next to the powerplant. A fuel tank got a hole poked in it as a result.

Hamas had a bunch of forces there, using the powerplant as cover.

And the morons at Human Rights Watch feel it should be an invulnerable shield:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/10/gaza-widespread-impact-power-plant-attack

 

[ronburgundy]

http://www.law.idf.il/163-7596-en/Patzar.aspx

Pretty long and dry but some important points from it:

The Siyam family that had 13 killed in a mortar attack despite being non-combatants:

Oops, those were shortfalling Hamas rounds.

The powerplant that got hit:

A tank fired on a Hamas anti-tank squad right next to the powerplant. A fuel tank got a hole poked in it as a result.

Hamas had a bunch of forces there, using the powerplant as cover.

And the morons at Human Rights Watch feel it should be an invulnerable shield:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/10/gaza-widespread-impact-power-plant-attack

The reason Hamas used the power plant as cover is they were hoping that the Israelis had more basic human decency than they themselves do. They were wrong.

It is the same reason that bank robbers take a bunch of people hostage. They assume the police have the basic human decency not to murder a bunch of innocent hostages just to try and catch a bank robber. And cop that did so should be convicted of mass murder.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Palestinians are denying they were at the power plant and the Israelis deny their shells hit it so things are not clear. This may clear up if some evidence such as identifying where the shells were manufactured and the brand etc.

Strategically it would be idiotic to use a power plant as cover in case any combustibles were near by such as gas tanks and oil. It would be almost as dumb as holing up in a dynamite facility.

Giving both sides the benefit of the doubt, it's often not clear in the chaos of war where people were located in battle and who fired some of the shells and missiles. Reporters are the worst source for giving information in such situations.

 

[laughing dog]

Ignoring the obvious conflict of interest of having the IDF investigate claims against itself, the OP blindly accepts the findings of the IDF.

 

[ronburgundy]

Ignoring the obvious conflict of interest of having the IDF investigate claims against itself, the OP blindly accepts the findings of the IDF.

Even if one accepts their findings, what they found is that Israel blew up the major power plant in the area which was guaranteed to cause mass suffering, simply because their desire to hit a minor military target was stronger than the zero regard for innocent civilian lives and the harm to them certain to be caused by their actions.
IOW, they did commit war crimes. "Oops" is not a valid excuse.

 

[Malintent]

http://www.law.idf.il/163-7596-en/Patzar.aspx

Pretty long and dry but some important points from it:

The Siyam family that had 13 killed in a mortar attack despite being non-combatants:

Oops, those were shortfalling Hamas rounds.

The powerplant that got hit:

A tank fired on a Hamas anti-tank squad right next to the powerplant. A fuel tank got a hole poked in it as a result.

Hamas had a bunch of forces there, using the powerplant as cover.

And the morons at Human Rights Watch feel it should be an invulnerable shield:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/10/gaza-widespread-impact-power-plant-attack

The reason Hamas used the power plant as cover is they were hoping that the Israelis had more basic human decency than they themselves do. They were wrong.

It is the same reason that bank robbers take a bunch of people hostage. They assume the police have the basic human decency not to murder a bunch of innocent hostages just to try and catch a bank robber. And cop that did so should be convicted of mass murder.

So if combatants seize control of a hospital, the opposing side cannot take action, because they would be wrong for doing so. got it. where were you in the Korean War when the Chinese took MASH units and used them for cover.. .you could have saved a whole lot of North Korean lives (at the expense of American and European troops - but whatever, just as long as WE play how YOU would call fair regardless of the enemy's tactics).

 

[ronburgundy]

The reason Hamas used the power plant as cover is they were hoping that the Israelis had more basic human decency than they themselves do. They were wrong.

It is the same reason that bank robbers take a bunch of people hostage. They assume the police have the basic human decency not to murder a bunch of innocent hostages just to try and catch a bank robber. And cop that did so should be convicted of mass murder.

So if combatants seize control of a hospital, the opposing side cannot take action, because they would be wrong for doing so. got it. where were you in the Korean War when the Chinese took MASH units and used them for cover.. .you could have saved a whole lot of North Korean lives (at the expense of American and European troops - but whatever, just as long as WE play how YOU would call fair regardless of the enemy's tactics).

It isn't a matter of what I call fair but what any defensible system of ethics would call having basic human decency and not objectively being a murderer (which is what you are when your deliberate actions are virtually guaranteed to kill innocent people). At minimum, the military target must be of such high value that the innocent lives saved by the action which could not have been taken any other way exceed the harm to life caused.
That doesn't appear to be remotely the case in this instance.

If a guy with a gun runs into a hospital, is it morally acceptable to blow the hospital up in order to get him? Not by the ethics of any non socio-path, or fortunately any US or International law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.law.idf.il/163-7596-en/Patzar.aspx

Pretty long and dry but some important points from it:

The Siyam family that had 13 killed in a mortar attack despite being non-combatants:

Oops, those were shortfalling Hamas rounds.

The powerplant that got hit:

A tank fired on a Hamas anti-tank squad right next to the powerplant. A fuel tank got a hole poked in it as a result.

Hamas had a bunch of forces there, using the powerplant as cover.

And the morons at Human Rights Watch feel it should be an invulnerable shield:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/10/gaza-widespread-impact-power-plant-attack

The reason Hamas used the power plant as cover is they were hoping that the Israelis had more basic human decency than they themselves do. They were wrong.

The powerplant caught a stray bit from the Israeli shot. It wasn't aimed at the powerplant. If Israel actually was shooting at the powerplant it wouldn't be there anymore.

It is the same reason that bank robbers take a bunch of people hostage. They assume the police have the basic human decency not to murder a bunch of innocent hostages just to try and catch a bank robber. And cop that did so should be convicted of mass murder.

But if they are shooting at the cops from behind those hostages the hostages are likely to die in the crossfire and the cops will not be charged--legally it's treated as if the bank robbers had shot them. (Yes, there are occasional cases along these lines--the cop isn't in a position to simply retreat and so they shoot despite the presence of a hostage.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinians are denying they were at the power plant and the Israelis deny their shells hit it so things are not clear. This may clear up if some evidence such as identifying where the shells were manufactured and the brand etc.

Strategically it would be idiotic to use a power plant as cover in case any combustibles were near by such as gas tanks and oil. It would be almost as dumb as holing up in a dynamite facility.

Giving both sides the benefit of the doubt, it's often not clear in the chaos of war where people were located in battle and who fired some of the shells and missiles. Reporters are the worst source for giving information in such situations.

They're far enough away that they're not going to be crisped if the plant does catch something--and it's not Hollywood, anyway--if it does catch something it doesn't go boom.

And this isn't idiot reporters who care far more about first than accurate, this is skilled investigators who spent a long time looking into the war crime allegations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring the obvious conflict of interest of having the IDF investigate claims against itself, the OP blindly accepts the findings of the IDF.

Even if one accepts their findings, what they found is that Israel blew up the major power plant in the area which was guaranteed to cause mass suffering, simply because their desire to hit a minor military target was stronger than the zero regard for innocent civilian lives and the harm to them certain to be caused by their actions.
IOW, they did commit war crimes. "Oops" is not a valid excuse.

Obviously you didn't read the report.

The powerplant wasn't blown up, it suffered minor damage.

And it wasn't a desire to hit a minor military target--the target was an anti-tank squad. Had the tank not fired the tank and crew would be dead. Obviously, dead Israelis don't matter to you.

Furthermore, once a target is put to military use it loses all immunity. Israel could have dropped all they want on the Hamas forces around it without it being a war crime.

- - - Updated - - -

So if combatants seize control of a hospital, the opposing side cannot take action, because they would be wrong for doing so. got it. where were you in the Korean War when the Chinese took MASH units and used them for cover.. .you could have saved a whole lot of North Korean lives (at the expense of American and European troops - but whatever, just as long as WE play how YOU would call fair regardless of the enemy's tactics).

It isn't a matter of what I call fair but what any defensible system of ethics would call having basic human decency and not objectively being a murderer (which is what you are when your deliberate actions are virtually guaranteed to kill innocent people). At minimum, the military target must be of such high value that the innocent lives saved by the action which could not have been taken any other way exceed the harm to life caused.
That doesn't appear to be remotely the case in this instance.

If a guy with a gun runs into a hospital, is it morally acceptable to blow the hospital up in order to get him? Not by the ethics of any non socio-path, or fortunately any US or International law.

One guy running into a hospital, no. That's not what we are talking about.

And note that Israel still hasn't fired upon the Hamas military HQ despite knowing where it is--because it's in the basement of the main hospital in Gaza.