Israeli ministry 'concept paper' proposes transferring Gaza civilians to Egypt's Sinai, with Canada as a possible final destination

[Gaétan]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Where is this happening?  What anti-black school oppression can you reference today?  You do realize that Israel has left Gaza alone for many years.  It was run by thugs called Hamas that posed a serious security threat to Israel long before the attack.  Gaza doesn’t have to be the way it is.  Whatever Israel did with settlers doesn’t change the unnecessary bad behaviour of the terrorists.  

The oppressed are not terrorists, they are revolted people, the oppressors are the terrorists, don't repeat the lies media pick up from Biden, Trudeau or other unfair people and hypocrites. Do you call the resistance during the war terrorists, Hitler did but the terrorist was him.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Gaétan

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t think that’s accurate.  Hamas victory was narrow garnering 44% of the popular vote and 56% of the seats.
Furthermore I don’t believe that at the time they ran on a “destroy Israel” platform. in fact they ran under the party name “change and reform”Exit polling showed most voters who voted for Hamas did so for domestic/economic reasons and supported a 2-state solution with nearly 80% supporting peace with Israel amd nearly as many saying Has should change its policy towards Israel. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election

At any rate collective punishment of civilians for the actions of their government is officially a war crime, no matter how anyone tries to justify it. 

Sure they did,. Hell they declared that the palestine authority was illigitmate because they had negotiated with israel.

And people might claim that they voted for 'domestic reasons' but they knew what they were buyung.

Here's what a PRO palestinian source had to say about them at the time of the election

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_012

An Islamic party, Hamas is ideologically opposed to the existence of Israel and has denounced the 1993 Oslo Accords, considering them the foundation of a failed diplomatic process, and a betrayal of God's will. 

There was no surprises.  Electing Hamas meant conflict with israel period. They were famous for their suicide bombings for heaven's sake.  Some felt that their rise to power might moderate their attitudes a bit, but that didn't happen.

People attempting to defend palestinians like to point out that not all voted for hamas.  True - but there were like 10 parties or something, They clearly had the strongest and most widespread support. And Canadians have to live with the actions of their gov't all the time and that gov't was elected by far less of the popular vote than hamas was.

Nope. They ran on their platform that israel was illegitimate and had to go, they were well known as terrorists and suicide bombers, they made no bones about it and they were fairly and duely elected - there was quite an inernational presence during the elections monitoring it. 

Now they're going to have to accept what happens as a result of their decisions.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

The oppressed are not terrorists, they are revolted people, the oppressors are the terrorists, don't repeat the lies media pick up from Biden, Trudeau or other unfair people and hypocrites. Do you call the resistance during the war terrorists, Hitler did but the terrorist was him.

You don’t recognize Hamas’s surprise mass murder of civilians for what it is.  Israel has the right to defend its citizens.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

I don't support any murder of innocent people or not but you support the genocide of palestinians as i see. You won't have much chance after your live, you'll be in hell with the israelis army, Poilievre, Trudeau and Doug Ford

But you do. Every time you claim you don't and then follow it up with support for the murder of innocent people in your next breath.

I support israel's right to defense.  Gaza started this war, Israel would be wise to finish it. Permanently. That means go in, wipe out the militants - fight till gaza surrenders and then do whatever you need to in order to make sure they never come into your homes to kill your women and children ever again.

the blood of every single israeli AND every palestinian who dies is on the hands of the Gaza gov't.  A govt elected and supported by the people of gaza.

And i suspect for supporting the murder of innocent people you'll be the one eating fire and brimstone after this life little boy  

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure they did,. Hell they declared that the palestine authority was illigitmate because they had negotiated with israel.

And people might claim that they voted for 'domestic reasons' but they knew what they were buyung.

Here's what a PRO palestinian source had to say about them at the time of the election

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_012

An Islamic party, Hamas is ideologically opposed to the existence of Israel and has denounced the 1993 Oslo Accords, considering them the foundation of a failed diplomatic process, and a betrayal of God's will. 

There was no surprises.  Electing Hamas meant conflict with israel period. They were famous for their suicide bombings for heaven's sake.  Some felt that their rise to power might moderate their attitudes a bit, but that didn't happen.

People attempting to defend palestinians like to point out that not all voted for hamas.  True - but there were like 10 parties or something, They clearly had the strongest and most widespread support. And Canadians have to live with the actions of their gov't all the time and that gov't was elected by far less of the popular vote than hamas was.

Nope. They ran on their platform that israel was illegitimate and had to go, they were well known as terrorists and suicide bombers, they made no bones about it and they were fairly and duely elected - there was quite an inernational presence during the elections monitoring it. 

Now they're going to have to accept what happens as a result of their decisions.

I still think you oversimplify the election and reasons behind it plus it was over 15 years ago. And once again there is no excuse under international law for attacking civilians, period. 
 

Edit:  in fact your own link says exactly what I said. For example:

 

“Many Palestinians indicated that that despite voting for Hamas, they did not support Hamas’ Islamic platform or its focus on violent resistance.  In fact, Palestinian Polls show that fewer than 3% of the Palestinians living in the OccupiedTerritories actually support Hamas’ objective of creating an Islamic state in historic Palestine.  Palestinians voted for Hamas because they wanted change and reform in a dysfunctional system.”

 

It then goes on to list some beneficial things Hamas did like payoff municipal debts etc. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

I still think you oversimplify the election and reasons behind it plus it was over 25 years ago. And once again there is no excuse under international law for attacking civilians, period. 

Well we can look at the people's support for such actions since then if you wish - even for this one. Look at the positive demonstrations in the streets, there were palestinians all over the world demonstrating in large numbers  CELEBRATING the attack, not a one that i saw condemning the attack. 

So i feel like you're going to have a tough time with the position that the palestinians are against this sort of activity

And yes it is PERFECTLY legal under international law to kill civillians if you are targeting a military target and they happen to be killed. There is NO international law against that in the slightest.  If the civvies stand in front of military targets and get blown up, that's no crime.

Lets ger real. If the intent of israel was to kill civillians, the casualties right now would be in the hundreds of thousands. The civvies were all bunched up on the roads and in camps - easy to 'carpet bomb' and wipe out in large numbers. Didn't happen.

So nope - no international laws broken other than by Gaza at the start when it DID deliberately target women and children and civvies. That really was a crime.  And now their people will have to pay the price to make sure that crime isn't repeated by the perps.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I support israel's right to defense. 

Exactly.

If Russia hit Washington and killed over 1, 800 civilians, you would expect the US to rain absolute hell on Russia. The only consequence, is making them absolutely regret their decision and bringing that country to its knees for remotely considering it. Civilian deaths should be minimized, but are the consequences for your reckless acts endangering the US's.

There is a reason why countries would avoid doing so directly, as history shows that the US won't hesitate to wipe a part of you off of the map.

From Atomic bombs, to Agent Orange. The US has been ruthless, if it is within its rights to fight you with the full weight of its military.

I don't understand how Gaza is any different.

You hit their Israel, and then hide under a civilian population, in order to play on histrionics and as a victim. You literally raped and killed thousands of people.

Some had their cars lit ablaze in trying to escape, their charred remains left for all to see. Anyone, stating Hamas is an innocent party, should be forced to watch these videos raw. Families held at gun point, terrified, covered in blood from some of their children already slaughtered right before their eyes.

Civilians cowering in their bunkers, having grenades thrown at them, or if they put up a good fight, having their homes set ablaze, and burned alive.

Anyone feeling there are 250+ live hostages, are delusional. This is part of their social media savvy. This creates pressure on Israel to stop the onslaught. Why is there no footage of the live hostages? You're going to trust a group who beheads women and parades their nearly naked corpses downtown Gaza while "innocent" civilians cheer it on?

Sorry, but any proven military targets are fair game, if you have given the people above them a fair warning. Refuse to leave, and beneath you are top ranking officials, then sorry, but 400 of your souls are going to heaven with them.

Don't want to get the s*** bombed out of you, don't bomb Israel.

You're otherwise fair game.

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And yes it is PERFECTLY legal under international law to kill civillians if you are targeting a military target and they happen to be killed. There is NO international law against that in the slightest.  If the civvies stand in front of military targets and get blown up, that's no crime.

So let’s be clear your original comments suggested that civilians can be intentionally targeted  retribution otherwise why are we even talking about whether they support Hamas or not?  You cannot deliberately target civilians, forcibly deport them, relocate them, starve them etc. Accidental collateral damage is tolerated to a large degree some would say too large but there are still limits for example you can’t bomb a refugee camp full of women and children simply because a terrorist is hiding amongst them.  Every perpetrator of civilian massacres in history has attempted to justify their actions by the fact that some of the people killed in the massacre were legitimate enemy combatants. 

[Gaétan]

The NATO states are rogue states whose leaders only think of stealing from us for the benefit of billionaires and the most corrupt is the United States, they are not democratic states but elected with money A Nazi is not only Hitler but also his soldiers influenced by his propaganda so the Zelinski regime and Netanyahu are Nazi regimes as well as their armies since they meet the definition of Nazis by trying to ethnically cleanse.

[WestCanMan]

If none of the Palestinian refugees can go to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc then why should they come here?

Absolutely not. 

They were shit disturbers and terrorists in the ME for the last 80 years, why would we want to inherit a huge problem? 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Don't want to get the s*** bombed out of you, don't bomb Israel.

It really is just that simple.

You HAVE to find another way. There HAS to be a negotiated way forward that doesn't involve violence and eventually leads to where you want to be.

But for hamas there is no 'compromise', only the complete removal of israel and it's people is acceptable.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So let’s be clear your original comments suggested that civilians can be intentionally targeted  retribution otherwise why are we even talking about whether they support Hamas or not?  

No, my comments have always been clear that you cannot 'target' civillians (by which i mean they are the intended target of the attack)  but that if civillians must be killed to get to a military target or even a legit military objective then that's what happens and that's not a crime, legally or morally. So - if a hamas rocket launcher is surrounded by civvies - you bomb the launcher and you don't worry about the civvies.

Quote

You cannot deliberately target civilians, forcibly deport them, relocate them, starve them etc.

You cannot deliberately target them, and you cannot deliberately starve them or deport them for the sake of doing so as an end goal. But  you absolutely can do all three of those things to attack your enemy in war or deny your enemy resources.  If giving civvies fuel and food means that your enemy military will take that and use it then that's not required.  You ABSOLUTELY can move civvies out of a combat area to a different area or country even if it means they'll be less likely to be killed in the fighting.  And if they deny that and want to stay - now they're combatants.

So yes you can if it's necessary to achieve a military victory.  Which war has that NOT be true in? Certainly none that the us or canada has fought.

 

Quote

Accidental collateral damage is tolerated to a large degree some would say too large but there are still limits for example you can’t bomb a refugee camp full of women and children simply because a terrorist is hiding amongst them.

You can and militaries do all the time.  That is completely legit.  It is expected that the military will do what it can to minimize that but yes you ABSOLUTELY can bomb civillians to get at combatants who are hiding among them, in fact israel just did that and killed a high ranking hamas military leader and destroyed an undeground facility and the world is not condemning them or speaking out.  They put a civillain camp right over their stuff - of course it got bombed.

 

Quote

 Every perpetrator of civilian massacres in history has attempted to justify their actions by the fact that some of the people killed in the massacre were legitimate enemy combatants. 

Who's done that? Who tried that justification? I've never heard that once. either there was a legit reason to believe there's a target there or they are up front with the fact they targeted the civvies.

The nazis were crystal clear they bombed cities to force the people demand politicans surrender. The allies were crystal clear they bombed cities to flood the roads with refugees to hamper german troop movements.  America was crystal clear they nuked japan with the intent to target the civvies to force japan to surrender or be wiped out.

 So what you just said is in fact demonstrably false. We have OFTEN targeted civililan populations directly. THere is always a reason for it, it's not just for the sake of being mean to civvies, but even targeting them directly as a military strategy has been the norm.

Would you like me to cover a bunch of other wars this century or throughout history?  You're just plain wrong here.

 

Look - Beaver, I can respect that you're a good person.  I can respect that you aren't saying this out of support for hamas or hatred of israel.  I get that you genuinely think that what's happening is hurting people and you hate that. It's quite laudable.

But - this is war. This is absolutely what happens in war. This is a perfectly legal and "morally" acceptable way of fighting a war and always has been forever in modern history and old history.  I'm really sorry - wars are horrible horrible things and the best we can hope for is that this one ends sooner rather than later and that when it ends it does so in a way that it never happens again.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by CdnFox

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There HAS to be a negotiated way forward that doesn't involve violence and eventually leads to where you want to be.

Hard to negotiate with people who will only accept an Israel without Jewish people living there.

In fact, its impossible.

Negotiations now, just provide concessions to a group hell bent on destroying your country to the last Jew.

Its only a matter of time before they attempt something similar, having achieved success.

Only options is leaving them so depleted it would take them long to rebuild, and have your border be the most guarded one on the planet, putting the border between North Korea and South Korea to shame.

Having to follow international law, ties their hands.

I would push their border a kilometer inward and booby trap the living daylights out of the buffer zone in between.

 Boggles the mind the border wouldn't be at its most guarded during holy celebrations.

Anyone crossing it, should be bombed on site.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Hard to negotiate with people who will only accept an Israel without Jewish people living there.

In fact, its impossible.

Yes - well remember i was speaking to "them" so to speak   That's what i would have said to them - you MUST make that happen because there's no universe where you are going to drive the israelis in to the sea and no world where they're not going to do exactly that to you if you keep this up.  For Gaza - this ONLY ends with a negotiated peaceful solution or death. Unfortunately that path seems to have been chosen and it's too late now.

Quote

Negotiations now, just provide concessions to a group hell bent on destroying your country to the last Jew.

Yeah - we're past that point now.

Quote

 

Its only a matter of time before they attempt something similar, having achieved success.

Only options is leaving them so depleted it would take them long to rebuild, and have your border be the most guarded one on the planet, putting the border between North Korea and South Korea to shame.

Having to follow international law, ties their hands.

 

To a degree. I think they'll be looking at how to push that envelope
 

Quote

 

I would push their border a kilometer inward and booby trap the living daylights out of the buffer zone in between.

 Boggles the mind the border wouldn't be at its most guarded during holy celebrations.

Anyone crossing it, should be bombed on site.

 

Well they've been down that road before - but i suspect that they'll be looking at something like that.  I hear a few of them are re-watching "escape from new york" for some fresh ideas   Go snake plissken!!!

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So let’s be clear your original comments suggested that civilians can be intentionally targeted  retribution otherwise why are we even talking about whether they support Hamas or not?  You cannot deliberately target civilians, forcibly deport them, relocate them, starve them etc. Accidental collateral damage is tolerated to a large degree some would say too large but there are still limits for example you can’t bomb a refugee camp full of women and children simply because a terrorist is hiding amongst them.  Every perpetrator of civilian massacres in history has attempted to justify their actions by the fact that some of the people killed in the massacre were legitimate enemy combatants. 

You still do not get it, lets be very clear, any force can not "intentionally" target unarmed civilians with the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilian population...to do so is a war crime....

However if Hamas forces are using a refugee camp to lunch raids or rockets into Israel then YES it may fall under a legal target, lets also remember that this value of this target must out way the lose of civilians, meaning one or two Hamas fighters means you might change the method of attack, such as ground attack.... however if it is being used to store weapons', or HQ's or barracks for Hamas, it is all green lights for any type  strike...the exception to that rule is a HVT or high valued target, like bin ladin, or some major figure in that organization, once the target is identified then any means of attack can be authorized.

So yes you can hit a refugee camp if  terrorist are hiding amongst them, the attack has to be proportionate , meaning dropping a 2000 lb bomb would not be the best option, however using ground forces might be.

Once terrorist or enemy combatants hide or use a protected area such as hospital, school, red cross aid station, ambulance, refugee center, for what ever reason other than what it is meant for, it becomes a legal target....regardless of who is there...

You continue to blame Israel for all this death, when it is Hamas that refuses to move the Palestinian people to the south, it is Hamas that steals what limited aid gets into Gaza, it is Hamas that hides among the Palestinian people, it is Hamas that hides under hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings...it is Hamas that owns every single death...

Every has agree Israel has the right to defend itself....but they can not harm Palestinian people, who voted Hamas in as the legal government of Palestine, it is the people that refuse to oust Hamas out of power,   It is the people of Palestine that need to solve this problem... right now it is Israel that is doing all the solving becasue Palestinian people refuse to...

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You still do not get it, lets be very clear, any force can not "intentionally" target unarmed civilians with the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilian population...to do so is a war crime....

However if Hamas forces are using a refugee camp to lunch raids or rockets into Israel then YES it may fall under a legal target, lets also remember that this value of this target must out way the lose of civilians, meaning one or two Hamas fighters means you might change the method of attack, such as ground attack.... however if it is being used to store weapons', or HQ's or barracks for Hamas, it is all green lights for any type  strike...the exception to that rule is a HVT or high valued target, like bin ladin, or some major figure in that organization, once the target is identified then any means of attack can be authorized.

So yes you can hit a refugee camp if  terrorist are hiding amongst them, the attack has to be proportionate , meaning dropping a 2000 lb bomb would not be the best option, however using ground forces might be.

Once terrorist or enemy combatants hide or use a protected area such as hospital, school, red cross aid station, ambulance, refugee center, for what ever reason other than what it is meant for, it becomes a legal target....regardless of who is there...

You continue to blame Israel for all this death, when it is Hamas that refuses to move the Palestinian people to the south, it is Hamas that steals what limited aid gets into Gaza, it is Hamas that hides among the Palestinian people, it is Hamas that hides under hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings...it is Hamas that owns every single death...

Every has agree Israel has the right to defend itself....but they can not harm Palestinian people, who voted Hamas in as the legal government of Palestine, it is the people that refuse to oust Hamas out of power,   It is the people of Palestine that need to solve this problem... right now it is Israel that is doing all the solving becasue Palestinian people refuse to...

At the end of the day this is it. If its necessary to kill civillians to prosecute the war, that's what's going to happen and it's legal and ethical.  War itself is a horrible unethical messy tragic thing - but the israelis did not start this one.

You're a good guy bever, but i'm afraid this is how these things go till one side or the other surrenders

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Gaétan said:

The NATO states are rogue states whose leaders only think of stealing from us for the benefit of billionaires and the most corrupt is the United States, they are not democratic states but elected with money A Nazi is not only Hitler but also his soldiers influenced by his propaganda so the Zelinski regime and Netanyahu are Nazi regimes as well as their armies since they meet the definition of Nazis by trying to ethnically cleanse.

WTF, are you smoking....rogue states, everyone is trying to steal from us, 

[WestCanMan]

Gaza "civilians" are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers unlike anything that we've ever seen before over here.

They are the children, brothers, wives and fathers of men who were raised as children to kill without remorse in the name of their religion.

When you were in kindergarten learning to share, they were slicing the throats of stuffed toys. 

Some of them actually are men who were raised as children to kill without remorse in the name of their religion.

The muslim world isn't apologetic for the 2 massive genocides in Pakistan in the last 75 years, or the genocides of the Ottoman empire, Iraq's genocide against the kurds, islamic state genocide... When they don't outright deny them they ignore them. Holocaust denial is actual quite popular in the muslim world and they didn't even commit that one. 

No muslim terrorist orgs committed terrorist attacks against Pakistan because they want justice for the 10M Sikhs and Hindus who were dispossessed of their homes there in 1947, or for the 1M - 2M of them who were murdered. They never committed terrorist attacks against against Pakistan because they want justice for the 2M-3M Bengalis who were murdered in Pakistan's second massive genocide.

That's weird, because they've started wars and committed terrorist attacks against Israel for 75 years now because 20x fewer Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes. 

The biggest 'massacre' the Israelis are guilty of was Deir Yassin, and it was 100-250 people. They would have to recreate the horror of Deir Yassin every day for ten thousand days straight to rival what Pakistanis did. But somehow their sins outweigh the sins of the Pakistanis by about a trillion to one, if the righteous wrath of Hamas counts for anything. 

How is it possible that they think the Israelis are worse?

It's because they put no value whatsoever on the lives taken from 1 million+ Hindus and Sikhs. They're ready to start WWIII over 6,000 dead Palestinians, most of them terrorists, but a million Hindus, in their ancestral home of 4,000-10,000 years, can be slaughtered by muslims and it's not even worth mentioning. We literally never talk about it here in Canada, and we actually have a lot of Sikhs and Hindus here. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Every has agree Israel has the right to defend itself..

Except that Israel has apparently taken this to mean it has the right to continue expanding it's settlement of occupied Palestinian territory. 

Quote

..but they can not harm Palestinian people, who voted Hamas in as the legal government of Palestine, it is the people that refuse to oust Hamas out of power,   It is the people of Palestine that need to solve this problem... right now it is Israel that is doing all the solving becasue Palestinian people refuse to...

Well, perhaps Israel would see fit to support Palestinians willing to solve the problem. Israel apparently saw fit to support Hamas as a counterweight to the increasing numbers of leftists and secularists that were gaining support amongst Palestinians - who are also the people likeliest to support a negotiated peace by the way.

But...leftists?  Ewwww...Netanyahu and Hamas share the deepest fears and commonest ground possible - they go together like peas and carrots. 

 

 Quote

[cougar]

On 11/1/2023 at 1:58 PM, CdnFox said:

The injustice happened when a bunch of murderous scumbags decided to kill a lot of civilians in the name of Gaza.

Period.

You can put the start and the period where it suits you, but the history you cannot cheat. 

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, my comments have always been clear that you cannot 'target' civillians (by which i mean they are the intended target of the attack)  but that if civillians must be killed to get to a military target or even a legit military objective then that's what happens and that's not a crime, legally or morally. So - if a hamas rocket launcher is surrounded by civvies - you bomb the launcher and you don't worry about the civvies.

You cannot deliberately target them, and you cannot deliberately starve them or deport them for the sake of doing so as an end goal. But  you absolutely can do all three of those things to attack your enemy in war or deny your enemy resources.  If giving civvies fuel and food means that your enemy military will take that and use it then that's not required.  You ABSOLUTELY can move civvies out of a combat area to a different area or country even if it means they'll be less likely to be killed in the fighting.  And if they deny that and want to stay - now they're combatants.

So yes you can if it's necessary to achieve a military victory.  Which war has that NOT be true in? Certainly none that the us or canada has fought.

 

You can and militaries do all the time.  That is completely legit.  It is expected that the military will do what it can to minimize that but yes you ABSOLUTELY can bomb civillians to get at combatants who are hiding among them, in fact israel just did that and killed a high ranking hamas military leader and destroyed an undeground facility and the world is not condemning them or speaking out.  They put a civillain camp right over their stuff - of course it got bombed.

 

Who's done that? Who tried that justification? I've never heard that once. either there was a legit reason to believe there's a target there or they are up front with the fact they targeted the civvies.

The nazis were crystal clear they bombed cities to force the people demand politicans surrender. The allies were crystal clear they bombed cities to flood the roads with refugees to hamper german troop movements.  America was crystal clear they nuked japan with the intent to target the civvies to force japan to surrender or be wiped out.

 So what you just said is in fact demonstrably false. We have OFTEN targeted civililan populations directly. THere is always a reason for it, it's not just for the sake of being mean to civvies, but even targeting them directly as a military strategy has been the norm.

Would you like me to cover a bunch of other wars this century or throughout history?  You're just plain wrong here.

 

Look - Beaver, I can respect that you're a good person.  I can respect that you aren't saying this out of support for hamas or hatred of israel.  I get that you genuinely think that what's happening is hurting people and you hate that. It's quite laudable.

But - this is war. This is absolutely what happens in war. This is a perfectly legal and "morally" acceptable way of fighting a war and always has been forever in modern history and old history.  I'm really sorry - wars are horrible horrible things and the best we can hope for is that this one ends sooner rather than later and that when it ends it does so in a way that it never happens again.

 

World War 2 predates the UN, Geneva conventions and current international laws governing war.   As I said, collateral damage is tolerated to a degree but militaries do not have carte blanche. 
 

Under the Rome statute, the International Criminal Court considers that a crime occurs if:

an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Meanwhile Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions uses nearly identical concepts. So you cannot carpet bomb an entire city or refugee camp just to kill one terrorist or in a revenge reprisal attack.  So when you’re talking about the mass deportation millions of people with the inevitable death that comes along with that   The OP on this thread wasn’t about moving civvies out of a combat are it was about completely depopulating Gaza and forcibly relocating i2.2 million inhabitants into desert camps so Israel can have an uninhabited buffer zone. That is mot nearly the same thing nor is it the same thing as bombing a rocket site where civilians are nearby 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Except that Israel has apparently taken this to mean it has the right to continue expanding it's settlement of occupied Palestinian territory. 

 

IF thats what it takes  to secure their safety - sure they do.

Gaza had a choice to live in peace. They chose violence and they made that choice a long time ago.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

World War 2 predates the UN, Geneva conventions and current international laws governing war.   As I said, collateral damage is tolerated to a degree but militaries do not have carte blanche. 
 

They do if the civvies are between them and the bad guys.

Quote

 

Under the Rome statute, the International Criminal Court considers that a crime occurs if:

an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

 

So as long as you believe the civvie deaths would be worth it you're good to go.

Basically that phrase means if you nuke a city to get at one guy you're in trouble.  But if you drop a bomb to kill a general or blow up school full of kids in order to get a missile launcher that's been firing into your country you're fine.

So the israelis are fine. 
 

Just because YOU think any civilian death is 'excessive' does not mean thats the bar the international community has set.

 

The civillian deaths are well within the accepted international parameters and acceptable. There's no crimes here, and if civilians die while you're achieving legit military goals thats the way it is.

And Hamas knew that before they started the war - if anything the counted on it.

[BeaverFever]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They do if the civvies are between them and the bad guys.

So as long as you believe the civvie deaths would be worth it you're good to go.

Basically that phrase means if you nuke a city to get at one guy you're in trouble.  But if you drop a bomb to kill a general or blow up school full of kids in order to get a missile launcher that's been firing into your country you're fine.

So the israelis are fine. 
 

Just because YOU think any civilian death is 'excessive' does not mean thats the bar the international community has set.

 

The civillian deaths are well within the accepted international parameters and acceptable. There's no crimes here, and if civilians die while you're achieving legit military goals thats the way it is.

And Hamas knew that before they started the war - if anything the counted on it.

Let’s not lose track of the subject here.  What is proposed in the title of this thread has nothing to do with any of the scenarios you describe. A political leader depopulating 2 million Gazans is not anything similar to a military leader attacking a legitimate target near civilians l. 
 

Also it is not correct to state that “as long as I believe the civilian deaths I am good to go.” Of course the attacker always believes they’re justified.   Every war criminal believes they’re justified. The ICC is going to make their own determination. 

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, cougar said:

You can put the start and the period where it suits you, but the history you cannot cheat. 

You can use history as a cover to obscure the truth, but the attack on isreal you cannot cheat.