If true they cut off Internet to themselves, some powerful Arab neighbors, and Mumbai. Seems like a spectacularly stupid move. The bar is low for these idiots and yet they keep finding ways under it.
My read of the article was that "most transparent genocide of all time" meant "most obviously occurring genocide when viewed in real time". I think that's a fair take having checked again. With that definition in mind, the claim is laughably hyperbolic.
The majority opinion, backed by the ICJ, is that Gaza has the potential to devolve into genocide but currently does not meet the definition. So we're already wildly off the claim. Add to that literally dozens of past genocides that were widely reported on and universally recognized as such and the claim just falls apart.
The Rwandan Genocide killed 800,000 people in 3 months, including almost the entire Tutsi ethnic group. They did this with machetes and still have fields full of unburied bones. They raped half a million women and deliberately infected them with HIV. They mutilated people by the tens of thousands. The genocide only stopped when there was nobody left to kill.
I swear people have completely forgotten what a real genocide looks like. Gaza isn't the "most transparent genocide" by a long shot.
For full context, Israel says 10,000 are Hamas soldiers. It's super disingenuous for the Gaza health ministry (Hamas) to lump military and civilian deaths together like they do. And I know, you're literally frothing at the mouth to inform me how all Israeli's are liars and all Palestinians are angels. I'm not going to read any responses.
I'm not disputing anything in this article. I'm criticizing the presentation of a source rated as "low credibility" with reasoning "Propaganda, Hate Group, Misinformation" on this community.
The reason we even have this community rule is so people don't have to go in and individually pick apart articles to separate facts from propaganda. Websites that aren't rated as credible can and should be ignored.
This is simply not true when IHL is looked at as a whole.
Hospitals do receive special protections. As a rule a hospital can never be attacked unless it becomes co-opted for military purposes or represents a legitimate military objective. At that point, the hospital must be notified prior to attack if doing so is at all reasonable. Further, all proportionality calculations must still be made regarding collateral damage.
The hospital became a legitimate target when Hamas militants, under military orders, brought in hostages.
Notifying the hospital was clearly unreasonable, as that would allow Hamas to remove the hostages, the recovery of which was the primary military objective.
Proportionality considerations dictated what was a reasonable attack. Israel didn't bomb the building into dust - they staged a controlled siege (to prevent the hostages from being moved) followed by a methodical taking of the facility.
Nothing about this was unreasonable or illegal given the full context.
I do, but in the few last rounds of talks Hamas has consistently demanded full Israeli withdrawal as a condition to release any hostages, and a permanent peace prior to releasing all hostages.
Since Israel is obviously not going to agree to withdraw leaving Hamas to reassert full control, and further would never make a peace treaty with a terrorist organization holding their citizens hostage, I don't see any path forward here.
I didn't say anything about civilian death rates mate. Pretty weird to accuse me of something that I've never said and is on-its-face absurd.
Regarding point 1, Israel obviously has the right to try to recover its citizens, taken hostage by a foreign military force, wherever they have evidence of them being. A hostage site is clearly a valid military target under IHL.
The second Hamas brings a hostage in, it's a valid target for Israel to move into as well.
You're taking Hamas's word on why they brought the hostages in.
US intelligence disagrees with you. This was literally the first result of a cursory search.
It doesn't matter at all in this analysis, but Hamas are the people that wounded these hostages in the first place. They don't have any moral high ground here.
Regarding Al-Shifa hospital, there is video of Hamas taking some hostages inside, and widespread reporting of Hamas previously using part of the facility for interrogation/torture of civilians. That, in conjunction with the tunnel evidence, makes it a reasonable target for Israel to take control of (i.e. not a war crime). Personally I doubt the tunnel constitutes a command center. A method for discreetly bringing in captives makes more sense.
Yikes good luck with that