701–710 of 832 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. The "classification" is combatants killed and identified by the IDF with first & last name. There's a larger un-identified group of combatants due to Hamas fighting in civilian clothes, and falsely claiming all deaths are civilian
>> The Israeli military did not dispute the existence of the database or dispute the data on Hamas and PIJ deaths when approached for comment... https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what you call "well-documented"? Did you even read the article? This 1972 article cites unsubstantiated claims from memoirs written decades after the fact — not verified evidence. There is no solid historical documentation that Israel, the Israeli government, or even Lehi sent functional bombs to U.S. leadership in 1947. The only sources are anecdotal, inconsistent, and disputed. Crucially, there are no Secre…
Ok, so I see you're taking a denialist approach. At best you will have to settle on "well they sure did send them to a bunch of British politicians, and ya know, they did carry out the King David Hotel bombing that killed 91 people via terrorism, and they did plan on terrorist bombing a bunch of Westerners and Arabs to blame it on communists and Muslim Brotherhood (the Lavon Affair) before getting caught, but they de…
What you’re doing instead is substituting facts for relevance. You went from a false claim (“Israel mailed bombs to Truman”) to a pile-on of unrelated historical violence, as if proving Jews committed any political violence somehow rescues your earlier claim for which there is zero evidence. It doesn’t.
On the facts: – Irgun carried out the King David Hotel bombing against a building housing British military command, intelligence, police, and civil administration. Civilian staff were killed. That qualifies as terrorism by modern definitions. I’m not defending it. – Lehi was a tiny, radical splinter group widely condemned at the time, including by mainstream Jewish leadership. – In 1941, Lehi produced one fringe document proposing that a future Jewish state and Germany shared a common enemy in Britain. The proposal was ignored. There was no alliance, no cooperation, no operational contact. Calling this “trying to partner with Hitler” is dishonest.
None of this provides evidence that Israel, any Zionist organization, or any Jewish group attempted to assassinate a U.S. president. The fact that some groups committed real crimes does not magically make the crimes you invented true.
Conflating Irgun with Lehi, anti-British insurgency with “terrorizing the West,” and an ignored memo with Nazi collaboration isn’t history, it's you polemicizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was this not targeted? I was the most targeted military operation we know of. Give me any example of anything in warfare that is close to that.
This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time. Because mines are untargeted and designed to maim without discrimination as to who they might hurt there is a long running effort to prohibit their use.
This was far more targeted than, say, any artillery strike that a commander could possibly order. Targeted doesn't mean it's impossible to harm something else. That's possible with any weapon, and far more likely with larger munitions like artillery shells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tiny explosives are certainly not the sort of inherently indiscriminate weapons ICRC refers to. You might want to read the article you linked to, which uses nuclear weapons as the main example. The difference in energy released by Israel's beeper vs a modern nuclear payload is at least 10 orders of magnitude.
Scroll down to examples, read it, and then click Next until you get to Rule 80.
Some booby traps might fall into that category, but this isn't a toy or a banana, it's a device specifically issued to enemy personnel.
There can be separate textualist arguments about Israel's operation based on the specific language of CCW, but that's unrelated to the customary IHL you linked to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ICJ found the accusation plausible, and did later in another case conclude that the israeli occupation of palestinian land and apartheid is not lawful and must stop. Whether ICJ had found genocide perpetrated or just plausible does not matter very much since international law demands that even the risk of genocide triggers state action to put an end to that risk. The ICJ judgement regarding plausibility also made dem…
> ICJ found the accusation plausible This is still not accurate. What ICJ found plausible was "some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection". The then-president even clarified explicitly that the plausibility finding was about the existence of these rights, not the occurrence of genocide [1]. Noone is saying things are "jolly fine and dandy", but it's important to stick to facts w…
Wasn't a consequence of this conclusion that the court ordered Israel to change its behaviour because it has an obligation to prevent genocide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time. Because mines are untargeted and designed to maim without discrimination as to who they might hurt there is a long running effort to prohibit their use.
Hezbollah pagers aren't randomly lying around though, they're normally attached to Hezbollah members. These were also much smaller than any anti personnel mine. This was far more targeted than, say, any artillery strike that a commander could possibly order. Targeted doesn't mean it's impossible to harm something else. That's possible with any weapon, and far more likely with larger munitions like artillery shells.
I'm not sure what you're after. What the israelis did would have been a worse crime if it actually was targeted. Is that your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time. Because mines are untargeted and designed to maim without discrimination as to who they might hurt there is a long running effort to prohibit their use.
No, the messengers were specifically delivered to Hezbollah leadership. It is not even closely comparable.
It is fucking grim to incessantly defend state terrorism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the messengers were specifically delivered to Hezbollah leadership. It is not even closely comparable.
They were widely distributed and there was no way for the israelis to know where they were when they detonated them, which they likely did out of desperation and not because they had good reason to believe they were in such and such a position. It is fucking grim to incessantly defend state terrorism.
Something here is grim indeed and it is not restricted to some regretable educational deficiencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were widely distributed and there was no way for the israelis to know where they were when they detonated them, which they likely did out of desperation and not because they had good reason to believe they were in such and such a position. It is fucking grim to incessantly defend state terrorism.
You don't seem to have an inch of a problem with terrorist, islamist militants that not only terrorise Israel, they also terrorise Lebanon. Ask the Arab League. Even they define them as terrorists. Something here is grim indeed and it is not restricted to some regretable educational deficiencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ICJ found the accusation plausible This is still not accurate. What ICJ found plausible was "some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection". The then-president even clarified explicitly that the plausibility finding was about the existence of these rights, not the occurrence of genocide [1]. Noone is saying things are "jolly fine and dandy", but it's important to stick to facts w…
What would the implication of this nitpick be, in your opinion? Wasn't a consequence of this conclusion that the court ordered Israel to change its behaviour because it has an obligation to prevent genocide?
The court can issue orders without finding any sort of violation, which is what happened in this case when they ordered Israel to "prevent genocide". It can be interpreted as a reminder to Israel of its obligations.