2023-24 Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran-Houthi Conflict

[Celritannia]

Hamas is a terrorist organisation, they aren't known for abiding by international law as they are not a country.
Israel is a country and should be abiding international law.

If a group of Israelis formed an organization that was doing the same things as the IDF is now doing, would they be exempt as well?

Exempt from what? being tried at an international court? No.
But are there greater ramifications for nations and states? Yes.

But terrorist groups are not following laws, are they? Nation States do (or should do).

[Fahran]

if you're so confident, where is the evidence? why did the Israelis only show us a handful of small arms when they finally seized the bldg?

It wouldn't actually matter terribly much if such evidence was provided. You have basically rejected the IDF as a reliable source of information. Who else would even provide the evidence you profess to want?

it's just fucking ridiculous, you're acting like the video of the Tora Bora style alleged bunker complex has been substantiated when it's actually completely fallen apart

Again, the evidence goes well beyond video diagrams. It includes Israeli and American intelligence (which you reject), Amnesty International reports from 2008-2009 and 2014, the confirmed killing of Hamas militants in the al-Shifa Hospital complex - including the man linked to AI's reports in 2008-2009 and 2014, and Israeli and Palestinian eye witness claims suggesting firefights and fighting in and around the complex.

[Batakhovia]

While obtuse is sometimes used as a synonym for stupid, it tends to more specifically denote a "slowness to understand" a particular thing, which is a bit more meaningful than a throwaway insult. I believe that describing your argument as rooted in a deliberate slowness to understand my argument and the available evidence is both an accurate and charitable interpretation of how you behaved.

I don't believe anyone here is stupid or unintelligent. I do believe that deliberate obtuseness has been weaponized to achieve rhetorical objectives and prolong arguments where folks are quite cognizant of serious errors in their position.

Your argument has just been "we can infer that..." to the power of ten. I'm trying to get to the meat and potatoes of what can actually be concretely proven, so we can get to the heart of why you think bombing a hospital is justified. And all you can bring to the table are your own conclusions drawn from inconclusive evidence, and an Amnesty International report from nearly a decade ago which bears no relevance to actually answering the question of events.

I have every right to express scepticism without being maliciously maligned like this.

Faeq, his brother Nafez, and a number of his nephews were near Al-Shifa Hospital, where the occupation forces attacked them and asked them to surrender themselves. Nafez surrendered himself, but Faeq refused to surrender and clashed with the occupation forces with his personal weapon until he was martyred.

https://www.aljazeera.net/encyclopedia/ ... 8%AA%D9%87

Does an Al Jazeera fluff-piece based on Palestinian eye witnesses and perspectives count? Guy is known to have been a member of Hamas for years, has been convicted of terrorism charges, and began firing on the IDF when they demanded his surrender - while his brother and nephews were taken as prisoners of war.

So, let me get this straight.

They were near Al-Shifa Hospital, not in, according to this report you've cited.

The IDF attacked them first, according to this report, despite the fact that they are protected civilians according to the Geneva Convention. Faiq committed the crime of daring not to comply with an occupying force that the ICJ has ruled is there illegally, defended himself, and was killed.

Do you think this is a sufficient reason to level an entire hospital?

We're probably not going to get forensic evidence given the circumstances. Circumstantial evidence and a bit of logic can help to piece the situation together pretty well though.

It's you just guessing and making inferences based on circumstance. You should not condescend others for not taking an unproven case at face-value.

[Malorossi]

Bruh, almost every government on planet Earth comes from a political party in some form or another.

Essam al-Da'alis is the head of the Government Administrative Committee in Gaza. Their involvement in the state administration of Gaza is not a matter of dispute.

A political party and a country are not the same thing. No other political party has its militant wing. Usually, a country has an armed service for the defence of the nation regardless of the political party in power.

I am not disputing that, but as the militant arm of HAMAS is a terrorist group, they are not needing to follow international law like Israel does.

Many parties in countries with high levels of street violence have a combat wing to protect rallies, party members, etc. An example is RotFront (KPD) and the competing SA (National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany). In Ukraine, in the first years after the Maidan, each party had young men armed with brass knuckles and batons (and sometimes firearms). Yes, this is what led to the tragedy of May 2 in Odessa. But combat organizations under the party are not uncommon.

[SusScorfa]

This seems rather familiar.

[Turenia]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

[Malorossi]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

Wow, do I hear the words "must occupy" together? Oh, we're not talking about Russia, so it's not surprising. No, it shouldn't, annexing foreign territories is an international crime, but creating a demilitarized zone there under the control of UN peacekeepers through the efforts of the UN is something else, that's necessary

[Fahran]

Your argument has just been "we can infer that..." to the power of ten. I'm trying to get to the meat and potatoes of what can actually be concretely proven, so we can get to the heart of why you think bombing a hospital is justified.

We're not debating whether or not bombing a hospital is justified. This argument began with a disagreement about whether or not Hamas was embedding military assets in civilian infrastructure. We can discuss other things once we have settled that argument. I'm not going to let y'all change the topic until y'all admit that y'all were wrong here. Because this directly impacts any conversation we can have about Israeli war crimes by necessity.

And I think accusing someone of wanting to murder civilians is a good deal worse than being accused of deliberate obtuseness, especially when it's not related to the conversation we're having at the moment.

And all you can bring to the table are your own conclusions drawn from inconclusive evidence, and an Amnesty International report from nearly a decade ago which bears no relevance to actually answering the question of events.

Nonsense.

We have multiple Amnesty International reports suggesting that Hamas and other Palestinian militias embed military assets within civilian infrastructure. We have the killing of multiple Palestinian militants, including high-profile commanders and officers, including a guy who was specifically linked to the practice previously, across multiple Israeli strikes against civilian infrastructure. We have American and Israeli intelligence suggesting that Hamas and other Palestinian militias embed military assets within civilian infrastructure. We have a handful of eye witnesses suggesting that Hamas and other Palestinian militias embed military assets within civilian infrastructure.

I have every right to express scepticism without being maliciously maligned like this.

I do not care enough about a silly internet argument that I believe is being prolonged in bad faith to exhibit malice against anyone on that account.

So, let me get this straight.

They were near Al-Shifa Hospital, not in, according to this report you've cited.

The IDF attacked them first, according to this report, despite the fact that they are protected civilians according to the Geneva Convention. Faiq committed the crime of daring not to comply with an occupying force that the ICJ has ruled is there illegally, defended himself, and was killed.

Do you think this is a sufficient reason to level an entire hospital?

I think that's a different argument from the one we're having - despite that you and Sen keep trying to bring it up.

I think you're giving Hamas a lot more charity than is warranted in light of the available evidence. The article mentioned that the man you're currently holding up as a protected civilian has been affiliated with Hamas for decades, was previously convicted of terrorism charges, and immediately began firing on IDF personnel when stopped.

And Al Jazeera is providing the most favorable and charitable account of events possible, one that does not consider that the man we're discussing previously tortured and murdered people in the hospital complex in violation of international law and that he wasn't the only Hamas official or militant killed in the hospital siege.

Is your argument that large numbers of armed men camping out in a hospital is legal under international law?

It's you just guessing and making inferences based on circumstance. You should not condescend others for not taking an unproven case at face-value.

Demanding hard forensic evidence for war crimes in every instance is going to make your arguments about war crimes practically impossible to actually defend, y'know? I mean... we do have forensic evidence of a lot of Hamas's war crimes, including their habit of embedding in civilian infrastructure, you just seem to discount nearly all of it.

[Fahran]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

Turenia is the Zionist NSG thinks I am.

[Six Tribes of Natlan]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

No dude, give it to the Christians! Let Christian Lebanon be free. They'll border Israel and trade and live in peace. Plus they can run their own affairs and have a security pact with Israel against Hezbollah and the Islamists.

Israel has no feud with Christians.

[Celritannia]

A political party and a country are not the same thing. No other political party has its militant wing. Usually, a country has an armed service for the defence of the nation regardless of the political party in power.

I am not disputing that, but as the militant arm of HAMAS is a terrorist group, they are not needing to follow international law like Israel does.

Many parties in countries with high levels of street violence have a combat wing to protect rallies, party members, etc. An example is RotFront (KPD) and the competing SA (National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany). In Ukraine, in the first years after the Maidan, each party had young men armed with brass knuckles and batons (and sometimes firearms). Yes, this is what led to the tragedy of May 2 in Odessa. But combat organizations under the party are not uncommon.

Huh, interesting.
I shall re-word my statement if I ever use it in the future.

[Turenia]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

Turenia is the Zionist NSG thinks I am.

It's a better idea than anyone else here has put out.

[Batakhovia]

We're not debating whether or not bombing a hospital is justified. This argument began with a disagreement about whether or not Hamas was embedding military assets in civilian infrastructure. We can discuss other things once we have settled that argument. I'm not going to let y'all change the topic until y'all admit that y'all were wrong here. Because this directly impacts any conversation we can have about Israeli war crimes by necessity.

It's an incredibly nebulous argument, because "civilian infrastructure" can mean a variety of things. Furthermore, the law demarcates the use of civilian infrastructure for military-combatant purposes, that is to say, for the explicit purposes of waging armed conflict against the enemy. The Statue explicitly defines attacks against installations, equipment, units or vehicles employed in the context of humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping purposes as still a war crime; so even if it were to be conceded for the sake of argument that there are military assets in civilian infrastructure, the intent thereof still has to be conclusively defined in order for it to be a legitimate target in an armed conflict.

So to say that they are or they aren't doesn't say anything, it's a dumb argument for both sides to get hung up on in the first place. What does matter is when these same civilian infrastructures get attacked irrespective of such circumstances. This is, aside from the fact of it being fucking horrifying, why Al-Shifa matters as a case example.

Nonsense.

We have multiple Amnesty International reports suggesting that Hamas and other Palestinian militias embed military assets within civilian infrastructure. We have the killing of multiple Palestinian militants, including high-profile commanders and officers, including a guy who was specifically linked to the practice previously, across multiple Israeli strikes against civilian infrastructure. We have American and Israeli intelligence suggesting that Hamas and other Palestinian militias embed military assets within civilian infrastructure. We have a handful of eye witnesses suggesting that Hamas and other Palestinian militias embed military assets within civilian infrastructure.

So do you wanna just throw shit in a thousand different directions in the hope that something sticks, or do you actually want to go through these cases one by one? Because if you're going to use words like "suggesting" every second sentence, without qualifying it with actual concrete evidence and examples, you're just wasting everybody's time.

I do not care enough about a silly internet argument that I believe is being prolonged in bad faith to exhibit malice against anyone on that account.

So, the next time I get warned for flaming, can I just use "I do not care enough" as a defence and they'll revoke my warning?

I think that's a different argument from the one we're having - despite that you and Sen keep trying to bring it up.

I think you're giving Hamas a lot more charity than is warranted in light of the available evidence. The article mentioned that the man you're currently holding up as a protected civilian has been affiliated with Hamas for decades, was previously convicted of terrorism charges, and immediately began firing on IDF personnel when stopped.

And Al Jazeera is providing the most favorable and charitable account of events possible, one that does not consider that the man we're discussing previously tortured and murdered people in the hospital complex in violation of international law and that he wasn't the only Hamas official or militant killed in the hospital siege.

Is your argument that large numbers of armed men camping out in a hospital is legal under international law?

Hamas is the ruling government of the Gaza Strip, and he was responsible for police. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, pointing out that the person responsible for law & order was affiliated with the government; obviously, they would be. It's still not grounds to murder him.

Secondly, what court convicted him? And under what pretext had he committed terrorism? It's not enough to throw these scary words at me and hope that I'll just accept them at face-value; foreign intelligence careerists and Twitter addicts alike are pretty much dancing on the grave of the word "terrorism" at this point. Actually expand on what you mean, and how it's relevant.

You have not established that the armed men are in the hospital. And you have not established that - IF they were - that they are there for the purposes of employing violence against the enemy. Those are two very important key factors in deciding whether it is a legitimate military target.

Demanding hard forensic evidence for war crimes in every instance is going to make your arguments about war crimes practically impossible to actually defend, y'know? I mean... we do have forensic evidence of a lot of Hamas's war crimes, including their habit of embedding in civilian infrastructure, you just seem to discount nearly all of it.

You keep saying there's a lot of evidence, but we'll probably get GTA 6 before I see a shred of it. Where is it?

[Elwher]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

Wow, do I hear the words "must occupy" together? Oh, we're not talking about Russia, so it's not surprising. No, it shouldn't, annexing foreign territories is an international crime, but creating a demilitarized zone there under the control of UN peacekeepers through the efforts of the UN is something else, that's necessary

Since Lebanon either does not choose to or cannot police that area, someone else needs to do this. If the UN has the will and the ability to, they would be the better choice but until they demonstrate this, I would have no problem with Israel doing so.

[Senkaku]

if you're so confident, where is the evidence? why did the Israelis only show us a handful of small arms when they finally seized the bldg?

It wouldn't actually matter terribly much if such evidence was provided. You have basically rejected the IDF as a reliable source of information. Who else would even provide the evidence you profess to want?

If even the IDF cannot even partially substantiate the detailed, phantasmagoric lunacy they were putting out about the supposed underground headquarters complex and heavy weapons storage bunkers under Al-Shifa— allegations for which no one has found any evidence, but which you are nonetheless repeating wholesale— then it should call their credibility into question for reasonable people. This is “babies in ovens”-level outright fabrication in service of defending IDF war crimes.

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

Turenia is the Zionist NSG thinks I am.

Turenia foolishly and provocatively says out loud what you are clever enough to keep hidden in service of making better progress actually advancing your cause.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

If Lebanon can't make sure that Hezbollah behaves itself, and nobody else in the Middle East wants the job, then Israel should do this.

[Senkaku]

Again, the evidence goes well beyond video diagrams.

The video “diagrams” are not “evidence,” they are fabrications created in service of legitimizing and covering up a horrific atrocity, a project which you are now following up to complete.

[Fahran]

It's an incredibly nebulous argument, because "civilian infrastructure" can mean a variety of things.

Not really. We're discussing schools, mosques, and hospitals. How is that nebulous exactly?

Furthermore, the law demarcates the use of civilian infrastructure for military-combatant purposes, that is to say, for the explicit purposes of waging armed conflict against the enemy. The Statue explicitly defines attacks against installations, equipment, units or vehicles employed in the context of humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping purposes as still a war crime; so even if it were to be conceded for the sake of argument that there are military assets in civilian infrastructure, the intent thereof still has to be conclusively defined in order for it to be a legitimate target in an armed conflict.

I'm aware. But we're not discussing that just yet. We need to resolve the actual point of contention before we get there.

Again, the original point of contention was whether or not Hamas was committing a particular war crime that they have committed in the past, that the US and Israel have accused them of committing yet again, and that strong circumstantial evidence suggests they're currently committing.

So to say that they are or they aren't doesn't say anything, it's a dumb argument to get hung up on in the first place. What does matter is when these same civilian infrastructures get attacked irrespective of such circumstances. This is, aside from the fact of it being fucking horrifying, why Al-Shifa matters as a case example.

Both questions matter. Because both points are relevant in forming a full assessment of the war and the war crimes committed. We're still dealing with the first question. We need to answer that question because it does impact the second to a significant degree.

Again, I'm not adverse to discussing Israeli war crimes, but they were not the topic that ignited our current argument and are a separate topic of debate to a significant degree. The answer to the initial question is simple. "Yes, Hamas has persistently embedded military assets in civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and mosques. And this is very likely what they did at al-Shifa too."

Once we can reach some basic point of agreement on that point, I'm more than willing to begin discussing other salient and related points. But I'm not going to let y'all muddy the argument because you dislike its implications or want to discuss something else. One thing at a time.

So do you wanna just throw shit in a thousand different directions in the hope that something sticks, or do you actually want to go through these cases one by one? Because if you're going to use words like "suggesting" every second sentence, without qualifying it with actual concrete evidence and examples, you're just wasting everybody's time.

I'm mostly employing al-Shifa as an important case study, but I don't need to "just throw shit" in this example. We have a lot of circumstantial and even some material evidence that al-Shifa was being employed for military purposes by Hamas militants and that this has been the case for over a decade. The fact that you're being dishonest about the subject doesn't actually change anything.

So, the next time I get warned for flaming, can I just use "I do not care enough" as a defence and they'll revoke my warning?

It remains to be seen whether I will get a warning for flaming, but, no, you and I are subject to the same rules and standards. You're not engaging with me as site staff at the moment. We do not engage in self-moderation or special treatment. That said, rules-lawyering and bad faith posting are bad and you shouldn't engage in them.

Hamas is the ruling government of the Gaza Strip, and he was responsible for police. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, pointing out that the person responsible for law & order was affiliated with the government; obviously, they would be. It's still not grounds to murder him.

The man who violated international law in 2014 at al-Shifa was killed at al-Shifa earlier this year, with evidence pointing to him violating international law in a similar way, and your argument is that the convicted terrorist was fulfilling a purely civilian function?

This is deliberate obtuseness. And I stand by how I described your behavior before.

Secondly, what court convicted him? And under what pretext had he committed terrorism? It's not enough to throw these scary words at me and hope that I'll just accept them at face-value; foreign intelligence careerists and Twitter addicts alike are pretty much dancing on the grave of the word "terrorism" at this point. Actually expand on what you mean, and how it's relevant.

He was charged previously with firing on IDF personnel in civilian dress and torturing and executing Palestinian dissidents. Given we're taking this account from Al Jazeera, who describes both activities favorably, I'm pretty confident with saying he was a terrorist connected to Hamas. Since Amnesty International says he tortured and executed people in a hospital.

You have not established that the armed men are in the hospital. And you have not established that - IF they were - that they are there for the purposes of employing violence against the enemy. Those are two very important key factors in deciding whether it is a legitimate military target.

There was fighting in the hospital.

You keep saying there's a lot of evidence, but we'll probably get GTA 6 before I see a shred of it. Where is it?

I have provided multiple sources. If you want forensic evidence provided by someone who isn't the IDF, you're not going to get it. If you employ critical thinking and circumstantial evidence, I don't see how you avoid arriving at the conclusion I reached - namely that Hamas is still doing what it was doing in 2014.

[Glorious Freedonia]

They sided with Hezbollah over Israel!

I, too, wish Hezbollah military success on the battlefields of this war.

No. I side with Israel.

[Fahran]

Turenia foolishly and provocatively says out loud what you are clever enough to keep hidden in service of making better progress actually advancing your cause.

And, by that logic, you support terrorism against American and Israeli civilians and the genocide of Jews. Since you have expressed less opposition in contrast to the opposition I've shown to war crimes against Palestinians or Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

You're not an honest participant in these conversations and that has been abundantly apparent for awhile now. You cannot engage with even the most minute support for main-stream political positions or the barest critique of the approach adopted by Palestinian militants without basically going completely off the rails with conspiracy theories, defenses of Antisemitic rhetoric, whataboutisms, or accusations that anyone who disagrees with you wants to murder children and commit genocide against the Arabs.

You're exhibiting the exact sorts of behavior you have constantly mocked other users for.

[Senkaku]

accusations that anyone who disagrees with you wants to murder children and commit genocide against the Arabs.

No, actually just accusations that you, specifically, are willing to tolerate the murder of children and genocide against Arabs to realize your political priorities— I don’t think you’re just waking up in the morning wanting murder for its own sake, I think you’ve just spent the last year finding increasingly byzantine ways to justify it to yourself as it becomes more and more obvious that it’s necessary to preserve some version of the Israeli identity close to what you want. I’ve also laid out in great detail on several issues why you’re a fundamentally dishonest participant here, ranging from support for an arms embargo to recognition of a Palestinian state to equivocation over Israeli responsibility for war crimes and genocide.

[Camtropia]

ISIS got defeated and Assad remained, despite what the US and Zionist colony wanted.

"ASSAD MUST GO"
"who must go?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Mosul

That Belligerents table on Wikipedia is insane.

You know you've screwed up when the Iraqis, Iranians, Americans, Hezbollah, Turks, Kurds, French, and Germans put aside their differences to fight you!

[Batakhovia]

Not really. We're discussing schools, mosques, and hospitals. How is that nebulous exactly?

It's nebulous because the circumstances and ends of occupation cannot be haphazardly concluded as for the purposes of waging war, and this will heavily differ depending on what kind of infrastructure we're talking about. It is not enough to state that X is a civilian infrastructure, and therefore, nobody military-affiliated is allowed inside, because that's neither how the law is defined, nor the purpose for which it exists.

I'm aware. But we're not discussing that just yet. We need to resolve the actual point of contention before we get there.

Again, the original point of contention was whether or not Hamas was committing a particular war crime that they have committed in the past, that the US and Israel have accused them of committing yet again, and that strong circumstantial evidence suggests they're currently committing.

If that's the case, and if it is as strong as you suggest, then they should make their own submissions to the ICJ. Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not find it compelling to suggest that they do have a strong case however, if most of the efforts of the US and Israel are to discredit the authority of the courts, rather than just letting the evidence speak for itself; very suspicious behaviour on their part.

Both questions matter. Because both points are relevant in forming a full assessment of the war and the war crimes committed. We're still dealing with the first question. We need to answer that question because it does impact the second to a significant degree.

Again, I'm not adverse to discussing Israeli war crimes, but they were not the topic that ignited our current argument and are a separate topic of debate to a significant degree. The answer to the initial question is simple. "Yes, Hamas has persistently embedded military assets in civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and mosques. And this is very likely what they did at al-Shifa too."

Once we can reach some basic point of agreement on that point, I'm more than willing to begin discussing other salient and related points. But I'm not going to let y'all muddy the argument because you dislike its implications or want to discuss something else. One thing at a time.

I am not taking a maximalist position that Hamas has never embedded military assets in civilian infrastructure for the purposes of waging war. These should be prosecuted on a case-by-case basis, and if there is concrete proof that it is a codified form of combat doctrine orchestrated at the highest levels of government, then they should be held accountable.

As of writing however, it cannot be asserted that it is a matter of official military policy by Hamas.

However, the assessment of the war itself has been made very clear by the UN Security Council resolution demanding a ceasefire, and the ICJ's ruling that Israel's occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful. This would not even be a conversation if Israel was compliant with international law in the first place.

I'm mostly employing al-Shifa as an important case study, but I don't need to "just throw shit" in this example. We have a lot of circumstantial and even some material evidence that al-Shifa was being employed for military purposes by Hamas militants and that this has been the case for over a decade. The fact that you're being dishonest about the subject doesn't actually change anything.

Your own Amnesty International explicitly rejects such claims as devoid of merit.

The man who violated international law in 2014 at al-Shifa was killed at al-Shifa earlier this year, with evidence pointing to him violating international law in a similar way, and your argument is that the convicted terrorist was fulfilling a purely civilian function?

This is deliberate obtuseness. And I stand by how I described your behavior before.

Except it has not been proven that he did. Your own Amnesty International report concluded, quote:

"Amnesty International is calling on the Palestinian authorities, including the Hamas de facto administration in Gaza, to co-operate with independent and impartial international investigative mechanisms, judicial or non-judicial, including the Commission of Inquiry set up by the UN Human Rights Council in July 2014. They should seek to ensure that the cases documented in this report, among others, are investigated impartially and independently and that, wherever there is sufficient admissible evidence, suspected perpetrators are brought to justice in proceedings that fully respect international fair trial standards and without recourse to the death penalty."

So, Amnesty International was calling for an investigation. They were not asserting that the case had already been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, they were calling for him to be brought to justice, not to be extrajudicially assassinated by the IDF, who had no legal right to be there in the first place.

If you think that the right to the presumption of innocence is obtuse, then I just have to say that I'm very glad you're not in charge of any judicial system.

He was charged previously with firing on IDF personnel in civilian dress and torturing and executing Palestinian dissidents. Given we're taking this account from Al Jazeera, who describes both activities favorably, I'm pretty confident with saying he was a terrorist connected to Hamas. Since Amnesty International says he tortured and executed people in a hospital.

Can I actually get a source for the report on his court case? I haven't found anything.

There was fighting in the hospital.

There's no proof there was fighting in the hospital itself. Even Brian Finucane, former legal adviser for the US State Department, said that the case that was made after-the-fact was extremely flimsy.

In fact, prior to the assault, the IDF itself was claiming the opposite on November 12, stating that clashes were happening outside the hospital, and that there wasn't any shooting or siege.

I have provided multiple sources. If you want forensic evidence provided by someone who isn't the IDF, you're not going to get it. If you employ critical thinking and circumstantial evidence, I don't see how you avoid arriving at the conclusion I reached - namely that Hamas is still doing what it was doing in 2014.

You've provided me with an Amnesty International allegation, which they themselves do not claim is a closed case, and an Al-Jazeera report which contradicts your position.

[Mettaton-EX]

Israel should reoccupy southern Lebanon to create a security belt for Northern Israel.

No dude, give it to the Christians! Let Christian Lebanon be free. They'll border Israel and trade and live in peace. Plus they can run their own affairs and have a security pact with Israel against Hezbollah and the Islamists.

Israel has no feud with Christians.

israel has struck multiple lebanese christian villages, armenian christians in israel are under existential threat, israel armed last year's genocide in artsakh, etc

[Areebistan]

No dude, give it to the Christians! Let Christian Lebanon be free. They'll border Israel and trade and live in peace. Plus they can run their own affairs and have a security pact with Israel against Hezbollah and the Islamists.

Israel has no feud with Christians.

israel has struck multiple lebanese christian villages, armenian christians in israel are under existential threat, israel armed last year's genocide in artsakh, etc

Lebanon's largest and most popular Christian party, the FPM, is a staunch hezbollah ally and has a long standing alliance with the group. They were the most voted party by Christians in 2022 and they have strong support in the Maronite Christian and Greek Christian communities. The FPM is also staunchly anti-israel due to the history between Israel and Lebanon.