undefined | Better HN

0 pointsoliwarner1y ago0 comments

> Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses.

Intentionally attacking a civilian target (a family in their home) without warning.

The what I'd do is a seventy year answer. It's immaterial to the occurrence of war crimes.

0 comments

2OEH8eoCRo01y ago

Which law of war does that violate? They were an enemy combatant, yes?

The seventy year answers are political cop-outs and not actionable by any commander. These discussions never go anywhere because people are naive about war, the laws of war, urban combat, insurgencies, or their military strategy invokes time-travel.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.h...

https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/07/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-n...

> The destruction and suffering, as awful as they are, don’t automatically constitute war crimes – otherwise, nearly any military action in a populated area would violate the laws of armed conflict

> When Hamas uses a hospital, school or mosque for military purpose, it can lose its protected status and become a legal military target.

> Like all similar conflicts in modern times, a battle in Gaza will look like the entire city was purposely razed to the ground or indiscriminately carpet bombed – but it wasn’t. Israel possesses the military capacity to do so, and the fact that it doesn’t employ such means is further evidence that it is respecting the rules of war.

oliwarnerOP1y ago

We're going to disagree ad infinitum.

Targeting the sleeping family of a target is intentionally targeting civilians; a war crime.

The opinions of you and John Spencer have not swayed my own.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse