That sounds like a policing problem?

The tunnels are not well documented enough for, say, a map of them, are they? We don’t know if there is a tunnel under x or y building that has been flattened. So that’s not sufficient evidence.

Like I said, I think they’re funny.

I don’t expect to see anything, that’s the point. That causes bias in your thinking. The evidence I have seen fulfils the criteria for war crimes, as I pointed out in my bullet-point list above. I accept that there can be excuses for these actions, but only when there is sufficient evidence to prove the extraordinary case. Now, we have seen the evidence that Israel has done these things, but we haven’t seen the evidence that there are extraordinary factors. Occam’s Razor requires that the explanation for an effect should contain as few agents as possible when considering the unknown causes. Adding in a tunnel network, or a Hamas base where there is no evidence for one is in violation of Occam’s Razor. The simple explanation is that Israel is being indiscriminate in its attacks. As supporting factors, Israel has attacked indiscriminately and illegally in the past, and Israel has lied to the international media and community in the past.

When people ask me about my expertise I get excited that I get to talk about it. If someone were to refuse to believe me I would find it funny.

I can accept it if I’m shown evidence. I’m a scientist, I need data and a sound hypothesis to change my mind. I don’t care about personal experience or lived truth when I’m trying to find objective truth.
If you’d like to sum up my reply as three words, that’s up to you. If you want to believe that I’m taken by propaganda, that’s fine too, but it’s more than a little bit intellectually lazy. There are laws that define war crimes. In my reading of them, and many others’, there is between little and no room for the evidence we’ve seen to amount to anything other than a war crime. At least a huge amount of compelling evidence the other way would be needed to exonerate. Take for example the footage we’ve seen of entire square kilometers of Gaza completely flattened by building. There we have evidence of the war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure except if there’s also evidence that all of it was a Hamas base. Now, it seems unlikely that this is possible, unless everyone in Gaza is a member of Hamas. Another extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence to be borne out.

In general, my view on the situation in Israel has been that there are no good guys. In recent days, though, I’m watching a democratic state ally of my country committing horrific crimes against humanity, with weapons provided by my country and other allies. Hamas never had my support. Netenyahu’s Israel has lost it.

Civilian infrastructure are public works dedicated solely to civilians and does not inherently include power.

Did I say that civilian infrastructure includes power?

You do not understand war crimes.

I can read. I can read the UN charters. I understand war crimes.

Collective punishment implies no military purpose

No it does not. There is a definition in international law. Nothing is implied, it is defined.

Forcible relocation is only occurring if Israel does not allow them to return after the current conflict is concluded.

Again, relocating is defined in the UN charters. This is where you should go if you would like to understand the definitions of war crimes.

Israel has not ordered civilians to any specific area they have then bombed.

This has been independently verified by the BBC. Israel did exactly this, repeatedly.

Israel has a border. That’s not blockading a population

And did Israel allow any Palestinians through that border after October 7th? Or did it close the border and bomb the Rafah crossing, thus blockading the entire Gaza Strip?

Not providing food is not the same thing as depriving of food

Not allowing any food in is depriving of food

Bombing a convoy of mismarked vehicles is not a war crime.

Vehicles were not mismarked, they were legit, as the Red Cross independently verified. You would also need some proof that they were mismarked before bombing them, which was not gathered.

Something called a refugee camp for 80 years is not an active refugee camp.

A “refugee camp” is not a refugee camp. What is it then? A tomato?

The IDF is not using white phosphorous munitions within Gaza City but have probably used it for illumination. This is perfectly legal.

It’s not even remotely legal to use while phosphorus in areas where civilians are present, or even where event combatants may be present. Again, check the charters (chemical weapons).

Sources: Red Cross International, BBC, UN charters.

It doesn’t work like that mate.

• bombing civilian infrastructure which is likely to have families, children, non combatants inside is a war crime.
• collective punishment is a war crime.
• forcible relocation is a war crime.
• ordering civilians to a new area and then bombing them en route or on arrival is intentional targeting of civilians, and therefore a war crime.
• blockading a population within an area which you are actively shelling is a war crime.
• depriving a population of non combatants of food and water and fuel is a war crime.
• bombing a convoy of ambulances is a war crime.
• bombing a refugee camp is a war crime.
• killing reporters is a war crime.
• use of white phosphorus on civilian targets is a war crime.

Israel has done all of these things. There is no excuse for war crimes. It doesn’t matter how evil the enemy is, you are not allowed to do these things and not be a war criminal.

Ok so everything I wrote isn’t wrong.
It’s telling how you’re accusing me of snark, when that’s precisely all you’ve provided so far. Well, that and a rambling opinion piece on the Oslo accords in support of a tu quoque fallacy. And of not saying anything meaningful when I clearly made three substantive rebuttals above.
Cheers

Ok let’s start with this one:

“Israel has built illegal settlements in Palestine every day since signing the Oslo accords”

Go ahead. Prove that wrong.

It is accurate, and I can back it up with data. Is there anything in particular you think is incorrect? Or are you just annoyed with it in general.

Just wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies in your comment.

1. This is no longer a justified conflict. A state has the right to self defence in a limited way. The right to self defence does not override the rules on collective punishment. The right to self defence does not include the right to invade a state where the enemy is a terrorist group within that state, rather than the state itself. The right to self defence does not override the rules on attacking civilian infrastructure (especially ambulances) even where there is suspicion that a terrorist organisation may be using it. The right to self defence does not override the rules on forcible relocation or blockade. In short, the response to an enemy using a human shield must not be to eliminate the shield. It’s astounding that so many people seem to need this explained to them. This is borne out by international law, cf. the UN charters.
2. Israel did not do everything they could do to avoid this conflict. The one thing they had to do was to abide by the Oslo accords, yet they have built settlements in Palestine every single day since signing, and restricted Gazans every single day since signing. The two state solution has failed as a result of Israel’s actions. In terms of actions since October 7th, the usual way to go about dismantling an embedded terror organisation is to use counterintelligence, ground ops and precision strikes. The reasons are obvious, I hope. The only way to get those hostages back is either by freeing them in covert ops or by negotiation at a political level. Destroying entire city blocks from the air will not get the hostages back, as we all know.
3. The label genocide is not misconstrued, according to the UN genocide experts. Some say there is a grave risk that this is a genocide, based on the available facts, and some say that it already fulfills the criteria.
   I can provide sources for all of my claims, if you’d prefer not to do the legwork yourself.

Removed by mod

If you read carefully, you will notice that the commenter used the past tense: “had” = simple past tense of the verb “to have”.