I don’t think “war crime” was defined in WWII.
By modern definitions there was a multitude of war crimes in WWII on all sides.
I just want to say, I really hate this “scaling up” based on population. By this argument, any murder in Israel (say, by some random criminal) is a mass killing. It’s a silly way to look at things.
I attempted to explain why the Israelis are so angry and determined to destroy hamas, not justify killing civilians.
I didn’t think you were justifying anything- I wasn’t taking issue with your positions. I just keep hearing this “It’s as though umpteen-thousand Americans were killed, as a proportion of the population.” I don’t think that’s how it works. We certainly don’t look at other crimes this way.
Civilian reporters certainly weren’t mincing their words at the time. “Terror bombing”, one called it.
The Hague Conventions date back to the turn of the 20th C.
Right or wrong, I think there was a view in WWII that all bets were off.
Read it again. I don’t think the writer meant it in a negative sense.
I believe most Israelis feel the same.
That just means he was proud of his side committing war crimes - but what he was describing was definitely those. Churchill was similar when he wrote;
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests rather than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.
My bolding, to emphasize my point.
What are the other reasons?
Nope, not at all. What I dispute is that this is caused by inappropriate action on Israel’s part, when the fault clearly lays with Hamas, who fire missiles at Israel from among their own women and children specifically because the disproportionate casualties on their own side are a PR victory for Hamas.
Here’s an alternative: warn people to evacuate Gaza before coming in. Maybe give a very restricted timeline (say 24 hrs), but then hold off on followup operations because you understand that it would take civilians longer than that to evacuate, especially since Hamas is trying to prevent civilians from escaping. That way there will be many fewer civilians present in Gaza city for the heaviest fighting, and you can get aid into areas where the fighting isn’t happening.
Hey, wait a minute, that sounds like exactly what Israel is doing, almost as if they’re concerned about Palestinian civilian casualties! But that’s impossible, I was told on this website by many people that Israel wants gEnOcIdE 
Your opinion is noted. Personally, I consider responding to the attrocities that happened Oct 7 to be a good thing, but maybe it is the rightful place of the Jew to be the victim of Pogroms
It’s easy enough to say “evacuate” to civilians and it is clear that many thousands heeded those warnings, or attempted to do so. But it’s not quite as simple as everyone strapping on backpacks and going for walk. For one thing, they’re evacuating through a war zone while being bombarded from above and risking violence on the ground. Hamas actively tried to discourage people from moving and in Gaza Hamas are the ones with the guns, not the civilians. There’s the problem of trying to move with very small children, the elderly, or the disabled. There’s a lack of food and water for everyone, both as supplies to carry and supplies whenever they get where they are going - remember, Israel has cut off ALL supplies to Gaza, what’s there is a rapidly diminishing resource. But nonetheless, thousands relocated to the southern areas of Gaza.
And then Israel bombed the safe areas.
The IDF clearly considers ANYTHING in Gaza to be fair game. They might even have justifications for that. But telling civilians to “evacuate” from potential targets when “potential targets” mean “anything and everything in Gaza” and no one is allowed to leave Gaza (because the Israelis, Hamas, and Egypt all are preventing anyone from leaving) is nothing more than a sick, sick joke. An evacuation can’t take place, it’s been made impossible.
Yes, that could be seen as genocide.
That’s rather insulting to someone whose grandparents fled the pograms in Eastern Europe, but I understand this is emotionally charged for you so I will just let that pass rather than get the angry response you so clearly desire.
For those who are still listening: sometimes in war there are no good actions and you have to choose the one that is the least bad. Putting all of Gaza under siege is not a good thing, so those in favor of it tell me why it is the least bad alternative available.
Maybe it’s like the atomic bombings at the end of WWII - there is no way I could ever call those a good thing. They were absolutely horrific. I also think there’s a valid argument that they were the least bad alternative and the other plan, invading Japan, would have killed even more people and been more destructive over a wider area. So… it’s still a bad thing, but justifiable.
So. Tell me why cutting off all fuel, food, and water to 2.5 million people is the least bad alternative here. I’m listening.
Tell me why not permitting civilians to leave a zone targeted for aerial bombardment is the least bad alternative. I’m listening.
I prefer thinking of it as New Jersey at war with NYC. Both the population and the geography are similar in size.
It’s entirely possible that two war crimes occurred simultaneously. A Hamas military leader hid in a hospital (a war crime) and Israel killed more people in attacking that hospital than was justified by his military value (also a war crime).
Joan Rivers said of a rocket attack on Israel, “Can you imagine if Jersey did that to us? We’d wipe them out!”
Hell, think what would happen in today’s America if thousands of Mexicans crossed the borders and (God forbid) brutally massacred a thousand civilians. The resulting death toll would be in the tens of thousands - and that would just be people of Hispanic heritage inside the United States. The death toll in Mexico itself would be much higher.
population in millions of people/square miles
Israel 9.364/8,630
NJ 9.267/8,723
Gaza 2.048/140
NYC 8.804/303 (land area)
Manhattan 1.694/23
Brooklyn 2.736/69
Queens 2.405/109
The Bronx 1.473/42
Staten Island 0.496/58
Hmm, NYC is larger. Maybe it’s more like Queens County and NJ going to war. Still, either comparison gives a better sense of the intimacy of the situation, as well as the size.
Since I had some trouble finding details on the boroughs, here’s my source.
Boroughs of New York City - Wikipedia
You’re right, the way Hamas intentionally prevents their own civilians from reaching safety is absolutely atrocious. Short of taking control of the Gaza strip from Hamas (and they’re working on it) I don’t see what Israel is supposed to do to prevent Hamas from mistreating the Palestinians in this way, though.
Water has been restored ages ago and there is humanitarian aid coming in. There’s lots of fuel in Gaza, too. That the ruling class of Gaza (Hamas) keeps this stuff all to themselves and in fact steals fuel from hospitals is one of the many tragedies of this war, but again, short of invading Gaza and removing them from power (and again, working on it) I don’t see what Israel can do about that.
That’s definitely untrue. The IDF considers military targets in Gaza to be fair game. That Hamas is committing war crimes by using civilians to block military targets is on them.
In what possible way? That’s absolutely ridiculous. Words have meaning. Genocide would be the attempted destruction of the Palestinian people, which is simply not something Israel has done.
You think you have some special claim to oppression? My great grandparents (4 of them on my mom’s side) were Zionists who left Eastern Europe because of Pogroms and came to Israel to build a better life for themselves during Ottoman and British rule. They are the only members of that side of my family to survive the Hollocaust. My grandparents on my dad’s side meanwhile had an elderly parent to care for and so could not leave Morocco, staying while my grandfather’s spice shop was burned to the ground again and again. Eventually my great-grandma passed away and they were able to flee Morocco with a single suitcase for them and their five kids, and without a lira to their name, since the Moroccans forbade them from taking anything of value. They took a cargo ship to Cyprus before coming to Israel.
Almost my entire family was murdered for the simple fact that they were Jewish. That is what Genocide looks like. They were not killed because Jewish radicals fired rockets at Polish civilians and the Polish army had no choice but to respond. Comparing rhe two is absolutely disgusting.
Israel has the right and even the duty to respond to Hamas with deadly force. But this Israeli government has been so morally corrupt that every decision, including military decisions, should be scrutinized very closely, and IMO it deserves no benefit of the doubt for questionable actions and decisions.