Article: Israel appears to be exploiting disarray in Lebanese Hezbollah in order to inflict further damage upon the group. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted an airstrike in southern Beirut on September 20, killing several senior commanders in Hezbollah's Radwan special operations forces unit.[1] The targeted individuals included Ibrahim Aqil, who was the overall Radwan commander. He was also a member of the Hezbollah Jihad Council, which oversees the group's military operations. That Israel detected and was able to target such a sensitive meeting suggests that Hezbollah is suffering from lapses in operational security—possibly caused by Israel detonating the pagers and personal radios used by Hezbollah members.[2] These detonations compromised Hezbollah's primary and secondary means of communication. CTP-ISW previously observed that Hezbollah could revert to less secure methods of communication, such as phones and radio relays, in order to rapidly restore communications.[3] Doing so would leave Hezbollah vulnerable, given that Israel could intercept these signals.
There's some weird edge areas here too.
So, I won't state I think this happened, we have no material to state so. Although, theoretically speaking, you could entirely drop leaflets like this if your intent was to increase evacuations due to perceptive fear, that, would include people that otherwise wouldn't just leave from a normal evac leaflet. There's some other potential effects too. That'd all be entirely legitimate in a legal sense, of course, some may fairly debate the technique.
I would note, the claimed leaflets do actually say this. With that said, the leaflets look like an odd one out to me. The actual document background with the blue borders and etc I've never seen IDF or any Israeli service using that, plenty examples online of the general formatting their leaflets have and the colors and all they contain. They were also printed crooked, which, not a major key but worth consideration.
I would note, the claimed leaflets do actually say this.
Yes, it does to me. My interpretation is that (1) genuine Israeli leaflets would not say that, but (2) there exist leaflets that do say it. But both the words and the actual appearance point to there being "fake" Hezbollah-created leaflets for their own propaganda purposes. They may or may not have been dropped over Lebanon; that's still to be determined.That sentence doesn't make sense.
"Fresh water now available from such-and-such pumpDropping leaflets is not a war crime, no matter what's on them.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instrument...ugust-1949-and#article-38--recognized-emblemsExternal Quote:Article 38 - Recognized emblems
1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
Dropping leaflets is not a war crime, no matter what's on them.
International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law Databases, Geneva Conventions and ProtocolsExternal Quote:Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarterExternal Quote:No quarter, during military conflict, implies that combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killed. Since the Hague Convention of 1899, it is considered a war crime; it is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. The Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given".
doesn't apply, see 8 (l)
Not for the protection of leaflets.External Quote:(l) "Distinctive emblem" means the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground when used for the protection of medical units and transports, or medical and religious personnel, equipment or supplies;
I'd have highlighted "primary purpose" here. But yeah, that may be a way to commit a war crime using leaflets. Though I'm not sure that there's precedent for it.International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law Databases, Geneva Conventions and ProtocolsExternal Quote:Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51?activeTab=
In addition, a combatant declaring "No quarter shall be given", e.g. if you don't comply you will all be killed, breaches the international laws of armed conflict, although such declarations are common
(I'm not persuaded the alleged IDF leaflet, "...may be determined an accomplice in a terrorist organisation" is an example):
Article: Article 4 - Fundamental guarantees
1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.
doesn't apply, see 8 (l)
Not for the protection of leaflets.External Quote:(l) "Distinctive emblem" means the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground when used for the protection of medical units and transports, or medical and religious personnel, equipment or supplies;
That sentence doesn't make sense.
Got to this late but LilWabbit got them above for ya.We'd be obliged if you could upload a photograph of the "claimed leaflets" that "do actually say this"? You seem to have seen a picture of a leaflet with "blue borders". I failed to spot it on the Al Jazeera article.
Yes. Although, I would put the hypothesis that they're fake a bit below them being real (though with a caveat). That caveat being, the wording may not have been 100% reflective of what they actually intended to do. With the information we have though the legitimate hypothesis is greater, and both forms of it (real to form vs caveat form) are equally balanced atm. We would need another indicator or two to push the false hypothesis greater.Yes, it does to me. My interpretation is that (1) genuine Israeli leaflets would not say that, but (2) there exist leaflets that do say it. But both the words and the actual appearance point to there being "fake" Hezbollah-created leaflets for their own propaganda purposes. They may or may not have been dropped over Lebanon; that's still to be determined.
@Tezcatlipoca , do I have that right?
Planning activities like this is really complex, and, there's a reason these teams generally have lawyers on them chiming in there. The lawyer would make the final decision but, generally speaking, you can actually do this, if your intent is instead to induce more evacuations, rather than induce fear. How exactly you place things in wording though can alter that and make it really tricky.International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law Databases, Geneva Conventions and ProtocolsExternal Quote:Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51?activeTab=
"Advice" which puts civilians at increased risk is also prohibited, such as encouraging refugees to move to areas in the way of advancing enemy formations. It is not legal to encourage, or threaten to use, targeting/ tactics/ techniques contrary to international law.
In addition, a combatant declaring "No quarter shall be given", e.g. if you don't comply you will all be killed, breaches the international laws of armed conflict, although such declarations are common
(I'm not persuaded the alleged IDF leaflet, "...may be determined an accomplice in a terrorist organisation" is an example):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarterExternal Quote:No quarter, during military conflict, implies that combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killed. Since the Hague Convention of 1899, it is considered a war crime; it is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. The Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given".
Whether prosecutions are successfully (and impartially) pursued against those breaking international law is a different matter.
Air raids have also claimed the most civilian casualties by a wide margin.
In the case of Gaza, the dropping of leaflets and the sending of texts as advance warnings have been carried out with the knowledge that human shields are probably forcibly used and hence major civilian casualties are inevitable
In the current Israel/ Hamas and Hezbollah conflict.
Not in e.g. World War II (fully accepting that you didn't claim that).
This is certainly the case with the Israeli (and some other nationality) hostages, and hostage-taking is always a war crime.
Is there any evidence that other 'human shields' are being used?
Article: White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said that the United States has intelligence indicating that Hamas is using the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City for military purposes, possibly for weapon storage and also for holding captives.[69][70] National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated that "you can see even from open-source reporting that Hamas does use hospitals, along with a lot of other civilian facilities, for command-and-control, for storing weapons, for housing its fighters... this is Hamas' track record, both historically and in this conflict". According to another US official, "Hamas has a command node under the Al-Shifa hospital, uses fuel intended for it and its fighters regularly cluster in and around [it]."[71] The US assessment that Hamas and other Palestinian militants were operating within the Al-Shifa hospital included communication intercepts of fighters inside the complex.[72]
A top Hamas official stated in October 2023 that they are not responsible for the protection of civilians in Gaza, and that instead the UN and in particular Israel are responsible for this under international law given that it is the occupying power over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which includes Gaza.[73]
"These activities" would be shelling and sniping, as per the indictment. I don't see leaflets mentioned.For anyone interested in exactly that, probably the best modern case is Stanilav Galic during the Yugoslav wars. He made use of these activities within the problemed and specifically too the fear-raising and terror context. Some of the specific conclusions rested in here are used as specific precedent for/against things when assessing activities that may stray close to it (by some actors anyways). Definitely more of a nerd read though not super important to the discussion here.
https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2003/en/40194
Like you said perhaps better for another thread, but IIRC Israel claimed there was a command center under a hospital but the evidence they provided was incredibly weak.and having built a full-fledged command and control bunker under a hospital are not necessarily difficult to prove using open source evidence, but are perhaps a matter for another thread.
External Quote:During the Israel–Hamas war, Israel and the United States[1][2] stated that a vast complex existed under al-Shifa hospital that was being used by Hamas as its "main operations base", which Hamas and hospital administrators denied.[3][4] Following Israel's release of video evidence on 22 November, multiple news agencies concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the use by Hamas of a command center,[5][6][7][8][9] while Haaretz concluded that Hamas did use the hospital for military purposes.[10] Amnesty International said on 23 November 2023 that "Amnesty International has so far not seen any credible evidence to support Israel's claim that al-Shifa is housing a military command centre" and that "theIsraeli military has so far failed to provide credible evidence" for the allegation
During the Israel–Hamas war, Israel and the United States[1][2] stated that a vast complex existed under al-Shifa hospital that was being used by Hamas as its "main operations base", which Hamas and hospital administrators denied.[3][4] Following Israel's release of video evidence on 22 November, multiple news agencies concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the use by Hamas of a command center,[5][6][7][8][9]
What would be your #1? Famine and disease? Got numbers for Gaza?Not in e.g. World War II (fully accepting that you didn't claim that).
https://www.timesofisrael.com/herzo...ing-to-plan-oct-7-style-invasion-when-killed/External Quote:(Israeli) President Isaac Herzog said on Sunday that a Beirut gathering last week of top Hezbollah commanders that was bombed by Israel was convened to plan an attack on Israel like the devastating October 7 assault by Palestinian terror group Hamas.
His assertion matched media reports about the meeting and came the day after the Israel Defense Forces confirmed that it eliminated many of the top commanders of Hezbollah's elite Radwan Force in a Friday airstrike that collapsed the building where the meeting was being held.
(I've popped my meandering thoughts on the matter in a DM because I go way off-topic).What would be your #1? Famine and disease?
Undoubtedly true and correct in every respect.In WW2, German war-related civilian casualties (i.e. not counting the holocaust, or post-war expulsions) were overwhelmingly due to Allied strategic bombing. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki should qualify as air raids, too.
Only the numbers estimated by mainstream news services. I get the impression that most casualties in Gaza have been caused by air attack, possibly a large majority, but I don't remember any breakdown of the numbers of casualties being reported.Got numbers for Gaza?
Sounds a bit lame to quote AP news "but so far its search showed no signs of tunnels or a sophisticated command center."Be as it may, the Wikipedia article is flat out wrong in claiming that the referenced news agencies, at least with respect to the AP, "concluded" anything.
Sounds a bit lame to quote AP news "but so far its search showed no signs of tunnels or a sophisticated command center."
A week later they did find something, but it was embarrassingly lame, the story was dropped soon afterwards, (there was a tunnel though) the evidence of a command center was near embarrassing.
Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF (something for the video experts here to analyze), these tunnels (note, plural) look far from "lame" and small.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/middleeast/gaza-tunnel-shaft-al-shifa-hospital-intl-hnk/index.htmlExternal Quote:
It is arguably the most compelling evidence thus far that the IDF has offered that there may be a network of tunnels below the hospital. It does not establish without a doubt that there is a command center under Gaza's largest hospital, but it is clear that there is a tunnel down below. Seeing what connects to that tunnel is absolutely critical.
VIDEO
IDF claims video shows hostages in Al-Shifa hospital
For Israel, the stakes could not be higher. Israel has publicly asserted for weeks, if not years, that Hamas has built terror infrastructure below the hospital. The ability to continue to prosecute the war in the face of mounting international criticism depends to a large extent on Israel being able to prove this point.
Hamas has repeatedly denied that there is a network of tunnels below Shifa hospital. Health officials who have spoken with CNN have said the same, insisting it is only a medical facility.
As is so rarely the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this answer truly is black and white. Either there is an underground series of tunnels below the hospital. Or there is not.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/External Quote:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate the Economic Times Right-Center biased and Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/middleeast/gaza-tunnel-shaft-al-shifa-hospital-intl-hnk/index.htmlExternal Quote:
It is arguably the most compelling evidence thus far that the IDF has offered that there may be a network of tunnels below the hospital. It does not establish without a doubt that there is a command center under Gaza's largest hospital, but it is clear that there is a tunnel down below. Seeing what connects to that tunnel is absolutely critical.
VIDEO
IDF claims video shows hostages in Al-Shifa hospital
For Israel, the stakes could not be higher. Israel has publicly asserted for weeks, if not years, that Hamas has built terror infrastructure below the hospital. The ability to continue to prosecute the war in the face of mounting international criticism depends to a large extent on Israel being able to prove this point.
Hamas has repeatedly denied that there is a network of tunnels below Shifa hospital. Health officials who have spoken with CNN have said the same, insisting it is only a medical facility.
As is so rarely the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this answer truly is black and white. Either there is an underground series of tunnels below the hospital. Or there is not.
It might be worth noting that the source of the video you posted is the Economic Times, whose reliability as a source has been called into question.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/External Quote:
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate the Economic Times Right-Center biased and Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks.
OK thanks the video does loop around FWIW and hard to see with fisheyed lens which makes everything seem bigger than it is ,
Now on this video there is evidence of something. One can argue if its a command center or not, but for me, yes you made your point, it doesn't look like it was not used much though?
Article: American intelligence agencies obtained information that Hamas fighters had evacuated the complex days before the multiday operation, destroying documents and electronics as they left, the senior intelligence official said.
Looking more, Its certainly not a command center,
but I grant you its something that should not be there, thus you've convinced me in this point, What did Hamas say about this video?
Article: After the operation, the Israeli military took reporters to a shaft at the complex leading to a tunnel network. Later, the military showed the tunnels underneath the hospital.
White House officials at the time backed the Israeli assessment. "We have information that confirms that Hamas is using that particular hospital for a command and control node," John F. Kirby, a National Security Council spokesman, said on Nov. 14.
In the weeks since the operation, news organizations have continued to raise questions about Hamas's presence at the hospital. And health and humanitarian organizations have criticized the Israeli operation. A humanitarian team lead by the World Health Organization, which visited Al-Shifa immediately after Israeli forces stormed the hospital, called it a "death zone."
But the American intelligence assessment has remained firm that the hospital was used by Hamas. The new intelligence represents the most current American assessment, officials said.
The complex was used by both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to command forces fighting against Israel, according to the intelligence.
While the spy agencies provided no visual evidence, a U.S. official said they were confident in their assessment because it was based on information collected by Israel and America's own intelligence, gathered independently.
Some had hoped that the operation to take the hospital could result in the rescue of some of the hostages taken by Palestinian fighters during their Oct. 7 attack on Israel. No hostages were rescued, but Israeli officials found the bodies of two hostages at or near the complex, officials have said.
The new American intelligence assessment says the Israeli assessment was at least partially correct that some hostages were held at or under the complex. But those hostages appear to have been moved as Hamas evacuated.
Same here (and also not on a guided tour)Firstly, the tunnel network and the rooms aren't small as far as makeshift tunnels under constant adversary intelligence surveillance are concerned and limited access to tunnel-building provisions/materials/equipment are concerned. Have you seen Viet Cong tunnels? I've even been to some.
No mate, just something more lived in, this looked like it had just been built and no one had actually been there. (*)What were you expecting? A NASA mission control center?
What political bias? Just curious, I'm far left FWIW, extreme left perhapsOne which does seem to stem from some political bias about which you've been quite open
Well then, it's just as well I didn't DO that, isn't it? I've merely provided a grain of salt. You yourself said "Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF", and in these days of sophisticated fakes, one would be naïve to summarily accept it because it's uploaded by a network that shares your own political tenets.The footage is evidence of something. MB is free to evaluate what it features and how authentically. But to summarily dismiss it because it's uploaded by a biased network that represents political tenets opposite to yours, or because it's filmed by IDF, would be unscientific and biased.
Well then, it's just as well I didn't DO that, isn't it? I've merely provided a grain of salt. You yourself said "Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF", and in these days of sophisticated fakes, one would be naïve to summarily accept it because it's uploaded by a network that shares your own political tenets.
"found a tunnel in Gaza" is a "dog bites man" storyAs someone who's lived in 4 cities where forgotten-about tunnels have been discovered many years later (more than once where I currently am), I see the disconnect between "discovery of tunnels" and "recently used by Hamas" as an as-yet unproven leap.
"found a tunnel in Gaza" is a "dog bites man" story
the hard part is
a) showing that the tunnel was under the hospital, and not e.g. under an adjoining lot,
b) showing that the tunnel had a military purpose,
c) at the time.
Alternately, Israel could reveal the intelligence they used to justify that bombing.
Ah, the "there's evidence, we just can't show you" card. I hear Lue's recruiting, drop him a note, you've got skillz.Valid concerns but revealing intel always risks exposing intel gathering methods and sources. It's especially risky during active operations. And yet it would indeed provide the best "direct" evidence for public scrutiny. Us having no access to such direct intel is therefore never automatically an indication of questionable intel.
Eliminating alternative plausible explanations is the likelier method for us to reach any measure of confidence. What are the plausible alternatives that aren't naive?
Not showing the evidence might be best, though, as the previous post contained "evidence" of a tunnel network with a store room and a hospital *below the water table*.
So you can strike 'no access to medical facility' right off your list of criticisms for the Al Shifa "not a C2" proposition.
Oh the irony....when reached by phone last Wednesday,...