That's not comparable because that is not a military operation and there was no military advantage to the action.
> Right now you can not call ambulances or firetrucks or anything. Not all 2M Palestinians in Gaza are combatants, but I think that some people consider them to be.
I don't know what people think happens in a war, but generally innocents always pay the price. That's true in this conflict and it is true in literally every other conflict that has happened ever.
If only the guilty died in wars, we wouldn't say war is hell.
Generally from an international law perspective, the obligation is to ensure that civilian damage is porportional to military advantage. There is no obligation under the geneva convention to never do anything that could harm civilians, it just has to have enough of a military advantage to justify it (this is a gross over simplification)
On the Israeli side (but you can read about Hamas in the report above):
"Israel has also engaged in the collective punishment of Gaza’s population through cutting off food, water, electricity, and fuel. This is a war crime, as is willfully blocking humanitarian relief from reaching civilians in need."
"There’s also concern about Israel ordering the displacement of much of Gaza’s civilian population, which is permitted only if required for the civilians’ security or imperative military reasons. The civilian population needs to be able to return as soon as possible - permanent displacement is a crime."
"In addition, the Israeli occupying authorities have committed and continue to commit other international crimes, including with West Bank settlements. If the occupying power transfers any of its civilian population into the occupied territory, either directly or indirectly, it is a war crime."
I'm not claiming israel is a saint here, only that disrupting telecomms during wae is not in itself a war crime.
I fully agree the west bank is fucked up (i do not think that justifies oct 7, which on the scale of atrocities seems much worse)
As far as the blockade goes, i don't know - it seems like there might be a grey area between blocking humanitarian aid vs being required to provide it. At least personally i think blocking the water was too far, but blocking fuel seems reasonable to me, but ianal and this doesn't seem clear cut to me so id like to wait for more analysis.
> There’s also concern about Israel ordering the displacement of much of Gaza’s civilian population, which is permitted only if required for the civilians’ security or imperative military reasons. The civilian population needs to be able to return as soon as possible - permanent displacement is a crime."
Given there is a ground invasion there starting right now, in a dense urban environment "civilians’ security or imperative military reasons" criteria seems met imo. I agree its imperative they be let back when fighting is over.
In the context of this conflict, it should be noted that the Palestinian side has commited a crazy amount of war crimes over a very long time (both by hamas but also past groups). That doesn't excuse israel's misdeeds, but when only one side is held to account, it delegitamizes the whole project of international law.
That's not comparable because that is not a military operation and there was no military advantage to the action.
> Right now you can not call ambulances or firetrucks or anything. Not all 2M Palestinians in Gaza are combatants, but I think that some people consider them to be.
I don't know what people think happens in a war, but generally innocents always pay the price. That's true in this conflict and it is true in literally every other conflict that has happened ever.
If only the guilty died in wars, we wouldn't say war is hell.
Generally from an international law perspective, the obligation is to ensure that civilian damage is porportional to military advantage. There is no obligation under the geneva convention to never do anything that could harm civilians, it just has to have enough of a military advantage to justify it (this is a gross over simplification)