131–140 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Well, the first thing you do is stop doing it if you're the one killing the civilians. If your own leaders are doing it, you try to stop them, especially as a citizen of a democratic country. If someone else in the world is doing it, you try to engage the UN and other international bodies to help, hopefully with a diplomatic solution. Failing all this, and assuming it's your people being killed, you will have to take…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think an argument can be made that validating human shield tactics may result in much greater loss of live in the long term. More groups will use such tactics, and groups which don't value human life will gain leverage over those that do. It's hard to predict long term geopolitical effects, but it seems like a pretty dangerous trend. If you don't buy that though, it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prior…
I am not sure that argument can be made, since there doesn't appear to be data to support it. If anything, the data show the opposite. What we do have data to support is that bombing apartment blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and aid convoys and aid warehouses all full of innocent civilians is illegal, even if you shout "human shield!" first, even if you really want to achieve your political or military aims, e…
Every country "discriminates" based on nationality; to expect otherwise would be unreasonable. If a country truly valued all human interests equally, there would be no reason for citizenship.
If Israel was governed by moral saints, they might reach a conclusion that any military response would lead to negative net utility, so it's better to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to attack with impunity until they eventually conquer Israel and cleanse it of Jews. Moral sainthood isn't a reasonable expectation, though, and it's certainly not a standard anyone applies to other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the first thing you do is stop doing it if you're the one killing the civilians. If your own leaders are doing it, you try to stop them, especially as a citizen of a democratic country. If someone else in the world is doing it, you try to engage the UN and other international bodies to help, hopefully with a diplomatic solution. Failing all this, and assuming it's your people being killed, you will have to take…
[flagged]
The reason this is clear is also because killing Hamas achieves nothing, if you also destroy so much of the livelihood (and lives) of those living there. Even if Israel kills each and every last Hamas operative, in 5 years time at the worse, there will be new fighters taking their place, even more radical: what other reaction would anyone expect from people whose families you murdered, whose house you destroyed, whose entire future you've erased?
And again, the solution to all of this was (and still is, in the long term) to stop killing the people of Palestine and stealing more and more of their land. If Israel just accepted the victory they've already achieved in their conquests in the 1940s and later, and allowed Palestine to be an independent, functional country, as almost achieved in the Oslo accords (before Israel sabotaged that process), then Palestinians would have also stopped attacking Israel, a long time ago.
And please remember that Netanyahu has prouded himself for a long time in his ability to prevent a two-state solution, and considers Hamas a good ally in this goal. When, after this war, a new terrorist organization rises up instead of Hamas as a reaction to the slaughter, you can bet that Netanyahu or another similar Israeli politician will again favor them and seek to allow them to control Gaza, so that no dialog can ever happen and they get to keep the people of Gaza living in inhuman conditions.
Anyone who sincerely wants more lives to saved can only want a two-state solution to be achieved as soon as possible. The killing will quickly stop once that truly happens. The only reason to not believe that is if you follow the far-right Israeli position that sees Palestinians as sub-human beasts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This war is not being fought to simply stop Hamas. That much is absolutely evident, from so many public declarations from virtually every member of Israel's government. The purpose of this war is, again, to punish all the people of Gaza for their colective guilt; and, it is also fought to actually retake some of their land for illegal Israeli settlers. The reason this is clear is also because killing Hamas achieves n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This war is not being fought to simply stop Hamas. That much is absolutely evident, from so many public declarations from virtually every member of Israel's government. The purpose of this war is, again, to punish all the people of Gaza for their colective guilt; and, it is also fought to actually retake some of their land for illegal Israeli settlers. The reason this is clear is also because killing Hamas achieves n…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure that argument can be made, since there doesn't appear to be data to support it. If anything, the data show the opposite. What we do have data to support is that bombing apartment blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and aid convoys and aid warehouses all full of innocent civilians is illegal, even if you shout "human shield!" first, even if you really want to achieve your political or military aims, e…
That's not really responsive to what I wrote. I was pondering the long-term effects of validating human shield tactics, which has nothing to do with the laws of war, or semantic questions of what constitutes a state. Every country "discriminates" based on nationality; to expect otherwise would be unreasonable. If a country truly valued all human interests equally, there would be no reason for citizenship. If Israel w…
> Every country "discriminates" based on nationality;
You've twisted my words: I said race, religion, or national origin, not nationality. Their national origin is Palestine. Their nationality is either Israeli or Palestinian. If Palestinian, that means Palestine is a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If Israeli, that means Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. Israel believes Palestine is not an independent country, therefore they are bound to the obligations of the latter, and cannot discriminate against their national subjects based on national origin.
Let's be clear here: Nobody expects Israel to admit any wrong here, or to do any good here, despite the international condemnation. This is just explaining that condemnation.
> it's better to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to attack with impunity until they eventually conquer Israel and cleanse it of Jews.
Please, we're being serious here. Hamas' latest attack, after years of planning, was their most successful in history, and it killed some 95% fewer than Israel has cleansed in the months since then, on a moment's notice. One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke -- it's simply unrealistic given Hamas' means and history. Even so, as mentioned above, it's not an excuse for Israel's literal genocide of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians so far, with millions more in the crosshairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really responsive to what I wrote. I was pondering the long-term effects of validating human shield tactics, which has nothing to do with the laws of war, or semantic questions of what constitutes a state. Every country "discriminates" based on nationality; to expect otherwise would be unreasonable. If a country truly valued all human interests equally, there would be no reason for citizenship. If Israel w…
Your post isn't very responsive to what I wrote. Aside from seemingly ignoring the whole point of this ruling (that Israel's behavior is illegal and inexcusable, meaning the excuses you cited don't excuse the behavior), you also rehashed this: > Every country "discriminates" based on nationality; You've twisted my words: I said race, religion, or national origin, not nationality. Their national origin is Palestine. T…
Even if you want to make the argument that Israel is occupying (Hamas-controlled parts of) Gaza, that wouldn't make Gazans Israeli citizens, and realistically every country prioritizes the safety of their citizens; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect otherwise.
> One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke
You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That is not a fallacy, it is in fact coded into international humanitarian law that a state actor must follow international humanitarian law under all circumstances. It is a fallacy to assume that governments are driven by hatred and are unable to control their state’s response to unethical acts.