@SWLABR
I don't think that any of our Western civilised governments has any intention to stop Israel.
Many European countries are profiting from this massacre.
If you refer to the fact that the commoners protesting in the streets of Western countries can't stop Israel, well, yes, we don't have governments that represent us and we have very little power until election day (and then other 364 days of non-power). @Miro_Collas@palestine
I agree with all of this, maybe with the caveat that we don't have any control at any time, even on election day. More than half of the population can be fooled into thinking they are "making a choice" when actually you couldn't get a fag paper between the policies of the two contenders.
But wanting war in Gaza does carry risk for the west, if it escalates into a more general widespread conflict.
@SWLABR
That's the trick, the two contenders, you must vote for the third! They might not get in power straight away, but they might slowly grow in numbers and one day, my grandchildren might see a better government and real democracy.
Slow and steady @Miro_Collas@palestine
@ridicol@SWLABR@Miro_Collas@palestine to say that you want to stop Israel, without providing a legal military action in response to this Al Aqsa Flood operation, would be to deny the right to self defense.
@nicholas_saunders@ridicol@SWLABR@Miro_Collas@palestine Does a concentration camp guard has a "right to defend themself" from the inmates they guard? Or, on the contrary, a concentration camp inmate has the right to fight to free themselves?
This stopped being self defence long ago, if it ever was. Self defence happens when you stop attacks on land or from air, crossing borders into your country.
What we have here is wholesale carnage, the slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians in the tens of thousands.
Well surgical strikes against people known to be Hamas operatives, AND NOBODY ELSE, would have been one option. Israel's whole approach is wrong
Just after Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, Yoav Gallant, Israel's defence minister, announced: "We are putting a complete siege on Gaza… No electricity, no food, no water, no gas - it's all closed."
"We are fighting human animals," he added, "and we are acting accordingly."
I think that should explain what has gone so terribly wrong in Israel's response. Out and out racism and dehumanisation of the Arab population. They seem to have learnt nothing from World War 2.
Incidentally, for those of us in Britain, we should also remember Keir Starmer supported this genocidal policy of no food and water for Palestine back in October. Then he backtracked when he saw it was losing him support.
Nobody should vote for Starmer. He cannot be trusted.
@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine not only is there no legal requirement to supply food, there's a legal and moral obligation to ensure that no humanitarian aid reaches Hamas.
Which it most certainly has.
Let's not oversimplify the mechanics of providing humanitarian aid.
There was another option: take NO military action whatsoever, and instead take it to the ICC, as a rebuttal to Palestine's case against Israel. Israel would have had the moral high ground, and overwhelming public backing. Instead it took the coward's route: mass murder, and is becoming a pariah.
@Miro_Collas@nicholas_saunders@SWLABR@ridicol@palestine There was a time when Israel did those precision commando raids, like at Entebbe, and like when they abducted Eichmann. That earned them the admiration of the world.
Who said that Israel should supply other people food? Why - no one!
What Israel is doing is blockading food, water, and electricity from any source from coming into Gaza - for everyone, most of who are innocent, many of whom are children, many of whom are dead.
This is a war crime.
You know this, of course: people have repeatedly told you this. I followed you for some reason, but that's ending now.
@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine you have not responded to the observation of there being both a moral and legal obligation to ensure that humanitarian aid doesn't reach Hamas.
Don't oversimplify the logistics of humanitarian aid.
This has been a problem since time immoral. When you're able to separate Hamas from civilians, let me know. When you're able to prevent Hamas from seizing humanitarian aid, let me know.
Preventing a civilian population from access to food, water, electricity and medical supplies is a war crime. There's no wiggle room on this - it simply is.
You can't say, "Some of them might be Hamas, so we can starve them all" - that's exactly the sort of evil reasoning the Geneva Convention prevents. Even the Nazis at least pretended to respect the Geneva Convention!
"Preventing a civilian population from access to food, water, electricity and medical supplies is a war crime."
which it is not.
Stop distorting what I wrote and try just quoting what you find objectionable and it will quickly become apparent that you're misrepresenting my words.
In absolutely no way am I misrepresenting your words.
You have repeatedly said that Israel is required by law to make sure that food, water, electricity and medical supplies do not possibly get to Hamas, even if this means starving innocent people.
> No protected person may be punished for any offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Preventing a civilian population from receiving food, water, electricity and medicine is a war crime, period, full stop, end of story.
Even the fucking Nazis allowed the Red Cross to provide medical care to PoWs!
@resuna@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine before I quote any laws let's note that not one person in this thread has acknowledged the historical problems with humanitarian aid, predating the UN itself, or the moral quandaries for those involved in any conflict, anywhere, throughout history, which would involve humanitarian aid.
Sure, I'll give you links. With the expectation of a block just before the standard fediverse maneuver of getting in the last word.
But you cannotfind?
is provided with that biased expectation in mind. If you want to continue the discussion, great, and I'll apologize to you directly -- but my experience on the fediverse would contraindicate that. We shall see.
I might add that your idea that it is OK to remove food, water, electricity and medical supplies from a civilian population including women and children, is morally and ethically wrong, even if we didn't have 70 years of laws preventing it.
@resuna@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine as memory serves, you've referenced only the humanitarian aspect and thus avoided that, obviously, if Hamas caught a citizen committing the acts outlined in the constitution that their repercussions would be at least as severe.
Don't try to act like you were discussing anything other than international law, and don't pretend that at any time you've addressed the moral angle raised.
No, there is no fucking source anywhere in that thread.
You have it? Post it here!
Watching you claim that you have a source, and then move to claiming that you have already given us this source, is simply astonishing, but also, deeply disturbing.
Again: in not addressing the moral aspect to the reference to the Constitution as it relates to treason, indicates that you've only looked at international law and not the morality of treason.
That you're asking me for the law related to the quoted excerpt from the Constitution demonstrates that you've not read the linked Wikedia entry on treason.
@nicholas_saunders@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine
Sure… let’s starve 2.2 million people just to make sure that the “troublemakers” don’t get any food. Great strategy for annihilation!
Why didn’t the European settlers think of that in the 1500’s and beyond?
It’s the equivalent of the diseased blankets.
In fact, it should have a name: “blanket-starvation”.
Wow!
@nicholas_saunders@palestine@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas This is absolutely untrue - the occupying power is responsible for the welfare of the occupied. This is more evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about.
@montrebei@palestine@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas the context you would seek is better expressed by South Africa, as I believe I've linked to for benefit already. Notably, it's the same context which Arafat sought when negotiating with Clinton, as here:
Here is some context from South Africa, if you want to go there, from a Andrew Feinstein, a person who was there and who fought Apartheid alongside Mandela and Desmond Tutu. All of them were very clear that Israel was on the side of the Apartheid government
While you're able to post links, you've yet again demonstrated any ability to marshal an argument of your own.
That Arafat rejected an offer is neither here nor there, and your lack of comprehension of the import of what was said demonstrates your inability to parse what was said.
No it isn't! In 2024 war needn't involve the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, children gunned down in their thousands. We've seen images of rows of men , naked, bleeding, hands tied. Utterly abhorrent war crimes..
That sort of warfare, outright, pointless slaughter, revenge massacres, should have ended with Dresden.
Nowadays the US can achieve surgical strikes with drones. Why can't Israel?
If you can't wage war without the wholesale killing of innocents, then you shouldn't do so at all.
@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine you're conflating targeting with finding targets. It's just not reasonable to demand perfect intelligence, particularly factoring in the tactics of Hamas.
@SWLABR@Miro_Collas@palestine@ridicol@nicholas_saunders The thing is, this was never a war “against Hamas”, it is a war against the Palestinian people (evidenced by the body count in the West Bank, where Hamas has no authority). It is a continuation of the colonization of Palestine.
@montrebei@SWLABR@Miro_Collas@palestine@ridicol certainly that's the context sought by South Africa, and just as clearly, you've not read my comments on context in this very discussion, nor read the quotes, nor read the cited material.
Because you think that I would obviously agree with you if I only read what you had to say? I'm afraid you are mistaken, and you haven't presented anything like a coherent or compelling argument.
You don't seem to understand that Israel does not have a right to commit war crimes. Full stop. They don't have a right to violate human rights or violate the laws of war. Under any circumstances.
"I'm afraid you are mistaken, and you haven't presented anything like a coherent or compelling argument."
you're demonstrating not only that you've not read the quotes, nor referenced the underlying material, but that you're not interested and that I'd be wasting my breath to cite sources and quotations for your benefit.
Or maybe you are just wrong? You don't get to commit war crimes because you think your enemy are bad people. You don't have a citation for that because there are no exceptions.
For your awareness. Not that you'll read an official NATO report on the use of human shiy y #hamas because, you know, your false narrative based on zero facts.
But you do you.
@RememberUsAlways@SWLABR@nicholas_saunders@ridicol
I skimmed it.... the cases cited aren't actually "human shields" ... not the way the IDF does it anyway, by holding civilians in front of them like one would a shield.
But might I suggest that an alternate source, more accessible, might better make the point? It's usually better to directly quote, or at least point to a page or minute marker.
I am desperately keen to see the return of the hostages, I value Jewish lives very highly, just as I do Arab ones. Also agree that the mass slaughter of innocent Jews on 7 October was abhorrent and should never have happened.
I cannot understand the Hamas action. It achieved nothing and was highly likely to result in exactly what has now transpired.
I feel it is possible there is more to the events of 7 Oct than is currently apparent. I do feel this is primarily a land grab by people who hold Arab lives as valueless. Netanyahu needed a pretext for what he has done, and this action played into his hands.
If Gaza's population had been 50% Jewish, do you think Israel's actions would have been the same? Starving them? Demolishing their homes ?. Rounding then up for torture?
If your answer is "No" , then this is an admission that Israel is a racist state. In my opinion they just don't care about Arab lives. They just think they can be wasted, in the tens of thousands.
On the contrary, I feel that Israel learned a great deal from WW2. The world didn't really care about the Holocaust until it was almost over, and that was during a world war.
The lesson was that you can genocide the powerless and get away with it, as long as you don't invade powerful countries.
Deliberately starving a civilian population is a war crime.
Cutting off electricity and water to a civilian population is a war crime.
Killing 28,000 people, nearly all innocent, and including almost 10,000 children, by indiscriminate bombing and other forms of mass destruction is a war crime.
You aren't actually offering any argument as to why Israel should be able to commit war crimes with impunity.
So I can't speculate as to your motives, but many people think that Palestinians are subhuman, and that therefore there's nothing wrong with killing tens of thousands of innocent people in order to possible kill hundreds of "militants".
> golly, tom [...] would've met with your high moral standards?
@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine your insinuation is most insulting, and by doing so you're more than speculating as to my motives. Said differently, you've chosen to make a personal attack against me -- but with the pretence that you're not.
"Discussions" with you are frustrating, because you refuse to provide facts, logic, reasoning or arguments.
I see you advocating for literal genocide and war crimes. I see you advocating for preventing access to food, water and medical care to a large population in order to possibly punish a tiny fraction of these people who are criminals.
@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine you have disengenuously said that you cannot, or are not, speculating as to my motives in one breath. In the next you continue attacks against me personally.
The strategy you advocate for, withholding food, water, electricity and medical supplies from a large population in order to punish a much smaller subset, is exactly collective punishment.
As such, it is against the Geneva convention and a literal war crime.
While one can never truly know the motives of another, particularly if they refuse to reveal them, denying or reducing the humanity of a group of individuals has very often in the past been the claimed reason for wanting to remove their human rights.
If one thinks some group are composed of people like oneself, one is a lot less to want to starve and bomb them.
@TomSwirly@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine if you're accusing me of advocating for starvation then you should retract that personal attack. If that accusation wasn't directed at me, then I'd be most interested to know who on the fediverse it was directed to.
The legal and moral obligation is to ensure that humanitarian aid only reaches civilians. Perhaps you disagree, but as you've not said, there's no way to tell.
The policy you would impose would further supply Hamas.
@palestine@ridicol@Miro_Collas@nicholas_saunders@SWLABR
No worries, despite their blather, you are not obligated to find a solution to Israel’s decades of illegal occupation. They aren’t allowed to commit crimes, no matter how screwed up the situation is that they created. They could end the occupation and work toward a just peace, but they could have done that at any point since 1948.
and, furthermore, quoted from him with regards to context. Now, as you want to place this in a specific context, you may want to at least read what was discussed here much earlier.
@montrebei@palestine@ridicol@Miro_Collas@SWLABR obviously you cannot be troubled to read what was written from earlier in this thread, and, without knowing your credentials, can guarantee that the cited sources credentials far exceed your own.
This type of argumentation is called an appeal to authority, and since I haven't claimed any credentials, and you don't know me, your appeal to authority is just silly.
Your "big gun" seems to be essentially a piece of political gossip from the 90s. Meanwhile, a child is killed every 15 minutes in Gaza with Western weapons. Millions of people are starving. Read the room man!
I'll be honest with you - the only reason I am continuing to engage with you is because you are just really bad at this. I don't have time for a real argument, but this is a good opportunity to post some good links
Since this is getting buried deep in this thread, I think I will respond to your post by putting out new posts on right at the top of my feed.
@SWLABR@ridicol@Miro_Collas@palestine certainly most of your compatriots have argued that there's no right to self defense in response to the Al Aqsa Flood operation. It's not entirely clear where you stand on that point.
No! I don’t accept that Jews are indigenous! They are settler-colonial occupiers of Palestinian land in the same way that the British were in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several African countries!
I still maintain however, that in any future scenario where the secular, democratic country that will (I hope) inevitably emerge from the current catastrophic circumstances will, like post-Apartheid South Africa, be a country where Jews and Palestinians (and others) can live together peacefully. It won’t be easy I know, but it can be done with the right kind of leadership!
it would rather indicatate that you view Jews as indigenous. However, when you write that "No! I don't accept that jews are indigenous!" then your views are almost more consistent.
Pardon the multiple posts, Geriatric, but your position makes less and less sense the more carefully I read them. As I understand it, you want peace and you want Jews to live in Palestine.
But you say that Jews aren't indigenous. Most everyone I've encountered with this belief advocates for Jews returning to their countries of origin.
I'm all for #indigenous rights, myself -- but you seem to have a different view.
Nicholas: I’m more than happy to keep our dialogue going so long as you continue, as you have been so far (thank you!), to be civil!
Further to your toot, I must say that you don’t seem to have read my previous toot at all! I’m not a racist, nor am I anti-Semitic and, as such, I would never advocate forcing Israel’s Jewish population “to go back where they come from”! That’s you reading into my message a meaning that isn’t there!
On the other hand, you seem to be having trouble recognising that the Palestinians are the true indigenous population of the country we all now call Israel given that they’ve lived there for a thousand years or more [see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians].
On the other hand, again according to Wikipedia [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Palestinians]: “In 1882 the population [of Palestine] numbered approximately 320,000 people, 25,000 of whom were Jewish. Many of these were Arab Jews and in the narrative works of Arabs in Palestine in the late Ottoman period – as evidenced in the autobiographies and diaries of Khalil Sakakini and Wasif Jawhariyyeh – ‘native’ Jews were often referred to as abnaa al-balad (sons of the country), 'compatriots', or Yahud awlad Arab (‘Jews, sons of Arabs’).”
[..]
“When the First Palestinian Congress of February 1919 issued its anti-Zionist manifesto rejecting Zionist immigration, it extended a welcome to those Jews ‘among us who have been Arabicized, who have been living in our province since before the war; they are as we are, and their loyalties are our own’.”
Arab Palestinians and Jews were obviously able to live together peacefully in the early 20th Century! It’s the European-origin, ethno-nationalist, settler-colonial ideology called #Zionism that has caused all the problems - culminating in the current ongoing genocide!
Nicholas: as South Africa has demonstrated since the demise of Apartheid, the issue of land ownership and land redistribution is highly controversial and, after 30 years, they still haven’t resolved this issue there!
I don’t have an answer to your “why would you not tell them to give #landback?” question because it’s hard to anticipate what conditions might apply if/ when the #Zionist regime is thrown out!
All I can do is ask you a rhetorical question: if you were a Palestinian man now living in the Jenin ‘ghetto’ and your parents had been forced out of their ancestral home and had their lands confiscated in the process, what would you want to happen in the event that a single, secular democratic state had been established in place of the apartheid regime that has oppressed your people for the last 75 years?
Whatever the makeup of a truly democratically-elected government, it would have to make some hard choices about land redistribution and, undoubtedly, some non-Arab ‘oppressor’ Israelis would undoubtedy lose out!
would have a point. While SA won't explicitly say in public, obviously their narrative rests on Arafat's position as to whether Jews are or aren't indigenous.
Not sure what you’re getting at with your KKK reference Nicholas but, whatever it is, here’s something meaningful & to the point for you to chew on! I recommend that you read the whole article (but I bet you don’t): :
“Ending the ‘racial contract’ in Israel/Palestine: Israel’s existence and continued apartheid practices are sustained by the racial contract that must be ended.”
“White supremacy in Israel manifests itself in international politics as well as domestic politics. On the international scale, Israel has had ties to white supremacist groups such as apartheid South Africa’s Nationalist party, and white supremacist leaders including Richard Spencer and Donald Trump in the US.
Domestically, the plight of Ethiopian Jews highlights the intense racism that exists within the state of Israel, even despite the privilege of being Jewish. Whiteness is prioritized over one’s Jewishness, giving more privilege to white Jews.”
@nicholas_saunders@ridicol@SWLABR@Miro_Collas@palestine
Self defense?
Self defense?
Really?
Self defense against who?
Oh! You mean against the Palestinians who have been resisting the annihilation of their people, their culture, and their ecosystems for 75 years? That self defense?
@Miro_Collas@LALegault@palestine thus ceding any argument regarding the legality of this military response -- unless you're willing to claim, perhaps, that the Al Aqsa Flood was Israel's fault?
@nicholas_saunders
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. :-) I am therefore in no position to engage in such a discussion. That it something you may wish to take up with someone who is.
@nicholas_saunders
Nah. I could point to people who are qualified, and have said it is genocide - I just don't have the time or patience to dig for things read in the recent past.
I'm sure if you're really interested, you can research both things yourself. :-)
Under the UN charter Israel has no right to self defence and October 7th was not genocide. The 4 ½ moths since are. October 7th was one horrible day. It is now February
Or are you predicting that The Hague will abrogate the right of self defense against a state actor? Because if you put this in the context sought by South Africa then you might have a point. Might.
But at least one commentator has noted that the scope of context sought is contentious.
But one of his more interesting points was that South Africa could've brought Hamas directly in front of the ICJ. But that might open a can of worms disadvantageous to their argument.
In a linked article he argues that Hamas can be considered a State actor for a number of reasons.
Certainly I'd take issue with the context sought by South Africa. You, presumably, would not.
"... Israel’s lawyers wondered whether South Africa’s request of the Court for a provisional order to stop fighting would only tie the hands of Israel and not those of Hamas. It was a compelling argument indeed."
While he doesn't go all the way down the rabbit hole of self defense, he at least considers the claim.
But this remark hits the nail on the head in terms of returning hostages.
Color me skeptical that, in this case, the ICJ won't find self defense, and, I'd point you to prior quotes from commentators further up in this discussion.
"Lastly, the Court concluded that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall,"
where he makes a few key points, which I'll amplify. Lacking the courage of their convictions, Hamas chose not to show their faces at the ICJ. Secondly, that a unilateral ceasefire amounts to an incentive for another #AlAqsaFlood . And another.
"...military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so required. The Court found that such clauses were not applicable in the present case, stating that it was not convinced that the specific course Israel had chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives..."
Deafening silence as to how to obtain security objectives.
@nicholas_saunders@palestine@Miro_Collas@LeftistLawyer@LALegault A propotionate attack in response to the Hamas incursion would surely be OK, but this is genocidal and so the ICJ has found the charges plausible. Self defence is limited and does not extend to genocide.
Personally I find the self defence argument ridiculous because the Israelis were the occupying power at the time.
Do elaborate on your views that there's no right to self defense here. I'll go out on a limb and infer that you would put this in the context sought by South Africa as:
which, while unstated, is almost certainly based on the context #arafat :
err, your "A propotionate attack in response to the Hamas incursion would surely be OK, but this is genocidal and so the ICJ has found the charges plausible," would seem to say that their response on Oct 8 was legal, probably the 9th...
But at what point was this line crossed. Your plea for a proportionate response would almost seem an invitation to a fixed number of civilian deaths. Myself, I'd say one dead civilian is one too many.
@nicholas_saunders@LALegault@Miro_Collas@palestine My general take is I know just enough about international law to be dangerous. I do know judges; however, when there are facts and legal arguments that weigh toward both sides on a conflict. They “split the baby” … nobody gets what they want, and everybody leaves angry and more confused than when they started. Courts are institutions, and like all institutions, their first loyalty is to themselves — not the people they allegedly serve.
@nicholas_saunders@LeftistLawyer@LALegault@Miro_Collas@palestine Israel is a settler colony, funded and armed by the west (first by the UK then by the USA) and stands on stolen land they took via murder and ethnic cleansing. Al Aqsa flood is an action of resistance against occupation, and therefore is justified. Your hatred of Hamas is just islamophobia and ignorance of the history of the occupation.
@LeftistLawyer@LALegault@Miro_Collas@palestine well, as you seem determined to not discuss the text of South Africa's submission, specifically the scope of context which they would seek, perhaps you'd elaborate on your reference to the Judgement of Solomon.
Essential to splitting the baby is that there are two parties. Here, as only one party has chosen to show their face in court, you'll have to elaborate on your point.
@nicholas_saunders@LeftistLawyer@LALegault@Miro_Collas@palestine Hamas is not a state party so cannot accept International Court of Justice jurisdiction. The parties are South Africa and Israel, with the former having submitted something pretty close to the case I would have wanted them to submit.
First, I do not see a source cited. Second, unless you're recognizing a state that no one else does, any claim that Hamas is a state actor or party is beyond ludicrous, beyond absurd.