Israel-Palestine flame thread

[Razgovory]

I'm glad we agree that ethnic cleansing is bad, even if it's Israel doing it.

He thinks displacing people in the West Bank is bad, but also thinks killing and displacing in people in gaza is fine. So, half agree I guess.

I think that fighting a war is acceptable.  People do get killed in war.  It is one of the defining characteristics of it.  CC has raised an interesting point.  As Oct 7th was a genocide the Israelis could have held their fire and asked the UN to come in arrest Hamas and disarm the militia.  UN member states were probably just chomping at the bit to send their soldiers to police Gaza.

[Razgovory]

Really?
So some guy in a western country shoots up a mosque as he really hates muslims then that's genocide?
Colour me sceptical.

No.  I note that at least Raz acknowledges that the UN convention does not conform to his worldview.  You want to change the definition to conform to yours.

You could explain your position instead of acting all high and mighty.  You are endorsing a position that is, on the face of it, absurd.

[HVC]

I'm glad we agree that ethnic cleansing is bad, even if it's Israel doing it.

He thinks displacing people in the West Bank is bad, but also thinks killing and displacing in people in gaza is fine. So, half agree I guess.

I think that fighting a war is acceptable.  People do get killed in war.  It is one of the defining characteristics of it.  CC has raised an interesting point.  As Oct 7th was a genocide the Israelis could have held their fire and asked the UN to come in arrest Hamas and disarm the militia.  UN member states were probably just chomping at the bit to send their soldiers to police Gaza.

You call it a war, but at the same time insist that a thousand Israelis civilians killed is a tragedy and an act of terrorism, but tens of thousands of Palestinians killed is no big deal and just how wars work. If you were consistent wouldn't  you hand wave Israelis being killed just as cavalierly as Palestinians. I mean you seem to champion a alls fair in war view.

[Razgovory]

I'm glad we agree that ethnic cleansing is bad, even if it's Israel doing it.

He thinks displacing people in the West Bank is bad, but also thinks killing and displacing in people in gaza is fine. So, half agree I guess.

I think that fighting a war is acceptable.  People do get killed in war.  It is one of the defining characteristics of it.  CC has raised an interesting point.  As Oct 7th was a genocide the Israelis could have held their fire and asked the UN to come in arrest Hamas and disarm the militia.  UN member states were probably just chomping at the bit to send their soldiers to police Gaza.

You call it a war, but at the same time insist that a thousand Israelis civilians killed is a tragedy and an act of terrorism, but tens of thousands of Palestinians killed is no big deal and just how wars work. If you were consistent wouldn't  you hand wave Israelis being killed just as cavalierly as Palestinians. I mean you seem to champion a alls fair in war view.

Honestly, I have avoided classifying the killing of a thousand Israelis as terrorism.  It was a military attack by a de facto state designed to kill as many civilians as possible.  If one of the belligerent powers violates the rules of war and fights from civilian structures, uses civilians as shields, and abuses protected status of journalists and medical personal then the offending belligerent power should be held criminally liable for those deaths.

[grumbler]

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah call for the genocide of Jews. It rather surprises me how successful the the anti-Palestinian movement has been in gaslighting on the issue.

[Zoupa]

If one of the belligerent powers violates the rules of war and fights from civilian structures, uses civilians as shields, and abuses protected status of journalists and medical personal then the offending belligerent power should be held criminally liable for those deaths.

That's not how this works. It's intellectually dishonest and kind of childish.

[Razgovory]

If one of the belligerent powers violates the rules of war and fights from civilian structures, uses civilians as shields, and abuses protected status of journalists and medical personal then the offending belligerent power should be held criminally liable for those deaths.

That's not how this works. It's intellectually dishonest and kind of childish.

Honestly, I think it is.  If you violate the laws of war and someone gets killed as result, it's your fault.

Anyway, you still want my stuff? I have a one filthy mattress, one PC with a burnt motherboard, an older PC that mostly works, a few fans, some DnD books, a kindle, a desk, a cell phone, a printer I can't get to work and another printer I can't get to work,  some clothing with stains on them, a dresser, and a few other sundries.

[crazy canuck]

Really?
So some guy in a western country shoots up a mosque as he really hates muslims then that's genocide?
Colour me sceptical.

No.  I note that at least Raz acknowledges that the UN convention does not conform to his worldview.  You want to change the definition to conform to yours.

You could explain your position instead of acting all high and mighty.  You are endorsing a position that is, on the face of it, absurd.

I thought I had explained my position.  The UN Convention governs.  If taking a position that an international convention governs is high and mighty, then so be it.

[Razgovory]

Really?
So some guy in a western country shoots up a mosque as he really hates muslims then that's genocide?
Colour me sceptical.

No.  I note that at least Raz acknowledges that the UN convention does not conform to his worldview.  You want to change the definition to conform to yours.

You could explain your position instead of acting all high and mighty.  You are endorsing a position that is, on the face of it, absurd.

I thought I had explained my position.  The UN Convention governs.  If taking a position that an international convention governs is high and mighty, then so be it.

Okay, I gave a bunch of examples that would, on the face of it, appear to be genocide according to the convention in a previous post.  Could you tell me which ones are in fact genocide and which ones are not and the reason why?  The convention seems extremely broad.

[crazy canuck]

Really?
So some guy in a western country shoots up a mosque as he really hates muslims then that's genocide?
Colour me sceptical.

No.  I note that at least Raz acknowledges that the UN convention does not conform to his worldview.  You want to change the definition to conform to yours.

You could explain your position instead of acting all high and mighty.  You are endorsing a position that is, on the face of it, absurd.

I thought I had explained my position.  The UN Convention governs.  If taking a position that an international convention governs is high and mighty, then so be it.

Okay, I gave a bunch of examples that would, on the face of it, appear to be genocide according to the convention in a previous post.  Could you tell me which ones are in fact genocide and which ones are not and the reason why?  The convention seems extremely broad.

Sure, the groups that are terrorist organizations who seek the destruction of the state of Israel fit comfortably within the definition.  That is one of the reasons they have been designated as terrorist organizations.  The PLO is an interesting case study.  It started as a terrorist organization which would have met the definition but which now does not, and particularly after they officially embraced the two state solution.  I view that as a hopeful development.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can't shoot at medical personal, they are protected.  So long as they use hide behind that, attacking them is a war crime.

If medical personnel take part in hostilities, they can be fired upon.

[The Minsky Moment]

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah call for the genocide of Jews.

The 1988 Hamas charter states that the "Islamic Resistance Movement"

aspires to the realization of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews. When the Jew will hide behind stones and trees, the stones and trees will say, "O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

It further states equates Jews and Judaism with Israel and Zionism, which it seeks to extirpate:
"Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. "'May the cowards never sleep.'"

A subsequent documment was published in 2017, without however withdrawing the 1988 charter.

I think that combined with Hamas' well-known atrocities directed against Jews in Israel in generally, it is reasonable to conclude that Hamas seeks the extirpation or expulsion of all Jews living in the lands of Israel or the Occupied Territories.

[Zoupa]

If one of the belligerent powers violates the rules of war and fights from civilian structures, uses civilians as shields, and abuses protected status of journalists and medical personal then the offending belligerent power should be held criminally liable for those deaths.

That's not how this works. It's intellectually dishonest and kind of childish.

Honestly, I think it is.  If you violate the laws of war and someone gets killed as result, it's your fault.

Cool. So is there a number you're comfortable with or is it just a blanket statement? Example: one terrorist shoots a rocket at Israel. He then goes to sleep in his flat. He does not sleep at the Hamas barracks. You're cool with vaporising the whole block since he didn't follow the rules of war right. So how many non-Hamas Palestinians are you cool with killing? 1, 5, 50, 1000?

[Alcibiades]

You know damn well that if the policy of Israel was to kill all the civilians of Gaza they would have done so a long time ago.  Nobody has yet shown an alternative as to what to do with Gaza beyond just withdrawal.  Nobody has shown how you can fight in the city without the civilian casualties.

This is a poor take. The problem with Israel in this conflict is they are not holding their Soldiers or officers accountable to the law of armed conflict or Article three of the Geneva Convention. It would be hyperbolic to say they are actively being encouraged to break these rules and seek revenge, but I don't think it would be a stretch to think it after seeing everything. And I understand why some of the foot Soldiers want to lash out and now have the power to do so, but it is wrong.  And don't get me wrong, Hamas is evil and does horrific things, but very often it is the young and innocent that are suffering, which is not ok and is completely avoidable.

If you dispute this I am more than happy to send you videos of children, women, and the elderly being murdered for just existing until you are sick of watching it, there are thousands and thousands of videos.  We don't operate that way, and there should be consequences (The current administration is currently working to loosen these restrictions on commanders, which the majority of us believe is a mistake for a wide variety of reasons).

[Razgovory]

Really?
So some guy in a western country shoots up a mosque as he really hates muslims then that's genocide?
Colour me sceptical.

No.  I note that at least Raz acknowledges that the UN convention does not conform to his worldview.  You want to change the definition to conform to yours.

You could explain your position instead of acting all high and mighty.  You are endorsing a position that is, on the face of it, absurd.

I thought I had explained my position.  The UN Convention governs.  If taking a position that an international convention governs is high and mighty, then so be it.

Okay, I gave a bunch of examples that would, on the face of it, appear to be genocide according to the convention in a previous post.  Could you tell me which ones are in fact genocide and which ones are not and the reason why?  The convention seems extremely broad.

Sure, the groups that are terrorist organizations who seek the destruction of the state of Israel fit comfortably within the definition.  That is one of the reasons they have been designated as terrorist organizations.  The PLO is an interesting case study.  It started as a terrorist organization which would have met the definition but which now does not, and particularly after they officially embraced the two state solution.  I view that as a hopeful development.

The students connected with those groups that inflict mental pain?  The nations that back these groups?  Or really any country fighting a war?  The PLO might have officially adopted a two-state solution (that hasn't stopped the affiliated Al-Aqsa brigade from promoting the deaths of Jews in general), but they killed people with the intent of wiping out the Jews of Israel before so they would also be guilty of genocide.  You don't get off free if you change your mind.  So the leaders who served in the PLO from before Oslo are should be tried for genocide.  I don't see anyone doing that any time soon.