This was a gut-wrenching read. I hate this all so much. Why do our governments keep sponsoring this cruelty? What purpose does it serve besides blind vengeance and destruction?
This was a gut-wrenching read. I hate this all so much. Why do our governments keep sponsoring this cruelty? What purpose does it serve besides blind vengeance and destruction?
Money. A LOT of money. Whats nearly the first response from the US? Not a call for ceasefire. Not a plea for peace. Not a national moment of silence or a day of mourning for all the senseless loss...
Money. A LOT of money.
Whats nearly the first response from the US? Not a call for ceasefire. Not a plea for peace. Not a national moment of silence or a day of mourning for all the senseless loss of life... no, its the President going online and asking a nation thats already trillions of dollars in debt, whose residents are struggling with high inflation and high indebtedness and interest rates, to shell out BILLIONS more in "aid" (read: more money to buy weapons from Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and other killers)
And dont think for a second that the military industrial complex doesnt take some of that massive mound of dollars and feed some of it back to the people who make sure they NEVER have to go for more than a few months without a war to keep feeding their coffers. Old men make money, families die. And the killing goes on.
I feel that Israel would move towards peace quicker if they didn’t have their big brother America ready to help them fight this war. I think the US should be doing something - but not this bullshit.
I feel that Israel would move towards peace quicker if they didn’t have their big brother America ready to help them fight this war.
I think the US should be doing something - but not this bullshit.
I’m at a loss for how we even begin to deal with this. Our political establishment is completely in thrall to these pro-war corporate interests, and most of the “progressive” new blood will...
I’m at a loss for how we even begin to deal with this. Our political establishment is completely in thrall to these pro-war corporate interests, and most of the “progressive” new blood will probably come to the same conclusion that keeping the war machine chugging is better for their careers regardless of their stated principles. It’s not like my expectations of politicians were super high to begin with, but all this has left me utterly disgusted. I wish there was something we could do instead of helplessly watching these atrocities continue.
Partly its a show of solidarity, of force, not so much to Hamas, but to the surrounding nations who would also like to see Israel obliterated. No doubt Israel could literally flatten all of Gaza...
Partly its a show of solidarity, of force, not so much to Hamas, but to the surrounding nations who would also like to see Israel obliterated. No doubt Israel could literally flatten all of Gaza with the weaponry it possesses. But that would incense its neighbors, particularly Lebanon, with the much more powerful Hezbollah force and Iran. It could easily draw in the entire Middle East, which in turn could be the spark for World War III. And THAT they couldn't fight without help, particularly from the US.
Even if Israel "only" ends up fighting in Gaza to the south and Lebanon to the north, its spreading out its forces on two major fronts. So the assurance that the US will keep backing them with weaponry is the backstop for not losing this war, no matter how many aggressors they have or how long it takes - As the US learned in Iraq, killing "insurgents" might seem relatively quick (remember "Mission Accomplished"?) but 20 years and billions of dollars later, it really wasn't, even with a massive weaponry advantage. If Israel is going to go all in on this fight, they need to know that there are allies with massive money and weaponry behind them.
Missiles, RPGs, guided anti-tank weapons, planes, fuel, Iron Dome defense system, tanks, personnel carriers, Humvees, bullets, armor, MREs, drones, medicine, chemicals, computers, communications equipment, satellite intelligence, etc, etc which includes paying a ton of "defence contractors" absolutely obscene amounts of money for their wares, some of which gets dumped in the desert and burned/buried because 'waste' is not a problem when the money comes from the taxpayer Department of Defense.
Detail on why news.un.org. The US is voting against any condemnation of the situation in Gaza without also including text about Israel's right to self defense.
Detail on why news.un.org. The US is voting against any condemnation of the situation in Gaza without also including text about Israel's right to self defense.
It doesn’t make sense to ask this question when the article posted is specifically about how the IDF has been committing war crimes against innocent civilians in Palestine. If anyone could...
It doesn’t make sense to ask this question when the article posted is specifically about how the IDF has been committing war crimes against innocent civilians in Palestine. If anyone could determine what Israel does or at least pressure them, obviously not indiscriminately targeting infrastructure like hospitals and apartment buildings without regard for the people there would be a good start. It’s not simply a matter of practicality; it’s a matter of humanity. While the situation is complicated, there’s no honest way to obfuscate the humanitarian crisis caused by the IDF’s bombing campaign and blockade of international aid. Why point to a hypothetical ethnic cleansing in response to an actual ethnic cleansing that’s happening right now?
I can’t give a super detailed plan for peace, because that question seems like a distraction from the fact that they’re currently committing war crimes. More detailed plans for a lasting and fair...
I can’t give a super detailed plan for peace, because that question seems like a distraction from the fact that they’re currently committing war crimes. More detailed plans for a lasting and fair peace can and should be drawn up and debated, but it’s only possible to have that discussion after a ceasefire.
If international law was actually relevant as an institution, both sides would’ve been hauled before the ICC long before now. However, I’m not aware of any states except for Iran that are...
If international law was actually relevant as an institution, both sides would’ve been hauled before the ICC long before now. However, I’m not aware of any states except for Iran that are supporting Hamas, whereas they’re fairly united in supporting Israel despite the conduct of the IDF. It makes sense that people would criticize something their governments are more responsible for.
I already addressed this earlier. You can’t dismiss an actual ethnic cleansing that’s currently happening with concerns of a hypothetical ethnic cleansing that isn’t. I’m trying to engage in good...
I already addressed this earlier. You can’t dismiss an actual ethnic cleansing that’s currently happening with concerns of a hypothetical ethnic cleansing that isn’t. I’m trying to engage in good faith, but it’s really hard to do that when you keep insisting that everyone else is just using “posturing” and “hyperbole” rather than having legitimate arguments.
I've got you, mate. Here's the UN's definition. It's much shorter than the war crimes, one, so I can cut right to the point.
I've got you, mate. Here's the UN's definition. It's much shorter than the war crimes, one, so I can cut right to the point.
...the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
The word "purposeful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Either Israel just wants to eradicate Hamas and wants a civilian-free battle ground for that, or they do not intend to let Gazans...
The word "purposeful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Either Israel just wants to eradicate Hamas and wants a civilian-free battle ground for that, or they do not intend to let Gazans return to northern Gaza.
Either is credible, depending on how you view the Israelis. Especially considering I see no way for Israel to intervene without civilian casualties if they leave many civilians in the north.
There has to be precedence for this though, right? Evacuating civilians from front lines is a common theme of warfare; doing it by implied or explicit threat of bombing is probably not too uncommon. The feature about Gaza that stands out is that there's basically no space to move to: Gaza is so shallow that there's no strategic depth to retreat to. With even a minimal boots-on-the-ground invasion, evacuating the battlefield means displacing half the Gazan population. (What I mean is the smallest operation that still makes military sense - you can't take a district of a city, because that will lead to dangerous front lines through the city; you gotta take the whole thing. That way you can build a perimeter in the fields before the city.) Displacing half of all Gazans certainly reeks of a land grab regardless of that being the goal.
Note that there's nothing in there about "We'll let them back in after the fact, we just want half the population to pack up so we can have a nice war in their city without them." It seems to me...
Note that there's nothing in there about "We'll let them back in after the fact, we just want half the population to pack up so we can have a nice war in their city without them." It seems to me that the IDF's statement that they have to leave their homes under threat of violence is as textbook an example as we can get.
But that would make basically any war ever a war crime. Civilians always end up displaced. The question is, do they stay and risk their lives, do they leave because they got that idea themselves,...
But that would make basically any war ever a war crime. Civilians always end up displaced. The question is, do they stay and risk their lives, do they leave because they got that idea themselves, or did they leave because they were warned?
IMO, the purpose of defining war crimes must be to carve out an avenue of fighting wars without too much damage. If a definition of war crimes fails to make a distinction between a "less bad" war and a "more bad" war that is also actionable, it's basically the same as just saying "war is illegal now". Which, for the most part, it already is, so no use.
Temporarily evacuating civilians is, all else being equal, a good thing. It's better than fighting the war with the civilians right there. No one is saying that it's better than not fighting the war at all, I think that's a given. And I don't think that permanent and temporary evacuations are at all comparable. One is an act of genocide, the other aims to reduce civilian casualties. It's a shame nothing Israel could reasonably say or do now would credibly signal that they intend for the return of displaced civilians.
The IDF demanded a complete evacuation of the north half of the Gaza Strip under threat of violence. Regardless of your opinion of the purpose of the order, all of the Palestinians are being...
The IDF demanded a complete evacuation of the north half of the Gaza Strip under threat of violence. Regardless of your opinion of the purpose of the order, all of the Palestinians are being forced to leave. How is this not "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas"?
You're asking lots of leading questions here. Let me ask you one in return: Are you in favor of Israel engaging in war crimes and ethnic cleansing? Please give me a yes or no answer and then once...
You're asking lots of leading questions here.
Let me ask you one in return: Are you in favor of Israel engaging in war crimes and ethnic cleansing?
Please give me a yes or no answer and then once we've cleared that up, I'll attempt to answer your questions in good faith.
Thank you. I have followup questions, but I appreciate you engaging with my question, and I'll do my best to give my answers to yours. They can't. They can't. No, it's not better to march the army...
Thank you. I have followup questions, but I appreciate you engaging with my question, and I'll do my best to give my answers to yours.
How else does Israel fight Hamas and keep civilians even remotely safe? How does one fight a war against Hamas and keep civilians safe without getting them out? Is it better to march the entire army in and root them out that way?
They can't. They can't. No, it's not better to march the army in.
Practically speaking, what’s the alternative? You can’t fight an enemy holed up in urban centers otherwise. Is the only solution to let Hamas continue to do what it does?
No, my solutions would be more on the lines of targeted decapitation of Hamas leadership (both literally and metaphorically) while investing in increased quality of life and freedom of movement for the population that, in their current extremely stressed state, supports Hamas. The Marshall Plan worked; people with decent quality of life are less likely to support extremists and killers. This is of course, a much longer-term solution.
Say the IDF allows the population 3 days, a week to evacuate, does that give Hamas time to move and restart itself elsewhere?
To some degree, though it would mean leaving behind some infrastructure. With a distributed force, any action to move the civilian population will also move members of Hamas.
Notice that Israel hasn’t told anyone in the West Bank to leave.
So what? Nothing in the UN's definition says "but as long as we leave them some other lands, it's ok."
What is the realistic alternative?
Not forcing the civilian population to move, not sending troops in, focusing on removing their leadership and wicking away the civilian populations' support for Hamas through increased quality of life.
You've talked a good bit about "realistic" alternatives. It's possible we have fundamental disagreements on what counts as realistic. Singer's premise was that if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so. Is it true that you feel that an action that will destroy one of a very small number of Palestinian population centers, kill a significant portion of their population and displace more than a third of the country is of lesser moral importance than deciding to not engage in a ground invasion? That this act of aggression is of greater moral value than patience and moderation?
You have presupposed war as the necessary choice, and that since the war must be prosecuted, then there'll be some little "oopsy" war crimes and ethnic cleansing along the way. But engaging in war is a choice, and your attempts to gloss over that choice make all of your defense of their later choices less meaningful.
Don't forget that the Marshall plan worked in Germany, but it did because the Nazi leadership that previously had a charter to kill all the americans (pretty much anyway) was eradicated by boots...
The Marshall Plan also worked because the Italians and French didn’t have in their charters “kill all the Americans.”
Don't forget that the Marshall plan worked in Germany, but it did because the Nazi leadership that previously had a charter to kill all the americans (pretty much anyway) was eradicated by boots on the ground, and any idea of resurgence of it was emphatically suppressed. The boots came first, then came the humanitarian aid. The humanitarian aid made sure that ideas of nazi resurgence didn't need to be violently suppressed. I don't think the other way would work. Sure, go ahead, build up industry in Gaza, see how fast Hamas turns that around into building more rockets. If Israel has boots on the ground in Gaza, they can ensure that the factories built there produce civilian goods.
It's somewhat besides the point, but Qatar also supports Hamas. The thing is, most Muslim countries in the region would be happy to see Israel replaced. This is a very real threat that Israelis...
It's somewhat besides the point, but Qatar also supports Hamas. The thing is, most Muslim countries in the region would be happy to see Israel replaced. This is a very real threat that Israelis live with.
Many Israeli officials know that brutality in Gaza increases the odds that other regional militias will attack. Besides being war crimes, the military wants to limit civilian casualties for strategic purposes.
Well, it seems like their choice to bomb the hell out of Gaza is only pissing off those countries more. If they’re unwilling to refrain from war crimes on humanitarian grounds, you’d think they...
Well, it seems like their choice to bomb the hell out of Gaza is only pissing off those countries more. If they’re unwilling to refrain from war crimes on humanitarian grounds, you’d think they can at least recognize how this affects their international standing. Then again, with Big Daddy America on their side, they presumably feel empowered to act as they see fit without fear of a response.
I’m not talking about Iran. I’m talking about other countries like Jordan and Egypt that do accept Israel’s existence but quite understandably view the mass displacement of Palestinians as a red...
I’m not talking about Iran. I’m talking about other countries like Jordan and Egypt that do accept Israel’s existence but quite understandably view the mass displacement of Palestinians as a red line. Beyond the moral indefensibility, it’s also just incredibly dumb to risk unraveling a stable diplomatic order that took decades to achieve.
From my “armchair general” perspective? The following: Enter Gaza to seize the strips between Gaza City and Al Mughraqa as well as between Rafah and Khan Yunis. This disrupts Hamas/PIJ movements...
From my “armchair general” perspective? The following:
Enter Gaza to seize the strips between Gaza City and Al Mughraqa as well as between Rafah and Khan Yunis. This disrupts Hamas/PIJ movements between the major urban areas.
Promise food, shelter, and medical assistance to all Palestinians who come to the strip. Screen them prior to moving them into secure refugee camps in Israel proper, but close to Gaza. Optional: Run background checks, and start a pilot program to issue work permits.
Give a one week ultimatum to leave, warning that bombardment and combat operations will commence after, and that anyone on the streets may be considered a militant.
After that one week, perform air strikes against strategic targets. Initiate ground offensive. This will be one of the hardest urban combat operations ever performed. Go door to door, searching for militants. When tunnel entrances are found, flood them (water, dirt, concrete, or if in a mischievous mood, military stink bomb).
Once military control is achieved: rebuild. Israel will provide equipment, funds, materials, and personnel to help rebuild. Form an occupation government, with local Palestinian councils. Ban Hamas, and any organization that seeks the violent overthrow of Israel. If not done already, expand work permitting programs.
Unfortunately, the occupation would likely last a long time. It will take awhile to develop state capacity and institutions in Gaza to the point that organizations like Hamas are no longer attractive. Israel will have to go their part: issuing building permits in a timely and reasonable manner, genuinely working with the Palestinians, and refraining from arbitrary behavior.
I've wanted to stay out of this, but you say "by any definition used here." Here's the UN's definition. It's substantial, but let me provide a couple of exerpts: This isn't "war crimes as defined...
I've wanted to stay out of this, but you say "by any definition used here." Here's the UN's definition.
It's substantial, but let me provide a couple of exerpts:
For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:
a. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
i. Wilful killing
iii. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
iv. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
vii. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
b. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
i. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
ii. Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
iv. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
v. Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
viii. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
xii. Declaring that no quarter will be given;
xxv. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
This isn't "war crimes as defined on some message board", this is an outright litany of war crimes already documented, referring precisely to the primary body who defines it.
You're moving the goalposts. You were implying that the people who said there were war crimes were in some way coming up with some alternative definition or in some way overreacting. I'm only here...
You're moving the goalposts. You were implying that the people who said there were war crimes were in some way coming up with some alternative definition or in some way overreacting. I'm only here to say that these are the UN definitions. I'm really, really not getting into arguing about who did war crimes the worst or hardest.
I am trying to remain neutral but it is increasingly difficult because of how much misinformation is out there. Nothing that Israel has ever tried has put a stop to Hamas. A siege is an extremely...
I am trying to remain neutral but it is increasingly difficult because of how much misinformation is out there. Nothing that Israel has ever tried has put a stop to Hamas. A siege is an extremely brutal strategy but perhaps it will root out Hamas in the end. I intend this in good faith and I hope it is perceived as such - but I don't see how exactly this particular war right now is an ethnic cleansing?
Not trying to excuse war crimes in any way. They are bound to happen in every conflict, however tragic it is. And I also believe that Israel are committing very grave sins in relation to the settlements and grabbing territory upon territory. The whole reason the attack on the 7th was successful was because the units at the Gazan border were moved elsewhere to push back Palestinians in the West Bank, which is so baffling and ironic... But why is it an ethnic cleansing when they simply stop supplying their enemy with food and water etc.? Then Egypt is also ethnically cleansing Gaza?
There is absolutely no point where war crimes are acceptable because “we’ve tried everything else.” None. The reason this war is perceived as an ethnic cleansing is shown by the linked article,...
There is absolutely no point where war crimes are acceptable because “we’ve tried everything else.” None.
The reason this war is perceived as an ethnic cleansing is shown by the linked article, which details the war crimes Israel has perpetrated against Palestinian civilians and the high civilian death toll which they appear to be doing nothing to stop. In fact, Israel’s political leadership have repeatedly engaged in dehumanizing rhetoric that calls Palestinians “human animals” and asserts that everyone in Gaza is a potential Hamas combatant (and thus a valid military target). This has been condemned by legal scholars as a prelude to genocide. They cut water and electricity to Gaza, ostensibly to stop Hamas but with zero concern for civilians’ welfare. Israel only has the ability to cut Gaza off like this because they’ve destroyed any attempt to achieve self-sufficiency with an airport, water treatment facility, etc.—which, for a territory that’s supposed to be independent, makes it effectively non-sovereign. Considering their history of not allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their homes after similar orders to evacuate, it can only be viewed as trying to permanently force them out.
Yes, and right after that I pointed out how they’re defining the responsible party awfully broadly beyond the actual combatants. It’s not just about mean words, it’s about how dehumanizing...
Yes, and right after that I pointed out how they’re defining the responsible party awfully broadly beyond the actual combatants. It’s not just about mean words, it’s about how dehumanizing rhetoric against an entire population is a step towards genocide.
The implication that if Israel doesn’t do war crimes in Gaza, they have literally no other option to ensure their safety is complete nonsense. Also, it’s dishonest and out of place to allege that...
The implication that if Israel doesn’t do war crimes in Gaza, they have literally no other option to ensure their safety is complete nonsense. Also, it’s dishonest and out of place to allege that people criticizing Israel’s conduct don’t also condemn Hamas’ actions, which one should note is clearly in the original article as well.
Man, my experience of that event was very different. Well, I woke up 12h after the fact or so. Before the Israelis released the big ones, but when at least a reasonable amount of information was...
Man, my experience of that event was very different. Well, I woke up 12h after the fact or so. Before the Israelis released the big ones, but when at least a reasonable amount of information was available. Took one look at /r/ that sub with the gory war clips and concluded that there's just no way that was an Israeli strike or that the Hamas casualty claim was at all accurate.
Not that any of that makes me smarter or anything, I was just lucky enough to wake up when there was more info available than the Hamas propaganda that every media outlet duly regurgitated.
Thank you for the response! Totally agree that war crimes are not ever acceptable. I completely agree with you. I will also challenge this though, because what do you do when the water pipes that...
Thank you for the response! Totally agree that war crimes are not ever acceptable.
They cut water and electricity to Gaza, ostensibly to stop Hamas but with zero concern for civilians’ welfare. Israel only has the ability to cut Gaza off like this because they’ve destroyed any attempt to achieve self-sufficiency with an airport, water treatment facility, etc.—which, for a territory that’s supposed to be independent, makes it effectively non-sovereign.
I completely agree with you. I will also challenge this though, because what do you do when the water pipes that NGO's provided to Gaza are dug up and used by Hamas to build rockets? And what do you do when the airport is used to import weapons?
These efforts were for the betterment of Gaza and its people, but when Hamas sabotages things again and again, to the detriment and even deaths (see 2014) of their own citizens, then what?
A newspaper here in Denmark interviewed our most experienced diplomat, and even he said that he had no idea how to solve things. You simply cannot target Hamas without also harming the human shields around them
At the end of the day, all of this is happening because Netanyahu backed Hamas’ 2006 seizure of power in Gaza and claimed it was the best way to handicap the Palestinian cause (and the PLO...
At the end of the day, all of this is happening because Netanyahu backed Hamas’ 2006 seizure of power in Gaza and claimed it was the best way to handicap the Palestinian cause (and the PLO specifically). Obviously, things didn’t end up as he intended. Treating Palestine as an internal security issue to be handled as Israel’s government sees fit—such as by taking away water and electricity like toys from a misbehaving child—rather than an international dispute is a big part of why this disparity of force and lack of self-determination for the Palestinian people has been allowed to continue.
I am Russian by origin, Jewish by nationality. So now I'm in some way related to two war conflicts at the same time (and I also get constantly spammed with news about both of them by my friends)....
I am Russian by origin, Jewish by nationality. So now I'm in some way related to two war conflicts at the same time (and I also get constantly spammed with news about both of them by my friends). Fun times.
This was a gut-wrenching read. I hate this all so much. Why do our governments keep sponsoring this cruelty? What purpose does it serve besides blind vengeance and destruction?
Money. A LOT of money.
Whats nearly the first response from the US? Not a call for ceasefire. Not a plea for peace. Not a national moment of silence or a day of mourning for all the senseless loss of life... no, its the President going online and asking a nation thats already trillions of dollars in debt, whose residents are struggling with high inflation and high indebtedness and interest rates, to shell out BILLIONS more in "aid" (read: more money to buy weapons from Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and other killers)
And dont think for a second that the military industrial complex doesnt take some of that massive mound of dollars and feed some of it back to the people who make sure they NEVER have to go for more than a few months without a war to keep feeding their coffers. Old men make money, families die. And the killing goes on.
I feel that Israel would move towards peace quicker if they didn’t have their big brother America ready to help them fight this war.
I think the US should be doing something - but not this bullshit.
I’m at a loss for how we even begin to deal with this. Our political establishment is completely in thrall to these pro-war corporate interests, and most of the “progressive” new blood will probably come to the same conclusion that keeping the war machine chugging is better for their careers regardless of their stated principles. It’s not like my expectations of politicians were super high to begin with, but all this has left me utterly disgusted. I wish there was something we could do instead of helplessly watching these atrocities continue.
Partly its a show of solidarity, of force, not so much to Hamas, but to the surrounding nations who would also like to see Israel obliterated. No doubt Israel could literally flatten all of Gaza with the weaponry it possesses. But that would incense its neighbors, particularly Lebanon, with the much more powerful Hezbollah force and Iran. It could easily draw in the entire Middle East, which in turn could be the spark for World War III. And THAT they couldn't fight without help, particularly from the US.
Even if Israel "only" ends up fighting in Gaza to the south and Lebanon to the north, its spreading out its forces on two major fronts. So the assurance that the US will keep backing them with weaponry is the backstop for not losing this war, no matter how many aggressors they have or how long it takes - As the US learned in Iraq, killing "insurgents" might seem relatively quick (remember "Mission Accomplished"?) but 20 years and billions of dollars later, it really wasn't, even with a massive weaponry advantage. If Israel is going to go all in on this fight, they need to know that there are allies with massive money and weaponry behind them.
Missiles, RPGs, guided anti-tank weapons, planes, fuel, Iron Dome defense system, tanks, personnel carriers, Humvees, bullets, armor, MREs, drones, medicine, chemicals, computers, communications equipment, satellite intelligence, etc, etc which includes paying a ton of "defence contractors" absolutely obscene amounts of money for their wares, some of which gets dumped in the desert and burned/buried because 'waste' is not a problem when the money comes from the
taxpayerDepartment of Defense.The US vetoed a UNSC ceasefire vote. Not sure why..
Detail on why news.un.org. The US is voting against any condemnation of the situation in Gaza without also including text about Israel's right to self defense.
It doesn’t make sense to ask this question when the article posted is specifically about how the IDF has been committing war crimes against innocent civilians in Palestine. If anyone could determine what Israel does or at least pressure them, obviously not indiscriminately targeting infrastructure like hospitals and apartment buildings without regard for the people there would be a good start. It’s not simply a matter of practicality; it’s a matter of humanity. While the situation is complicated, there’s no honest way to obfuscate the humanitarian crisis caused by the IDF’s bombing campaign and blockade of international aid. Why point to a hypothetical ethnic cleansing in response to an actual ethnic cleansing that’s happening right now?
I can’t give a super detailed plan for peace, because that question seems like a distraction from the fact that they’re currently committing war crimes. More detailed plans for a lasting and fair peace can and should be drawn up and debated, but it’s only possible to have that discussion after a ceasefire.
“They want to do it so why shouldn’t we?” isn’t a justification for war crimes. It’s pretty simple really.
If international law was actually relevant as an institution, both sides would’ve been hauled before the ICC long before now. However, I’m not aware of any states except for Iran that are supporting Hamas, whereas they’re fairly united in supporting Israel despite the conduct of the IDF. It makes sense that people would criticize something their governments are more responsible for.
I already addressed this earlier. You can’t dismiss an actual ethnic cleansing that’s currently happening with concerns of a hypothetical ethnic cleansing that isn’t. I’m trying to engage in good faith, but it’s really hard to do that when you keep insisting that everyone else is just using “posturing” and “hyperbole” rather than having legitimate arguments.
I've got you, mate. Here's the UN's definition. It's much shorter than the war crimes, one, so I can cut right to the point.
The word "purposeful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Either Israel just wants to eradicate Hamas and wants a civilian-free battle ground for that, or they do not intend to let Gazans return to northern Gaza.
Either is credible, depending on how you view the Israelis. Especially considering I see no way for Israel to intervene without civilian casualties if they leave many civilians in the north.
There has to be precedence for this though, right? Evacuating civilians from front lines is a common theme of warfare; doing it by implied or explicit threat of bombing is probably not too uncommon. The feature about Gaza that stands out is that there's basically no space to move to: Gaza is so shallow that there's no strategic depth to retreat to. With even a minimal boots-on-the-ground invasion, evacuating the battlefield means displacing half the Gazan population. (What I mean is the smallest operation that still makes military sense - you can't take a district of a city, because that will lead to dangerous front lines through the city; you gotta take the whole thing. That way you can build a perimeter in the fields before the city.) Displacing half of all Gazans certainly reeks of a land grab regardless of that being the goal.
Note that there's nothing in there about "We'll let them back in after the fact, we just want half the population to pack up so we can have a nice war in their city without them." It seems to me that the IDF's statement that they have to leave their homes under threat of violence is as textbook an example as we can get.
But that would make basically any war ever a war crime. Civilians always end up displaced. The question is, do they stay and risk their lives, do they leave because they got that idea themselves, or did they leave because they were warned?
IMO, the purpose of defining war crimes must be to carve out an avenue of fighting wars without too much damage. If a definition of war crimes fails to make a distinction between a "less bad" war and a "more bad" war that is also actionable, it's basically the same as just saying "war is illegal now". Which, for the most part, it already is, so no use.
Temporarily evacuating civilians is, all else being equal, a good thing. It's better than fighting the war with the civilians right there. No one is saying that it's better than not fighting the war at all, I think that's a given. And I don't think that permanent and temporary evacuations are at all comparable. One is an act of genocide, the other aims to reduce civilian casualties. It's a shame nothing Israel could reasonably say or do now would credibly signal that they intend for the return of displaced civilians.
The IDF demanded a complete evacuation of the north half of the Gaza Strip under threat of violence. Regardless of your opinion of the purpose of the order, all of the Palestinians are being forced to leave. How is this not "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas"?
You're asking lots of leading questions here.
Let me ask you one in return: Are you in favor of Israel engaging in war crimes and ethnic cleansing?
Please give me a yes or no answer and then once we've cleared that up, I'll attempt to answer your questions in good faith.
Thank you. I have followup questions, but I appreciate you engaging with my question, and I'll do my best to give my answers to yours.
They can't. They can't. No, it's not better to march the army in.
No, my solutions would be more on the lines of targeted decapitation of Hamas leadership (both literally and metaphorically) while investing in increased quality of life and freedom of movement for the population that, in their current extremely stressed state, supports Hamas. The Marshall Plan worked; people with decent quality of life are less likely to support extremists and killers. This is of course, a much longer-term solution.
To some degree, though it would mean leaving behind some infrastructure. With a distributed force, any action to move the civilian population will also move members of Hamas.
So what? Nothing in the UN's definition says "but as long as we leave them some other lands, it's ok."
Not forcing the civilian population to move, not sending troops in, focusing on removing their leadership and wicking away the civilian populations' support for Hamas through increased quality of life.
You've talked a good bit about "realistic" alternatives. It's possible we have fundamental disagreements on what counts as realistic. Singer's premise was that if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so. Is it true that you feel that an action that will destroy one of a very small number of Palestinian population centers, kill a significant portion of their population and displace more than a third of the country is of lesser moral importance than deciding to not engage in a ground invasion? That this act of aggression is of greater moral value than patience and moderation?
You have presupposed war as the necessary choice, and that since the war must be prosecuted, then there'll be some little "oopsy" war crimes and ethnic cleansing along the way. But engaging in war is a choice, and your attempts to gloss over that choice make all of your defense of their later choices less meaningful.
Don't forget that the Marshall plan worked in Germany, but it did because the Nazi leadership that previously had a charter to kill all the americans (pretty much anyway) was eradicated by boots on the ground, and any idea of resurgence of it was emphatically suppressed. The boots came first, then came the humanitarian aid. The humanitarian aid made sure that ideas of nazi resurgence didn't need to be violently suppressed. I don't think the other way would work. Sure, go ahead, build up industry in Gaza, see how fast Hamas turns that around into building more rockets. If Israel has boots on the ground in Gaza, they can ensure that the factories built there produce civilian goods.
It's somewhat besides the point, but Qatar also supports Hamas. The thing is, most Muslim countries in the region would be happy to see Israel replaced. This is a very real threat that Israelis live with.
Many Israeli officials know that brutality in Gaza increases the odds that other regional militias will attack. Besides being war crimes, the military wants to limit civilian casualties for strategic purposes.
Well, it seems like their choice to bomb the hell out of Gaza is only pissing off those countries more. If they’re unwilling to refrain from war crimes on humanitarian grounds, you’d think they can at least recognize how this affects their international standing. Then again, with Big Daddy America on their side, they presumably feel empowered to act as they see fit without fear of a response.
I’m not talking about Iran. I’m talking about other countries like Jordan and Egypt that do accept Israel’s existence but quite understandably view the mass displacement of Palestinians as a red line. Beyond the moral indefensibility, it’s also just incredibly dumb to risk unraveling a stable diplomatic order that took decades to achieve.
From my “armchair general” perspective? The following:
Unfortunately, the occupation would likely last a long time. It will take awhile to develop state capacity and institutions in Gaza to the point that organizations like Hamas are no longer attractive. Israel will have to go their part: issuing building permits in a timely and reasonable manner, genuinely working with the Palestinians, and refraining from arbitrary behavior.
I've wanted to stay out of this, but you say "by any definition used here." Here's the UN's definition.
It's substantial, but let me provide a couple of exerpts:
This isn't "war crimes as defined on some message board", this is an outright litany of war crimes already documented, referring precisely to the primary body who defines it.
You're moving the goalposts. You were implying that the people who said there were war crimes were in some way coming up with some alternative definition or in some way overreacting. I'm only here to say that these are the UN definitions. I'm really, really not getting into arguing about who did war crimes the worst or hardest.
I am trying to remain neutral but it is increasingly difficult because of how much misinformation is out there. Nothing that Israel has ever tried has put a stop to Hamas. A siege is an extremely brutal strategy but perhaps it will root out Hamas in the end. I intend this in good faith and I hope it is perceived as such - but I don't see how exactly this particular war right now is an ethnic cleansing?
Not trying to excuse war crimes in any way. They are bound to happen in every conflict, however tragic it is. And I also believe that Israel are committing very grave sins in relation to the settlements and grabbing territory upon territory. The whole reason the attack on the 7th was successful was because the units at the Gazan border were moved elsewhere to push back Palestinians in the West Bank, which is so baffling and ironic... But why is it an ethnic cleansing when they simply stop supplying their enemy with food and water etc.? Then Egypt is also ethnically cleansing Gaza?
There is absolutely no point where war crimes are acceptable because “we’ve tried everything else.” None.
The reason this war is perceived as an ethnic cleansing is shown by the linked article, which details the war crimes Israel has perpetrated against Palestinian civilians and the high civilian death toll which they appear to be doing nothing to stop. In fact, Israel’s political leadership have repeatedly engaged in dehumanizing rhetoric that calls Palestinians “human animals” and asserts that everyone in Gaza is a potential Hamas combatant (and thus a valid military target). This has been condemned by legal scholars as a prelude to genocide. They cut water and electricity to Gaza, ostensibly to stop Hamas but with zero concern for civilians’ welfare. Israel only has the ability to cut Gaza off like this because they’ve destroyed any attempt to achieve self-sufficiency with an airport, water treatment facility, etc.—which, for a territory that’s supposed to be independent, makes it effectively non-sovereign. Considering their history of not allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their homes after similar orders to evacuate, it can only be viewed as trying to permanently force them out.
Yes, and right after that I pointed out how they’re defining the responsible party awfully broadly beyond the actual combatants. It’s not just about mean words, it’s about how dehumanizing rhetoric against an entire population is a step towards genocide.
How about reading the reading the second article I linked before claiming it’s all just silly hyperbole?
The implication that if Israel doesn’t do war crimes in Gaza, they have literally no other option to ensure their safety is complete nonsense. Also, it’s dishonest and out of place to allege that people criticizing Israel’s conduct don’t also condemn Hamas’ actions, which one should note is clearly in the original article as well.
Man, my experience of that event was very different. Well, I woke up 12h after the fact or so. Before the Israelis released the big ones, but when at least a reasonable amount of information was available. Took one look at /r/ that sub with the gory war clips and concluded that there's just no way that was an Israeli strike or that the Hamas casualty claim was at all accurate.
Not that any of that makes me smarter or anything, I was just lucky enough to wake up when there was more info available than the Hamas propaganda that every media outlet duly regurgitated.
True, but I wouldn’t count Amnesty International in the same group as a random OSINT twitter account repeating uncorroborated info.
Thank you for the response! Totally agree that war crimes are not ever acceptable.
I completely agree with you. I will also challenge this though, because what do you do when the water pipes that NGO's provided to Gaza are dug up and used by Hamas to build rockets? And what do you do when the airport is used to import weapons?
These efforts were for the betterment of Gaza and its people, but when Hamas sabotages things again and again, to the detriment and even deaths (see 2014) of their own citizens, then what?
A newspaper here in Denmark interviewed our most experienced diplomat, and even he said that he had no idea how to solve things. You simply cannot target Hamas without also harming the human shields around them
At the end of the day, all of this is happening because Netanyahu backed Hamas’ 2006 seizure of power in Gaza and claimed it was the best way to handicap the Palestinian cause (and the PLO specifically). Obviously, things didn’t end up as he intended. Treating Palestine as an internal security issue to be handled as Israel’s government sees fit—such as by taking away water and electricity like toys from a misbehaving child—rather than an international dispute is a big part of why this disparity of force and lack of self-determination for the Palestinian people has been allowed to continue.
I am Russian by origin, Jewish by nationality. So now I'm in some way related to two war conflicts at the same time (and I also get constantly spammed with news about both of them by my friends). Fun times.