|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 11 2024 20:57 Velr wrote:
Ok, so your stance is that Israel just has to swallow the rockets. Thanks.
As said before, I personally support a 2 state solution which would most likely require a decades long UN-Mission and total occupation of Gaza. Israel needs to abandon it's settlements in the west bank and obviously let goods pass into Gaza (well, the UN-Mission would be in charge of that)... I just don't see this as particulary realistic.
I have not much sympathy for Israel and especially it's right wingers, I just have even less sympathy for Hamas and whoever supports it. Hamas is hiding itself, weapons, ammunitation and even hostages behind it's own citizens and isn't even trying to avoid civilian deads. It's also not a surprise how Israel responded after Oct 7th, Hamas willingly took the "risk" of Israel going out, knowing full well that it's was more of a certainity than a "risk".
Israel has been killing and maiming Palestinians on a daily basis for several decades straight. The whole 'Israel has the right to defend itself!!!!' justification of their actions would have at least some modicum of merit if wholesale slaughter and destruction in Palestine had been shown to be an effective deterrent. It has not.
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On June 11 2024 19:27 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2024 19:03 Suibne wrote:
Being ok with rockets being launched from Gaza has been the cornerstone of Netanyahu's policy towards Gaza for the last 10 years. The idea was to completely ignore Hamas/Gaza, to slowly annex the West Bank. And to make peace deals with all other Arab states. And Hamas can do whatever the fuck they want. And if they launch too many rockets, then Israel will just go in and 'mow the grass'. Hamas won't be able to launch a comparable attack on Israel for quite a while. Stopping attacks from Gaza/Hamas means you have a peace deal with Gaza/Hamas. Which means implementing a two state solution. Which no recent Israeli government has backed. And currently the population of Israel also doesn't back.
The idea was always that Israel is 'safer' with two small Palestinian territories rules by violent terrorist organizations, than with a united official viable Palestinian state, with their own sovereign army.
The point where it failed was that Hamas did a large scale attack on Oct7th that Israel didn't think would be possible.
Also, the idea we need a right wing in the EU so we don't let Israel take advantage of the EU, just as Trump did with China, is ludicrous on all elements.
First off all, the right wing in the EU is very much proIsrael. Because Israel is also run by far right wingers who also are racist against Muslims&Arabs.
Second, Israel isn't really taking advantage of economic aid from the EU.
Third, Israel is a tiny nation and it cannot be compared to China in any way. The idea that the EU, or even the US, is going to do a trade war on Israel is absurd.
Fourth, Trump did jackshit on China. All he did is put tariffs on Chinese goods, so the US consumers pay more for Chinese goods. The idea that China pays these is also silly. No economist thought that they would help the US economy.
It is a really weird comparison. It’s not about EU being right wing not to get taken advantage of by Israel, but a radical shift from the decades of failing politics that made EU what it is today. There are already plenty of articles on it, I don’t think it needs further explanation. Trump kickstarted the entire anywhere but china policy, which is till this day continued by Biden, which now is extended to nvidia and AI. (Good luck to EU again on the new tech race) Trump literally got EU to stop 5G through Huawei and ZTE (and rip some nations still use them because it’s “cost effective “. The fact that you still list higher price as a loss, is completely not getting global politics and I say this not as an insult. It is the same logic that the EU politicians follow when they went to nordstream 2. There’s 0 concern over what the actual cost is, sovereignty, know-how in the tech. I don’t get why you still haven’t learned the lesson, we had multiple cases of supply shortages, Russia getting cut off from SWIFT, and “consumer price” is still the top concern? Chinas growth has been subsidised by the US and EU greenwashing their own by exporting manufacturing, and then further subsidised when they demand green policies locally. Well look at just how EU automobiles industries are doing and it certainly wasn’t the only industry hit by it. All manufacturing are energy intensive and polluting. Why do you think china is at a decline now, despite so much growth until covid? It wasn’t the economy slowdown, it wasn’t the debt issue, it’s the fact that the high political tension exists that makes china not as compelling hub anymore. (Though still extremely powerful) New investments are going to Vietnam and India. Even the US is now making a manufacturing comeback.
The European right are an outlet valve for frustration over the way the wheel is turning, they largely don’t bring actual viable solutions to the table.
In a crude sense it’s a reaction to the negative externalities of globalised capitalism, but coming from a support base that is quite fond of the benefits of globalised capitalism. Nothing fundamentally changes because it’s not possible to just cherry pick. It’s like wanting to drink 10 pints of Guinness a night, have merry evenings but not get hangovers.
Indeed, they quite often exacerbate the very issues on which they garner support in the first place. See - The United Kingdom.
I’m not particularly anti-China, it’s just another of many flawed countries to me, but if that were my leaning I can think of few things Beijing would enjoy more than a right-wing takeover of Europe and that (relatively) cohesive bloc breaking up into its constituent parts.
|
|
|
United States42796 Posts
Eh, some of those are somewhat hard to justify. Like Israel not providing sufficient food to Gaza. If Gaza can’t feed itself in this war then it should do what any normal state does and surrender. If it doesn’t want to surrender then it can choose to starve and to fail. It’s not reasonable to demand the state you’re currently at war with to feed you. That’s not how any of this works.
The problem is that this is not a war because Gaza is not a state. The reason we consider Israel has an obligation to feed Gaza is because we consider the Israeli state to be the government of Gaza. If we’re going down that road then we need to call this an internal policing action, not a war, and treat it as such.
If we’re going to call this a war then the responsibility for the supply of Gaza belongs to the Gazans. It’s not like Israeli is torpedoing their merchant navy, they just initiated a war with no actual plan for feeding themselves.
|
On June 13 2024 07:31 KwarK wrote:Eh, some of those are somewhat hard to justify. Like Israel not providing sufficient food to Gaza. If Gaza can’t feed itself in this war then it should do what any normal state does and surrender. If it doesn’t want to surrender then it can choose to starve and to fail.
I have been considering this idea more recently, because a lot of people tend to compare the situation to Ukraine vs Russia whenever this topic is brought up. I think its a distraction and a false equivalence and not worth engaging with. But it did make me try to think of similar situations and better understand how this dynamic has been sorted out in the past.
The closest approximation I could think of was American colonists vs Native Americans. There are many differences between the 2 situations, but I tried to focus purely on the idea of 2 populations fighting for the same land and 1 of them being totally defeated. Not ethnically erased, but they were totally defeated.
I need to research this more, but from what I gathered from my research, Native Americans did indeed surrender and just kinda tried to see what they could work out. They knew they were against a power way beyond them and they knew it was a choice between surrendering and all of their people dying. They made a decision to not fight until the bitter end and they wanted to keep as many of their people alive when they realized it was game over.
It feels like the modern "institution" of war resolution breaks down in cases like Hamas/Gaza. Normally, weaker powers raise the flag early, seek diplomacy, become vassal states, so on and so forth. In the case of Hamas/Gaza, they glorify dying as a form of resistance and appear to be willing to just entirely die for their cause. I legitimately don't know what anyone is supposed to do about that.
I can't think of any military conflict going on in the world right now as 1 sided as Israel vs Palestine. The situation only has the appearance of being at a somewhat-stalemate because it is implied Israel isn't actually allowed to use their full strength because Palestinians are SUCH extreme underdogs that it isn't conceivable for them to ever win. It feels weird that the whole martyr thing ends up breaking the modern system of military conflict resolution. What do you do when the enemy is willing to be wiped out? And also can't feed themselves?
|
Israel isn't at war with Gaza. Israel has occupied Gaza since 1967. The occupying power is responsible for feeding the population. Israel isn't doing that. Instead, Israel is blocking third parties from feeding Gaza. In fact, Israel is currently responsible for much more. Including maintaining order and allowing public life to continue, and to ensure safety to the civilians they are occupying. Clearly, Israel isn't doing that. But they are bound by international humanitarian law to do so. And you can't argue that Israel is trying, and it is not working in practice. No. Israeli officials have publicly said they want chaos, starvation and death in Gaza. But that Hamas is responsible for that.
Saying Hamas should surrender so the Palestinians don't starve is exactly why Israel is starving them. Collective punishment.
In fact, Israel should allow Palestinians to flee from Gaza to INSIDE Israel. That sounds absurd, but that is what is supposed to happen on paper.
|
On June 13 2024 07:31 KwarK wrote:Eh, some of those are somewhat hard to justify. Like Israel not providing sufficient food to Gaza. If Gaza can’t feed itself in this war then it should do what any normal state does and surrender. If it doesn’t want to surrender then it can choose to starve and to fail. It’s not reasonable to demand the state you’re currently at war with to feed you. That’s not how any of this works. + Show Spoiler +The problem is that this is not a war because Gaza is not a state. The reason we consider Israel has an obligation to feed Gaza is because we consider the Israeli state to be the government of Gaza. If we’re going down that road then we need to call this an internal policing action, not a war, and treat it as such.
If we’re going to call this a war then the responsibility for the supply of Gaza belongs to the Gazans. It’s not like Israeli is torpedoing their merchant navy, they just initiated a war with no actual plan for feeding themselves.
Israel is the Occupying Power, and according to the Geneva Convention Article 55:
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
|
Gaza is still occupied because they control the airspace and maritime space. But its a bit of a weird situation because Israel has also tried to get Egypt to take back Gaza. Its just another reason I wish the US would use its influence over Egypt to force Gaza back into Egypt. But of course the US also has a lot of reason to be afraid of Hamas launching a coup against the Egyptian government.
Much like every other quality to Gaza, the term occupation is only partially true. It is a very unique kind of occupation because Gaza voted for Hamas as their government and Hamas handles the vast majority of government duties in Gaza. When people use the term "occupation", they are rarely describing a situation where a government separate from the occupier is voted into office and allowed to conduct government duties.
Another component that makes it unique is that Israel tried to get rid of it. Egypt refused to take Gaza when Israel offered it. So it is an occupation while also having its own government and also being undesired as a territory by the occupier. Its a bizarre situation, just like every other part of the conflict. These strange qualities mostly stem from the fact that Palestinians are so united in their belief that death is better than defeat that there's no realistic path forward. All of our international procedures kind of fall apart when the lesser military has no problem being entirely killed.
Obviously Hamas or Palestinians as a whole will never defeat Israel. And Israel has had the capability to kill every Palestinian in under 48 hours for many years, but they choose not to do so. So Israel will likely never "win". And Palestinians will never "win". So its just permanent? lol
|
How is Gaza undesired as a territory?
|
On June 13 2024 09:51 Gahlo wrote:
How is Gaza undesired as a territory?
Egypt occupied Gaza in the 1960s. It was "occupied" but also the area was Egypt's more than any other country. So similar to how Gaza is Israel's, it was Egypt's before. Then Egypt was a complete moron and lost the entire Sinai peninsula to Israel. Then Israel gave it all back and tried to give Gaza back to Egypt. Egypt said "hell fucking no to that shit" for obvious reasons well understood by Jordan. So then Israel was stuck with Gaza. Then Israel withdrew all of their settlements from Gaza and made all of the Israelis living there leave.
If Israel had a magic wand and could relocate Gaza to Iran, they absolutely would. Egypt built their wall for a reason and has refused requests by the US to absorb Gaza into Egypt.
|
The regime in Egypt doesn't want Gaza because that would mean they get 2 million more pro Muslim Brotherhood citizens. And that could potentially destabilize Egypt. US can push Egypt as hard as they want, but it won't be of any use. They will never accept because they consider it way too dangerous. Look at the Arab spring when Mubarak was pushed out, the people elected a Muslim Brotherhood guy, and they had to countercoup to get back control.
In fact, there is always unrest in the Sinai area. Back in the day, Egypt didn't want Israel to exist. But they also don't really want the Sinai area, let alone Gaza.
Of course Israel is trying to push Egypt to accept Gaza. Because that means no Palestinian state. And they can annex the West Bank and drive the West Bank politicians into Jordan. But Jordan also doesn't want them.
Land-wise Gaza actually isn't too bad. It sits on the coast and the land is somewhat fertile, at least relative to the surroundings. Of course the idea that Gaza could be like Dubai, as some Israeli propagandists have said, is absolute nonsense. But if European Jews, Arab Jews, and other Arabs could somehow have lived peacefully together in one country, and it was as economically successful as the rest of Israel is right now, it could definitely be a city like Tel Aviv right now. Nothing wrong with the land per se. The problem is the people that live there. Hence the Israeli strategy to make Gaza unlivable so the people are pushed out. Into Egypt. That's Netanyahu's end game. He just can't say that it is. Which is why he pretends to have no end game. Which is why Gantz left.
Which is why all of this is ethnic cleansing. And if in 30 years the Palestinians no longer exist as a people, it will be a genocide. Even if Israel didn't actually do any massacres. You don't need to kill people to do a genocide.
|
United States42796 Posts
On June 13 2024 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 07:31 KwarK wrote:Eh, some of those are somewhat hard to justify. Like Israel not providing sufficient food to Gaza. If Gaza can’t feed itself in this war then it should do what any normal state does and surrender. If it doesn’t want to surrender then it can choose to starve and to fail. It’s not reasonable to demand the state you’re currently at war with to feed you. That’s not how any of this works. + Show Spoiler +The problem is that this is not a war because Gaza is not a state. The reason we consider Israel has an obligation to feed Gaza is because we consider the Israeli state to be the government of Gaza. If we’re going down that road then we need to call this an internal policing action, not a war, and treat it as such.
If we’re going to call this a war then the responsibility for the supply of Gaza belongs to the Gazans. It’s not like Israeli is torpedoing their merchant navy, they just initiated a war with no actual plan for feeding themselves. Israel is the Occupying Power, and according to the Geneva Convention Article 55: Show nested quote +To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
Israel gave Gaza independence and Gaza used that independence to attack Israel. You don't get to be the occupying power until they actually surrender. The war is still ongoing. Gaza couldn't feed itself long before October.
|
Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush.
It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense.
|
A non-democratic, stateless, occupied, over-crowded territory that is cut off from the rest of the world, is supposed to be self-sufficient during a war that is fought by a tyrannical leadership (Hamas).
I've heard about some of the most fantastic fantasy lands before, but this one takes the cake.
|
United States42796 Posts
On June 13 2024 18:17 Magic Powers wrote:
A non-democratic, stateless, occupied, over-crowded territory that is cut off from the rest of the world, is supposed to be self-sufficient during a war that is fought by a tyrannical leadership (Hamas).
I've heard about some of the most fantastic fantasy lands before, but this one takes the cake.
Feeding the people is one of the core responsibilities of a government, in this case Hamas. Their failure does not become Israel’s obligation. A non death cult government would have addressed the fact that they can’t feed themselves before starting a war.
|
United States42796 Posts
On June 13 2024 16:47 Suibne wrote:
Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush.
It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense.
If I’m occupying a place and withdraw from it passing control to a native government then how is that not giving it independence?
Having borders with somewhere does not make that place under siege. Besieging a place normally means putting your army between a strongpoint and it’s source of supplies to cut it off from supplies. Simply refusing to export to somewhere from your own country is not a siege. Gaza is free to supply itself, it just doesn’t have a government that views doing so as a priority.
The Nazis sinking merchant shipping carrying foodstuffs in the battle of the Atlantic was a siege. Israel refusing to sell electricity to their adversary in Gaza is not.
|
|
|
On June 13 2024 21:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 18:17 Magic Powers wrote:
A non-democratic, stateless, occupied, over-crowded territory that is cut off from the rest of the world, is supposed to be self-sufficient during a war that is fought by a tyrannical leadership (Hamas).
I've heard about some of the most fantastic fantasy lands before, but this one takes the cake. Feeding the people is one of the core responsibilities of a government, in this case Hamas. Their failure does not become Israel’s obligation. A non death cult government would have addressed the fact that they can’t feed themselves before starting a war.
Hamas has no legitimacy since they abolished democracy. Israel is responsible for the Palestinians in Gaza as they've displaced over a million of them with their bombardment and invasion of Gaza. They're not just strictly fighting Hamas, they're knowingly causing starvation in the process.
As always, two wrongs don't make a right. You want to blame Hamas for the Earth spinning and the stars collapsing. I don't.
|
On June 13 2024 16:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2024 07:31 KwarK wrote:Eh, some of those are somewhat hard to justify. Like Israel not providing sufficient food to Gaza. If Gaza can’t feed itself in this war then it should do what any normal state does and surrender. If it doesn’t want to surrender then it can choose to starve and to fail. It’s not reasonable to demand the state you’re currently at war with to feed you. That’s not how any of this works. + Show Spoiler +The problem is that this is not a war because Gaza is not a state. The reason we consider Israel has an obligation to feed Gaza is because we consider the Israeli state to be the government of Gaza. If we’re going down that road then we need to call this an internal policing action, not a war, and treat it as such.
If we’re going to call this a war then the responsibility for the supply of Gaza belongs to the Gazans. It’s not like Israeli is torpedoing their merchant navy, they just initiated a war with no actual plan for feeding themselves. Israel is the Occupying Power, and according to the Geneva Convention Article 55: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. + Show Spoiler +Israel gave Gaza independence and Gaza used that independence to attack Israel. You don't get to be the occupying power until they actually surrender. + Show Spoiler +The war is still ongoing. Gaza couldn't feed itself long before October.
Says who? Because the ICRC says otherwise.
So, for example, advancing troops could be considered bound by the law of occupation already during the invasion phase of hostilities. This is the approach suggested in the ICRC's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1958).
But you could argue that Israel isn't an Occupying Power because it can't meet it's obligations as an occupier.
An alternative and more restrictive approach would be to say that a situation of occupation exists only once a party to a conflict is in a position to exercise sufficient authority over enemy territory to enable it to discharge all of the duties imposed by the law of occupation.
www.icrc.org
But you'd be wrong there also.
|
On June 13 2024 21:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2024 16:47 Suibne wrote:
Israel didn't give Gaza independence. Israel unilaterally withdrew their troops from the territory and has maintained a siege. Which is why Gaza can't feed itself. Plus the fact that more than half of the people there are refugees from other countries, who have a right to return.
I also wouldn't really call it a war. Yes, Hamas did an attack on October 7th. And they did launch rockets. But mostly, it is just Israel going around Gaza, bombing and destroying. With quite rarely an Hamas ambush.
It is Israel occupying Gaza and fighting an insurgency. That's not a war, in the traditional sense. If I’m occupying a place and withdraw from it passing control to a native government then how is that not giving it independence? Having borders with somewhere does not make that place under siege. Besieging a place normally means putting your army between a strongpoint and it’s source of supplies to cut it off from supplies. Simply refusing to export to somewhere from your own country is not a siege. Gaza is free to supply itself, it just doesn’t have a government that views doing so as a priority. The Nazis sinking merchant shipping carrying foodstuffs in the battle of the Atlantic was a siege. Israel refusing to sell electricity to their adversary in Gaza is not.
What kind of nonsense is this? Gaza's only airport was demolished by Israel. Gaza's only naval port is blockaded by Israel. Gaza's land borders are not controlled by any authority in Gaza. Gaza's infrastructure such as power & water facilities are routinely damaged by strikes from Israel. It's been this way for decades. The blockade they're under is far more all-encompassing than Nazi attacks on merchant ships ever were, like it's not even close.
It's funny you keep calling Hamas a 'death cult government' when Israel has killed more people in 6 months of this conflict than Hamas & friends did in 60 years, by the way. What does that make Israel's government?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
