|
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 October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity.
That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying.
I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply.
|
|
|
On October 30 2023 11:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Because the way Hamas operates it is impossible to fight them without civilian causalities. They can’t come to grips with how they can both believe that Israel has the right to defend themselves after and all time horrific terrorist attack and how they can protect the rights of the innocent in Palestine. It’s a very biased opinion you hold not a factual assessment. If they felt exactly how you describe they would have simply voted that way, or if they felt the opposite they would have voted like that.
Even when you really try to complicate this matter, it doesn't work.
That's the reason that I stressed that international legal obligations are universal, and should apply in all cases. When asked 'do you think they should apply in this specific case' an answer of 'maybe' is the same as denying that international legal obligations should be universally applied. Its actually extremely simple.
|
On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply.
Yes, people have rights. We like those rights to be universal and universally applied. Most westerners expect workers in Qatar to be treated with basic human rights. However, everyone also has responsibilities. If someone can't act responsibly, some of those rights are taken away.
When someone commits murder, do you complain about his lack of rights when he's locked in a cage or do you accept that he has lost some of his rights?
The Gaza Palestinians are currently led by Hamas. Hamas was voted in by those Palestinians and then didn't allow any new votes. Still, they're the closest thing to a government the Gaza Palestinians have. Hamas is a genocidal regime whose goal is to kill all Jews in the entire world. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the power to simply walk in and throw all of Hamas in jail. In some cases, Hamas uses the Palestinians in Gaza as cover, and in some cases the Palestinians in Gaza cover Hamas.
For years, Israel tolerated Hamas despite Hamas's desire for genocide. There was a major power imbalance where the genocidal lunatics had no power to commit their genocide, so everyone kind of accepted it. Only a small number of people died in rocket and other terrorist attacks each year. Unfortunately, Oct 7th showed what happens when Hamas gets the slightest bit of power. They go on a genocidal rampage.
Israel is now in the position of having to enforce basic human responsibility on an inhuman organization. There aren't any good options. Hamas will use the Gaza population as human shields as much as possible. Some of those human shields will die, but basic humanity requires Hamas to be held accountable for their crimes.
|
|
|
On October 30 2023 11:34 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Yes, people have rights. We like those rights to be universal and universally applied. Most westerners expect workers in Qatar to be treated with basic human rights. However, everyone also has responsibilities. If someone can't act responsibly, some of those rights are taken away. When someone commits murder, do you complain about his lack of rights when he's locked in a cage or do you accept that he has lost some of his rights? The Gaza Palestinians are currently led by Hamas. Hamas was voted in by those Palestinians and then didn't allow any new votes. Still, they're the closest thing to a government the Gaza Palestinians have. Hamas is a genocidal regime whose goal is to kill all Jews in the entire world. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the power to simply walk in and throw all of Hamas in jail. In some cases, Hamas uses the Palestinians in Gaza as cover, and in some cases the Palestinians in Gaza cover Hamas. For years, Israel tolerated Hamas despite Hamas's desire for genocide. There was a major power imbalance where the genocidal lunatics had no power to commit their genocide, so everyone kind of accepted it. Only a small number of people died in rocket and other terrorist attacks each year. Unfortunately, Oct 7th showed what happens when Hamas gets the slightest bit of power. They go on a genocidal rampage. Israel is now in the position of having to enforce basic human responsibility on an inhuman organization. There aren't any good options. Hamas will use the Gaza population as human shields as much as possible. Some of those human shields will die, but basic humanity requires Hamas to be held accountable for their crimes.
I would say there is too big a distance between the general population of Gaza and the crimes of Hamas to say their rights should be taken away - as I've said before at least half the population now being punished for Hamas' actions weren't born when that vote happened - but this isn't really a discussion about the Gazan population, its a discussion about whether or not international humanitarian obligations should apply to Israel.
|
On October 30 2023 11:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 11:21 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Because the way Hamas operates it is impossible to fight them without civilian causalities. They can’t come to grips with how they can both believe that Israel has the right to defend themselves after and all time horrific terrorist attack and how they can protect the rights of the innocent in Palestine. It’s a very biased opinion you hold not a factual assessment. If they felt exactly how you describe they would have simply voted that way, or if they felt the opposite they would have voted like that. Even when you really try to complicate this matter, it doesn't work. That's the reason that I stressed that international legal obligations are universal, and should apply in all cases. When asked 'do you think they should apply in this specific case' an answer of 'maybe' is the same as denying that international legal obligations should be universally applied. It’s actually extremely simple. I’m the legal system we have different rules for almost everything including murder because context and circumstance matters. Now instead of a one one interaction that is complicated enough you have millions of people, various ideologies, generations of history and so on. Pretending that does not matter for some sort of morality superiority is closer to religion than logic. It’s strange but not strange that that far left and far right disagree about almost everything but both agree on something as complicated as the Israel Palestine Iran relationship. Iran is an absolute massive player in this and Hamas is not fighting for the Palestinians.
I have no idea what this weird rant is about but it doesn't seem to be about the conversation we were having a minute ago...
|
On October 30 2023 11:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:34 RenSC2 wrote:On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Yes, people have rights. We like those rights to be universal and universally applied. Most westerners expect workers in Qatar to be treated with basic human rights. However, everyone also has responsibilities. If someone can't act responsibly, some of those rights are taken away. When someone commits murder, do you complain about his lack of rights when he's locked in a cage or do you accept that he has lost some of his rights? The Gaza Palestinians are currently led by Hamas. Hamas was voted in by those Palestinians and then didn't allow any new votes. Still, they're the closest thing to a government the Gaza Palestinians have. Hamas is a genocidal regime whose goal is to kill all Jews in the entire world. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the power to simply walk in and throw all of Hamas in jail. In some cases, Hamas uses the Palestinians in Gaza as cover, and in some cases the Palestinians in Gaza cover Hamas. For years, Israel tolerated Hamas despite Hamas's desire for genocide. There was a major power imbalance where the genocidal lunatics had no power to commit their genocide, so everyone kind of accepted it. Only a small number of people died in rocket and other terrorist attacks each year. Unfortunately, Oct 7th showed what happens when Hamas gets the slightest bit of power. They go on a genocidal rampage. Israel is now in the position of having to enforce basic human responsibility on an inhuman organization. There aren't any good options. Hamas will use the Gaza population as human shields as much as possible. Some of those human shields will die, but basic humanity requires Hamas to be held accountable for their crimes. I would say there is too big a distance between the general population of Gaza and the crimes of Hamas to say their rights should be taken away - as I've said before at least half the population now being punished for Hamas' actions weren't born when that vote happened - but this isn't really a discussion about the Gazan population, its a discussion about whether or not international humanitarian obligations should apply to Israel.
If you're asking whether it should be a joint UN force that goes in to destroy Hamas, then yes, it should have been. We as humans should have all banded together behind Israel and provided the 100s of thousands of troops it would take to root out Hamas from the Palestinian population. Unfortunately, nobody really wanted to get that involved.
It's very rare for countries to commit troops to help other countries.
|
On October 30 2023 11:34 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Yes, people have rights. We like those rights to be universal and universally applied. Most westerners expect workers in Qatar to be treated with basic human rights. However, everyone also has responsibilities. If someone can't act responsibly, some of those rights are taken away. When someone commits murder, do you complain about his lack of rights when he's locked in a cage or do you accept that he has lost some of his rights? The Gaza Palestinians are currently led by Hamas. Hamas was voted in by those Palestinians and then didn't allow any new votes. Still, they're the closest thing to a government the Gaza Palestinians have. Hamas is a genocidal regime whose goal is to kill all Jews in the entire world. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the power to simply walk in and throw all of Hamas in jail. In some cases, Hamas uses the Palestinians in Gaza as cover, and in some cases the Palestinians in Gaza cover Hamas. For years, Israel tolerated Hamas despite Hamas's desire for genocide. There was a major power imbalance where the genocidal lunatics had no power to commit their genocide, so everyone kind of accepted it. Only a small number of people died in rocket and other terrorist attacks each year. Unfortunately, Oct 7th showed what happens when Hamas gets the slightest bit of power. They go on a genocidal rampage. Israel is now in the position of having to enforce basic human responsibility on an inhuman organization. There aren't any good options. Hamas will use the Gaza population as human shields as much as possible. Some of those human shields will die, but basic humanity requires Hamas to be held accountable for their crimes.
The only reason we're even talking about this now is because Israel has been murdering and colonizing Palestinians for decades. Fucking jokes that you and a bunch of others in this thread keep acting as if this last attack by Hamas is some sort of an isolated incident that happened in a vacuum for no other reason than Hamas being jewhaters. Israel didn't just 'tolerate' Hamas for years, Israel actively used Hamas as an excuse for their own apartheid policies and near-daily atrocities against Palestine -- in fact, the apartheid and the atrocities predate Hamas by several decades.
If Western democracies cared about human rights and international law and all that jazz, there wouldn't be Israeli settlements inhabited by armed militias that go around murdering people with impunity.
|
On October 30 2023 11:43 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 11:34 RenSC2 wrote:On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 06:13 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:There have been a couple in Trondheim. Our government has also been starting to increasingly condemn Israel's actions (after initially showing full support following the terror attack). Also noticed this - the list of countries voting for/against/abstaining on a resolution on “protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” on the ongoing Gaza crisis. Europe has 4 countries going against and a whole bunch abstaining. (Four countries going against are 'conservative or further right' from my understanding) Then there are some oceania states (unsure to what degree they have independent foreign policy or not) going against. Paraguay and Guatemala I have no idea about. Aside from that the world is pretty overwhelmingly supportive of the resolution. I think the current events might create a wider schism between 'the west and the rest', tbh. I also think (not passing personal judgment right now) that the support given to Israel/indifference towards the humanitarian situation on Gaza is going to be used as an argument by non-affiliated countries who wish to adopt a position of indifference towards other conflicts. Looks like most western democracies abstained. Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves. I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Yes, people have rights. We like those rights to be universal and universally applied. Most westerners expect workers in Qatar to be treated with basic human rights. However, everyone also has responsibilities. If someone can't act responsibly, some of those rights are taken away. When someone commits murder, do you complain about his lack of rights when he's locked in a cage or do you accept that he has lost some of his rights? The Gaza Palestinians are currently led by Hamas. Hamas was voted in by those Palestinians and then didn't allow any new votes. Still, they're the closest thing to a government the Gaza Palestinians have. Hamas is a genocidal regime whose goal is to kill all Jews in the entire world. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the power to simply walk in and throw all of Hamas in jail. In some cases, Hamas uses the Palestinians in Gaza as cover, and in some cases the Palestinians in Gaza cover Hamas. For years, Israel tolerated Hamas despite Hamas's desire for genocide. There was a major power imbalance where the genocidal lunatics had no power to commit their genocide, so everyone kind of accepted it. Only a small number of people died in rocket and other terrorist attacks each year. Unfortunately, Oct 7th showed what happens when Hamas gets the slightest bit of power. They go on a genocidal rampage. Israel is now in the position of having to enforce basic human responsibility on an inhuman organization. There aren't any good options. Hamas will use the Gaza population as human shields as much as possible. Some of those human shields will die, but basic humanity requires Hamas to be held accountable for their crimes. I would say there is too big a distance between the general population of Gaza and the crimes of Hamas to say their rights should be taken away - as I've said before at least half the population now being punished for Hamas' actions weren't born when that vote happened - but this isn't really a discussion about the Gazan population, its a discussion about whether or not international humanitarian obligations should apply to Israel. If you're asking whether it should be a joint UN force that goes in to destroy Hamas, then yes, it should have been. We as humans should have all banded together behind Israel and provided the 100s of thousands of troops it would take to root out Hamas from the Palestinian population. Unfortunately, nobody really wanted to get that involved. It's very rare for countries to commit troops to help other countries.
I'm talking about humanitarian obligations rather than a UN sanctioned invasion.
Here's a quick summary of what I mean by international humanitarian obligations:
International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict. It lays out the responsibilities of states and non-state armed groups during an armed conflict.
It requires, among other things:
the rapid and unimpeded passage for humanitarian aid during armed conflicts
the freedom of movement for humanitarian workers in conflict areas
the protection of civilians (including medical and humanitarian workers)
the protection of refugees, prisoners, and the wounded and sick.
Two more relevant sentences from this website:
IHL is based on the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on protecting civilians in conflict and the 1977 and 2005 Additional Protocols.
All EU countries have ratified the 4 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. The EU also is the only regional organisation to adopt (in 2005; updated in 2009) guidelines on promoting compliance with IHL.
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/humanitarian-aid/international-humanitarian-law_en
|
|
|
On October 30 2023 12:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 11:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 11:35 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 11:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 11:21 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 11:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:58 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 10:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 30 2023 10:33 JimmiC wrote:On October 30 2023 09:41 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Its pretty solid evidence that the western exceptionalism that leads people to judge arab countries so harshly is based on a very warped, flawed view of ourselves.
I’d say that’s you coming to a conclusion you already had. So when people criticize Qatar when they host a world cup, for example, because they have a poor record of protecting their workers and upholding legal and human rights obligations you'd say there isn't any hypocrisy there? There is lots of hypocrisy everywhere, there is also a heck of a lot of complexity. That's a very vague criticism of what I'm saying. I'm being quite specific here. Legal and humanitarian obligations are supposed to be universal and universally applied. Its spoken of as a matter of pride in the west that we uphold said obligations (often as a way of criticising others), but here the only thing we are upholding is our apparent right to choose when, where & to whom such obligations apply. Because the way Hamas operates it is impossible to fight them without civilian causalities. They can’t come to grips with how they can both believe that Israel has the right to defend themselves after and all time horrific terrorist attack and how they can protect the rights of the innocent in Palestine. It’s a very biased opinion you hold not a factual assessment. If they felt exactly how you describe they would have simply voted that way, or if they felt the opposite they would have voted like that. Even when you really try to complicate this matter, it doesn't work. That's the reason that I stressed that international legal obligations are universal, and should apply in all cases. When asked 'do you think they should apply in this specific case' an answer of 'maybe' is the same as denying that international legal obligations should be universally applied. It’s actually extremely simple. I’m the legal system we have different rules for almost everything including murder because context and circumstance matters. Now instead of a one one interaction that is complicated enough you have millions of people, various ideologies, generations of history and so on. Pretending that does not matter for some sort of morality superiority is closer to religion than logic. It’s strange but not strange that that far left and far right disagree about almost everything but both agree on something as complicated as the Israel Palestine Iran relationship. Iran is an absolute massive player in this and Hamas is not fighting for the Palestinians. I have no idea what this weird rant is about but it doesn't seem to be about the conversation we were having a minute ago... It’s that you can’t hold the position that Israel can attack Hamas and that they can’t hurt and kill civilians, you can’t do both Hamas makes that impossible. Well countries like Ukraine evacuate citizens when they attack or defend Hamas wants the most possible civilians in both. They didn’t even pretend the attack military targets and they pick where to be based on maximum civilian. You could hold the position that no matter what Israel can not defend/attack Hamas outside of their borders. But these countries have already said they support Israel’s right to attack Hamas. Now they do want to support Israel killing civilians but they also believe they should fight back. Yes nor no world so abstaining says that they don’t know. It’s what abstaining means. What you suggest is your thoughts, if they thought that they would have voted differently.
By abstaining, a country, let's hone in on this and say an EU country, is therefore saying that there may be exceptions to legal standards based on the Geneva Conventions and its additional law which were unanimously ratified by the EU member states, yes?
The reason this is such an important point is that these laws are in place because of their universality, because they can be applied in all circumstances. The laws, and their ratification by EU member states, become pointless when countries can pick and choose who we apply them to.
I really fail to see how not allowing Israel to block basic means of survival like water, power and food from getting into Gaza is hamstringing Israel's fight against Hamas to any reasonable degree.
I'm not saying they shouldn't fight Hamas and affiliate organizations outside their borders. I'm not complaining about the skirmishes with Hezbollah, for example, and believe it or not I accept some civilian deaths will happen because, well, its a war.
I would even go as far as to say that in sending warnings for civilians to clear out certain areas, Israel is making some effort to comply with this law in that specific area.
However, the blockade and refusal to allow enough aid in to Gaza is a clear breach of international humanitarian law, and when asked whether that should matter, many western countries failed to say 'yes'.
It doesn't take a crazy levelling up of perception to realize the implications of that.
|
On October 30 2023 12:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
By abstaining, a country, let's hone in on this and say an EU country, is therefore saying that there may be exceptions to legal standards based on the Geneva Conventions and its additional law which were unanimously ratified by the EU member states, yes?
That's a very absolutist way of looking at it.
The resolution failed to mention Hamas and the terror attack which is pretty important context.
I bet many countries felt that the resolution is no longer indicative of real-world situation and more of a political tool to drive a specific narrative.
It's less of a 'don't know / don't care' and more of a 'this is not the whole story' vote.
|
On October 30 2023 14:16 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 12:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
By abstaining, a country, let's hone in on this and say an EU country, is therefore saying that there may be exceptions to legal standards based on the Geneva Conventions and its additional law which were unanimously ratified by the EU member states, yes?
That's a very absolutist way of looking at it. The resolution failed to mention Hamas and the terror attack which is pretty important context. I bet many countries felt that the resolution is no longer indicative of real-world situation and more of a political tool to drive a specific narrative. It's less of a 'don't know / don't care' and more of a 'this is not the whole story' vote.
I mean, when North Korea decided that nuclear non-proliferation treaty no longer suited them because of the 'context' of geopolitical realities, they actually withdrew from it before taking actions that were in violation of it (and were still sanctioned to hell for withdrawing from it). Here, though, you claim it's okay for states that ratified the Geneva conventions and similar legal frameworks to simply ignore them because, uhh, terrorist attack 'context' somehow makes the laws that those states agreed to abide by irrelevant? Like, one state violating international law does not give the right for others to do the same. Not to mention that in the eyes of the EU, Palestine isn't even an independent state. It's literally an occupied territory that the occupiers are depriving of basic human necessities.
|
I could likewise ask why countries voting 'yes' denied Israel right to self-defense despite it being guaranteed in the founding UN charter.
We could lawyer about it forever.
The point is - when you ignore the cause-effect chain that led us here, then you are no longer looking for solutions.
It's as true of Israel as it is of its critics.
|
On October 30 2023 17:34 pmp10 wrote:
I could likewise ask why countries voting 'yes' denied Israel right to self-defense despite it being guaranteed in the founding UN charter.
We could lawyer about it forever.
The point is - when you ignore the cause-effect chain that led us here, then you are no longer looking for solutions.
It's as true of Israel as it is of its critics. Because self defence is not a blank check to commit any atrocity to you want.
|
On October 30 2023 14:16 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 12:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
By abstaining, a country, let's hone in on this and say an EU country, is therefore saying that there may be exceptions to legal standards based on the Geneva Conventions and its additional law which were unanimously ratified by the EU member states, yes?
That's a very absolutist way of looking at it. The resolution failed to mention Hamas and the terror attack which is pretty important context. I bet many countries felt that the resolution is no longer indicative of real-world situation and more of a political tool to drive a specific narrative. It's less of a 'don't know / don't care' and more of a 'this is not the whole story' vote.
I don't see how the resolution could possibly fail to be indicative of the real world situation. Israel has simply broken the specific international humanitarian law that states that there must be rapid movement of aid to areas that need it.
Its got nothing to do with their right to self defense, as is pointed out above, that is not the right to do whatever you want in contravention of international law, and blocking aid does not defend Israel so much as starve the civilian population of Gaza (not Hamas, btw, who are probably fine with it).
|
On October 30 2023 17:34 pmp10 wrote:
I could likewise ask why countries voting 'yes' denied Israel right to self-defense despite it being guaranteed in the founding UN charter.
We could lawyer about it forever.
The point is - when you ignore the cause-effect chain that led us here, then you are no longer looking for solutions.
It's as true of Israel as it is of its critics.
To be fair to pmp10, there's a fog of war that descends on this thread whenever someone mentions the settlements in the West Bank. It can't be cleared, and it remains on the posts for a few hours until someone else comes back to the idea that Israel is just defending itself
|
On October 30 2023 18:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2023 14:16 pmp10 wrote:On October 30 2023 12:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
By abstaining, a country, let's hone in on this and say an EU country, is therefore saying that there may be exceptions to legal standards based on the Geneva Conventions and its additional law which were unanimously ratified by the EU member states, yes?
That's a very absolutist way of looking at it. The resolution failed to mention Hamas and the terror attack which is pretty important context. I bet many countries felt that the resolution is no longer indicative of real-world situation and more of a political tool to drive a specific narrative. It's less of a 'don't know / don't care' and more of a 'this is not the whole story' vote. I don't see how the resolution could possibly fail to be indicative of the real world situation. Israel has simply broken the specific international humanitarian law that states that there must be rapid movement of aid to areas that need it. Its got nothing to do with their right to self defense, as is pointed out above, that is not the right to do whatever you want in contravention of international law, and blocking aid does not defend Israel so much as starve the civilian population of Gaza (not Hamas, btw, who are probably fine with it).
The resolution is not just about the humanitarian aid. It also calls for a ceasfire. That requires a position on Israels right to self defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9eI7BYWAAAy7nT?format=jpg&name=large)
