EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 73
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
hitthat
Poland2344 Posts
I wish that anyone who authorised that attack will end prosecuted of war crimes. This one is unforgivable. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3394 Posts
Wait, this goes both ways innit? Jews don’t eat pork either. Poor bastards, bacon is AWESOME | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On November 01 2023 05:27 JimmiC wrote: It appears from their actions that their goals are to completely destroy Hamas regardless of civilian casualties. If their goal was ethnic cleansing they would be directly targeting civilians and as you point out they have the power to succeed the reason they have not is that is not their goal. It is fine to be mad at Israel for what they are doing, there is no need and it makes discussion impossible to inflate their crimes. What they do in peacetime, or at least relative peacetime is rather instructive as to their goals as a state. Ethnic cleansing can encompass extermination sure, it’s not the only behaviour that defines it. My hypothetical local HOA could be complete arseholes to a few black families that have moved into the area, they don’t have to petrol bomb their domiciles for me to recognise what they’re attempting to do. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 01 2023 05:12 WombaT wrote: Afghanistan and especially Iraq were wars of folly IMO, but they were still broadly enacted in accordance to the generally internationally accepted and codified rules of warfare. Despite opposition, especially from Serbs you can broadly say the same for NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. It’s actually pretty damn easy to think of examples. Of course these aren’t 100% equivalent given their interventions with far flung regions and not those in proximity. Bazillions of war crimes were committed by the US during both of those. They had the fancy label of legal, but Iraq and Afghanistan both individually highlight why the label itself is phony and just an optics/posturing tool. We have a lot of incentive to try to impose “rules” on war, but it’s mostly just virtue signaling and a tool for nations to frame themselves as morally transcendent. I am glad we stopped using chemical weapons (for the most part), so that’s clearly a benefit, but I think it’s important to remain strict with how we use these terms. I don’t think it would be accurate to label the 2 wars you described as “legal” because the US failed to abide by the full description of legal during both wars. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On November 01 2023 05:28 hitthat wrote: The attack on refugee camp is when they streach way too far. While I believe that HAMAS should be squashed like a cockroaches for that atrocities from the first day of war, this attack in beyond anything my concience could bare. I wish that anyone who authorised that attack will end prosecuted of war crimes. This one is unforgivable. BBC link Perhaps more will emerge from this breaking story, I’m not exactly hopeful based on what I’ve read here in that article: The Israeli military said the strike killed a senior Hamas commander and "underground terror infrastructure" beneath buildings collapsed afterwards. It added that a "large number of terrorists" from Hamas's Central Jabalia Battalion who had been with the commander at the time were also killed, without addressing the reports of civilian casualties. I’m not sure what one can read into that other than ‘We will bomb refugee camps if we can nail some Hamas higher-ups’. As I said with another quote police gave about shooting youths with stones, it’s bad enough doing it, but if you’re openly admitting it in such a fashion it’s clearly accepted policy and not some tragic mistake. And if you’re freely admitting to bombing a refugee camp, it’s also pretty clear you don’t expect the wider international community to do jack shit about it. Which I think is a correct calculation given the wider moral cowardice of much of at least the West, that I’m more familiar with, but a correct calculation that is depressing with its implications. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On November 01 2023 05:46 JimmiC wrote: And they don't ethnicly cleanse in peacetime. Even Israel itself is not ethnically cleansed. These are charged words with actual definitions. Right so what differentiates the Uighur population, which you frequently invoke as being ethnically cleansed by China, from the Palestinian population in terms of material conditions? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On November 01 2023 06:17 JimmiC wrote: What about illegal settlements on Syrian land is ethnic cleansing? I don't know | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6282 Posts
On November 01 2023 04:08 Nebuchad wrote: All of them are violence, in violation of peace treaties and international law, and it's not uncommon that weapons are used to force Palestinians to displace, in addition to the more traditional methods. They're illegal yes. That does not make them an armed attack. Small scale violence does not automatically fall under that definition. Otherwise a border skirmish would trigger the right to self defense. Either way one of the conditions for self defense is necessity. As I pointed out there are other options to solve the settlements. So self defense does not apply. On November 01 2023 05:28 hitthat wrote: The attack on refugee camp is when they streach way too far. While I believe that HAMAS should be squashed like a cockroaches for that atrocities from the first day of war, this attack in beyond anything my concience could bare. I wish that anyone who authorised that attack will end prosecuted of war crimes. This one is unforgivable. Refugee camps like Jabalia aren't traditional refugee camps with tents. They've developed into cities over decades. They're still called refugee camps because many Palestinians are considered refugees from their displacement decades ago. Jabalia in particular is where the first intifada started and Hamas had a strong presence there even before they took over the Gaza Strip. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On November 01 2023 06:28 RvB wrote: They're illegal yes. That does not make them an armed attack. Small scale violence does not automatically fall under that definition. Otherwise a border skirmish would trigger the right to self defense. Either way one of the conditions for self defense is necessity. As I pointed out there are other options to solve the settlements. So self defense does not apply. One of the salient points of this conflict is that it isn't a border because Israel is intent on not letting Palestinians have a state. I'm taking your house, I have an army supporting me (it's not an armed attack), you fight back how dare you attack me now I can respond in self-defense. This is absolutely a reasonable conversation between two adults and not some apologist bullshit. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On November 01 2023 08:11 JimmiC wrote: Well there you go. Is it safe to say that the Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and so on? As now there is less than 1 % Jewish people in those countries. What do you mean "well there you go", explain this to me like I'm drunk enough to have just sung Svoboda by Leningrad in the middle of the bridge between Fribourg and Marly because that might be what just happened | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On November 01 2023 08:34 JimmiC wrote: If you who repeatedly can’t say why it’s ethnic cleansing, if 20% of Israel is Palestinian and allowed to practice their religion and culture, if they have the power to ethnically cleanse and do not. Then it’s not ethnic cleansing. They can do lots of bad things and they are not ethnic cleansing, it is a very specific thing not some term you just throw around. Your turn to answer mine. The number that you're quoting is I'm assuming Israeli Arabs, so you're asking me "Since I'm only a little abusive to one population how can you claim that I'm very abusive to another different population", the answer to this being "Well I just looked at what was happening in the real world and saw that you were". | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12468 Posts
On November 01 2023 08:49 JimmiC wrote: Your strawman is not an answer. It does not excuse the bad stuff they have done or will do and I’ve said as much over and over. It just is not ethnic cleansing and I’m pointing this out because you and many others seem to be ignoring the context of why a group of people who have been ethnically cleansed in the past, multiple times, and have groups actively trying to cleanse them right now are not all making good moral choices. But if you look at the polling it’s far from all of them. This is why so many Israelis go straight to antisemitism, it makes no sense to see this conflict so one sided given the history and current situation. Since it's not ethnic cleansing you won't have qny trouble explaining to me what the non-ethnic cleansing reasoning for the settlements in the west bank is | ||
| ||
