Supporters of Israel's actions in Gaza - why do you think the Geneva convention should not apply?
Supporters of Israel's actions in Gaza - why do you think the Geneva convention should not apply?
The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.
So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"
Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.
EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions
In the interest of moderation transparency, we've had a couple of reports about this post.
Here's my thinking about it:
Community purpose
- This post is more political that would ordinarily be seen on AskLemmy, ⬇️
- it is an open-ended thought provoking question, ⬆️
- it is generating healthy and informative discussion and debate. ⬆️
Rule 1:
- the post is not trolling, sealioning, racist or toxic, ⬆️
- the topic is contentious but seems to be worded politely, ⬆️
- the author has voluntarily amended the question to be more sensitive in their framing. ⬆️
Rule 3:
- it does not fit the definition of spam or astroturfing ⬆️
On balance, I'm going to let the post remain up.
34Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.
16
Here's a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I'm just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.
Settlements.
The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel's particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and '73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations' armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.
Gaza civilians
The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that's not what they're doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.
If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What's the justification for that? I think their view is that they're dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn't happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it's a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they're ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It's a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas' when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn't another way.
This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.
America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I'm aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.
Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it's better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?
Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn't have to doesn't take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)
105Well written answer. This actually gives me a fantastic chance to argue the pro-Palestinian side for a change, which deserves some nuance of its own that it doesn't get nearly enough of.
I would argue that the realpolitik stance of Netanyahu is grossly outdated. Before the events of Oct 7th, Israel was getting closer and closer to an agreement with Saudi Arabia, indicative of a growing perception that the days of fossil fuel profits running an economy are slowly coming to their end, and the need to transition towards a service sector economy based around tourism, the free flow of business and cultural and technological export. All of these are severely hampered by violence in a way that resource extraction is far less subject to. Because of this shifting economic climate over not just the region, but the whole globe, the days of sudden, large-scale Arab attacks into Israeli territory were growing more and more unlikely. This ultimately makes the wish to secure a greater strategic depth unnecessary.
While that would not remove the chances of terrorism, we can look to the end of The Troubles in Ireland and see that negotiation and autonomy can create a viable path forward for ending local sectarian hostilities. While this would no doubt be a difficult path, requiring significant investment and no small amount of vulnerability from Israel in the short term, it has the potential to secure a lasting peace in a way that bombs simply cannot. If a negotiated peace and independence for the Palestinian people can be achieved, then, further ties with the rest of their Arab neighbors become significantly easier, giving Israel a much better opportunity to rise to a status of acceptance and prominence within the broader Middle East community. This would in turn allow them to exploit the Sunni/Shiite and secular/religious divides within the Islamic world to align themselves with the majority against Iran, and give them much greater security in the long run.
This diplomatic and economic path to security is perhaps barely still possible, if Israel can throw out Netanyahu and change their direction, reversing their pattern of settlement in the West Bank and economically compensating the Palestinians for land already lost. A back-breaking property tax could perhaps be levied on all Israeli citizens living within the West Bank settlements, with the proceeds going to outreach, health and education programs for their neighbors, both Arab and Israeli. This could slowly lead to a sort of economic demilitarized zone, and be the first step towards co-existence.
42Well put.
I think the desire for a national identity (Zionism) is fundamentally at odds with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring ethnic groups. Israel is definitely at a major disadvantage here. Most other ethnic groups have a "homeland" out of sheer geo-historical inertia. Though I wouldn't call it a completely unique situation. We see the tensions arise from the protection (or lack thereof) of national identity all over the world to lesser degrees, especially as globalization creeps in.
And I can empathize with groups that feel marginalized because of it. Though I think letting it boil over into violence is definitely a step too far.
Besides, geography as a means of cultural protectionism may be an outdated idea. We can't underestimate the importance of soft power for spreading cultural influence, and being in a state of constant conflict does not further that goal.
In summary, I think Israel's actions are rational at a tactical level, but ultimately fail to address the big picture you lay out.
15
Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don't just reflexively downvote.
24I won't ascribe these views as yours, but I will argue against them from a pro-palestinian standpoint.
Settlements and Security:
Israel does justify the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets 'Transferred' to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice. See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate, before the mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948: Plan Dalet, Declassified Massacres of 1948, and Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) . Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967: Haaretz, Forward; while the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ). The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.
The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.
Civilian Deaths and Human Shields:
Israel does deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so: ‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, Lavender, and Where's Daddy. When it comes to Israeli Soldiers and Civilians, there is also the use of the Hannibal Directive, which was also used on Oct 7th.
Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza, 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza , Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated.
On the subject of Human Shields, there are some independent reports for past conflicts of Hamas jeopardizing the safety of civilians via Rocket fire in dense urban areas, two instances during Oct 7th, but no independent verification since then so far. None of which absolve Israel of the crime of targeting civilians under international law:
Intentionally utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain areas immune from military attack is prohibited under international law. Amnesty International was not able to establish whether or not the fighters’ presence in the camps was intended to shield themselves from military attacks. However, under international humanitarian law, even if one party uses “human shields”, or is otherwise unlawfully endangering civilians, this does not absolve the opposing party from complying with its obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects.
Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields: IDF uses Human Shields, including Children (2013 Report), and in the latest war Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds
19This is the kind of response I was looking for.
I'm not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.
15As fucked up as Israel's actions are, it's important to remember they're surrounded by countries who want to do to them what they're doing to Gaza. Israel kicks all their butts, in no small part because of the US. They've developed a real Mexican drug cartel "I'll cut all your familys' heads off in front of you if you mess with me" vibe, and you can see why.
And doing that creates terrorists, and you can see why.
0
First thanks for the response. I'm Neither Pro-Israel; nor Pro-Hamas. I always frame my position as being Pro-Civilian above all. That is:
- Who historically has killed the most civilians?
- Who is actively killing the most civilians now?
- Does the collateral damage of killing these civilians now lead to less civilians dying in the long run?
To me these are the key questions that frame a lot of my positions on this subject.
To the first question, Israel both Pre and Post-October 7th has killed more civilians overall. The general response to this is, "Well sure but that's only because Israel can defend itself." But because you have good defenses -- defenses that arguably should've been able to easily prevent October 7th from happening in the first place, does that really justify the number of civilian deaths, especially when you espouse the moral high-ground in being above a terrorist organization? Israel has the means to target civilians, but should they?
The second question is clear. Israel has committed easily dozens of October 7ths against innocent Palestinian civilians. It would take probably a century for Hamas to be able to commit the amount of atrocities that IDF has done in less than a year. So while not to be callous, by pure logic, the rate of suffering Israel has incurred upon innocent people is overwhelmingly greater than that which Hamas is capable of.
Finally, is this ends-justify-the-means? No, I don't believe so. Never in the history of ever does destabilizing a region by destroying civilian infrastructure and killing vast swaths of families, leaving orphans and parents whose children are dead ever deradicalized a populaton. At least not when the source of that is less an identity with a nation-state and more a festering ideology driving radicalization. Ultimately, Israel seems to be doing all the wrong things in playing whack-a-mole with Hamas; except it's Whack-a-Hydra, and the resulting collateral damage will radicalize further individuals. So what will happen when all these orphans grow up? We all know what. Moreover does this even address the root sources fueling this extremism? No sense of national identity, and Lebanon and Iran? No, Israel won't tackle the source of the problem.
As others pointed out, we would all be utterly shocked if in Die Hard they just decided to level the entire building with everyone inside. We would all be shocked if police just set demolition charges on the latest school shooter with all kids still inside, justifying it as, "Well we had to eliminate the threat!" Israel is justifying widespread, unprecedented collateral damage with this exact mentality... And for what?
At the end of the day we need to step back and look at the big picture. Bibi is deeply unpopular in Israel. He is facing widespread criminal charges in their courts. And now, he is facing crimes against humanity charges by the ICC. He must remain a war time president to avoid criminal prosecution. This is about status & legacy above all else for him. Like all right-wing nationalists, he does not care about innocent civilians; they're merely useful pawns.
Apologies as my response had to be a bit rushed today.
12I'm an Israeli lefty and this is the first time I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I'm actually agreeing with. Thank you.
9If I may add to this, while the Geneva Convention prohibits attacking hospitals, the International Committee of the Red Cross states that hospitals and similar buildings may become legitimate targets "for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters." NATO intelligence (PDF warning) states that Hamas is well known to launch attacks from civilian locations ordinarily protected by the Geneva Convention. In other words, they're using their own population as human shields. It is extremely difficult to completely prevent civilian casualties in these cases, especially when Hamas discourages people from leaving areas that Israel warns will be attacked (see the NATO document above).
To put it simply, if Israel decides that they are no longer willing to risk the safety of civilians, then Hamas will continue attacking with impunity from civilian areas. Israel absolutely should minimize civilian causalities, but when Hamas hides their fighters and weapons within their civilian population, some of them will unfortunately die. Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.
1If I may add, what you present here is a false choice, and understanding why it is gets to the heart of answering the question: "Why do people radicalize in the first place?"
Believe it or not, there are other methods of approaching this; methods the previous Prime Minister in the '90s was addressing before one of Bibi's (in stochastic language) followers assassinated him.
If you get caught in this game of Whack-A-Mole with terrorists, you're going to have about as much luck in dealing with Hamas as The United States did with addressing the Taliban in Afghanistan; for each one you kill considering the collateral damage as occupier, you will create 5 more down the road.
Lebanon and Iran are key source of the problem; that Israel is unwilling to actually confront the source of the problem — creeping annexation, blockades and general enforcement of ghettos along the strips — speaks to their disinterest in actually resolving those stoking the fire and providing the aid. Let's not forget that it was Israel who undermined the Palestinian Authority and Fatah and actually promoted Hamas.
And look, we already know Israel's Iron Dome is effective and improving by the year. Literally all they had to do to prevent October 7th was listen to their own intelligence reports and commit even a fraction of the troops they've already offensively committed to Gaza to actually defend their border so that (checks notes) Paragliders and dirt bikes couldn't just meander in. Reminder that this isn't the Great Wall of China... It's like a 25 mile border. That's nothing. So win-win: Israelis remain safe while Gazan civilian hostages aren't murdered by 1,000lb bombs in densely-populated areas. Reminder that Israel has now committed somewhere around 25 x October 7ths upon the innocent civilians of Gaza.
Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.
Should it be protocol for police to demolish schools with everyone in it to eliminate a school shooter?
4
This is a flase equivalence. The "terror" element is a distraction and a poor argument
It would be like Russia coming in and taking Donbas and saying "this is ours", and the world being outraged if Ukrainians fight back and if Ukrainians are still fighting back in 50 years people saying Ukrainians are terrible people look at the terror with zero context and worse still for people to be arguing for Russia, what a skap in the face that would be.
Would people still be outraged at the "terrorism" being wrought by Ukrainians because Russia says its terrorism ? Surely Israel's existence is a travesty, it does exist but obviously there is no dealing with this any other way until Israel stops. This never ends.
Israel just keeps taking more and more and being more and more provocative. What of Indonesia in West Papua? Or more recently Indonesia in Timor ?
This never ends, this is just another phase.
0
I'm an avid palestine supporter, but what's the point of this thread? You know there are no Israel supporters here save for trolls, and this isn't a question, it's a rant.
20Fourpackets posted a complete thought that doesn't seem to be trolling
Edit who the fuck downvotes this
13No I'm genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.
8There are quite a few on Lemmy.
One is a mod on News on Lemmy.world
0
This is a loaded question. It pretends every supporter of Israel also supports the current government, the illegal occupation, the ongoing war, and throwing the Geneva convention out.
I support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and a homeland for the Jewish people.
But I support none of the above.
And no, I don't have a good solution for this age-old conflict either.
20a homeland for the Jewish people.
Weird way to call a stolen property lol
17It's not stolen. Brief history lesson:
The lands of Israel and Jordan used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans sided with the Nazis.
Brief aside: we know the Arabs believe that if you win a war, you win the land, and if you lose a war, you lose the land, because that's what they want to happen with Israel. So this principle applies to them as well.
When the Nazis lost, the Ottomans also lost, and that's where the British and French Mandates began. The land was no longer owned by the Arabs because, according to the principle they live by, they lost the war, therefore they lost the land.
The British Mandate for Palestine comprised an amount of previously Ottoman land, of which they allocated one third to the new country Israel (which includes Gaza and the West Bank), and two thirds to the new country Transjordan, later renamed Jordan. The land of Israel was not stolen by the Jews from the Arabs, it was lost by the Arabs in a war they lost. But they got two thirds of that land back, i.e. Jordan.
-4
The Jewish homeland was formed by killing and kicking out people who were living there.
14I think this comment wasn't supposed to be an argument for the existence of Israel, but rather directed at the initial premise. They are challenging the assumption that support for the Israeli state and support for the conflict in Gaza are one in the same.
4
I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel's right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.
7P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two
6So as an alternative question so someone who sounds reasonable (it is the Internet after all!), what are your thoughts on a 2-state solution, or Israel’s expansion into the West Bank?
Ignoring of course the fact that a 2-state solution will never ever happen.
3The most optimistic resolution to this conflict would be the German/French model. 2 states that have been arch-enemies for over a millennium forged a close bond and lasting partnership within just one generation after WW2.
But I don't think this is possible before both countries are completely exhausted or destroyed by the war, and a strong party from outside (likely the US again) steps in and forces them into a pact.A one-state solution would be unthinkable and completely without historical precedent, unless Israel either declares Palestine to be dissolved and rules over the land with an iron fist, or is itself wiped off the map.
0
The Geneva Convention is clearly Hamas.
15Everybody I don't like is clearly Hamas
3
The Geneva conventions are not monolithic documents, and they are not completely uncontroversial. I believe the article 51 you refer to is in a 1978 addon protocol that Israel has not ratified. For reference, there is a different article 51 in the original 1949 conventions, that talks about when an occupying army may conscript civilian labor.
Like any other international treaties, the conventions only apply to countries that have signed on and ratified the treaties. The United States and Israel have not ratified the additional protocol, so from their perspective they are not bound by the text.
The original 1949 conventions do have protections for civilians, but they are weaker protections. Ratiometric evidence of civilian casualties is heartbreaking, but unfortunately simply not relevant to the 1949 conventions. Under those rules, if a facility is used by your enemy to harm you, you can attack that facility. Period.
IDF is always careful to portray how they scrupulously follow the 1949 conventions when they speak to the media. Clear violations that become public are referred to investigation.
As in any war, some elements of IDF are almost certainly violating the conventions. But as a USian I don't think I'll get close to understanding the truth any time soon. I basically don't trust any news source coming out of that region any more.
10This issue is similar to the one with COVID, where it is the facts themselves that are often in question, and people following the leader regardless of what they do. As such, Innuendo Studios' The Alt-Right Playbook works here as well - i.e. it is a mindset held by those who wish that the world were a certain way, and are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
6Well, this is certainly one way to goose the participation on Lemmy.
3Because they believe in a 3000 year old fairy tale that gives the 'promised land' to them, and condems all non-believers to death.
3Wait...which side are you talking about exactly?
13000 years means Zionists.
4The justification is absolutely stupid no matter who attempts to use it.
3
FourPacketsOfPeanuts has already given a good answer specifically about Israel's situation, but I want to say something about international law in general. Law may be written based on moral principles, but law is still not the same thing as morality. In our daily lives, we follow our moral principles because that's what we believe is right, and we follow the law because otherwise cops will put us in jail.
The situation for a sovereign country is different - there are no cops and there is no jail. If other countries wanted to take hostile action, they would even if there was no violation of international law, and if they did not want to take hostile action, the wouldn't even if there was a violation. Morality still exists (although morality at the scale of countries is necessarily not the same as morality at the scale of individuals) but the law might as well not exist because it is not enforced. It's just pretty language that may be quoted when a country does what it was going to do anyway.
I'm not trying to imply that I think that Israel is violating international law. I'm saying that discussing whether it is or not is a purely intellectual exercise with no practical relevance. If I support Israel but you convince me that it is technically breaking some law, I'm still not going to change my mind. If you oppose Israel but I convince you that it is technically obeying every law to the letter, you're still probably not going to change your mind.
3There are people who support Israel unconditionally and then there are those of us who just think they're the lesser a-holes in the recent war. I'm definitely not the first group. Nobody with my perspective is saying the Geneva convention (however you take that; one could make the case the convention isn't perfect as a reflection either...) shouldn't apply to them, or that there should be an intrinsic bias towards either side, but at the very start of the war, I said Hamas and even Palestine should be seen as more disappointing, and except for where Israel increased its assholery over time, I did not disappoint myself in hindsight as time passed, as both Hamas and Palestine (as well as other entities now) have still never been passed on the assholery scale yet.
3Im in no way a supporter but I am voting for the choice that is less worse for them but still is supporting the country dut to complex tangle of history that created the damn country with our help along with a recent historical terrorist attack that the israeli current situation match is reminiscent of. Anyway I wish countries would follow it regularly rather than when it suits them.
0Hamas was using Al Shifa hospital as a base, tunnel entrance, and torture site.
Using human shields is war crime. Torture is a war crime. Killing your hostages is a war crime. Raping prisoners is a war crime.
It basically turns into "who is committing less serious war crimes" and attacking the place where they torture prisoners and use them as human shields, imo, is a valid military attack.
-1This is wrong, you're just spreading nonsense misinformstion.
7
Because they are fascists, and dictators think they can do what ever they want.
-1Which side are you referring to there? Both of them?
-1there was no side in question chump.
2
Some kind of a supporter here, I guess. Or let's say that I'm so much anti-Hamas that it's logical to be a bit anti-Palestine and pro-Israel.
Legality of Israeli settlements
Some of those settlements are not legal and israelis should leave those areas.
Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside.
It's questionable if this applies when the other side violates other Geneva conventions by using the hospitals for military activity.
-3Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.
If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.
9Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I mean yeah if both conventions revolve around the same thing, like for instance if the same hospital is both a sanctuary for civilians but also being used by soldiers. A more general whataboutism is another thing.
-2
I'll just add that according to modern Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) the current definition of a military target may include schools, hospitals, religious sites and culturally relevent monuments should they be used by enemy forces.
Even in WW1 and WW2 when these rules were being written, if your enemy was hiding in a church, that was okay. But if they stored munitions or fired from the church, it and everyone in it would be considered valid military targets.
It was designed that way in order to stop soldiers from hiding in hospitals and schools saying "You can't shoot us, there are women, children and the sick in here" while they used that amnesty to kill countless others.
Just a distinction a lot of people tend to miss when they talk about "The Geneva Convention."
1Not really questionable - hospitals explicitly lose their protection if they are used for military activity.
-1They explicitly lose their protection if used for offensive military activity.
If soldiers are being treated in a hospital, it very much does NOT become a valid target. If soldiers are merely hiding in a hospital, it explicitly does NOT become a valid target.
5
Geneva convention is anti semetic.
Things have gone so far south now.
-4As South as Iran one might say.
-1
From a strategic standpoint, they have no choice. What Hamas is doing is by the book insurgent strategy, that's been observed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to lesser extents in WW2 and Vietnam.
Commit an atrocity akin to 9/11 to provoke an enemy attack and hide your forces amongst the population. The initial victim (usa, and in this case, israel) must retaliate against such an atrocity, but their only strategic targets are civilian in nature (as all militants are using them as a meat shield).
Once civilian targets are struck Hamas makes pleas to the international community, for aid, sanctions or isolation of Israel. They pander to civilians, as they'll die whether or not they join the insurgency. This balloons their numbers and combat strength.
On top of that, all forces begin engaging in brutal urban warfare with costly casualties for the enemy.
Israel (to their voters and population) can't just "let" Hamas get away for the October attacks so they press their advance, civilians be damned. I believe Hamas are as responsible as Israel for civilian casualties and deaths.
No sides are truly right here, it's merely a brutal dilemma. Not a problem, those have answers, but a dilemma with no good solutions. Potentially be overthrown by an outraged population or slaughter a bunch of civs. You know what all regimes will do.
-5I don't agree with you throwing Hamas and IDF into the same category, but I appreciate your post because it helps me to understand the pro-IDF side better. So thanks.
4If you want to look farther into the strategic and geopolitical side of the conflict, William spaniel has many great videos on it. He is impartial and holds a PHD in political science. He also authored books going over the Russian invasion of Ukraine
1
Interesting take, but I want to point out that Afghanistan was completely invaded in a matter of days, and only because the Taliban refused to give up OBL, who was the leader of Al-Qaeda and responsible for 9/11 (ie not the Taliban).
Point being that I don't think the Taliban's strategy was ever to force the USA to invade and then call for help. They simply did not want to back down against a foreign entity, especially since many of their ranks were former Mujaheddin who did the same against Russia.
The issue of civilian collateral only became an issue well after the USA took over and installed the new government, at which point the Taliban had been decimated and forced into hiding.
--
Israel has the complete capability to completely invade Gaza right now. They have done it before and they gave the same treatment of basically running the area themselves and systematically removing enemies. However, the issue at hand is that Israel wants to expand to the border both in Gaza and the West Bank, but they do not want the Palestinians to be any part of the state.
Even comparing statistics, the rate of civilian collateral is several orders of magnitude higher than Afghanistan, despite Hamas being a smaller percentage of people than what the Taliban was. Hence why the Geneva convention is coming into question. The rate of death is so high that it indicates a level of a targeted massacre if not a genocide.
There's overwhelming evidence that the daily airstrikes on hospitals, schools, camps, etc. do not contain any Hamas militants. Similarly, there's practically zero evidence any of the aid trucks or NGOs working in the area could be confused with Hamas, yet they too have been targeted and shot at multiple times with multiple deaths.
--
I think the belly of the beast is just not brought up enough. Israel has no interest with Palestinians being anywhere in their state, and they will use whatever means necessary to get rid of them, whether it be illegal land grabbing (forced displacement), refusal of citizenship, deportation, ignoring lynch mobs, running a war effort, etc.
Not to mention that Hamas was funded by Israel to keep them propped up in Gaza, which would actually make them the instigator by getting Hamas to do a massive attack to justify a strong reaction. People already forgot that Mossad was under fire for allegedly knowing all about the attack, yet doing nothing to prevent it.
Where Israel miscalculated in this plan was Hamas taking hostages and using them to prevent an instant invasion. This put pressure on the government from the civilian population, and likely caused the USA to force them to slow down. Even now, there is massive pressure on the government to enter a ceasefire simply to allow the hostages to return, regardless of what to do with Gaza afterwards.
3