How does that defeat Hamas?
No. I’m merely asking what your response will be if (a) like you say, schools and hospitals keep getting bombed, and (b) while people keep saying that’s a violation of law, and something something obligation, and something something accordance, such bombings simply — continue.
…committing multiple war crimes, starving millions of people, destroying infrastructure, churches, Mosques, schools, universities, will not defeat Hamas.
I want the war crimes to stop on both sides. I want to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, something that every single humanitarian group on the ground is warning is already happening. A ceasefire is simply the first step in preventing famine, giving the hospital system a chance to recover, allowing aid to get to people who need it.
What do you want me to say? I literally still don’t understand the question. I’ll keep responding the same way I have since the start of this war, since the start of this thread. My position remains unchanged.
History will be the ultimate judge.
Geneva? How many divisions do they have?
…can you clarify your question please.
…then it has nothing to do with anything I said.
…then you didn’t understand Smapti’s point, but I’ll let that Doper explain.
…my point is that Israel has committed multiple war crimes. Is that something you agree with, or disagree with? Because I’m not interested in a philosophical debate about “moral strength”, nor am I interested in taking this thread further off-topic.
But the things you’re accusing Israel of aren’t in the Geneva Conventions directly, right? They’re in Protocol 1 which neither Israel nor Hamas has ratified.
@Magiver and @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper are making arguments that stay safely in the bounds of Might Makes Right. I don’t think they venture any further than that. Which, y’know, spiffy, but it’s not a particularly interesting discussion; the moral arc of humanity is to move slowly toward a world in which the Might-Makes-Right brigade loses all power and influence. We’re a lot closer to that world than we were 500 years ago, but it’s clear we have a long way to go.
I explicitly distinguish between their arguments and the ones made by @Alessan, @Babale, and others, who recognize the importance of human rights and respecting them, even if we disagree on the particulars.
I think that’s what they’re saying, though I think it would be more accurate to describe the situation as “Daddy’s Might Makes Right”. If Israel didn’t get all the military and financial help from the US, I don’t think they’d be gloating about their military might.
It’s like two kids that hate each other for a long time, and one’s dad is much stronger that the other’s, and the kid with the weaker dad attacks the one with the strong dad, and the strong dad helps his kid pummel the other one. Yes, you are pummeling the other kid, but everyone knows it’s because your dad is helping out, so don’t gloat about your power.
The essential, crucial problem with this analogy is that the one kid doesn’t attack the other: the one kid attack’s the other’s baby sibling, and then the other kid attacks the first kid’s baby sibling.
It’s not just two parties attacking each other. It’s the civilians getting killed. If it were just IDF and Hamas going at each other, it’d be so, so much less awful.
If Israel wants to beat the shit out of the Palestinians, while ignoring any morality in their approach since the Geneva conventions “don’t have any divisions”, why are Israelis taken aback when people call their actions war crimes? If they don’t care what the world thinks of their actions, why accuse people of anti-semitism when they complain about what’s going on in Gaza. Shouldn’t the response be “We don’t care. We have the army, world opinion can suck eggs”, instead of feeling attacked by morality questions?
You keep insisting that Israel is violating the Geneva Convention as if that means anything. To which I ask, how many divisons do they have - I.e., who’s gonna do something about it? Why should they worry about violating a code that their enemy doesn’t adhere to? Is someone going to invade Israel and put its leadership on trial?
A law that cannot be enforced and which has no consequences for violating it isn’t a law, it’s a list of suggestions.
You’re seriously asking why Israelis should care about world opinion when a country commits war crimes?
I’m asking whether the phrase “war crime” even has any meaning or is useful when there’s noone with the power to punish violators.
It’s 1941 and a German asks a non-German:
“what your response will be if (a) like you say we shouldn’t invade other countries and kill people, and (b) while people keep saying that’s a violation of law, and something something obligation, and something something accordance, such invasions simply — continue”
@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper are you saying that in the above situation, if the allies didn’t have the power to fight back to stop Germany and the Nazis, that things would be hunky dory because the Nazis have the power, so it’s OK for them to do anything even if the world is telling them it’s immoral?
But of course there are people with the power to punish violators. Other nations can withhold aid, or impose economic sanctions, or engage in other actions. Not all punishments involve bombs. And Israel has a very vested interest in a strong world community that protects civilians from war crimes. It’s kind of part of the nation’s founding.
Has any of that prevented Russia from targeting civilians? Or Hamas, for that matter?
And isn’t punishing an entire nation for the actions of its leaders one of those things we’re engaged in stern finger-wagging about in the first place?