Are you now arguing that Israel does not oppress Palestinians in the West Bank? Or did I miss your point?
~Max
It is a fallacy that the Palestinian people cannot simultaneously be against both Hamas and Israel. (In any case, how is some random person supposed to “rebel” against either of them? By joining the People’s Front of Judea? You have to remember that Israel has been against groups like the PFLP, too.)
I latched on to “actual oppressors” as implying Israel does not actually oppress the Palestinian people, even in the territories where there is an apartheid-like system.
~Max
Israel cares more about the well-being of Palestinians than Hamas does. Hamas only sees them as potential martyrs and PR tools. The West Bank wouldn’t even have electricity or running water if Israel weren’t providing it to them.
I can admit all these things, but still say the best defense would not assign Palestinians collective blame for moral atrocities against Israel, nor for widespread support of the same as part of a broader rebellion against Israel. Because Israel is actively oppressing Palestinians and it is wrong to assign collective blame to an oppressed people for rebelling against their oppressors, as opposed to individualized blame to the individuals who commit atrocities. And we have other defenses that do not do this.
~Max
I don’t “assign collective blame” to anyone, but the fact is that “the individuals who commit atrocities” have the support of a broad base of the population and have a known history of using civilians as human shields, posing as civilians in order to commit those atrocities, and refusing to compromise in good faith.
There’s no such thing as “waiving your rights to IHL”. IHL obligations are explicitly not reciprocal , this is a central tenet of Common Article 1.
And in any case, Hamas =/= Palestinian civilians and Geneva Convention IV, Article 8 directly states “Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention.”
That’s the effect that post Oct 7 desire for vengeance, fear and a lifetime of exposure to dehumanization of Palestinians is going to have on them. How “spontaneous” that is is is a matter of debate.
Israelis can rape a prisoner in front of a camera and suffer no consequences, why would this be any different?
I’ll believe Hamas is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention when they stop trying to commit genocide against the Jews.
Surely you do not argue that the best defense of the apartheid-like system in the West Bank is to oppress the Palestinian population just because they broadly support Hamas?
~Max
I argue that there is no “apartheid-like system” in the first place.
Then I suggest this is the wrong thread.
~Max
International humanitarian law doesn’t concern itself with your “beliefs”. You made a factually incorrect statement about rights under IHL.
But the rest of us will nevertheless still apply IHL to Israel, even as it continues its own way more successful genocide efforts.
Go ahead and call the international humanitarian police on me, then.
The total death count in Gaza over the last three years - military AND civilian - equals about 3% of the pre-war population.
At this rate, it’ll only take them another 65 years or so to accomplish what the Nazis did in the same amount of time. Some genocide.
Amazing that anyone could consider this a defense of Israeli actions in the war…
It’s 97% less than what it would be if the accusations being lobbed against Israel were true.
So it’s your opinion that it’s not genocide unless 100% of the group is killed? Does that mean the Holocaust wasn’t genocide?
It is possible that one would prefer it if some inconvenient people were gone, but one does not want to ship them all off to death camps. “Subtler” methods are then used— what is the rush? It does not follow that the goal is benign.
The apartheid stuff remains consistent with Israel not wanting these people as citizens, not wanting them to have an independent, prosperous state (one not aligned with Israeli interests, anyway) either, not really wanting them there at all.
The total death count in Israel - military AND civilian - from Oct 7 on equals about 0.02% of the population, but you’re quite happy calling that a genocide attempt.
Gaza is 150 times the genocide, by your own calculus of death.
To quote some guy: “Some genocide.”
Don’t make any fallacious appeals to IHL to justify genocide, then.
It requires an attempt. I have seen nothing to indicate that Israel’s endgame is the extermination of the Gazan people.
So if their endgame is, say, no more Gazans in Gaza, then that’s not genocide (or attempted genocide) to you, since they’re not necessarily trying to kill every single one? Or if their endgame is, say, no more Gazans in 80% (or 50% or 25%) of Gaza?
Looking back, if the Nazis just wanted to kill all the Jews in Germany (or even just end in “no more Jews in Germany”, meaning dead or otherwise gone), or even just Berlin, that wouldn’t have been genocide?