During the Falklands War there were discussions in British political circles about what death toll would be unacceptable to liberate 1,800 people from Argentine occupation and rule - a calculus on the value of human life vs geopolitical concerns, I guess.
The global consensus seems to be that Israel’s current actions have become excessive - if that’s true, I wonder where the line between legitimate and illegitimate responses to being attacked by a semi-State actor like Hamas is?
Genuine question - I don’t understand how a state would go about determining an ethical response in this circumstance (leaving aside wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict itself).
During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths.
The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).
It's a completely different situation.
Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. But the attacker _must_ take measures to prevent that as much as possible. Israel have not. In fact they've done the opposite.
> The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).
There is also a deliberate propaganda effort to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. Look at every conservative news source that reports on pro-Palestinian protests. Every one of them uses the term "Pro-Hamas protestors" instead, even though you'll find very few people there who support Hamas terrorists. This is clearly deliberate.
See also the deliberate conflation of IDF = Israeli government = Israeli people = the Jewish Ethnicity = Judaism. So, thanks to propaganda, if you oppose one of them, they think you oppose them all and are antisemitic.
Those warnings are rarely given, and also warning someone that you're about to bomb their home and store and hospital and aid and aid workers, doesn't justify the crime of doing those things.
If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties. That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians.
As for "sympathizers": someone disagreeing with you doesn't justify exploding them, either.
Note before reading that my following post is NOT a justification of the evil massacre that Hamas perpetrated. It is however a comparison meant to illuminate something about the concept you've noted.
So, food for thought: a lower ratio of civilians to military and security personnel was killed on October 7th (according to Israeli published figures) than tends to be killed in even precision bombings.
Note: I can only fairly say "tends to be killed" because it can be difficult to truly get accurate data on military bombing casualties -- but one can absolutely find many individual cases of dozens of civilians being considered valid collateral for 1-3 military targets.
So notice that these figures are looking between 1.86 and 3.13 civilians per soldier dead.
That means an essentially random massacre which deliberately TRIED to target civilians, but which was primarily performed by individual soldiers, couldn't even cause nearly as many deaths as precision bombings do.
And note that, from what I could gather, those figures on Israeli deaths don't include government workers as being valid combatants, when I doubt any Hamas pencil pushers that may exist would get the "luxury" of not being counted as non combatants.
The can of worms opened up here only gets messier still if you then start going more philosophical issues like how they seem to have spent the last few decades uncertain if Palestine is basically a mini case of Escape From NY, under outright Israeli military occupation, or an entirely independent country. I'd want to ask the Israeli government if this is a war or a policing action.
A minor counterpoint to something you wrote though: I don't think this is often something in terms of their civilians being less valuable, at least not publicly due to the obvious bad optics. I rather think it's a case presented more like a need for some civilians to die now to prevent more from dying later or being "oppressed under illegitimate government" type concerns, etc.
These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations.
> The only real violations of international law apply to an army purposefully going, unprovoked, into a civilian area and starting to shoot everyone. Hamas does that, as they've proven on many occasions (including their own civilians), Israel doesn't.
Israel has been shown to do this on multiple occasions. Take, for example, them doing exactly this to their own surrendering hostages, which they mistook for surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians as they combed through the rubble of their bombings. Or maybe there was no mistake.
Given Israel's assault on the free press in Gaza (ranging from shutting off power and communications to literally shooting and bombing press workers), we may never know the true extent of these cleansings, especially when it really is "just" surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians.
I’m also thinking about the Jenin hospital raid[1] where the Israeli army stormed a hospital wearing civilian clothing (i.e. hiding among civilians) and extra-judicially killed three wounded (and as a result inactive; i.e. unprovoked) operatives.
I’m also thinking about the massacres during the great march of return[2], where Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately at unarmed protestors. In the protests, and the ensuing conflict, Israel killed 223 people, by far majority of whom were unarmed civilians. You can argue that mass demonstration is provocative, but the response of indiscriminately killing unarmed protestors is not a proportionate response.
And finally, I’m also thinking about the flour massacre[3], where the Israeli army purposefully went, unprovoked, into a civilian area and started to shoot everyone. At least 118 civilians were killed and 760 were wounded when the Israeli army shot at people trying to gather food after having been deliberately starved by Israel the months before.
The parent (who I’m trying not to engage with) is also just wrong when they claim no international law is broken by Israel. They currently have one ICJ case ruled against them, that of the illegal border (or apartheid) wall in the west bank, which the ICJ ruled illegal in 2004[4] and demanded they take down (which Israel hasn’t). The have several condemnations by a pletora of international humanitarian organizations. There are two ongoing ICJ cases against them, one for genocide, and their leaders stand recommended for indictments at the ICC.
There are many more examples than the three above of Israel blatantly violating international humanitarian law. Which is why the UN general assembly overwhelmingly voted to press charges at the ICJ to find out what the consequences of these gross violations should be[5].
Everybody's seen these arguments ... and knows exactly how true they are. I mean you put one absurdity after another and treat it as fact. I'm not even going to bother.
I don’t understand, are you implying that none of these events actually occurred, that those pictures of Israeli operatives wearing civilian clothing as they raid the hospital in Jenin are fake? That the Israeli army did no shoot indiscriminately at aid seekers near the Al-Nabulsi roundabout in Gaza? That the collective memory of the event is wrong, recordings and satellite photos of the event are just false?
I know you are trying to hold onto the position that these events were taken out of context, and that the IDF has a different story, which somehow excuses these events. But just so you know, there is international consensus that the IDF versions don’t survive scrutiny. Israel has been under investigation for human rights violations for a long time. Multiple human rights organizations have come to the same conclusion that Israel is a serial human rights violator, and unlike Israel, these human rights, and international organizations, have evidence which support their claims, evidence which actually holds up to scrutiny.
Since you've continued taking HN threads deeper into hellish flamewar, and breaking the site guidelines badly, despite our requests to stop, I've banned the account.
Regardless of which side you're on in a conflict, and regardless of how right you are or feel you are, you simply can't abuse this forum and break its rules this way.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations.
When I said that, I was referring to my parent’s allegations of Hamas’ use of human shields, hiding among civilian populations etc. But this also applies to your accusations of Hamas’ terrorist actions.
But let’s step back and see what you are doing here. You are claiming that because of Hamas’ atrocities, International humanitarian laws does not apply to Israel. However, there is no such clause in International Humanitarian law. It applies to everybody, even if your enemy breaks them.
So basically what you are saying here is that Israel—a state actor—is as bad as Hamas—a terrorist organization. This argumentation does not look good for Israel. That said, Israel is a state actor and should not be held to the same standard as a terrorist organization. We can expect Hamas to continue committing as long as the Palestinian people are treated unjustly. Hamas is a resistance movement, and they will resist. Israel, however, is a state actor, and is bound to international treaties. In the ongoing conflict, they are the oppressors, giving unjust treatment of other peoples. They are fighting to keep oppressing, to prevent justice for Palestinians. And they are bound by international law to not do that.
I don't think you were breaking the site guidelines as badly as the account I've just banned (at least, I haven't seen it if you were)—but you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle, and that's also a line at which we ban accounts. That needs to change if you want to keep posting here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
That may be so, but I doubt it, this was Hamas's most successful attack in history, and will never happen again, with or without Israel's genocide of unrelated Palestinians. The claim that Israel definitively saved >35,000 lives by killing as many, is simply implausible. And that's to say nothing of the denial of (and attacking of) supplies.
Having said that, none if it justifies the crimes or racial discrimination I mentioned above. As I said: If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or ——>even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties.<—— That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians.
I think an argument can be made that validating human shield tactics may result in much greater loss of live in the long term. More groups will use such tactics, and groups which don't value human life will gain leverage over those that do. It's hard to predict long term geopolitical effects, but it seems like a pretty dangerous trend.
If you don't buy that though, it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
I am not sure that argument can be made, since there doesn't appear to be data to support it. If anything, the data show the opposite.
What we do have data to support is that bombing apartment blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and aid convoys and aid warehouses all full of innocent civilians is illegal, even if you shout "human shield!" first, even if you really want to achieve your political or military aims, even if you claim you're saving more innocent civilian lives by doing so, even if you really want to "prioritize security". It's all still illegal, hence the court cases.
Would Israel tolerate the IDF killing innocent Israeli civilians in as great a number as they have killed innocent Palestinian civilians, to achieve the same aims? Likely not, which would make the behavior discriminatory based on race, religion, and/or national origin, too.
> it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
This makes it sound like you recognize Palestine as a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If so, good on you :) If not, Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. I wish I could say "there's no 3rd option where Israel abuses Palestinians under their rule for decades while taking no responsibility for their well-being", but we've all seen the past decades.
That's not really responsive to what I wrote. I was pondering the long-term effects of validating human shield tactics, which has nothing to do with the laws of war, or semantic questions of what constitutes a state.
Every country "discriminates" based on nationality; to expect otherwise would be unreasonable. If a country truly valued all human interests equally, there would be no reason for citizenship.
If Israel was governed by moral saints, they might reach a conclusion that any military response would lead to negative net utility, so it's better to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to attack with impunity until they eventually conquer Israel and cleanse it of Jews. Moral sainthood isn't a reasonable expectation, though, and it's certainly not a standard anyone applies to other countries.
Your post isn't very responsive to what I wrote. Aside from seemingly ignoring the whole point of this ruling (that Israel's behavior is illegal and inexcusable, meaning the excuses you cited don't excuse the behavior), you also rehashed this:
> Every country "discriminates" based on nationality;
You've twisted my words: I said race, religion, or national origin, not nationality. Their national origin is Palestine. Their nationality is either Israeli or Palestinian. If Palestinian, that means Palestine is a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If Israeli, that means Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. Israel believes Palestine is not an independent country, therefore they are bound to the obligations of the latter, and cannot discriminate against their national subjects based on national origin.
Let's be clear here: Nobody expects Israel to admit any wrong here, or to do any good here, despite the international condemnation. This is just explaining that condemnation.
> it's better to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to attack with impunity until they eventually conquer Israel and cleanse it of Jews.
Please, we're being serious here. Hamas' latest attack, after years of planning, was their most successful in history, and it killed some 95% fewer than Israel has cleansed in the months since then, on a moment's notice. One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke -- it's simply unrealistic given Hamas' means and history. Even so, as mentioned above, it's not an excuse for Israel's literal genocide of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians so far, with millions more in the crosshairs.
Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality.
Even if you want to make the argument that Israel is occupying (Hamas-controlled parts of) Gaza, that wouldn't make Gazans Israeli citizens, and realistically every country prioritizes the safety of their citizens; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect otherwise.
> One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke
You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy.
> Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality.
Israel treating their Palestinian-born subjects as stateless would be illegal, so a decision must be made by Israel between the two options I described, with the respective consequences I described. By effectively exerting rule over Palestinians (especially in the West Bank), they have chosen the route that doesn't recognize Palestine as a country, and thus are obliged to treat Palestinian-born subjects equally to any other subjects under their rule. The fact that Israel denies citizenship to the millions of Palestinian-born subjects under their rule, is particularly gross.
> You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy.
That, in turn, ignores that Israel's actions are still illegal. Put simply, the defense you cite isn't good enough to justify Israel's actions. They tried that defense, it did not succeed, here we are. The reason is that the laws were made with the possibility of "human shields" in mind, and they still made the actions illegal. It's not some novel occurrence excepted from the rules.
It does sucks to be IDF right now, but their lives aren't worth more than civilian Palestinian lives, and thus it is immoral for them to take many civilian lives to reduce their own risk of loss, and illegal for them to do so to the extent they have, even if it means they get to kill a terrorist in the process.
Here's the most important metric (superceding any Israeli desire): Fewer civilians will die if Israel withdraws and simply secures the border than will die if Israel invades. You don't have to trust me: An independent court actually evaluated both sides here and came to the same judgement, as described in the article we're discussing. Israel will either accept that they can't do whatever they want, up to and including genocide, just because they want to, or continue to parallel Russia's and North Korea's international pariah journey while angrily feigning ignorance and righteously pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Probably the latter.
If you want my interpretation, it's that Gazans are effectively citizens of Gaza, which Hamas is the de facto government of. (Palestinians in the West Bank are a separate matter.) Gaza should have been a place of freedom, independence, and self-determination since 2005, but Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now.
I was never commenting on legality. It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense, whether or not such defense is deemed illegal and/or leads to more deaths overall.
I appreciate your interpretation, and I don't want this to sound dismissive: The point is that Israel doesn't get to eat their cake and have it, too. Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel, or they treat the Palestinian-born subjects under their rule as citizens with all the same rights as the Israeli-born subjects under their rule. Apartheid and genocide aren't legal options, despite Israel perpetrating both.
> Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now.
On the contrary: as the world has expressed on multiple occasions in multiple ways, Israel's genocide of Palestinians is what continues to make that difficult. After all, the world sees how Israel abused Palestinians for decades before October 7th. Israel can't say the world didn't warn them as they spiral into the same pariah status as Russia and North Korea.
> It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense
The "abiding by international law means essentially giving up our defense" claim was put forth by Israel and judged not to be the case. It was expected, both when the law was drafted, and when the case was brought against Israel, given their frequent repetition of the now-debunked claim. It just wasn't credible: neither the court nor most countries or people actually believe Hamas is going to somehow conquer the state of Israel. Indeed, it's inconceivable that over their entire remaining existence Hamas will ever deal out even a small fraction of the damage Israel has dealt to innocent Palestinian civilians over the course of less than 1 year.
If, however, one isn't interested in discussing the legality of Israel's behavior (in an HN submission about precisely that), and the topic is reduced to whether Israel will say "whatever, I do what I want" a la Putin or Cartman, then I will submit a bet that they will, and leave it at that.
> Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel
Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one.
Indeed my point was never about law; this thread began with your argument which seemed to be about utilitarian ethics. So the ICJ order isn't related to my point, unless we consider the ICJ an arbiter of morality.
> Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one.
Not Gaza, Palestine. That includes Gaza and the West Bank, which has been under Israeli apartheid for a long time. There is rarely an unrestrained right to self-defense of a country engaging in apartheid and genocide, against those upon whom they are perpetrating it. Does Israel grant Palestinian-born subjects in the West Bank (a territory Israel dominates) freedom, self-determination, safety? Does it treat them equally to Israeli-born subjects? No, and that's illegal (and apartheid).
The "self defense exception" was cited by Israel, and the court judged that their illegal actions go beyond legal self defense. If we take a moral perspective rather than a legal one, it would be immoral to substitute Israel's judgement for that of the ICJ, a less biased and more informed body. From a utilitarian objective standpoint, we arrive at the same conclusion: It's unlikely Israel has some magical higher understanding that all other countries lack. Plus, legitimizing claims by defendants like Putin, Bibi, Sinwar, Kony, Gallant, or Haniyeh et. al, that they somehow know better than the court, would kinda defeat the purpose of the court.
It seems like you're veering into a different topic with the assertion that West Bank is an apartheid system. If we're talking about Gaza still, Hamas is the de facto government there, having won the election and the subsequent war. The PLO's declaration and aspirational claim of Gaza doesn't change the reality of Hamas' rule.
From a moral perspective, it seems like you're saying the ICJ would be a better arbiter of morality than Israel, but my point didn't involve an appeal to any authority; that just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality.
We've covered Israel's actions being illegal in the eyes of the world, immoral in the eyes of the world, and unhelpful to peace in the eyes of the world. I appreciate your offering of another viewpoint, because a diversity of viewpoints is good, and indeed your viewpoint is valid. Valid enough that the world has heard it, and took it into account when forming the above consensus.
> [consensus] just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality.
That would not be an entirely unexpected claim from any given person who doesn't like the humanitarian consensus, Just like it was not entirely unexpected to see Israel claim that international laws don't seem necessary when violating international laws they don't like.
I think we're both smart enough to realize what would happen if each person on earth decided that they were the true arbiter of law and morality, and had the right to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the law or what anybody or almost everybody else thought. So it is good that the consensus is that consensus is indeed necessary when writing and enforcing and judging the laws we wrote, around such moral standards as "don't genocide people".
By rejecting the concept of this consensus, which you call an "appeal to authority", it seems this topic is indeed being reduced to whether Bibi will say "whatever, I do what I want" like Putin or Cartman or Kony or Sinwar, while his country continues to spiral into international pariah status. So, I will submit a bet that he will, and leave it at that.
It seems like you're treating law and ethics as more or less interchangeable, which I think is a mistake. International law is more about politics than ethics.
For example, parts of international law come from UN security council resolutions, which are passed based on 9/15 security council votes, and no vetoes from the 5 permanent members. The permanent members include Russia and China, and non-permanent members often include other authoritarian states, like UAE until recently. Trump may soon have authority over US votes. Do you trust these political entities as bastions of morality?
I'm not treating law and ethics as interchangeable, simply pointing out that the global consensus is that Israel's behavior is wrong in both a legal sense and an ethical sense (and a moral sense, if you distinguish that from the former), and thus is unhelpful to peace.
I understand Israel disagrees with this consensus. I understand you may disagree with this consensus. I accept that if global consensus hasn't already changed their minds, I might not, either. That is okay. Consensus doesn't require buy-in from any single particular person or country. But as a general rule of thumb, if a great majority say you're in the wrong, and you say they're all in the wrong for saying you're in the wrong, that means you're probably in the wrong, so it's worth seriously considering the possibility.
Your latter observation doesn't seem to apply here, as it seems the ICC and ICJ based their findings and rulings on laws and ethics, not politics or bias, and it doesn't seem like the laws themselves are biased against Israel in particular, either.
Okay that fair, but it's a rough consensus among political entities, each with their own flaws. Some are authoritarian, some don't share Western values, some represent countries with deeply ingrained antisemitism. It's not a consensus among impartial ethicists or something.
If people who support an immoral attack are military combatants, then clearly we should consider that the vast majority of Israel's population, who support the current genocide, are military combatants.
Of course, this is completely insane logic and I don't believe so at all. Killing a civilian is abhorrent, whether that civilian might support an atrocity or not, as long as they weren't actually involved in it.
Again, the same argument can be made for the other side. Two things can be true at the same time; both Hamas and Israel do/did terrible things and its tiring that people defend one side no matter what.
Their [the Palestinans] story is they didn't have a choice once others violated it and they had to defend themselves, and they make a very strong case.
Obviously you find Christian countries in general (and in number, they are the largest faction in the UN general assembly) ... extremely opposed to any enforcement, because they blatantly violated international law again and again and again.
Well, the first thing you do is stop doing it if you're the one killing the civilians. If your own leaders are doing it, you try to stop them, especially as a citizen of a democratic country. If someone else in the world is doing it, you try to engage the UN and other international bodies to help, hopefully with a diplomatic solution. Failing all this, and assuming it's your people being killed, you will have to take up arms and defend.
This is roughly what the Palestinians did when they found themselves attacked by the Israeli settlers, back at the formation of Israel. It's important to always remember that in this conflict, Israel has been the first aggressor, not the defense. And since Israel had the full support of the UN, and later of the USA, the Palestinians really couldn't spend too much time waiting for those to fix their problem (though they are actively engaged even today).
Now, for Israel to stop these attacks on their own people, especially before October 7th, the solution is actually relatively simple: stop attacking the people of Palestine, and they will stop attacking back. Recognize Palestine as a state, including a corridor to link Gaza and the West Bank, give back the territory stolen by illegal colonists in the West Bank, stop blockading their borders. Condition this on a free cross-Palestinian election, maybe even explicitly blocking Hamas from it.
The problem is that Israel's goal is not simply to stop the attacks on their civilians. Israel's goal, as many top leaders in Israel, including Netanyahu, openly declare, is to expand Israel's borders while excluding Palestinians from being Israeli citizens. Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas for more than a decade, and has many times openly admitted to this, as a great ally in ensuring that a two-state solution will never be reached.
So, what if a few Israeli citizens are killed every year? That's a price that Israel's government is willing to pay to keep the status quo and not get their hands too dirty with Palestinian blood. Of course, Oct 7th changed that: it challenged them and showed they are not all powerful, and that is not acceptable, so the people of Gaza had to be punished.
And just one final note - Israel performed two October 7th-level attacks just in the last twenty years - 2004's Operation Cast Led (1200+ civilians killed), and 2014's Operation Protective Edge (2200+ civilians killed). Except of course those were much worse, since Israeli bombs also destroyed many thousands of homes, displacing tens of thousands of civilians atop those killed.
This war is not being fought to simply stop Hamas. That much is absolutely evident, from so many public declarations from virtually every member of Israel's government. The purpose of this war is, again, to punish all the people of Gaza for their colective guilt; and, it is also fought to actually retake some of their land for illegal Israeli settlers.
The reason this is clear is also because killing Hamas achieves nothing, if you also destroy so much of the livelihood (and lives) of those living there. Even if Israel kills each and every last Hamas operative, in 5 years time at the worse, there will be new fighters taking their place, even more radical: what other reaction would anyone expect from people whose families you murdered, whose house you destroyed, whose entire future you've erased?
And again, the solution to all of this was (and still is, in the long term) to stop killing the people of Palestine and stealing more and more of their land. If Israel just accepted the victory they've already achieved in their conquests in the 1940s and later, and allowed Palestine to be an independent, functional country, as almost achieved in the Oslo accords (before Israel sabotaged that process), then Palestinians would have also stopped attacking Israel, a long time ago.
And please remember that Netanyahu has prouded himself for a long time in his ability to prevent a two-state solution, and considers Hamas a good ally in this goal. When, after this war, a new terrorist organization rises up instead of Hamas as a reaction to the slaughter, you can bet that Netanyahu or another similar Israeli politician will again favor them and seek to allow them to control Gaza, so that no dialog can ever happen and they get to keep the people of Gaza living in inhuman conditions.
Anyone who sincerely wants more lives to saved can only want a two-state solution to be achieved as soon as possible. The killing will quickly stop once that truly happens. The only reason to not believe that is if you follow the far-right Israeli position that sees Palestinians as sub-human beasts.
> Israel really, really wants a two-state solution.
Please find one quote on the matter from one Israeli politician currently in power that doesn't directly oppose this. I'll wait.
Also, stop insisting people are racist. Neither Syria nor Jordan have killed >35,000 Palestinians in the last 5 months, so we are not currently discussing them, we're discussing the country that is doing it, today.
Edit: let me start at the very top with Netanyahu's position [0]:
> The prime minister added that “everyone knows that I am the one who for decades blocked the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger our existence.”
Also see this article [3] about how Netanyahu and the head of the Mossad, Barnea, have been encouraging the continued funding of Hamas specifically to achieve this goal.
And from the more moderate president [1]:
> What I want to urge is against just saying two-state solution. Why? Because there is an emotional chapter here that must be dealt with.
National security minister Ben Gvir [2]:
> The war presents an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” Ben Gvir told reporters and members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, calling such a policy “a correct, just, moral and humane solution.”
> “We cannot withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing,” he said.
Finance minister Smotrich [also 2]:
> The “correct solution” to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “to encourage the voluntary migration of Gaza’s residents to countries that will agree to take in the refugees,” Smotrich told members of his Religious Zionism party, predicting that “Israel will permanently control the territory of the Gaza Strip,” including through the establishment of settlements.
> What do you call telling civilians you are coming to allow them to safely leave before a bombing starts? That's taking extreme measures to prevent loss of civilian lives, even at the expense of military goals.
First of all Israel hasn't called civilians in most cases, hence why 10s of thousands of them have been killed in bombings.
Secondly, Israel is not just killing civilians via bombings. It has cut off water and electricity and is causing a famine by preventing aid entering the area. It has destroyed Gaza's health infrastructure completely: countless people with treatable diseases are dying needlessly.
> Any random person on the street is more likely than not a sympathizer that Oct 7 was justified. On Sept 12, 2001 in the US that would be enough to call you an enemy, for sure.
This is a disgusting attempt to try and justify the murder of civilians, and you should feel ashamed.
Genuine response: the “wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict” are essential to informing the situation, and cannot be divorced from the discussion.
Israel has no ethical response because there is no ethical means by which one can maintain apartheid. History did not start on Oct 7, 2023. It’s like pondering where the line is between legitimate and illegitimate responses to the Warsaw ghetto uprising, or to Haitian revolution.
When the arabs colonized the levant? or the many massacres of native jews? The wars of aggression by arabs? This conflict is awfully messy and each side has a laundry list of legitimate grievances.
Not really. It’s absurd to draw the line into ancient history of Arab’s colonizing the Levant. Early 1900s to 1948 are more reasonable given that people actually exist that lived in this time or at least meaningful records of history.
The fact is the British/UN gave a bunch of land to people that wasn’t really theirs to give. Nakba happened (which is illegal to even talk about in Israel) which was already a mass genocide/forced displacement). People alive today saw this happen. Watch the documentary Tantura to see some of the horrors by early Israelis (rapes, torture, killing people and feeding them their own genitals).
The point is: throughout most of modern history “Israel” has been invading Palestine. The fact that the UN recognized Israel in 1949 doesn’t matter… because that recognition required mass displacement and horrors to actually materialize.
Arab wars etc are a consequence of this. Sure maybe Israel won some of those. But one has to accept that the very conceptualization of Israel is rooted in genocide and displacement from the start. Many (or maybe most) states throughout history were formed this way I guess … Israel had the bad luck of doing it during a time that the human rights and morality of modernity was beginning to fully form.
You're correct it was not genocide.
The other side carried out quite a few massacres of its own and tried to displace the Jews (or worse) - so it was pretty much just a war.
The Nakba is ongoing, and fulfills the definitions (a)-(d) in Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention to the letter.
You can call it a "small" genocide if you want. But you won't get anywhere denying either the facts of what has been happening to the Palestinians, or their relation to genocidal acts as defined above.
Indeed! For instance, Kuwait Nabka'd about 400,000 Palestinians in the wake of the Gulf War. And Syria just Nakba'd another 300,000, with barrel bombs dropped from helicopters.
I’ve seen you use the word Nakba alot when describing events other then the Nakba. For example a counter-Nakba to describe the Jewish exodus from Middle Eastern and North African countries which followed Israel’s unilateral deceleration of independence.
I don’t think this is fair, nor helpful. It is kind of like saying that the ongoing Gaza Genocide is another Holocaust. The Nakba is a unique historic event, by calling other historic events the same name it kind of reduces the effectiveness of giving names to events, and what made them unique enough to be named in the first place.
The Palestinian exodus from Kuwait for example was nothing like the actual Nakba. To begin with the victims were already refugees, so they had a place that they could flee to. Second the exile orders were a limited time (I think a week), as opposed to permanent in the case of the actual Nakba. The exile orders were not enforced with terrorism and military occupation.
While the exodus from Kuwait was a terrible human rights violation, it is actually much more like ongoing refugee evacuations from Europe and North America than the actual Nakba. Calling it a Nakba is either denying the horrors of the the Nakba, or exaggerating the Palestinian exodus from Kuwait.
I respectfully disagree with you about this, and don't see the distinction you're trying to make. I am, in particular, responding to a comment --- from a commenter you agree with generally --- who himself referred to the Nakba as ongoing.
Since this is just a rhetorical point, I don't think it's much worth arguing. I could come back at you with the Holocaust comparison, but what do we get out of that?
So, I'm going to continue using the wording I'm using, but with respect to your objection: heard.
When I hear people describing the Nakba as ongoing, I generally take that as to mean that the practices and policies of the Nakba have never been reversed, that the expulsion orders are still in effect, the refugees are still as such, partitions, occupation, and land grabs are still ongoing and expanding, the right of return has never been granted.
I think this is valid because the same government entity keeps these practices and policies onto the same victims. There is also a distinction to be made on the original event which we call The Nakba and the ongoing policies which followed. It is kind of like saying that the Korean War never ended. We have this original event, and then we have the aftermath which is still unresolved (not making a comparison though granting the right of return to displaced Palestinian is a million times less complicated than the Korean reunification).
I also hear people talking about the Gaza Genocide as a second Nakba. I also think this is valid (although The Gaza Genocide is a descriptive enough name IMO) since it mirrors the original event in scope and horrors, in policies. This would be akin to calling a second world war following The Great War World War II.
The Palestinian exodus from Kuwait, or the Syrian reign of terror against Palestinians are, however, not a direct followup or a continuation by the same entity of the same practices and policies of the original Nakba.
At most I can understand the use of the word Counter-Nakba as the Jewish hostile policies of e.g. Iraq were a direct response to the original Nakba. However the scale and horrors of that policy were nowhere near that of the original Nakba (even though the scale of the results [somewhat] did). And the practices and policies of Muslim majority countries did not mirror those of Israel during the Nakba, quite the contrary.
But we have to keep in mind that none of those people would be forced to live in such inhospitable places were it not for the bold, decisive actions of that man who got an airport named after him.
... or, as we've talked about before, the bold, decisive actions of people throughout every MENA country who expelled their own Jewish populations in the wake of the 1948 war --- those specific people are the core of the right wing in Israel.
Hate to point this out -- but this really is just whataboutism, here.
The MENA expulsions (which we have already acknowledged) didn't have anything to do either with Nakba '48 or the expulsions of Palestinians in other countries in subsequent years. Let alone with the topic of subthread we've all jumped in at here. (Which started with the Nakba after all; I didn't introduce it to make some broader moral point).
I thought about what you said. I don't think this is whataboutism. The people most responsible for the policies you most disapprove of in Israel are precisely the people who were victims of reprisal pogroms and ethnic cleansings in other countries.
I don't think my thesis is "Israel is right". My awareness of Israel started with them killing that activist with a bulldozer, and didn't go better places from there. I'm guessing we 80% agree about Israel.
I think my thesis is "no simple argument about Israel or Palestine will ever be true". Which is, to me, kind of fascinating, if you can get past the horror, which I understand people (on both sides) not being able to do. Also: I sound like a Bond villain right now.
The people most responsible for the policies you most disapprove of in Israel are precisely the people who were victims of reprisal pogroms and ethnic cleansings in other countries.
So ... if Palestinians are still going through what they're going today, at home or abroad, it's ultimately (or to large extent) a delayed result of the MENA expulsions, and the slight electoral tilt among the descendants of those affected (we're talking 2 full generations later, heading up on a 3rd by now) within Israeli electoral politics?
That is to say, ultimately an outgrowth of -- external antisemitism?
“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”
Right. I can find a collection of quotes by current and previous Palestinian leaders that make them appear to be a bunch of genocidal, religious fanatics and holocaust deniers. But I'm not gonna do that because the day is short and I'm not sure what its going to achieve.
So is it mutual acts of genocide between Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis?
Oh, absolutely. If the Nakba falls under the modern definition of genocide (as per the Convention), then the MENA expulsions and of course the Oct 7 pogrom do as well, in my view.
My intent is not to isolate blame on one side for this mess (which I see as ultimately symbiotic, the result of provocations by both sides). But to identify the common fabric between these events -- in the hopes of finding some way to stop if from continuing perpetually, ever forward.
Are Jews living through an ongoing holocaust now? Perhaps, since the term genocide lost all meaning why not.
Neither side is going through a true Holocaust in the sense of what happened to the European Jews (and certain other groups at the time), of course. We are very far from that, and I see your point here about a possible dilution of the term, and of the (nearly but not entirely unique) trauma and anguish related to those events (which I spent a certain phase of my life obsessively studying, BTW).
Again the overall intent is to identify sources of harm done to people, at scale and on the basis of group identity -- intended to diminish their numbers, destroy their spirit, and threaten their long-term survival as a people.
The word "genocide" (and many other terms) means very little nowadays. Well you can tell at least the parent isn't trying to be neutral in providing history there.
> 4. Referring to the Israeli Independence Day or the founding day of the country as a day of mourning.
So you are not allowed to call it the Nakba, or describe it as anything but something to celebrate as long as you receive funding from the government.
I don’t know how the media, libraries, schools or other institutions work in Israel, but in Iceland this would pretty much amount to a ban, as almost all media, and institutions receive at least some funding from the government, and the most important ones actually depend on it.
I also find it curious how this flies in Israel’s participation in Eurovision. Russia was banned for using state media to spread misinformation. Meanwhile Israel has laws which bans their state media from recognizing previous state atrocities, and is not banned.
This is a somewhat complex question to answer, and one that can't truly be untangled from the broader history of the I/P conflict. But the base idea is this: you can't fight terrorism with bombs. Israel's stated goals in this war don't make sense: even if they could eliminate every single Hamas (military) operative, the kind of assault they are perpetrating is obviously going to give rise to a new wave of militants, probably much more embittered than Hamas is today.
So, Israel can only have two actual goals in this war: either they are seeking to purge Gaza of Palestinians, or they are seeking to punish Gazans in general for the actions of a few terrorists on October 7th, eye-for-an-eye style. There is no other reasonable interpretation of this war, and the vast majority of the world's countries see it this way (as seen by the overwhelming support for all pro-Gaza resolutions at the UN, typically 150+ to 10 or less).
Now, if Israel actually wanted to eliminate the terrorist leadership that perpetrated the October 7th attack while not creating new generations of terrorists, they would have gone about this intervention in a completely different way. They would have had to work with the non-militant parts of Hamas leadership and the PLO of the West Bank and with neighboring Arab countries to bring these murderers to justice, along with sending the equivalent of police forces for taregtted operations.
For an example of how this can work, you can look at how the UK dealt with the IRA in Northern Ireland, or Spain with the Basque Country separatists. They certainly didn't start bombing Belfast or Bilbao semi-indiscriminately to weed out the terrorists there.
Of course, what I'm saying is laughably far from anything that was actually possible to imagine as an Israeli response, given the long history of repression and mutual hatred of those territories. The reality is that Israeli leadership, and a sizeable segment of the Israeli population, wants the territory of Israel to include Gaza and the West Bank, but without bringing in the huge Arab Muslim population there as full citizens with equal rights in Israel. They also want to avoid creating explicit laws officially recognizing them as the second-class citizens that they are. So, the goal of Israeli leadership is actually maintaining the status quo: people in Gaza and the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) are living as second class citizens, their land is slowly being encroached by more radical coloniats, and their anger is controlled by bombings and deprivation when needed.
The subtitled video doesn't say anything about ethnic cleansing, the minister says he would like to see those who were exiled from Gaza in 2005 returned and allow Jews to live there again. He makes no mention of displacing the current population.
> Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir says he would be “very happy to live in Gaza” following the war, musing that a mass exodus of Palestinians could create room for a significant influx of Israeli settlers.
I don't know what else to call a "exodus of Palestinians" to "create room". This is pretty much the textbook definition of than ethnic cleansing. And "voluntary emigration"? Right. To where? And after 80 years of fighting over all of this it's suddenly going to be all that "voluntary". Yeah...
This is not some rando we can perhaps interpret in good faith; this is a man who for years had the portrait of terrorist Baruch Goldstein in his office and has repentantly praised him. This, combined with many other things he has said and done over the last 15 years or so means it's pretty clear what he's saying: getting rid of the Untermensch to make lebensraum for the Übermenschen.
Hamas is a complex entity, the ruling party of Gaza as well as a militant terrorist arm. The population of Gaza is around two million people, all of Hamas is maybe 50,000 people, terrorist arm is some subset of that, and the people who actually participated in the Oct 7 atrocities are maybe a few thousand counting all support personnel. I think that easily qualifies as a few people compared to two million.
> They would have had to work with the non-militant parts of Hamas leadership and the PLO of the West Bank and with neighboring Arab countries to bring these murderers to justice
I don't really see how this could work? As far as I know, all Hamas leadership supports the Oct 7 attack. The PLO and neighboring Arab countries don't really have power in Gaza.
Is that surprising, considering how Israel had treated Palestinians before that date?
If mere support is a hangup, then supporters of Israel's genocidal retaliation must similarly be excluded from talks.
I speak sardonically, of course: preconditions to negotiation are rarely helpful to achieving a negotiated outcome.
Here's one example: if Israel starts by treating Palestinians as human beings equal to Israeli people, without preconditions, it would remove a lot of Hamas leverage, plus it's the right thing to do.
Then, a bilateral peace committee seeking to punish genocide perpetrators on either side, perhaps as judged by the ICJ, can be established.
> For an example of how this can work, you can look at how the UK dealt with the IRA
Did the IRA kill around ten thousands of Brits in one day and kidnapped a few thousands (I'm adjusting to population size here) ? Did the IRA have the sworn objective to eliminate England? Did the IRA join forces with another terrorist organization and a superpower bent on destroying England to encircle England from all directions and join the war?
The circumstances of the catholic population in Northern Ireland was also significantly less extreme and dire. So if you want compare the scale of it then you also need to take that in to account.
However, the more important issue is not to get distracted by these sort of things. We can tit-for-tat this endlessly and never get anywhere, and the only way to solve this is to move beyond that. That's what they did in NI.
If we strip away all the violence, forget who did what to who, and all of that, then the inescapable conclusion remains: the IRA was right to protest the treatment of Catholics. Even Ian Paisley later admitted as much. And similarly Hamas is ... right to protest the treatment of Palestinians. That does not mean I condone the violence, like the general rhetoric of Hamas, or anything else. It's just an acknowledgement that 1) at the core of an issue are genuine grievances, and 2) as long as these grievances exist there will always be a Hamas.
You don't need to like these facts to accept it exists. You also don't need to just shrug and do nothing about Hamas. But you DO need to actually solve the rot cause (while you're also fighting Hamas). And for decades Israel has not just flat-out refused to do almost anything, it generally has made things worse.
The violence of Israel is not as spectacular as the violence of Hamas, but it absolutely exists.
> Hamas is ... right to protest the treatment of Palestinians.
The reality is much more nuanced and quite frankly contradictory to this simplistic viewpoint. What are Hamas' goals - some kind of peaceful solution or the violent destruction of Israel and expulsion of most Jews from the area? I tend to say the latter.
Also, calling what Hamas did on October 7th 'protest' seems weird to me. It committed a massacre and knew damn well it was starting a war.
Yeah, that's probably why the GP didn't say "Hamas is right to commit terrorist acts", but "... is right to protest the treatment of Palestinians". Which, like, are you saying they're wrong on that? Because if you are, it's you who are. Wrong, that is.
You adjusted your post to note that the ten thousand dead was an adjustment. Even so, it's an adjustment in the wrong direction - Northern Ireland is tinier than Israel, not larger. And the correct comparison is Irish Republicans in Northern Ireland ~ Palestinians, British loyalists in Northern Ireland ~ Israelis. You can view the greater UKs role in the conflict as similar to the USAs role in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Of course, none of these comparisons are remotely 1:1, but they are close enough.
Going for a less shallow dismissal of your points then:
> Did the IRA kill around ten thousands of Brits in one day and kidnapped a few thousands (I'm adjusting to population size here) ?
The IRA in total killed some 2000 people, representing some 0.2% of the Protestant population of Northern Ireland. Hamas killed in total ~2600 people since 2008 (where I found simple data on Wikipedia), which represents about 0.04% of the population of Israel, taking a very small estimate for the total population. So, in percentages, the IRA was about 5 times as vicious as Hamas (edit: accidentally wrote 50 earlier).
> Did the IRA have the sworn objective to eliminate England?
Yes, the IRA had the objective to eliminate British rule in Northern Ireland entirely, which is quite similar to Hamas's goal of eliminating Israeli rule in all of Israel. I'm not sure if the IRA was as happy to kill any loyalist civilians as Hamas is in killing Israeli civilians, to be fair.
> Did the IRA join forces with another terrorist organization and a superpower bent on destroying England to encircle England from all directions and join the war?
I'm not sure what superpower you refer to here (are you calling Egypt a superpower? Edit - oh, you mean the USSR...). Regardless, Ireland did have some amount of implication in the Troubles, though of course immeasurably less. I'm also not sure why it's more legitimate to bomb civilian buildings or not based on whether those civilians were once supported by outside countries, 50 years ago.
"The IRA (Irish Republican Army) was responsible for killing around 1,800 people during its terror campaign from the late 1960s through the late 1990s. This includes approximately 650 civilians"
So 650 civilians in around 30 years, that's less than what Hamas did in a couple of hours on October 7th. Btw Hamas is not only active in Gaza, it was a big part of the terror campaign that derailed the Oslo peace initiative and later Camp David - mostly in the West Bank. Hamas' reach is all across the Palestinian territories and it has hit Israelis in all kinds of ways - suicide bombings (in the West Bank), rockets (Gaza) and recently full on invasions and massacres. The death toll, destruction and disruption to the economy and civil life it had on Israeli society is orders of magnitude larger than what Britain has ever experienced.
> Yes, the IRA had the objective to eliminate British rule in Northern Ireland entirely, which is quite similar to Hamas's goal of eliminating Israeli rule in all of Israel. I'm not sure if the IRA was as happy to kill any loyalist civilians as Hamas is in killing Israeli civilians, to be fair.
So there's a major difference here I think, Britain could have simply left Northern Ireland or reach some compromise to meet some of the IRA's demands (which has actually eventually happened) and still remained Britain. For Israel to meet Hamas demands it needs to commit national suicide, cede control to a group that hates it (happy to kill Israelis - your words) and wants to take revenge and as a result probably have the majority of its population flee the region completely (where to? perhaps to the West, which is also not the most hospitable environment for Jews/Israelis).
> I'm not sure what superpower you refer to here (are you calling Egypt a superpower? Edit - oh, you mean the USSR...).
I am talking about Iran which is considered a regional superpower and about the fact Israel is surrounded by Iranian made armies (Hezbollah to the North, Yemenite Houtihs and Iraqi militais to the East) that are now occasionally bombing its civilian population or trying to force a naval blockade on it.
England never had to face anything remotely similar to this with the IRA. The last time England had something similar to this was WW2.
The Falklands death toll was around 900 people, only three of whom were non-combatants.
The situation with Gaza is very different. There aren't perfect answers, and fifty years of being kettled under military occupation has only made everyone involved hate each other that little bit more.
Whatever the exact numbers are, it's clear that normal people have suffered unduly as a result of military action, in a way that has extended far past self defence, with documented actions that seem barely human.
A comparison to the Falklands war —as unnecessary as that was— seems perverse.
Its also simply becausz its not just about self defense.
People would care less if israel was not actively supporting illegal settlers and that extremists killed ytzak rabin that was looking for peace. Or that netanyahu was on camera saying he wants to make palestinian civilians suffer as much as possible while he negociates in bad faith and doesnt respect the usa that are 'easy to manoeuver".
Wait is that a statement in support of Hamas? Or is it just unethical actions from Palestinians that get that treatment? Otherwise wouldn't an occupation followed by a blockade count as an unethical action that doesn't merit an ethical response?
The day ICJ goes after the political and financial supporters of Hamas and orders Hamas to stop using the people of Palestine as live shields to bear the brunt of the Israeli wrath will be the day when I will agree with the ICJ.
Mhmm that sure sounds like whatboutism though. Also, Hamas is literally sanctioned by most of the western hemisphere. I guess the day Israel gets any consequence (and I mean any, even a single official condemnation and sanction) from the west, is the day that I'd agree that the ICJ should focus on the other side.
Regardless of agreement with the ICJ or not, the quasi-statehood of Palestine complicates how the ICJ can target Hamas, much less non-governmental actors like PIJ. To my knowledge, despite over two decades of issues related to state/non-state conflicts, the institutions that make and implement international law have yet to resolve how to handle these issues.
'I will agree with the court when it agrees with me and does what I want' is certainly a position.
I'm sure most criminal suspects and their supporters [0] feel the same way, and would love for their personal judgement to be so favored. Putin, for example.
0: This is a sensitive topic, so to be extra clear, I am referring to the criminal case against Bibi in the ICC and the genocide case against Israel and Hamas in the ICJ, and those who support the defendants in the 1st of those and half or more of the defendants in the other.
It is easier to agree with judgements that help resolve conflicts. This one aims to deliver justice to victims on both sides, but doesn't resolve the core issue, doesn't even name all parties responsible for this bloodbath. Hamas is a proxy for other players and has been using Palestinians as a human shield in their fight against Israel. The core issue in that conflict is religion. It is used to derail any attempts at resolving the situation or provide a path to peace; it is used to drape revenge in the veil of "justice" on both sides. There is no reason why both sides could not work together on resolving their issues, but religion will not allow it. Therefore, courts will be issuing judgements that only add to the feeling of injustice and won't resolve the core issue.
That's just revisionism though. The PLA had a lot of Christian Palestinians. It's just that as the conflict got more viscious, groups like Hamas started emerging and basing themselves on religion. Even then, Hamas isn't Al Qaeda. Its core is still based on Palestinian nationalism.
Israel also has tons and tons religious extremism but it wouldn't be fair to say that Israel fights for religious reasons. It just comes down to an extreme and probably unsolvable fixation on the land from both sides.
I wrote "both sides". Religion is at the core of this dispute. Why did Jews want to go back to the Holy Land and not some place else? Religion. Why does Iran want to wipe out Israel from the face of the Earth? Religion.
All sides of the Palestinian conflict have strong groups of influence who base their demands on religious grounds, because when you cannot deny facts or do not want to start a long, hard road to peace and reconciliation saying "my made up deity told me so" is apparently reason good enough to start killing people.
When your asks are things like "treat us as people equal to you" and "stop the secret police arrests and detention and torture of our children" and "give us self determination" and "stop genociding us", the world is unsurprisingly receptive to your asks. Hence, the world's current support for Palestine via the UN.
Religion is a red herring here. What must be done first and foremost is Israel, the party with all the power here, treats all people equally, with equal rights. Doing so will take the wind out of the sails of Hamas. If Israel's goal is genocide, an independent investigation of Israel's actions will show that they are different*.
* - An independent investigation of Israel's actions shows that they are different.
The extremists from both sides have to be removed from the conversation. Extremists on both sides are using religion to justify political goals and want to achieve political goals through military action. Half-measures will only result in suspension of atrocities for a brief moment while both sides re-arm. You cannot talk about what's going on without discussing Hamas' rise to power, removal of political opposition, and making preparations for an attack that resulted in what has been going on since last year. They took Palestinians hostage and used them to turn the world against Israel. How is that not genocidal? Palestinians are used in a political game for political gains. Does it justify Israel's actions? No. Does is present Hamas as a saviour of the Palestinian people? No.
You cannot talk about what's going on without discussing: Israel's long history of treating Palestinians unequal to Israelis; Israel's arrest, detention, and torture of Palestinian children and other civilians via secret police; denial of Palestinian self determination; Repeated attacks on Palestinian civilians before Oct7, killing thousands; and Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Each of these actions is literally inexcusable, as in there is no excuse one can come up with, which justifies any of the actions.
Because of this, anyone involved in the Israeli abuse and genocide of Palestinians is as extremist, if not moreso, than those involved in the attack that killed 95% fewer innocent civilians last year.
Either way, the first step is that Israel must stop treating Palestinians as half-people. It's the right thing to do, and it will take the wind out of the sails of Hamas, as well as the global condemnation of Israel.
> They took Palestinians hostage and used them to turn the world against Israel.
This is the gaslighting language of spousal abusers: "You made me hurt you". Israel did both those things, and is (unsuccessfully) attempting to gaslight others with abuser language, because they are abusers of Palestinians.
The preliminary judgement doesn't attempt to solve the entire Israel Palestine conflict. That is a future judgement, perhaps. But, the core issue that the preliminary judgement seeks to solve is the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine. There is no ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Israel, only a political one.
As the International Court of Justice points out, ending this humanitarian catastrophe is the most urgent priority – even more urgent than Bibi's desire to keep it going for his own reasons.
Thus, when Israel stops exploding Palestinian civilian men, women and children, stops exploding aid workers, stops blocking and exploding aid, stops destroying hospitals and patients and homes and families, stops displacing millions of civilians and takes proper responsibility for their health (Israel claims Gaza and the West Bank as theirs, after all, making Palestinians their charge), _that_ will be a time to discuss the issue of the broader conflict. But first we must stop the ongoing slaughter of innocent civilian Palestinians.
tl;dr: the world ending genocide of Palestinians > Israeli political desires.
By this standard, the Oct 7th attack itself is justified by the litany of unethical acts committed against the people of Gaza before; and those are themselves justified by the unethical acts committed by Gazan terrorists, and on and on.
In reality, everyone is responsible for their own unethical acts, and it's completely unethical to respond to an unethical act with an unethical act of your own.
That is not a fallacy, it is in fact coded into international humanitarian law that a state actor must follow international humanitarian law under all circumstances.
It is a fallacy to assume that governments are driven by hatred and are unable to control their state’s response to unethical acts.
One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2]. The UN's organizational structure reflects the (unfair but real) power imbalances in the world, and that structure ensures that it continues to exist.
The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.
I don't know how you could make a world-level government with enforcement work given the current imbalance of powers between the top and bottom parts of the power scale.
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Is this not how the world works? I'd be interested in seeing why the disagreement.
I think you're right about the reason for the veto powers of the world's super powers at the UN Security Council. It's a pragmatic, though unjust, way of ensuring that they participate in the UN at all. Unfortunately, even so, they often ignore UN Security Council decisions even if they happen to pass - like the USA recently allowing the Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolution to pass, then immediately turning around and absurdly claiming that a UN security council resolution is non-binding. So even like, it's unclear how much the system actually works.
However, I don't agree that this means the ICJ or ICC should just not give decisions that they can't enforce. Ultimately these courts stand as unbiased observers on the world stage, and their opinions can be used by the countries making up the UN to guide their own actions. Ideally, the world's media should also pay close attention and guide its own reporting as well based on the decisions (and rationale for those decisions).
Much like the UN's climate panel, there is real value in having a panel of domain experts present an informed, unbiased, opinion on world matters, even if they can't directly enforce anything.
The reason ICJ and ICC should be careful about giving decisions they cannot enforce is because over time it can undermine their credibility. Eventually you end up with these international bodies writing the equivalence of "open letters", which is fine I guess... but if those actions have no effect on outcomes it really starts to undermine the Institutionalist side of IR theory.
Personally, I find that unfortunate. While I think the realists are mostly right, it is helpful to have international legal institutions that maintain some degree of legitimacy and power for the purpose of norm-setting.
The problem is that they will also lose all legitimacy if they only give decisions against the enemies of the USA. They then end up looking as a propaganda arm of the USA, which is, in my opinion, even worse than being an ineffectual but respected international organization.
Ah yes, the German Greens, truly the party of environmentalism... I would be almost shocked if I hadn't long become accustomed to my own country's extreme disconnect between the claimed doctrine of each party and their actual politics.
> One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2].
Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the court for disputes between nations in the UN system, and the ICC, a newer court to which parties to the Rome Statute have delegated some part of their (universal, under international law) jurisidiction over individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and, most recently, aggression.
But that's also not the reason for the veto; in fact, the veto contributes to this problem with the ICJ.
> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.
That's obviously an alternative, other alternatives exist, including one with a weaker but extent international body for nations to come to the table (proven, the League of Nations existed), and ones with a stronger body, with its own organic capabilities (and potentially greater independent legitimacy, e.g., by direct election of some key officers rather than appointment by member states.)
The UN isn't the only possible international federation.
The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.
The UN is probably the most successful international union because of its pragmatic approach, but it seems like most international political alliances fall apart within 100 years.
Other non-political international bodies seem to have more luck: the ITU -- the International Telecommunication Union -- has been around for 150 years. The International Labour Organization outlasted the League of Nations and became part of the UN.
> The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.
UN did not prevent WWIII. It is the mere fact that nuclear weapons and MAD made the global superpowers realize that there is no winning in such war. And that a security competition and proxy wars are acceptable. But direct confrontation to be be avoided at all costs. It is not like US, Russia (probably china and others too) do respect the UN that much anyway.
If nuclear weapons existed before WWII, There is a slim chance that it would happen.
UN did not protect iraq and Ukraine from illegal invasions such that League of nations did not protect Ethiopia in the past. The mere fact that in all cases no body wanted to confront a major power invading another country far away.
> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.
Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.
It's just how things work. The League of Nations failed largely because it lacked the participation and support of major powers. The United States, despite being a principal architect of the League, never joined [1]. This lack of participation undermined the its legitimacy and effectiveness.
The veto power was established at the founding of the UN in 1945 as a reflection of the state of the world following World War II. The major powers were given veto power to get their buy-in and participation. Without this mechanism, these powers might not have joined or supported the UN, undermining its formation and initial effectiveness.
If the veto power were removed, the major powers might feel that their core interests and national security concerns could be overridden by the majority [2], leading to their withdrawal from the UN, and significantly weakening the organization's influence and capacity to act.
There's no real authority in any of these bodies, only the appearance and illusion of legitimacy which requires buy-in from its strongest members.
> Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement.
You are contradicting yourself. If the world power participation in UN is vital to its role but at the same time nothing outside the conflicted power between them then why do you think UN is more than a club of world power extended to include some people from thr outside?
And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine. UN is currently a place so inneffective outside the general stuff that the veto countries can agree.
Again you are describing the current status que not how a real equal international community should work. Because currently when you hear that international community is behind <foo> it is usually US and some of their allies who are actual minority of humans [1]
> And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine.
This is wishful thinking and a history revisionism. Mathematically speaking MAD will always result in a nuclear Armageddon. People knew that and worked with the UN to prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and escalation of the Nuclear Arms buildup. Without the UN it is hard to see something like the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty or the Non-Proliferation Treaty striking balance to the Nuclear Arms race and preventing a nuclear Armageddon.
It was the US starting and pushing the comprehensive test ban treaty, not the UN. The UN didn't even try until the US successfully pushed it for decades. And STILL, all relevant negotiations are conducted by the US, the relevant backing organization is thoroughly US. It's physically in the US. It's staffed by US people. It's really more or less a branch of the US military, and it's equipment is almost exclusively on US military bases.
Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research.
Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me)
What did the UN do?
The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore.
The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result.
The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN.
The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved.
The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead).
The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid.
The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case.
Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US.
Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars.
Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.
I don't think I'm contradicting myself - I think the UN is a mutually-beneficial, shared illusion that works only when the major powers that go into it believe that it works.
The most cynical view of the UN is that it is a club of the five major members that happens to include the rest of the world, yeah. But the power of the shared illusion gives it broad acceptance. And even if enforcement is uneven, the broad acceptance of the UN's role provides it with a degree of moral and political authority.
What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes?
The UN veto attempts to at least make the process transparent. A veto is like a promise "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't." It's much better to find out that way, than to find out by having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head from a military jet.
Unless of course the US is talking about another countries with nukes themselves. But you are making a good case for why it is in each country best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea appears, in your argument, one of the wisest regimes in the world.
I'm pretty sure that when US is vetoing Russia, it does not mean "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't". Because Russian response will be of the sort "Great, try this and enjoy the fireworks over your population centers, we will hate to see the UN gone with the whole of New York".
Russia also has a veto. Either one can threaten the nukes to block a proposal.
A neutral order where nobody has nukes would be better than one where everyone has nukes. You probably can't get from here to there without the complete destruction of the US state apparatus along the way, though. The Russian one too. And every other major player.
The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't.
There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.
Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.
The Republic of China is still around. The country we generally refer to as Taiwan is actually the Republic of China.
India is way larger both population and geographically than the UK just like the People's Republic of China is compared to the Republic of China so it seems like there is a precedent to do it.
Forced illegal settlements are also a war crime, one of very few actions that even the US has condemned along with the wider international community. Can one justify over 50 years of belligerence? Does Hamas operate in the West bank? Remind me how long Hamas has been around to use human shields in a region governed by a separate authority?
My dad was once judged as a terrorist for his role in resisting a racist, apartheid government. He was interestingly transformed into a senior officer of the army that spent decades indiscriminately bombing anywhere he was supposedly operating from. He was broken by the guilt of visiting villages out of starvation only to have the blood of innocent families on his hands for showing solidarity with his struggle. The people who would throw similar accusations of using human shields to justify their barbarity were now his colleagues, brothers in arms who he would spend the rest of his career fighting alongside.
One of his superiors, Nelson Mandela, had a lot to say about Palestine. The world celebrates his efforts to convince people like my father to forgive at the cost of leaving a trauma that will persist through the souls of their descendants.
This brazen denial of the reality that a fellow human will relentlessly defend is beyond clinic insanity for people who have significantly less emotional attachment to this conflict than myself. The lack of self awareness for the sake of self-preservation alone is concerning.
I'm glad all of this self indicting astro-turfing has been shared publicly. I want peace for all humanity, but I can't see anyone making a sound case for truth and reconciliation when the dust settles, and it is time for accountability.
I have always suspected that part of the explanation for why these heinous things are occurring without any actual consequences is the larger military strategic situation. And I think that aspect of it being left out of the discussion is not helping.
The Gaza area is strategically extremely significant for the US and other allies as well as their enemies.
I suspect that this may be the reason why Israel is allowed to continue regardless of how many civilian casualties. And also may in some way explain some of the resilience of the fighters there despite how deadly Israel has made dissent. Iran will always fund anyone who dares poke their head up to resist. Because again, it's a very strategic position. Not only in terms of the sea but also on putting pressure on a US ally.
I will probably just be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but if any of this is slightly true, I think it should be part of the discussion. I think the reason it is not discussed is because the US and allies don't want to admit that they could stop it if they wanted but they really don't want to because of the strategic situation.
> Israeli and international media have reported that Netanyahu’s plan to continue allowing aid to reach Gaza through Qatar was in the hope that it might make Hamas an effective counterweight to the PA and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. [1]
First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there.
Second of all, countries which are currently helping Israel in its slaughter have internal laws that can be invoked, through their court systems if need be, that should take this ICJ opinion into consideration when evaluating if the government should instead prohibit arms and other aid to Israel in this matter. So there is at least some glimmer of a chance for actual pressure from this ruling. It will take some time to materialize, of course.
They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.
I believe that law is slightly more limited - they reserve the right to invade anyone who attempts to prosecute US citizens and particularly US military in international courts. I don't think it extends this type of protection to allies. At least the infamous "Hague Invasion Act" doesn't.
> (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on
behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
> (b) Persons Authorized To Be Freed.--The authority of subsection (a)
shall extend to the following persons:
> (1) Covered United States persons.
> (2) Covered allied persons.
> (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
> (3) Covered allied persons.--The term ``covered allied persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
> (4) Covered united states persons.--The term ``covered United States persons'' means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court.
I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions.
The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.
> The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?
It's not its job to do that, it is a judicial not an executive body.
Unfortunately, the UN’s executive decisionmaking body is, unlike the court, fairly consistently faithless to the law where any of the pet interests of the P5 members whoe exercise vetos over it are concerned, and protecting Israel from any consequences from its lawbreaking (even where the US fully acknowledges that it is lawbreaking, as in the case of continued settlement expansion) is a pet interest of the US.
And that's a good thing. They have a permanent forum for discussions to prevent global thermonuclear war. Everything else about the UN pales in comparison
The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel. Even Kissinger had to take care where he changed planes.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) settles legal disputes between UN member States, and it's rulings are expected to be upheld and enforced by UN States, or ultimately the UN Security Council.
The International Criminal Court is the one that can issue arrest warrants against individuals.
> The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel.
South Africa who has been allowed to instrumentalize the court, because it is politically convenient. A few months ago, South Africa was leaving the ICC...
There have been several proposed deals where Hamas would return the hostages. Israel has not even entertained a single one of them.
In fact, the IDF have been busy killing these hostages along with all the other civilians that they are, of course, trying not to kill when dropping dumb bombs on schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and nurseries.
The global consensus seems to be that Israel’s current actions have become excessive - if that’s true, I wonder where the line between legitimate and illegitimate responses to being attacked by a semi-State actor like Hamas is?
Genuine question - I don’t understand how a state would go about determining an ethical response in this circumstance (leaving aside wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict itself).