|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 2, 2024 11:51:30 GMT -5
Ok, I think that is fair, but I also think it is important that the ICJ finds it plausible a genocide is occurring in Gaza (or the convention would not plausibly be violated) and that they can rule a genocide occurred even if it did not occur with state culpability (as in the Serbia ruling). To be honest, I think it is consistent that a state could support its units in war crimes, but not specifically support genocide by some of its units and merely not investigate or prevent this (which is essentially the Serbia ruling). Basically the ICJ was of the opinion that the Serbian unit in question was at fault for genocide, but not the nation.
I also maintain that senior Israeli politicians have been very candid in repeatedly using language that is easily construed as genocidal, which really does not help their case. Things like referring to this being a second Nakba or referencing Amalek in relation to Gaza (a biblical genocide). In addition, Israel isn't displaying any intention to cooperate with the ICJ ruling, so that isn't going to help them either.
Either way, if a genocide is found to have occurred and the state of Israel is not found to be culpable but is found to have failed to prevent it, that is still a pretty big deal in my eyes. Due to the UN security council veto, I still doubt anything significant would come of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 2, 2024 12:06:11 GMT -5
Prevention is a broad term, technically you could declare a lot of parties guilty of not preventing this. It depends on the degree of culpability, if it is genocide through starvation for example, would Egypt also be a party is said failure to prevent due to sharing a border, what about the US for supplying Israel? Etc. The broadness of the Convention makes it difficult to guess at what would be considered for the plausibel argument.
As for the politicians, I assume here that the individuals might be found to be at fault, but as long as the court cannot point at government doctrine, it fails the state culpability test.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Feb 2, 2024 12:25:59 GMT -5
What is the context of their use of “Amalek”? The usage I am familiar with is more of a bogeyman, the ancient archenemy of the Jews, where calling someone an “amalekite” is more akin to a conservative calling someone a satanist than to a call for genocide.
Not to argue the point. I think there’s enough evidence without that line to show Israel was at least attempting an ethnic cleansing if not a legally-unambiguous genocide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 2, 2024 12:33:15 GMT -5
What is the context of their use of “Amalek”? The usage I am familiar with is more of a bogeyman, the ancient archenemy of the Jews, where calling someone an “amalekite” is more akin to a conservative calling someone a satanist than to a call for genocide. Not to argue the point. I think there’s enough evidence without that line to show Israel was at least attempting an ethnic cleansing if not a legally-unambiguous genocide. It could be read that way, but it isn't a great look when saying it to soldiers going into the warzone. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 2, 2024 12:35:13 GMT -5
Prevention is a broad term, technically you could declare a lot of parties guilty of not preventing this. It depends on the degree of culpability, if it is genocide through starvation for example, would Egypt also be a party is said failure to prevent due to sharing a border, what about the US for supplying Israel? Etc. The broadness of the Convention makes it difficult to guess at what would be considered for the plausibel argument. As for the politicians, I assume here that the individuals might be found to be at fault, but as long as the court cannot point at government doctrine, it fails the state culpability test. I think it is going to be a very interesting case, because these are politicians leading Israel, Netenyahu and members of his cabinet. I doubt Egypt has culpability given Israel controls the Egyptian border of Gaza and the Rafah crossing. The US and UK probably would share culpability for continuing to arm Israel during this. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 2, 2024 14:17:54 GMT -5
Paradoxically, I think its easier to convict the Israeli government on genocide on the West Bank, because the Gaza situation is more murky.
Gaza: 'current' war starts with Hamas attack, granting Israel the right to self-defense under international law, IDF gives out warnings (however effective) to leave certain areas, Hamas is entrenched amongst civilians making collateral damage a possibility, etc. Legally this is messy.
West Bank: currently being occupied/colonized under international law. Well know fact that Israeli settlers slowly encroach and evict Palestinians. Current right wing Israeli government is providing weapons to said settlers, allowing them to drive off and/or kill Palestinians more effectively. Rinse and repeat, almost textbook article 2 violation.
Combine that with the Israeli commentary and you might actually get a conviction based on all the previously gathered evidence. The Gaza case is understandable, but it is effectively murky and new under international law (evidence wise).
|
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Feb 5, 2024 6:02:26 GMT -5
You have to think as well, it's a well defined component of Hamas' strategy to use civilians and the West's own 'code of ethics' in fighting against the IDF. Placing military in hospitals, schools etc. and use of child soldiers and human bombs. They know that each photo or video of the body of a child being lifted from rubble is fuel for their cause and against Israel, and this is why they use human shields expressly to protect their tunnel networks and other ways of moving munitions between sites when the IDF move in - the IDF broadcast on radio and drop leaflets before the airstrikes come in, the Hamas fighters are no doubt long gone by the time the bombs land and yet the civilians on those sites are left behind to die.
I honestly don't know how the IDF is expected to conduct this conflict, when the combative side within Gaza is expressly attempting to 'give the blood of their martyrs' (this is their own words) and line up their own people as human shields. The whole arrangement is just horrendous, and there has never been an occupation (not in Iraq or Afghanistan) that has been under the microscope in this way, and so we see all of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 5, 2024 6:07:38 GMT -5
I honestly don't know how the IDF is expected to conduct this conflict, when the combative side within Gaza is expressly attempting to 'give the blood of their martyrs' (this is their own words) and line up their own people as human shields. They could always stop giving the Palestinians martyrs.
Would Hamas keep attacking Israel if Israel ended the occupation? If so, they'd look a lot less oppressive to the rest of the world for defending themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 5, 2024 6:28:44 GMT -5
Would Hamas keep attacking Israel if Israel ended the occupation?
Probably. Both sides want to commit genocide against the other and there's no reason to believe that fanatical hatred would change just because some territory changes hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 5, 2024 6:35:21 GMT -5
You have to think as well, it's a well defined component of Hamas' strategy to use civilians and the West's own 'code of ethics' in fighting against the IDF. Placing military in hospitals, schools etc. and use of child soldiers and human bombs. They know that each photo or video of the body of a child being lifted from rubble is fuel for their cause and against Israel, and this is why they use human shields expressly to protect their tunnel networks and other ways of moving munitions between sites when the IDF move in - the IDF broadcast on radio and drop leaflets before the airstrikes come in, the Hamas fighters are no doubt long gone by the time the bombs land and yet the civilians on those sites are left behind to die. I honestly don't know how the IDF is expected to conduct this conflict, when the combative side within Gaza is expressly attempting to 'give the blood of their martyrs' (this is their own words) and line up their own people as human shields. The whole arrangement is just horrendous, and there has never been an occupation (not in Iraq or Afghanistan) that has been under the microscope in this way, and so we see all of it. Whilst there is definitely a significant element of this, the level of indiscriminate violence in Gaza is exceptional. For example, more children have died in a few months in Gaza than have died in any other concurrent war, and the proportion of children killed is close to the proportion of children in the population of Gaza. The number of civilian casualties is higher than the longer war in Ukraine, a full-scale conventional conflict that also includes plausible evidence of war crimes and genocide. In addition, there is mounting evidence that the IDF is not attempting to be discriminate. Some high-profile examples include the escaping Israeli hostages shot whilst waving a white flag and shooting in Hebrew, the unarmed Palestinian man shot whilst waving a white flag on camera(ITV news crew) whilst trying to extract family members, or the 15 year old girl shot by an IDF tank when hiding in her car whilst on the phone to the Red Crescent- her 6 year old sister remained on the phone next to her corpse for several more hours before all contact was lost and the despatched ambulance is still missing. Ambulances, hospitals, aid convoys, and refugee camps regularly come under fire. Given the assassination of Hamas patients in a hospital in the West Bank by IDF operatives disguised as healthcare workers and civilians, they don't seem to be showing any deference to protected places. People are also aware of the family of British MP Layla Moran trapped in a church under sniper fire. Meanwhile, over half of Gaza city has been flattened, much by controlled demolitions, and the IDF have been using 2000Ib bombs in densely-populated urban areas. They have also been systematically digging up graveyards. Contrast this to the IDF strike on the Hamas leader in Beirut, which was not done with a 2000Ib bomb... The IDF response to human shields appears similar to the Hannibal directive, in that human shields aren't a problem if you are happy to shoot the shield. I don't see how the military situation in Gaza is dramatically different to many of the counter insurgency operations faced by Western forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet the rate of civilian casualties is huge. Edit: forgot to mention the siege conditions Israel is imposing on Gaza, with starvation levels of food entering the territory, let alone medical supplies, fuel etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 5, 2024 7:00:45 GMT -5
Would Hamas keep attacking Israel if Israel ended the occupation?
Probably. Both sides want to commit genocide against the other and there's no reason to believe that fanatical hatred would change just because some territory changes hands.
Yeah, I doubt Hamas will stop being belligerants, but it becomes much easier to define if borders are internationally recognised. Doubly so if Palestine is recognised as a state. Furthermore, if Israel stops occupying Palestine and "mowing the lawn" etc then they stop fueling Hamas recruitment, and also a lot of Hamas funding (Hamas controls the tunnel trade that Gaza relied on for a lot of its civilian needs, and takes a cut). Hamas has popular support in Gaza in large part because they are the only group doing anything against Israeli domination of the territory. Worth noting that peace isn't in the interests of the Israeli far right political establishment, the Israeli government was funding Hamas until... I think 2019? Having an enemy to fight and rally against makes it easier to realise Greater Israel, the aim of Netenyahu and his allies. |
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Feb 5, 2024 8:22:29 GMT -5
You have to think as well, it's a well defined component of Hamas' strategy to use civilians and the West's own 'code of ethics' in fighting against the IDF. Placing military in hospitals, schools etc. and use of child soldiers and human bombs. They know that each photo or video of the body of a child being lifted from rubble is fuel for their cause and against Israel, and this is why they use human shields expressly to protect their tunnel networks and other ways of moving munitions between sites when the IDF move in - the IDF broadcast on radio and drop leaflets before the airstrikes come in, the Hamas fighters are no doubt long gone by the time the bombs land and yet the civilians on those sites are left behind to die. I honestly don't know how the IDF is expected to conduct this conflict, when the combative side within Gaza is expressly attempting to 'give the blood of their martyrs' (this is their own words) and line up their own people as human shields. The whole arrangement is just horrendous, and there has never been an occupation (not in Iraq or Afghanistan) that has been under the microscope in this way, and so we see all of it. Whilst there is definitely a significant element of this, the level of indiscriminate violence in Gaza is exceptional. For example, more children have died in a few months in Gaza than have died in any other concurrent war, and the proportion of children killed is close to the proportion of children in the population of Gaza. The number of civilian casualties is higher than the longer war in Ukraine, a full-scale conventional conflict that also includes plausible evidence of war crimes and genocide. In addition, there is mounting evidence that the IDF is not attempting to be discriminate. Some high-profile examples include the escaping Israeli hostages shot whilst waving a white flag and shooting in Hebrew, the unarmed Palestinian man shot whilst waving a white flag on camera(ITV news crew) whilst trying to extract family members, or the 15 year old girl shot by an IDF tank when hiding in her car whilst on the phone to the Red Crescent- her 6 year old sister remained on the phone next to her corpse for several more hours before all contact was lost and the despatched ambulance is still missing. Ambulances, hospitals, aid convoys, and refugee camps regularly come under fire. Given the assassination of Hamas patients in a hospital in the West Bank by IDF operatives disguised as healthcare workers and civilians, they don't seem to be showing any deference to protected places. People are also aware of the family of British MP Layla Moran trapped in a church under sniper fire. Meanwhile, over half of Gaza city has been flattened, much by controlled demolitions, and the IDF have been using 2000Ib bombs in densely-populated urban areas. They have also been systematically digging up graveyards. Contrast this to the IDF strike on the Hamas leader in Beirut, which was not done with a 2000Ib bomb... The IDF response to human shields appears similar to the Hannibal directive, in that human shields aren't a problem if you are happy to shoot the shield. I don't see how the military situation in Gaza is dramatically different to many of the counter insurgency operations faced by Western forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet the rate of civilian casualties is huge. Edit: forgot to mention the siege conditions Israel is imposing on Gaza, with starvation levels of food entering the territory, let alone medical supplies, fuel etc. There are lots of children being killed precisely because they are being placed front and centre by Hamas. They do not care that the children of their own people are being killed; in their own words, they are martyrs and will be rewarded with eternal paradise. We have to assume that the parents and families of those children are either willing accomplices to this utter insanity, or they are being coerced in some other way. And Hamas know that the site of those dead children will also fuel their cause both in the arab world and in terms of Western support for Israel. There is no other conceivable reason why those children and other non-combatants would be left in those buildings before they are flattened, it is very much by design. I had read that the bombing (and the necessity to use larger bombs) is down to the success of the Hamas tunnel networks. We need to get away from the concept of this being some half-arsed effort by someone hurredly using a spoon, these are reportedly major pieces of structural engineering capable of quickly moving men and materials- no doubt a recipient of the hundreds of millions of dollars of aid, as Hamas and others re-purposed the money meant for food and medical aid for this very purpose. I am absolutely not saying that there are not major mis-steps being made by the IDF, the examples you have sited and many more are happening every day. The whole thing is utterly sickening in terms of the amount of loss of human life and the abject misery being imposed on the people of Gaza. But looking at this from Israel's perspective, they are fighting for their survival here. They are trying to stop the potential of the repeat of what happened on Oct 7th (in their words, their own 9/11, but worse) against a foe that is utterly uncivilised, and due to their religious fundamentalism is prepared for huge numbers of their own people to suffer violent death - in fact, actively welcome it. And for whom the intent is to cause maximum harm and suffering, and for whom a large number of them actively celebrated the rape and murder on Oct 7th. I realise this opinion is going to not be popular. If it were repeated on many university campuses these days it would open you up for for being lynched. But, I see it as a fight of civilisation and ethics against insanity and religious fundamentalism, and we have had our moral compass skewed by the awful site of human suffering and children being lifted from rubble. But I would guarantee that 95% of the people reading this post, who grew up in a western liberal society, will have much more in common with the IDF soldiers and conscripts currently going into Gaza right now than they would with the parents of a child in Gaza, happy for them to be strapped with explosives and sent towards an IDF checkpoint, or for an ammunition dump to be cited underneath their child's school. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 5, 2024 8:53:46 GMT -5
There must be some middle ground between "leave them alone because there may be civilians" and "they are hiding behind civilians, so lets level the block and be sure" for the IDF.
I'm also not sure that Hamas has to try too hard to gain favour with the Palestinians given they've been under frankly brutal oppression since long before they were alive; we're not talking about somewhere kids grew up in peace and then were subjected to war - they and their parents were born into it.
I'm also not convinced that Palestine is any actual threat to the existence of Israel. Or that the October 7th attack wasn't weaponized by Israel to justify completely disproportionate retaliation. Hamas may be capable of building a reasonable tunnel network, but their weapons are pretty basic especially compared to Israel. Israel has 581 military aircraft and Palestine has a few gliders? Israel seems to have nuclear weapons capability too but Palestine is safe from that due to proximity.
What Hamas has done in general and things like October 7th is despicable, but you need to look at the whole thing in context. If Texas* had been subjected to what Palestine has since 1948, do you think they'd have done anything differently?
*Random-ish example, since they seem the US state most likely to cede or take up arms against the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by crispy78 on Feb 5, 2024 9:33:17 GMT -5
I don't really profess to any great understanding of the ongoing situation over there, but are Israel *really* fighting for their survival still? As far as I can see, Hamas seem to be basically a terrorist organisation, with AK47s, RPGs and some shoulder-launched missiles etc. Whereas Israel are now a modern military force with F35 jets, recon satellites... Are they really in danger of being destroyed by Hamas? It feels very much to me like Israel are an example of the classic victim-turned-bully trope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 5, 2024 9:34:32 GMT -5
Frankly I don't buy it. I don't think Hamas have been hiding behind each of the 30000 Palestinians killed in Gaza. I think the IDF stated something like 3000 Hamas militants have been killed. Taking that at face value (the IDF has a track record of blatant lies in this war), then 10% of casualties are combatants. Each individual militant is hiding behind 9 civilians? Don't you find it suspicious that so many accounts and incidents are coming to light of IDF forces indiscriminately shooting civilians including the hostages they are supposed to be rescuing? Or that the Gaza conflict has been the most deadly war for journalists in modern times? Or that aid trucks and ambulances are being repeatedly targeted? Or that the IDF is destroying museums and libraries and graveyards that they occupy?
I understand the tactical reason for dropping 2000Ib bombs, but most nations purportedly following the rules of war don't routinely drop them on areas full of civilians, even if it would be militarily advantageous. If Israel really wanted to go for the most efficient military route, they could just drop a nuke and be done with the military threat of Hamas, but there are political reasons not to do that. So far, there haven't been any political costs for dropping heavy conventional ordnance.
Gaza has a population of 2.2 million and a population density of 6500/km2 across the territory. That is a population on the same scale as Manchester and Birmingham combined within a smaller area (the pop density of both UK cities being about 4500/km2), that is confined by a militarised border completely controlled by Israel.
Where are they supposed to go? How do you move 2 million people in a matter of days? Imagine if you had to move the entire population of Manchester to Birmingham whilst under bombardment? How do you move them to safety when Israel keeps bombing their stated "safe" areas? What happens to 2 million people living in urban areas when the fabric of civilization is dismantled? The power is out. Water supplies were cut off. Food is entering at a trickle. Medicine and shelter and food are entering at a trickle. This is medieval! If this is supposed to be defending civilization, I don't want to live in that kind of civilization.
Yes, Hamas is a criminal organisation that commits its own warcrimes. But my government isn't arming Hamas or supporting them, it is arming Israel. There is increasing evidence that the IDF is not simply killing human shields but also just killing Palestinians and trying to destroy the conditions for human life in Gaza, trying to destroy the cultural roots of the Palestinians living there. I'm not going to pretend that we shouldn't have expected the IDF to respond to October 7th, but the way they are responding is causing a greater catastrophe.
Also, despite one of the exacerbating factors for October 7th being the manpower shortages of the IDF due to protecting illegal settlers in the West Bank, settler and IDF violence in the West Bank has also ramped up since October 7th with hundreds of Palestinians killed there. Hamas is not in command in the West Bank and does not have a significant presence. This kind of violence is not making Israel safer- as an example, Hamas support has risen in the West Bank since the war started, because they are being seen as actually doing something to oppose Israel.
Lets say Israel succeeds in knocking out Hamas leadership, but allows a significant Palestinian population to remain in Gaza (currently not a guaranteed outcome). What do you think is going to happen to the thousands of people who have lost family members and are now surrounded by IDF boots on the ground? They are sure not going to become friends with Israel! Hamas 2.0 will spring up in the ashes. There are currently 19000 child orphans as a result of the Gazan war. That is a lot of recruits for Hamas 2.0.
If this level of violence doesn't stand out, in 4 months about the same percentage of Gaza's population has been killed (1.3%) as UK citizens (soldiers and civilians, not from colonies) died over 6 years of WW2 (1.1%). I expect that percentage to rise as the famine kicks in and disease spreads, in the same manner seen in Yemen (with nearly 400000 dead over 8 years).
|
|
