Israel/Hamas conflict

[Quagmire2]

Nonsense. The violence is owned by Israel now. At least 99% of all the violence going on is perpetrated by Israel now. If they stop, the violence stops.

Until the next time Hamas decides to launch an attack.

You want a temporary peace to feel good.

It's like after 9/11 saying if we pull out of Afghanistan, the violence stops, but Bin Laden is never held accountable. Or saying they will release the hostages that started the whole conflict after we stop fighting.

Or what some are saying in the Ukraine/Russia thread that Ukraine should just give up the land Russia took to end the war. Let's just reward the actions of the bad actors.

I am not saying Israel's actions are perfect. Nor is the idiot Netanyahu helping with his own rhetoric, but the notion of rewarding the bad actors for the sake of peace is ridiculous.

 

[madodel]

Biden Imposes Sanctions on Israeli Settlers Over West Bank Violence

President Biden on Thursday ordered broad financial and travel sanctions on Israeli settlers accused of violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, a gesture aimed in part at Arab American voters in the United States who are furious with the president’s backing of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Mr. Biden authorized the sanctions with an executive order that goes further than a directive issued in December by the State Department, which imposed visa bans on dozens of Israeli settlers who have committed acts of violence in the West Bank.

 

[Bet TSLA]

Until the next time Hamas decides to launch an attack.

You want a temporary peace to feel good.

Riiiiiight. This is the argument of a person who says: "No, let's not do the appendectomy, as the patient will no doubt die someday anyway."

the notion of rewarding the bad actors for the sake of peace is ridiculous

And the notion that after 20,000+ dead by Israeli violence that stopping the violence constitutes "rewarding" the victims is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Quagmire2]

Riiiiiight. This is the argument of a person who says: "No, let's not do the appendectomy, as the patient will no doubt die someday anyway."


And the notion that after 20,000+ dead by Israeli violence that stopping the violence constitutes "rewarding" the victims is beyond ridiculous.

That is totally not the same argument. Having Israel stop now will not solve the problem of Hamas launching more attacks in the future. Any peace will be temporary. Take the weak response we had after Bin Laden came to attack the twin towers the first time. Came right back to finish the job on 9/11.

So Hamas are the victims now?

 

[Sti-g]

That is totally not the same argument. Having Israel stop now will not solve the problem of Hamas launching more attacks in the future. Any peace will be temporary. Take the weak response we had after Bin Laden came to attack the twin towers the first time. Came right back to finish the job on 9/11.

So Hamas are the victims now?

You are correct. If Israel stops now, and somehow the Gaza is rebuilt, and we are back to status quo, Hamas will attack again. It is only normal. You cannot continue to oppress people, violate their freedoms, imprison them in tiny land, and expect no armed resistance. If you disagree with this, I would like to ask you: What is your opinion regarding whether if Israel is occupying Gaza and West Bank?

 

[Sti-g]

So if you're getting stabbed in the hospital by the nurses, you wouldn't check out?

I even looked up your video of the "Israeli children singing about genocide" and again, you cherrypick stuff out of context and miss the scale difference between "this is a fringe minority" (hence why the video was taken down) vs "this is the majority opinion per voting, polls, etc."
The Israeli children were (allegedly) refugees from settlements that had to be evacuated due to the terrorist attacks.

Did Israeli children really sing about annihilating everyone in Gaza?

It’s the latest video to have caused outrage online, showing children singing about the "annihilation" of Gaza and its people. The video was even posted and then removed by Kan, an Israeli state-owned news channel. #TheCube

www.euronews.com

FWIW, this source was rated "left-center bias" and "High" for factual.

What I "cherry picked" is a video broadcasted in state owned news channel. Not tik tok, not Ben Gvir's twitter account, state owned news channel, as per the link you shared:

The video was even posted and then removed by Kan, an Israeli state-owned news channel.

This is a perfect example of bias. When some teacher in some school teaches Palestinian kids to hate jews, it is big news. But when state media (ie, government) spends time and energy to record a video of kids singing about genocide, broadcast in state owned news channel, it is cherry picking.

 

[Quagmire2]

You are correct. If Israel stops now, and somehow the Gaza is rebuilt, and we are back to status quo, Hamas will attack again. It is only normal. You cannot continue to oppress people, violate their freedoms, imprison them in tiny land, and expect no armed resistance. If you disagree with this, I would like to ask you: What is your opinion regarding whether if Israel is occupying Gaza and West Bank?

I have always been for a two-state solution.

How that would look I have no clue. Whether Hamas or the current Israeli government will accept that, I got no clue. Other Israeli governments have been for it so they need to elect those people again, but who knows about Hamas.

It's horrifying seeing civilians on both sides get dragged into this. But I can't believe people believe Hamas are the victims though..... What is currently going on now would not be occurring without the atrocities of October 7th.

 

[indysurfer]

You are correct. If Israel stops now, and somehow the Gaza is rebuilt, and we are back to status quo, Hamas will attack again. It is only normal. You cannot continue to oppress people, violate their freedoms, imprison them in tiny land, and expect no armed resistance.

You mean the status quo of Hamas still in charge and totally rejecting any peace or coexistence of Jews inside Israel?

Do you realize that Hamas is not quibbling over 67 borders or portions of Jerusalem that can be negotiated with? Hamas wants all Jews in Israel wiped out.

So if you truly care about the Palestinians more than you hate Israel, you should want Hamas off the scene as soon as humanly possible so Israel can have a peace partner that are not genocidal Islamist maniacs.

 

[bhzmark]

Nonsense. The violence is owned by Israel now. At least 99% of all the violence going on is perpetrated by Israel now. If they stop, the violence stops.

And the notion that after 20,000+ dead by Israeli violence that stopping the violence constitutes "rewarding" the victims is beyond ridiculous.

Seeing these arguments, and presumably by the more intelligent of those who don’t want Israel to defend itself, reminds me of the early days of 2017-2020 and seeing the TSLAQ crowd argue about Tesla going bankrupt any day — the weakness of the TSLAQ arguments convinced me that the TSLAQ bear position is a loser — they were so blinded by their bias, they lacked real facts and evidence, they were obviously guided by emotion. Same here.

The violence by Israel is precisely solely in response to the outrageous actions of Oct 7 and every moral fiber in my being hopes that every person who planned, participated, or supported those Oct 7 events is captured or killed and otherwise never allowed to do it again. Justice and morality absolutely requires it. Those who don’t see this are simply missing some basic facts, or missing basic morals in their constitution.

And now how to get to that justice is now ruled by the international rules of war — I posted those in detail up thread and also the facts supporting that Israel is following those rules. And the ICJ had. chance to find that Israel was violating them — all those who are shreiking that Israel is violating them presented their best facts and arguments, and the ICJ didn’t agree — they didn’t find that Israel was committing genocide, or any other violations of law. Indeed this preliminary ruling is completely consistent with Israel’s right to defend its territory and its people in the wake of the horrific October 7 attacks. And the Court explicitly expressed its grave concern about the fate of the October 7 hostages and to call for their immediate and unconditional release.

To be clear: That was the only immediate affirmative directive in the ruling — release the hostages.

It was terrible that innocent German civilians died and Japanese civilians died in WWII — but that is the predictable and moral consequence of the aggression of their leadership — same here. People attacked have a right to defend themselves, including pursuing the attackers, and rescuing those who were taken. As bad as it was in WWII and as bad as it is now, responding to unjust attacks than involve civilian causalities is better than the alternative of encouraging similar unjust attacks in the future. It boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people don’t get that.

Over the long term, the world is becoming a more peaceful place (see Pinker, Better Angels) and a huge part of that is the consistent repudiation of acts of aggression and belligerence. Attacks on neighbors such as by Gazans and Russia must be rejected forcefully and decisively for the world to continue to become more peaceful in the long run.

If you have any doubt, review each of these websites in detail and consider how else to respond to these facts:

These videos are difficult to watch

These are crimes against humanity – and the world must know.

saturday-october-seven.com

Hamas Massacre - October 2023

On October 7, 2023, thousands of Hamas terrorists breached Israel’s security fence. Over 1,400 men, women, and children were murdered in the ensuing attack. More than 200 were kidnapped to Gaza. These graphic videos and images document the horrors of that day.

www.hamas-massacre.net

https://archive.is/2023.12.28-171632/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html

 

[Tiger]

Cutting funding with this excuse is collective punishment which is a war crime.

It has always puzzled me why war itself is not declared a crime. Any party engaging in war should be declared a terrorist. /s

 

[bhzmark]

It has always puzzled me why war itself is not declared a crime. Any party engaging in war should be declared a terrorist. /s

International law distinguishes between the legality of going to war, governed by "jus ad bellum," and the conduct within war, governed by "jus in bello" or international humanitarian law.

**Jus ad Bellum:**
- This set of rules determines under what conditions states may resort to war or use force. The United Nations Charter (1945) significantly restricts states' rights to wage war, primarily allowing it in self-defense or with a UN Security Council mandate.
- Under these principles, starting a war can be deemed illegal if it violates the UN Charter's provisions. However, the illegality of starting a war (aggression) is distinct from war crimes committed during a war.

**Jus in Bello (International Humanitarian Law):**
- Once war has begun, regardless of its legality, international humanitarian law applies to all parties equally. This law includes the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, aiming to protect those who are not participating in hostilities and to regulate the means and methods of warfare.
- War crimes are serious breaches of these laws, such as targeting civilians, using banned weapons, torture, and taking hostages. Committing war crimes is illegal and subject to prosecution, regardless of whether the war itself is legal.

**Aggression as a War Crime:**
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has defined the crime of aggression, which includes planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state in a manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.
- While aggression is a leader's or country's act, war crimes can be committed by individuals and are prosecutable under international law.

**Defense Against War:**
- Defending against an aggressor is not a crime under international law. The right to self-defense is recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter, provided the use of force is “necessary and proportionate.”

Contrary to many uninformed Hamas supporters, “proportionate” doesn’t mean since Hamas only killed 1400, then IDF can only kill 1400.

Proportionate looks at what is reasonably needed to repel the aggression. This means the response should be limited to what is required to address the threat. In this case the threat is Hamas leadership and Hamas terrorists — they can be pursued to be captured or killed to eliminate their threat.
It is legal for “Collateral Damage” in the form of civilian deaths. Efforts must be made to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure (such as is done with warnings and limited targeting) and a proportionate response considers the balance between the direct military advantage anticipated and the potential for incidental loss of civilian life or damage.

So war itself, especially to defend yourself, is not a crime under international law. Starting a war (such as Oct 7) is an act of aggression and thus illegal. Defending against war, when done in accordance with international law, is not a crime.

 

[Tiger]

International law distinguishes between the legality of going to war, governed by "jus ad bellum," and the conduct within war, governed by "jus in bello" or international humanitarian law.

**Jus ad Bellum:**
- This set of rules determines under what conditions states may resort to war or use force. The United Nations Charter (1945) significantly restricts states' rights to wage war, primarily allowing it in self-defense or with a UN Security Council mandate.
- Under these principles, starting a war can be deemed illegal if it violates the UN Charter's provisions. However, the illegality of starting a war (aggression) is distinct from war crimes committed during a war.

**Jus in Bello (International Humanitarian Law):**
- Once war has begun, regardless of its legality, international humanitarian law applies to all parties equally. This law includes the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, aiming to protect those who are not participating in hostilities and to regulate the means and methods of warfare.
- War crimes are serious breaches of these laws, such as targeting civilians, using banned weapons, torture, and taking hostages. Committing war crimes is illegal and subject to prosecution, regardless of whether the war itself is legal.

**Aggression as a War Crime:**
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has defined the crime of aggression, which includes planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state in a manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.
- While aggression is a leader's or country's act, war crimes can be committed by individuals and are prosecutable under international law.

**Defense Against War:**
- Defending against an aggressor is not a crime under international law. The right to self-defense is recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter, provided the use of force is “necessary and proportionate.”

Contrary to many uninformed Hamas supporters, “proportionate” doesn’t mean since Hamas only killed 1400, then IDF can only kill 1400.

Proportionate looks at what is reasonably needed to repel the aggression. This means the response should be limited to what is required to address the threat. In this case the threat is Hamas leadership and Hamas terrorists — they can be pursued to be captured or killed to eliminate their threat.
It is legal for “Collateral Damage” in the form of civilian deaths. Efforts must be made to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure (such as is done with warnings and limited targeting) and a proportionate response considers the balance between the direct military advantage anticipated and the potential for incidental loss of civilian life or damage.

So war itself, especially to defend yourself, is not a crime under international law. Starting a war (such as Oct 7) is an act of aggression and thus illegal. Defending against war, when done in accordance with international law, is not a crime.

I would call all this crime when you kill people. It should be similar like inside a country: only the police has monopoly on policing people. World police should have monopoly on policing conflicts between countries. The world police would be owned by all people of the world in equal proportion. Ofcourse a problem arises if the world police itself becomes corrupt like the UN. Maybe AI can formulate how that could work, probably more or less as complex as a game of go. Perhaps we need competing "policing service providers" and you can subscribe to the one(s) that serves your interests best.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1720546292978630867

 

[Sti-g]

I have always been for a two-state solution.

How that would look I have no clue. Whether Hamas or the current Israeli government will accept that, I got no clue. Other Israeli governments have been for it so they need to elect those people again, but who knows about Hamas.

It's horrifying seeing civilians on both sides get dragged into this. But I can't believe people believe Hamas are the victims though..... What is currently going on now would not be occurring without the atrocities of October 7th.

Well, I don't know one-state or two-state solution is the right one. I have my opinions but it is something that can only be decided by people who live there.

I don't think anyone here believes hamas is the victim. Palestinians are the victim. This is an important distinction.

 

[Sti-g]

You mean the status quo of Hamas still in charge and totally rejecting any peace or coexistence of Jews inside Israel?

Do you realize that Hamas is not quibbling over 67 borders or portions of Jerusalem that can be negotiated with? Hamas wants all Jews in Israel wiped out.

So if you truly care about the Palestinians more than you hate Israel, you should want Hamas off the scene as soon as humanly possible so Israel can have a peace partner that are not genocidal Islamist maniacs.

I do want hamas off the scene. But unless Israel changes its attitude, that won't solve anything. As you very well know, Netanyahu is responsible from hamas. It was his plan to break Palestinian leadership by supporting hamas.

Now if hamas goes away, but we are back to occupied Gaza, with its walls and fences.... I think another group, may be better may be worse than hamas will form. I don't know if you still don't believe the death toll numbers, but when you have nearly 30k people massacred, 60k people injured, that means you have a lot of angry people. And their anger is justified. We cannot accept that they won't react in the future. Unless, maybe, if Israel stops the occupation and oppression, that may lead to healing.

 

[Sti-g]

It has always puzzled me why war itself is not declared a crime. Any party engaging in war should be declared a terrorist. /s

I know, right? I find the term "war crime" an oxymoron. War is a crime.

 

[indysurfer]

I do want hamas off the scene. But unless Israel changes its attitude, that won't solve anything.

Good - we have some common ground.

Historically, there are plenty of people and elected leaders in Israel who are willing to live peacefully with a 2 state solution. Of course, many attitudes in Israel have been hardened after the 10/7 atrocities and it will take some time for reconciliation and to rebuild trust. It will not happen overnight and it will not happen while Hamas is still in power, holding hostages and firing rockets into Israel.

So, nothing can happen until Hamas is out of power.

Hamas just turned down another ceasefire deal today.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753467303981715635

 

[Tiger]

Good - we have some common ground.

Historically, there are plenty of people and elected leaders in Israel who are willing to live peacefully with a 2 state solution. Of course, many attitudes in Israel have been hardened after the 10/7 atrocities and it will take some time for reconciliation and to rebuild trust. It will not happen overnight and it will not happen while Hamas is still in power, holding hostages and firing rockets into Israel.

So, nothing can happen until Hamas is out of power.

Hamas just turned down another ceasefire deal today.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1753467303981715635

If they were (the?) trusted good guys that would be a sound offer.

 

[Sti-g]

The violence by Israel is precisely solely in response to the outrageous actions of Oct 7 and every moral fiber in my being hopes that every person who planned, participated, or supported those Oct 7 events is captured or killed and otherwise never allowed to do it again. Justice and morality absolutely requires it. Those who don’t see this are simply missing some basic facts, or missing basic morals in their constitution.

I absolutely agree that anyone who killed civilians should face justice. I guess where we differ is how this justice is applied. You cannot level a city, kill 10s of thousands, injure 10s of thousands while starving the population in the name bringing justice. If you do, then as you said, that person is missing basic morals in their constitution.

And now how to get to that justice is now ruled by the international rules of war — I posted those in detail up thread and also the facts supporting that Israel is following those rules. And the ICJ had. chance to find that Israel was violating them — all those who are shreiking that Israel is violating them presented their best facts and arguments, and the ICJ didn’t agree — they didn’t find that Israel was committing genocide, or any other violations of law. Indeed this preliminary ruling is completely consistent with Israel’s right to defend its territory and its people in the wake of the horrific October 7 attacks. And the Court explicitly expressed its grave concern about the fate of the October 7 hostages and to call for their immediate and unconditional release.

To be clear: That was the only immediate affirmative directive in the ruling — release the hostages.

I don't think there is any international rules of war that Israel has not disobeyed. ICJ ruling was never about declaring genocide. That decision will be made later. ICJ ruling is very clear and court agreed with South Africa that Israel is potentially committing genocide and that it has to stop. Ruling literally says they have to stop what looks like genocidal act.

 

[Sti-g]

Proportionate looks at what is reasonably needed to repel the aggression. This means the response should be limited to what is required to address the threat. In this case the threat is Hamas leadership and Hamas terrorists — they can be pursued to be captured or killed to eliminate their threat.
It is legal for “Collateral Damage” in the form of civilian deaths. Efforts must be made to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure (such as is done with warnings and limited targeting) and a proportionate response considers the balance between the direct military advantage anticipated and the potential for incidental loss of civilian life or damage.

If you think leveling a city and using dumb, 2000lb bombs in dense population areas is proportionate, there is nothing to discuss.

So war itself, especially to defend yourself, is not a crime under international law. Starting a war (such as Oct 7) is an act of aggression and thus illegal. Defending against war, when done in accordance with international law, is not a crime.

You cannot defend yourself from the people you occupy, as per ICJ.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International Law/ilp261104.pdf

The Court found that it did not need to consider this aspect of self defence because Israel controlled the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the international law rules on self-defence were therefore irrelevant.

 

[Sti-g]

Good - we have some common ground.

Historically, there are plenty of people and elected leaders in Israel who are willing to live peacefully with a 2 state solution.

I don't think so. There may be few people in the past in Israel leadership that were willing to have peace, but majority did not. Even when they said they were willing, in the background they did things contrary to this peace. Netanyahu is the prime example.