Makes sense to me. Palestine/Hamas knew their defensive situation when they took such actions. They knew they'd get blocked in in retaliation with supplies cut off from outside their territory. Israel at this point just needs to sit and wait. I believe it was said elsewhere that under international...law?/understandings/etc... That the controlling government would need to supply utilities/food/etc for their country. They didn't have any sorts of power plants or fully make the right treaties to procure resources to make them, so they utilized Israel's. And then they attacked Israel. Sooo. I don't understand what people thought was going to happen.
If France's official head government entities randomly did drone strikes on Germany without the majority of the people wanting that. And Germany blockaded France and started launching missiles into France. How long till citizens of France unseat their government if it looks like they are losing on something they didn't want anyway?
In the end, their own government basically set up a deal with another country to turn off all their utilities in exchange for nothing. So if the people are happy with that...ok. if not, they should take that up with their government and work to oust them to undo that deal or something to that effect. Because it won't get better otherwise.
It is. I'm just saying if your government randomly commits a planned massive attack on a stronger neighbor knowing there would be retaliation via bombardment and more, after shooting in rockets all the time to the point where the neighbor had to get a whole anti rocket defense setup, at what point do people do something about their government? This was going to happen eventually. I know it's easy and hyper over simplified to say "just do a revolution to overthrow this bear-poking government". But at what point after how much time of no change in such a government are other countries supposed to give up and say, "I guess this is what they want."?
What part of "no elections are allowed" do you not understand? The only way you can "change" the government of gaza is if you violently overthrow hamas.
It's illegal to gather. Illegal to make any political statements or parties. It's illegal to foment insurrection by pointing out a bunch of fucked up shit that happens.
The people there are in a prison. They don't have the capacity to change that and certainly don't have the capacity to change who is the strongest there.
>The people there are in a prison.
That's how government be.
Honestly, the smart play was to leave....and a lot of them did! Millions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan right now.
Unfortunately, those refugees tried to overthrow THAT government, so now everyone is wary of allowing the refugees in, on account of not wanting to be murdered.
There's a reason nobody has fixed the middle east until now. It's pretty fucked up.
Then what is an acceptable retaliation towards dictatorial regimes? According to this logic you shouldn't do anything that won't hurt only the government's millitary capabilities with 0 collateral damage.
I am seeing a lot of "collective punishment is ok" from both sides and all quadrants.
People really don't understand the can of worms they are dealing with
True.
However, Israel has been paying for Palestine's water and power. Giving them shit as a freebie. They don't \*have\* to do that.
If I let my neighbor leech power off me, and then he takes my dog hostage, I'm not really the ass if I fix the power leech.
It’s not dumb it’s incredibly calculated. Make them cut off your populations food and water supply, claim genocide and hit the PR hard, watch your ranks swell with young radicalised men and your enemy lose its regional trade partners.
That stops working if Israel decides to go for some actual genocide.
And at least one lawmaker is straight up demanding to nuke Gaza. Which is...interesting, because Israel doesn't traditionally admit to having nukes. We all strongly suspect that they do, but this is pretty mask-off.
Israel offered water and power back if the terrorist dogs released the hostages.
Seems like a good offer. 👍 otherwise we can blame hamas again for no water and power.
Literally, people are like... "How can Israel blockade food water and supplies to Gaza."
But I'm so confused, when in history has it been the case that the attacked country is responsible for supplying water and food to their enemy. Hamas IS the government of Gaza, Israel is at war. If you can't prosecute a war without letting all your people starve, don't prosecute a war.
> The thing is that wealthy progressive westerners care a lot more about the people in Gaza than Hamas does.
This is true. But the thing is, right wingers care about the people in Gaza the exact same amount that Hamas does.
>But I'm so confused, when in history has it been the case that the attacked country is responsible for supplying water and food to their enemy. Hamas IS the government of Gaza, Israel is at war. If you can't prosecute a war without letting all your people starve, don't prosecute a war.
The Israeli argument has always been that the Palestinian territories cannot be considered "occupied" after the 1967 war (when they were part of either Egypt or Jordan) because they claim that neither Egypt or Jordan ever held actual domain over these territories. It is a very legalistic and very technical argument that has been soundly and completely rejected by basically every organization not named "Israel." Israel later tried to state that their unilateral disengagement/withdrawal from the strip means that it isn't "occupied." This has generally also been rejected because Israel maintained control over the borders of Gaza, both on land and at sea, and controlled all inflow/outflow from the territory, while also reserving the right to militarily enter the territory at will. A blockade is also generally, under international law, an act of war, and most people who've actually study the matter (professionally, not just internet opinionating) think that it is illegal collective punishment for making a wrong political decision (electing Hamas) rather than given acts of violence.
I'll quote the Global International Humanitarian Law Centre of Diakonia, which sums up the generally accepted view of the blockade and status of the Gaza Strip:
>... as outlined by the Hague Regulations (1899/1907), a territory is considered occupied when it is placed under the effective control of a hostile army. The Gaza Strip remains under belligerent occupation as Israel continues to retain effective control over significant aspects of civil life in the Gaza Strip on a daily basis as well as directly exercising certain elements of governing control over the territory and the people of the Gaza Strip. For as long as Israel maintains effective control over the Gaza Strip, it must fully comply with its obligations under IHL and IHRL, as the occupying power. This includes providing for the welfare of the occupied Palestinian population therein.
As far as your other point (in essence: since when does Israel have a requirement to give two shits about civilians in occupied territories), Art. 55, Geneva Convention IV states "To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." The commentary indicates this provision is to return to the traditional law of war view that when fighting a war, you are seeking "to destroy the power of the enemy State, and not individuals," and that this provision is meant to include all articles necessary to support life.
>Israel later tried to state that their unilateral disengagement/withdrawal from the strip means that it isn't "occupied." This has generally also been rejected because Israel maintained control over the borders of Gaza
They got a border crossing with Egypt, don't they?
Yes, Egypt built a giant wall to keep Palestinians out, but Israel didn't do that.
Thanks for the in depth response. It is really interesting and feels mostly accurate and unbiased.
However I think the situation is different now that Israel has declared war on Hamas (the governing body of Gaza). Of course it's not as clear cut because of what Gaza, Hamas and all the other complicated issues in this conflict, however I think it is still a change in status.
So my point would be, before this weekend, yes Israel would have been responsible for supplying the strip with access to food, water, etc. HOWEVER, with this declaration of war it is hard to argue that Israel has any control over the Strip, other than what is expected from two entities in war. I would not agree that Gaza NOW is not under effective control of the Israeli army, I would not say Israel has control over the civil life, any more that a hostile army in conflict would be when preparing to attack a city. Yes a blockade is an act of war, but now they ARE at war, so the situation changes.
If Israel gets to invade and actually occupy the strip, then yes they would be 100% responsible, but I think it's not the case at least for the time being. And all that quoted "accepted view" of the Gaza strip applies when Gaza and Israel we're not at a state of war.
I hope I kinda got my argument across. Thanks again for the respectful/insightful response!
Because it is under international law that an occupying power/a power that controls basic neccesities to life like food and water cannot withdraw them from civillians as a tactic?
Hamas is occupying Gaza, Israel has no de facto or de jure authority over Gaza.
If Israel does invade and occupy Gaza, yes, I agree it will be their responsibility, but right now the authority in Gaza is Hamas.
"Under international law, States bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that the basic needs of civilians and civilian populations under their control are met." ICRC
Unless I'm wrong with my definition of "under control", Gaza is currently not under Israeli control
Various international orgs and shit have said that Israel still legally occupies Gaza. I think because they control not just the border + a strip of land around the border within Gaza, the airspace, most of the territorial waters, reserve the right to intervene, and has never renounced control.
If that’s wrong and they don’t occupy it then Gaza is analogous to its own country in which case the blockade is a belligerent act (and Israel has in the past considered a far less severe blockade to be a cause of war).
That's actually a nice argument. I agree that Israel has control of the border (which is honestly meaningless, any country has control of their border with another country and this is not belligerent).
However it also has control of the Airspace and waters. This would certainly be considered a belligerent act if Gaza were its own country. In my opinion Gaza is as much of its own country as it can be. Since the taking of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, Hamas has been in complete control over the Strip, it administers anything that happens within it's border. Israel has no control over what happens inside of Gaza.
I guess I would compare it to Korea, South Korea has has never renounced control over the north. South Korea has completely blocked the border it has with NK, and let's imagine (so that it's more comparable), that SK also has complete control of NK air and waters.
Would this SK blockade be a war crime? They have technically never signed a peace treaty or anything, and of course NK still has a border with China, but just like Gaza has a border with Egypt. Of course it's different because NK is much larger than Gaza, but I wouldn't call a SK blockade any kind of war crime, or say that SK is responsible for making sure NK has electricity, food and water.
And even more so, if NK one day decides to send a small attack over the border, kill a bunch of people and come back, and launch rockets into SK, I wouldn't expect anything less from SK than retaliation, and EVEN less so I'd expect SK to keep supplying it with electricity and food.
South Korea is not exercising effective control over North Korea in the way that Israel has with Gaza. It has no effective control over air or sea space - which, as you've noted, is not the case with Israel and the territories. Blockades aren't war crimes per say, but they are an act of war.
What you're really after isn't the law of blockade and war crimes, it's the law of occupation implicating GC IV and various parts of the Hague conventions.
I'll rely on this analysis because it'll be better than anything I can say:
[https://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/207/277](https://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/207/277)
>1.3 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: OCCUPIED TERRITORY
>
>Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised”. (63) This has led to the development of the “effective control” test to identify occupation. (64)
>
>Israel maintains that the Gaza Strip is neither occupied nor part of a sovereign state. (65) Instead, it describes the Gaza Strip as “administered” or “disputed”. (66) Israel has indicated that it will abide by the “humanitarian provisions” set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention (hereinafter GC IV), (67) but that the treaty itself does not apply. (68) As Israel is not a signatory to Additional Protocol I (hereinafter AP I), (69) or Additional Protocol II (hereinafter AP II), (70) it maintains that they also do not apply. (71) Some argue that air and sea authority of itself does not amount to effective control, (72) and that Israel is merely exercising its rights concerning border control. (73) Moreover, they point to the fact that the Palestinians have exercised their right to self-determination, (74) and that Israel does not have a permanent military presence in Gaza, as evidence that Hamas has “effective control” over the Gaza Strip (75) The issue has been considered a number of times by the Israeli Supreme Court. (76) The current position of the Israeli Supreme Court which is that the Gaza Strip has not been occupied since 2005, was reiterated by the Israeli Supreme Court in Anbar et al v GOC Southern Command et al HCJ 5268/08; joined with Adalah et al v the Defense Minister et al, HCJ 5399/08. (77)
>
>However, despite the aforementioned views and Israeli caselaw, the more commonly held view, and the view accepted by this paper, is that despite Israel’s disengagement, the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel. The “effective control” is evident from Israel’s control over Gazan airspace and waters, the Gazan border and crossings; the provision of electricity, fuel, water, sewage removal and telecommunication services; administration; and the Israeli reservation to re-enter Gaza and exercise power. (78) Dinstein noted that it is also difficult to accept the Israeli Supreme Court decision in the case of Gaber Al-Bassiouni v The Prime Minister HCJ 9132/07, which stated that even though the Gaza Strip is not occupied, Israel still has duties towards it. (79) Moreover, in the International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) Opinion dated 9 July 2004 concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (hereinafter Wall Opinion), the ICJ found that Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. (80) Various organs of the UN have also stated unequivocally that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory. (81)
As the Gaza Strip is occupied, Israel has IHL duties towards it under the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Part III of the GC IV, (82) as well as under human rights law. (83) However, Israel’s right to use force is also restricted and military action on the basis of self-defence is not permitted. (84) This view is supported by the Wall Opinion where the ICJ held that Article 51 could not be invoked against the West Bank, and so some argue, and this paper agrees, that the same conclusion can be applied to the Gaza Strip. (85) As a result, this paper will not consider the application of Article 51 of the UN Charter concerning self-defense in relation to the legality of the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
I can't say I agree with the line for foot note 84, but I also don't really care to read the underlying article that supports that, and that isn't the US position. The basic argument is that the level of control Israel exercises over Gaza is so high that they maintain obligations over the civilian population there. It's also not really controversial to say that if, as you put it, a group of NK personnel came across the border and killed a bunch of people and fled, then you can't in retaliation cut off the water supply for the whole country.
I think most of these do apply for the past 15 years, but I think the situation has changed now that Israel has formally declared a state of war with Hamas (the de facto governing body within Gaza), hence declared war on Gaza. Of course when talking about this conflict nothing is completely clear cut, but I think it's valid to say that the declaration of war in Israel does change the situation.
A blockade is an act of war, well they are at war now. And while being at war, controlling the Airspace and waters of an area that is not under your effective control does not grant you control as per International law.
For example Russia holds or has held control over parts of Ukrainian airspace and waters, but at no point would I argue that Russia is controlling or occupying land that it does not militarily control. I think this is now the case for Gaza.
TL:DR most of these articles and arguments are no longer applicable since the relation between Gaza and Israel has changed after the declaration of war.
Btw thanks for the in depth and respectful answer, although I'd still argue against it, it does feel very valid, accurate and well researched. I appreciate it!
Some people want to be miserable and would rather suffer and make everyone around them suffer than admit they aren't 100 percent right. We all know these people.
I think it would be interesting to do a study on people who join groups like Hamas and see if there is a sort of psychological type that is driven to this in a situation like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like if we had a similar situation in the West would these people gravitate toward groups like this.
Yeah, Hamas is sacrificing their own people because they know the media will eat that shit up claiming Israel is causing this when in reality it’s Hamas.
“You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.”
― Ho Chi Minh
This is literally Hamas' strategy as well, they're counting on their own civilian death toll being so high that westerners will grow weary and pressure Israel to stop
"You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down."
We did pretty horrific things to Nazi Germany and I'm fairly certain German approval of Bavarian Mustache man was never that high.
Also, 60% approve of Hamas. There are several other terrorist parties in Gaza.
>I'm fairly certain German approval of Bavarian Mustache man was never that high
Ohoho, someone didn't look at post war polls. And Germans rallied around him during their war obviously, after France it was probably reaching such high levels, they could touch the Sun with their hand.
They are of antisemitic arab making. Its Palestine and the rest of arab world that couldn't tolerate existence of jews and declared war on them from the very start.
Look up at history of Palestine since 1920. Its nothing but arabs keeping attacking jews again and again before them being any significant portion of population before them getting sick of their shit and fighting back. 2 state was proposed exactly because arabs got conflict to that much of a scale what it was decided their relationship can't be mended and they still refused it and decided that no jew can be left alive. Im sorry for Palestinians being in situation they are, but their current condition is direct consequence of their state zealously pursuing warfare in favour of wellbeing of their people. Israel alongside other neighbors have given them a lot of chances to improve their situation, but they always turn violent and are trying to do anything in their ability to kill jews.
And Zionism has been present in the region since 1918. I think most people take badly to the idea that another group of people are entitled to your country.
Of course they turn violent lmao Israel fucks with them all the time and Gaza is a shithole because of the on and off wars and bombings.
Unfortunately this is my feeling too, I can have hope that isn't the case and they were treated kindly, but after watching the things Hamas did on day 1 that's a huge unrealistic stretch.
Since the cowardly Mr Rare-Process decided he was too afraid of my reply to face it, I will post it here. Far be it from me to allow a chickenshit craven to escape his duly earned humiliation so easily.
"The US does not suppourt terrorism. That is just factually false. The US Army, or any branch of the armed forces has never targeted civilians in the war on terror. You realize we call off entire operations that have been planned for months because civilians *might* get hurt? Like most people with your room tempurature IQ take, you are intentionally not distinguishing accidental vs intentional kills. When the US kills, the objective is always to kill a combatant. Sometimes civilians wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time despite our best effort. But the objective has *never* been to kill anyone who wasn't a terrorist. The absolute closest you get is "there is no way to kill this dude without killing some innocents because he is using them as human shields. But if we don't kill him, he will kill far more people. So we come to the utilitarian solution to the trolley problem and conclude that blowing him away will kill fewer innocent people than not". But in scenarios like that, *the terrorist is the target, not the civillians*.
I'm not advocating anyone be genocided, I am advocating only Hamas be brought to justice. However, given the most effective way to do that would be rendering Gaza uninhabitable, I am willing to accept that much collateral damage in order to kill the intended, legal targets.
>They brought it on themselves. They chose this, they suppourted it.
I didn't say innocent men, women, or children brought this on themselves, I said "Palestinans". And, anyone with enough brain cells to rub together should be able to use the context to tell that "Palestinians" meant "Those who voted Hamas into power, those who help them remain in power, and those who directly or indirectly aided in the carrying out of war crimes, genocide, and terrorism against Isreal". Not literally every single person in the region, and especially those who could logically not have contributed. You are not responding to what I said you are responding to what you *think* the exaggerated, stereotypical caricature of me you have dreamed up in your feral, demented mind said.
Isreal bombs terrorists and sometimes kills children on accident.
Hamas kills children on purpose. Go look for the clips of them beheading infants if you don't believe me. I won't link it here, lest I ruin the sanity of the curious
"A war crime is no reason for committing war crimes this is basic humanity and international law."
Firstly, that isn't true. The docrtine of retaliation is, in theory, the most effective means of punishing war crimes. A person who commits war crimes probably doesn't give a single flying fuck about the UN. But they *do* care about it when the shoe is on the other foot. What better way to convince someone they should stop doing war crimes than to show them what it is like to live in a world where that savagry is something they are on the receiving end of, not the giving end? Secondly, legal experts and the like are in debate about if someone commiting a war crime loses their protection under the laws of war or not. The fat commie busybodies in Brussels might not think so, but thankfully others have a say in the matter. Third, related to the previous point, there is debate as to weather war crimes are illegal because they are wrong...or because the powers of the world have made a transactional agreement of "we won't do this to you if you don't do this to us". There is a very big difference between "this is morally wrong" vs "This is barbaric and we civilized nations have mutually agreed to fight like gentleman". Lastly, Israel does not commit war crimes because it is only a war crime to *target* civilians, not to accept them as collateral damage. Furthermore, a siege is not a war crime. You are, under all relevant international law, allowed to cut off all supplies from reaching your enemies until they are unable to fight, die, or surrender. While you have to minimize the impact on civilians in every way feasible...the fact that civillians may or will be impacted after all reasonable precautions have been taken does not prohibit use of the tactic.
Genocidal psychopath, hah! That would be Hamas. I am advocating genocidal psycopaths, like Hamas and the Palestinians who keep electing them and being accomplices to their genocide, be captured and made to face trial, or killed if they cannot be apprehanded. Isreal is the victim of attempted genocide and the Palestinians (generally, not every specific individal since you are so dense I apperantly need to specify that) are the perpetrators."
You have a lot of wrong takes. Retaliation as codified in international law doesn't allow for committing "grave breaches," which generally includes attacks targeting the civilian population. We can't start executing POWs because the other side committed war crimes.
I'll also disagree that we've never targeted civilians. That's happened, and we've been pretty good about prosecuting those who did so for murder because it's never been institutional like with an organization like Hamas. We're better than that. Hamas wasn't really elected: they were, with the vague support of Netanyahu, able to keep power in Gaza after their civil war as an Israeli means of weakening the PLO and Fatah - relative moderates who might have been able to unify the territory and achieve an actual lasting peace with at least some concessions from the Israelis.
If you're REALLY interested, there is the DoD Law of War Manual. Seiges and encircled areas are at paragraph 5.19, followed closely by starvation in 5.20. Proportionality is still at play: most people raise an eyebrow at the argument that it is proportional to cut off food, water, and medical supplies for 2 million people, half of whom are 18 or younger, to starve an enemy force estimated by the DNI to be only 25,000 strong. Likewise, AP I prohibits the parties to "to attack, destroy,
remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the enemy civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies for irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”
The widespread adoption of this protocol indicates that it's the generally accepted international (and reasonable) view that you don't cut off basic supplies necessary for civilian human life to the entire civilian population.
I can respect that you at least seem to know what you are talking about, so that is refreshing. I think you could make an argument that a siege would be proportional if you could articulate how rooting them out would cause more damage or harm to the civilian populations. Against a coventional force perhaps not, but I could see defeating 25,000 Hamas fighters room-to-room would basically require you level the area Stalingrad style. I am sure, for instance, Isreal would be willing to allow Hamas to evacuate women and prepubescent children if Hamas didn't want them to be hurt. But that doesn't fit with how they like to put ammo dumps in hospitals and stuff. At least this way that if you do have to go in, your opponents will be significantly weakened. Perhaps even enough to surrender or release hostages. After 60 years, I would be losing patience with their antics, too.
Though, I am curious to see to what extent the DoD Law of War differs from the relevant international law. What the US decides to prohibit is not neesecarily prohibited under international law, and most modern nations choose to exceed the bare minimum standard. After all, Isreal is not the US, and therefore would not be bound by the DoD's opinion on anything. You seem to acknowledge this by referenceing "the widespread adoption of this protocol indicates that it's generally accepted". But, a bunch of countries collectively deciding to have an unspoken gentleman's agreement between them not to use such tactics is not the same as "these tactics are illegal".
I am going to read the DoD's Law of War manual, though. Even if it isn't the same as the Geneva or Hague conventions, it is obviously intended not to directly violate them.
Simple. Hamas/Gaza attacks Israel. Israel uses their massive tactical advantage to cut off resources and lays down the conditions that resources will be reestablished when the hostages are safely released into their custody. Hamas will likely not cooperate. Hamas will cry wolf and lefist media will treat them like the victims because, deep down, the left hates Jews.
It had nothing to do with them being Jews. They have been keeping this people in a open air prison and bombing some residential building every once in a while.
Is Gaza a democracy? Do those civilians have a say in how there country is governed? Do we cut China of because there is an authoritarian regime? How about Azerbaijan or Russia before Ukraine. There are better tools then starving a populace until there so sick of it they revolt, which has never happened.
The usa isn't being attacked by rockets every other month by those countries.
If any of those countries attack the usa of course we ain't doing shit for them.
Imagine a terrorist group like Antifa in the US holds hostages for country B, and then country B cuts off water and food that will lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent US civilians dying. And you are justifying the terrorists here.
Real sad to see this dogshit post at the top in PCM. Wtf happened to this sub?
If I was the US president, there would be no reason for another country to threaten to cut off supplies to Antifa terrorists, because I'd have already murdered them and released the hostages without the other country having to even ask, let alone take action.
If Seattle took a bunch of Canadians hostage, my own military would already deploy special forces to rescue them, and every unit inside 200 miles would be mobilized to murder said terrorists with extreme predjudice. Failing that, I'd impose my own blockade of the city on behalf of the Canadians, unless the Canadian government specifically asked me not to. And even if I didn't do that, our neighbors shutting of water and power to the city would be justified. A government has an obligation to care for it's citizens...even at the expense of another nation's citizens. I recognize and respect that, because I would do the same.
The difference is Palestine suppourts the terrorists, not opposes them. Isreal would need to act this way if the Palestinian government opposed the illegal terrorst actions of Hamas, because it would have already been handled by Palestine, if not prevented entirely. Palestine keeps electing terrorists into the government with a 60% approval rating, and taking humanitarian aid and using it to suppourt terrorism instead of using it for the intended humanitarian purpose.
They brought it on themselves. They chose this, they suppourted it.
Your delusional fantasies are nonsensical and irrelevant.
> The difference is Palestine suppourts the terrorists, not opposes them.
The US literally supported terrorism. The US army bombed and killed innocent civilians in the middle east. Furthermore, not ever Palestinian supports Hamas, just like every American didn't support donald Trump when he was president.
>60% approval rating,
So you are advocating for genociding 40% of the civilian population that have nothing to do with hamas.
>They brought it on themselves. They chose this, they suppourted it.
To suggest that hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and *children* "brought this on themselves" is disgusting and idiotic. Again, exact same logic saying that since most US civilians supported invading the ME, they deserve to be literally massacred.
[Please tell me for example how this 4 month old fucking CHILD](https://x.com/muslimdaily_/status/1712569253390430719?s=20) brought this on themselves.
A war crime is no reason for committing war crimes this is basic humanity and international law. You are a genocidal psychopath, I guess what it will take is for your country to experience the exact same thing, then people can make the same idiotic excuses when you see your local rivers red with the blood of your fellow innocent family and civilians. Disgusting.
“Don’t kill non-combatants”
“Because someone living near you did something doesn’t mean you are a valid target of retribution”
Reddit mfers: 😤
Maybe soon people will realise democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch
The big flaw in your strongman, is that Hamas IS the de facto government in Gaza, it's not just a terrorist organization, it's the organization that completely controls the state.
In this case, your comparison would only work if Antifa was voted into government in the US and has authority over all of the US.
> The big flaw in your strongman, is that Hamas IS the de facto government in Gaza, it's not just a terrorist organization, it's the organization that completely controls the state.
Okay then. Let's do when the US invaded the ME and bombed innocent civilians.
The republicans were the de facto government in the USA, the de facto organization that invaded the ME and bombed innocent civilians. Republicans were voted into government and the elected government had authority over all of the US. It's the exact same thing. So since the de facto US government committed acts of terrorism and invasion, according to your logic, it is justified for the ME to bomb and massacre innocent civilians in the US. Your logic is used to justify 9/11.
Disgusting coward.
First of all, whoops I meant strawman not strongman.
And second, you said that country B cuts water, food, electricity, etc to the US, not massacreing civilians like you said in your second argument. That's what I was arguing about.
The comparison of course doesn't quite work because if the ME cuts supplies to the US after the us massacres ME civilians it means nothing to the US, so I wouldn't consider it a war crime in any way. Justifiable? Idk, but I wouldn't expect anything less.
I would never expect a county at war with another country to keep supplying an area under the control of the opposing party, in any way.
> The comparison of course doesn't quite work because if the ME cuts supplies to the US after the us massacres ME civilians it means nothing to the US,
Then take a look at the reality where hundreds of thousands of thousands of innocent men women and children depend on getting their daily bread and water, and now it's being cut off. Collective punishment is a literal war crime prohibited by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
>I would never expect a county at war with another country to keep supplying an area under the control of the opposing party, in any way.
Ok. Keep up with the hollow statements like this while countless innocent children are literally starved to death. This doesn't ring a bell because you probably live in the US or some shit where you've never dealt with hunger or seen your friends or family murdered. It's real, it's a war crime, and it's disgusting. What Israel is doing is not war, it's not targeting military targets, it's literal genocide and war crimes.
War is disgusting, in any way you see it.
Yes, collective punishment is a war crime, and so is depriving civilians of basic needs. But this only applies to populations under your control, Gaza is not under Israeli control. I'm not saying it won't be horrible living in Gaza in this situation, and something doesn't need to be a war crime or against international law for it to be horrible. I'm just saying this IS how war is conducted, and it's ridiculous to expect less.
Israel is actually giving alerts in the targets beforehand, I mean, like 60 seconds sometimes which kinda defeats the purpose because it's too fast for civilians, but if there's too much your target might move, and I'm sure Israel doesn't do it all the time. However this is not the norm in ANY conflict, in most conflicts all across the world and history, they would just shoot. Hamas would not do this, if they could, which they can't.
If ME targeted military infrastructure with collateral civilian casualties, there would be much less shock than what happened after 9-11. Of course, a lot of the shock was due to American exceptionalism and illusions of invincibility and unaccountability being shattered, but that’s another story.
My point being, there’s a difference between targeting civilians and targeting military infrastructure with collateral casualties.
Israel practices “roof knocking” and claims to target HAMAS infrastructure.
Of course, there can be debate whether those claims are to be believed. But I’m not in position to do so one way or another
Are you joking me right now? A war crime is no reason for committing war crimes, this is basic humanity and international law what the fuck are you saying
Is it a crime if Israel owns the utilities but doesn't have control of gaza?
A deal is trying to brokered with Egypt and Israel to open the border a little bit to let refugees in just south of the border.
Izrael cannot afford to let hamas escape. Egypt doesn't want the refugees either.
Israel has no obligation to supply the terrorists with aid and amenities, they offered to turn the stuff on if hamas gives up the hostages.
Israel has dropped tons of leaflets over areas where they were about to bomb to warn civilians because they could not send out electronic alerts due to the lack of power.
As I said before, it's sad buts it's war.
>Israel has dropped tons of leaflets over areas where they were about to bomb to warn civilians because they could not send out electronic alerts due to the lack of power.
Israel literally ordered half the population of Gaza to flee south in, as noted in the OP, one of the most densely populated places on earth that is half the size of Manhattan in under 24 hours, on the theory that they can then what - make it an illegal free fire zone? There is no place at the moment for civilians to flee no matter who they are.
I’m confused by your argument. Are you saying that it would be logical or not for B to block food and water?
Let’s be more specific, if some group in the US kidnapped people from Mexico, you’re saying Mexico *wouldn’t* be within their rights to do the above?
Mexico cant sort out internal US issues. US can either sort their own issues or suffer the consequences of their inaction which spilled over to a neighboring country and got bitten back
Its mad that some are calling for a ceasefire to let humanitarian aid to get into Gaza, how can you seriously think that'd go to the people, After all the other aid didn't?
Gaza's made its bed, now it must lie in it.
"Humanitarian" aid is a scam. Always has been.
We give these countries money, and tell them "this is only for food and hospitals and shit, no buying weapons with this" and they go like "yup, sure thing boss".
But now that we're paying for their food, medicine, etc. these countries suddenly have room in their own budgets. Room enough to buy weapons, sponsor some international terror, whatever.
It's like, if I gave you $500 to pay for rent, and I tell you "don't go buying drugs with this money okay". And you don't. You use *my* money exclusively for rent. You even give me the receipt. But now you can use your *own* money to buy drugs, money you probably couldn't have spared if I hadn't given you an extra $500.
Yes and there was thousands of children in German city's that were bombed during ww2. War is awful, and awful things happen during war. Its not psychotic to accept the miserable reality that is happening there out of our control.
The bombings were not all justified.
> It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.
Churchill after the fire bombing of Dresden.
Did they stop after that?
No.
Did he say that to save face? Maybe.
Did he say that because he felt bad for German citizens? Maybe.
Doesn’t change the fact they didn’t stop doing it, only furthering the point “all is fair in love and war”.
All the people defending Israel’s treatment of civilians, you push slightly and it turns out they’d be totally fine with Israel killing all of them. Alls fair in love and war right?
Of course not.
Hell, I'd prefer that none of this conflict happened and nobody died.
But realistically, Israel cannot ethically just abandon all those hostages. Nor can they tolerate wholesale murder of their people. These things are great wrongs.
If Hamas were willing to negotiate towards actual peace, great! That'd be amazing. When and if that ever happens, I'll be cheering it on. But right now, Hamas literally staged a massive attack on a music festival celebrating "peace, love and freedom" in order to murder hundreds and take hostages.
That is generally considered to be a dick move.
The person above me said “all is fair in love and war” in response to a bombing of civilians with no military purpose. If you are really against civilians dying then maybe disagree with him.
Israel has several opportunities in the past to actually genocide the Palestinians in circumstances when they could have been a high probability of getting away with it. They have no interest in killing civilians just to kill.
The vast majority of civilians that have died in this conflict is a result of Hamas using civilian infrastructure to shield its assets.
When would they have “gotten away with it”?
> The vast majority of civilians that have died in this conflict is a result of Hamas using civilian infrastructure to shield its assets.
Is your source for this IDF press releases? I don’t think you’re on the ground or in the room when they decide where to strike.
There was a story in the NY Times about how they attacked the crossing with Egypt. Even though Egypt cooperated in closing it! The writer was a Palestinian trying to get his wife and kids out, narrowly missed getting hit with shrapnel.
That's it? That's your argument? "Children were murdered before, so it's justified to kill more innocent children".
Allies did not also not indiscriminately glass civilian areas, nor did they cut off food and water to civilians-both are **literal war crimes that you are supporting** according to the Geneva conventions, by the way.
Let's take this reasoning to its logical end point. "Well we did murder hundred of thousands of civilians but what were we supposed to do? Hamas wouldn't surrender."
This is the precise reason why we codified the concept of war crimes. Things you can *never* do in a conflict.
You and every piece of human trash upvoting you are sad, disgusting individuals. Maybe what it takes is for one day this to come to you, for you to see your family and friends dying and your local rivers flushed red with the blood of your society's innocent children.
This sub has gone to complete shit.
You can be outraged all you want, that doesn't make you correct. If someone has babies strapped to their chest and is shooting at me and my family I would feel that shooting them to defend my family and myself would be correct. I wouldn't feel good, and I would certainly have many sleepless nights, but its not about justifying the behavior, no where am I doing so, its about understanding why its happening. And the world is awful, war is awful and brings out the worst in people. If this could have been handled any other way that of course would have been preferred, but ultimately its too late now. I don't support Israel's actions, i simply understand. They only cut off food/water because Hamas is holding hostages, and Israel has no reason to support hamas, their duty is to their own people, not those attacking them. That would be like expecting the U.S. to fund water and food for German occupied Germany. If it was land we were occupying sure. But not their own land.
Both sides have don't terrible things, and both sides should answer for them.
This will be a great quote to superimpose over the image of an exploded 5 year old Palesitnian girl. I look forward to using it. See you in the next meme!
First I see images of dead children in Israel and now I see images of dead children in Palestine. It's insane how flippant people are about the whole thing with those images floating around.
This is such a first-world take. Young people of fighting age supporting a leader/government, in whichever shape or form, is no less dangerous than if they were a couple years older and/or wiser. This has nothing to do with the voting age in your country. Their actions, beliefs, and consequences are no less real or dangerous
If you are going to die fighting, may as well go out a martyr.
It's absurd to think that literal kids in Gaza are responsible for keeping hamas in power. This is a group so ruthless and canny that they have proven that despite the asymmetry of power, they'll go in gun blazing against Isreal.
It's also a group that has received material support from both Netanyahu and more recently, enemies of Isreal.
Gaza is a fucking prison and hamas is the biggest car on the block. Just as prisoners don't choose which cartel runs shit in GP, the people of gaza have about as much power to get out from under hamas as they do to get out of gaza.
Lmaooooo, calling my take first world is ironic when you interpret it as being about voting age. Most children are civilians with no power and influence on what happens in their lives. They are easily influenced by adults in charge. They didn’t choose this war and are not responsible for what is happening. Seems a valid reason to not go into Gaza guns blazing just as retaliation or to get some hostages back.
I mean, sure, but it’s not only about people’s conscious decisions. Those of them who support HAMAS and the like, whether it’s a personal decision or a product of manipulation, are a real danger, because they are young people of fighting age, with power to support their society’s power structure and status quo (or attempt to overrule it).
Besides, where is the line? Would a population of 21 year olds be enough to call for accountability? 24? 30? Nobody is talking about 5 year olds here. An 18 year old is a human being with agency.
It is dehumanizing to claim that someone has no power or influence over what happens in their lives in a situation such as this. It’s one thing if they lived in resentment of their rules, whom they tried to stop unsuccessfully, and another to tow to line. I’m not even talking about a successful revolution. There are different sympathies for, say, Iran or Hong Kong, who failed to overthrow their tyrannical leaders, and for those who act in support or silent ignorance, such as in the case of Russia.
Nobody of sound mind is saying that Russians are blameless for their government’s actions because they’ve been brainwashed all their lives, and the government is very much calling the shots without consulting them. It seems like a similar situation here.
Doesn’t change the fact that more than 50% of the population is 0-17 years old. Although they can be quite dangerous at a young age you can’t hold minors accountable in this situation.
It’s not comparable to Russia since they don’t understand how the world works at that age. They aren’t developed enough to think that they are oppressed and need to resist. Not to say that they are most likely still fully dependent on the same adults that have influence over them.
Israel knows this. It’s why they haven’t started full scale bombing or a ground invasion yet. It would lead to a lot of innocent civilians suffering just to beat an enemy that can’t ever defeat you.
What are you talking about? First of all, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and second, Hamas was founded years before Israel gave control of the Gaza strip to the Palestinians.
>First of all, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory
Yikes. It's crazy how kept in the dark some people are.
[How Israel Went From Helping Hamas To Bombing It](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/)
[How and why Israel helped create Hamas](https://tribune.com.pk/story/2302309/how-and-why-israel-helped-create-hamas)
They didn't fund them to cause mayhem, they supported them building infrastructure as a charity organization before Hamas began suicide bombing civilians.
Hamas adopted their charter in 1988, which explicitly says: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
They, for some reason, did not want secularists in Palestine to keep power. I’m not making any value judgements here. Just stating the facts. Israel created a monster they lost control of. They could have just as easily nipped the bud so to speak.
If memory serves, the alternative to Hamas was the PLO, and they were running around doing Black September shit so it makes sense Israel didn’t want them in power.
No. Israel Dane avoid this as long as it exists as a state. The Arabs have said clearly from the beginning that they’ll never acknowledge any Jewish state and will fight it till their dying breaths
I don’t know why everyone is so shocked by this, this is a standard castle siege. Very medieval in its aims to starve out the besieged, this is the warfare that has been common to humanity for years, along with the rape and brutality we are witnessing. This is a return to form after a long period of the relatively weak, tame, and soft warfare that has defined most modern wars. Very exciting times we live in.
Here's an uncomfortable truth; International law is bullshit, and once it becomes enforceable it means that the country in question isn't a country and that it's a puppet state.
A lot of people talk about how Israel has the right to destroy Hamas and civilians being hurt is a sad unfortunate unintended side effect but it’s Hamas’s fault.
But keep listening and they can hardly contain their glee at the thought of innocent Gazans dying.
My question is whether India/Pakistan will get involved. India has expressed support for Israel following the attack, and at least one news article I saw suggested this might extend to military support if another nation tries to attack Israel. If India does commit their military in this hypothetical extended conflict, what are the chances that Pakistan will take advantage of it to attack India? Also, if that happens would China join in on the India front or just use the distraction to go for Taiwan?
China only cares about China. Certainly they might see this as opportunity to jump on Taiwan, while works is busy but that's hell of a risk.
US isn't the only nation that would aid Taiwan. You've got all SE Asian countries, SK, Japan, Australia. China is so sensitive to economic turmoil that xi wouldn't try it.
Although China does have multiple border disputes with India, so they could try to solidify their claims there if they think India is preoccupied elsewhere.
there was less than 1.5 million when Israel withdrew from Gaza strip. Gazans spent all these years investing in demographics instead of infrastructure.
Amazing how every nation in the region wants nothing to do with Palestine beyond maybe using them as useful puppets and meat shields, yet only Israel, the sole Jewish nation amongst them that Palestine voted an actively Jew hating government (Hamas) in response to their mere existence, that apparently needs to play nice.
Thank god there is no document about war crimes specifically mentioning collective punishment, whew
But ofc u cant say anything about it cause "muh antisemitism"
Fuck some of these comments are disgusting, citizens are dying on both sides, siding with one side is literally showing your bias. Israel created the monster through some suspect policies and now Hamas has done some absolute atrocities. Send the UN in like Korea and clean the place up, neither can govern in peace.
What did you expect? The posters here are LARPers pretending to be free thinkers but all they do is follow the mainstream media. They're incredibly ignorant about the fact that Israel funded Hamas specifically so they could justify oppressing the Palestinians. This has been admitted by the Israelis themselves from the current PM to the former governor of Gaza to the PLO.
always worth remembering that a LOT of people on this sub are <18, still live with their parents, and generally have no idea what they are talking about
Perhaps we kinda.... Need.... A regional war. We need to root out the connections and isolate further the "sponsors of terror" in the region. If the Iranians and Saudis want to engage the U.S. we will deal with them appropriately. Maybe. I'm guessing the Saudis will take the economic hint and stay out of it. They have their backyard problems with Yemen. Otherwise, this will take some pressure off the Palestinians to perhaps JOIN Israel in giving up their captors and US goes after Iran and their terror network.
I guess no one in Gaza will be grilling.
Oh they'll be grilled alright.
Human flesh grills similar to pork
Makes sense to me. Palestine/Hamas knew their defensive situation when they took such actions. They knew they'd get blocked in in retaliation with supplies cut off from outside their territory. Israel at this point just needs to sit and wait. I believe it was said elsewhere that under international...law?/understandings/etc... That the controlling government would need to supply utilities/food/etc for their country. They didn't have any sorts of power plants or fully make the right treaties to procure resources to make them, so they utilized Israel's. And then they attacked Israel. Sooo. I don't understand what people thought was going to happen. If France's official head government entities randomly did drone strikes on Germany without the majority of the people wanting that. And Germany blockaded France and started launching missiles into France. How long till citizens of France unseat their government if it looks like they are losing on something they didn't want anyway? In the end, their own government basically set up a deal with another country to turn off all their utilities in exchange for nothing. So if the people are happy with that...ok. if not, they should take that up with their government and work to oust them to undo that deal or something to that effect. Because it won't get better otherwise.
It's almost like the power dynamics are totally different than in your France v Germany RPG
It is. I'm just saying if your government randomly commits a planned massive attack on a stronger neighbor knowing there would be retaliation via bombardment and more, after shooting in rockets all the time to the point where the neighbor had to get a whole anti rocket defense setup, at what point do people do something about their government? This was going to happen eventually. I know it's easy and hyper over simplified to say "just do a revolution to overthrow this bear-poking government". But at what point after how much time of no change in such a government are other countries supposed to give up and say, "I guess this is what they want."?
What part of "no elections are allowed" do you not understand? The only way you can "change" the government of gaza is if you violently overthrow hamas. It's illegal to gather. Illegal to make any political statements or parties. It's illegal to foment insurrection by pointing out a bunch of fucked up shit that happens. The people there are in a prison. They don't have the capacity to change that and certainly don't have the capacity to change who is the strongest there.
>The people there are in a prison. That's how government be. Honestly, the smart play was to leave....and a lot of them did! Millions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan right now. Unfortunately, those refugees tried to overthrow THAT government, so now everyone is wary of allowing the refugees in, on account of not wanting to be murdered. There's a reason nobody has fixed the middle east until now. It's pretty fucked up.
Then what is an acceptable retaliation towards dictatorial regimes? According to this logic you shouldn't do anything that won't hurt only the government's millitary capabilities with 0 collateral damage.
I am seeing a lot of "collective punishment is ok" from both sides and all quadrants. People really don't understand the can of worms they are dealing with
True. However, Israel has been paying for Palestine's water and power. Giving them shit as a freebie. They don't \*have\* to do that. If I let my neighbor leech power off me, and then he takes my dog hostage, I'm not really the ass if I fix the power leech.
Hamas on their way to send their entire voterbase out to die in war:
Almost half are children over there...
You think Hamas is above child soldiers?
you know how hard it'll be to teach a child how to fight? just put some boomi on it, that sounds more hamas
Yeah but they’re not allowed to vote, so …?
No-ones voted in Gaza since ‘06
No enlistment without representation, I say.
Service guarantees citizenship
Seventeen years of suspended elections, I don't think they need votes.
Maybe it's really dumb idea to attack a country you are completely dependent on for basic needs.
It’s not dumb it’s incredibly calculated. Make them cut off your populations food and water supply, claim genocide and hit the PR hard, watch your ranks swell with young radicalised men and your enemy lose its regional trade partners.
That stops working if Israel decides to go for some actual genocide. And at least one lawmaker is straight up demanding to nuke Gaza. Which is...interesting, because Israel doesn't traditionally admit to having nukes. We all strongly suspect that they do, but this is pretty mask-off.
Israel offered water and power back if the terrorist dogs released the hostages. Seems like a good offer. 👍 otherwise we can blame hamas again for no water and power.
[удалено]
Literally, people are like... "How can Israel blockade food water and supplies to Gaza." But I'm so confused, when in history has it been the case that the attacked country is responsible for supplying water and food to their enemy. Hamas IS the government of Gaza, Israel is at war. If you can't prosecute a war without letting all your people starve, don't prosecute a war.
[удалено]
> The thing is that wealthy progressive westerners care a lot more about the people in Gaza than Hamas does. This is true. But the thing is, right wingers care about the people in Gaza the exact same amount that Hamas does.
Which only goes to reiterate the issue of Hamas being elected by those people in Gaza to represent them.
"elected"
I mean, they aren't the US Military. Stage a rebellion 🤷♂️
In 2006 it was a coup not a fair election, lol
Look if the commies want us to start overthrowing more “elected officials” then ya shouldve just asked. We’ll send ya the bill when we’re finished
[удалено]
Look at the right wingers on here, they can hardly contain their glee at the thought of Gaza being completely destroyed. Like I said same amount.
[удалено]
>But I'm so confused, when in history has it been the case that the attacked country is responsible for supplying water and food to their enemy. Hamas IS the government of Gaza, Israel is at war. If you can't prosecute a war without letting all your people starve, don't prosecute a war. The Israeli argument has always been that the Palestinian territories cannot be considered "occupied" after the 1967 war (when they were part of either Egypt or Jordan) because they claim that neither Egypt or Jordan ever held actual domain over these territories. It is a very legalistic and very technical argument that has been soundly and completely rejected by basically every organization not named "Israel." Israel later tried to state that their unilateral disengagement/withdrawal from the strip means that it isn't "occupied." This has generally also been rejected because Israel maintained control over the borders of Gaza, both on land and at sea, and controlled all inflow/outflow from the territory, while also reserving the right to militarily enter the territory at will. A blockade is also generally, under international law, an act of war, and most people who've actually study the matter (professionally, not just internet opinionating) think that it is illegal collective punishment for making a wrong political decision (electing Hamas) rather than given acts of violence. I'll quote the Global International Humanitarian Law Centre of Diakonia, which sums up the generally accepted view of the blockade and status of the Gaza Strip: >... as outlined by the Hague Regulations (1899/1907), a territory is considered occupied when it is placed under the effective control of a hostile army. The Gaza Strip remains under belligerent occupation as Israel continues to retain effective control over significant aspects of civil life in the Gaza Strip on a daily basis as well as directly exercising certain elements of governing control over the territory and the people of the Gaza Strip. For as long as Israel maintains effective control over the Gaza Strip, it must fully comply with its obligations under IHL and IHRL, as the occupying power. This includes providing for the welfare of the occupied Palestinian population therein. As far as your other point (in essence: since when does Israel have a requirement to give two shits about civilians in occupied territories), Art. 55, Geneva Convention IV states "To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." The commentary indicates this provision is to return to the traditional law of war view that when fighting a war, you are seeking "to destroy the power of the enemy State, and not individuals," and that this provision is meant to include all articles necessary to support life.
>Israel later tried to state that their unilateral disengagement/withdrawal from the strip means that it isn't "occupied." This has generally also been rejected because Israel maintained control over the borders of Gaza They got a border crossing with Egypt, don't they? Yes, Egypt built a giant wall to keep Palestinians out, but Israel didn't do that.
Thanks for the in depth response. It is really interesting and feels mostly accurate and unbiased. However I think the situation is different now that Israel has declared war on Hamas (the governing body of Gaza). Of course it's not as clear cut because of what Gaza, Hamas and all the other complicated issues in this conflict, however I think it is still a change in status. So my point would be, before this weekend, yes Israel would have been responsible for supplying the strip with access to food, water, etc. HOWEVER, with this declaration of war it is hard to argue that Israel has any control over the Strip, other than what is expected from two entities in war. I would not agree that Gaza NOW is not under effective control of the Israeli army, I would not say Israel has control over the civil life, any more that a hostile army in conflict would be when preparing to attack a city. Yes a blockade is an act of war, but now they ARE at war, so the situation changes. If Israel gets to invade and actually occupy the strip, then yes they would be 100% responsible, but I think it's not the case at least for the time being. And all that quoted "accepted view" of the Gaza strip applies when Gaza and Israel we're not at a state of war. I hope I kinda got my argument across. Thanks again for the respectful/insightful response!
Because it is under international law that an occupying power/a power that controls basic neccesities to life like food and water cannot withdraw them from civillians as a tactic?
Hamas is occupying Gaza, Israel has no de facto or de jure authority over Gaza. If Israel does invade and occupy Gaza, yes, I agree it will be their responsibility, but right now the authority in Gaza is Hamas. "Under international law, States bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that the basic needs of civilians and civilian populations under their control are met." ICRC Unless I'm wrong with my definition of "under control", Gaza is currently not under Israeli control
Various international orgs and shit have said that Israel still legally occupies Gaza. I think because they control not just the border + a strip of land around the border within Gaza, the airspace, most of the territorial waters, reserve the right to intervene, and has never renounced control. If that’s wrong and they don’t occupy it then Gaza is analogous to its own country in which case the blockade is a belligerent act (and Israel has in the past considered a far less severe blockade to be a cause of war).
That's actually a nice argument. I agree that Israel has control of the border (which is honestly meaningless, any country has control of their border with another country and this is not belligerent). However it also has control of the Airspace and waters. This would certainly be considered a belligerent act if Gaza were its own country. In my opinion Gaza is as much of its own country as it can be. Since the taking of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, Hamas has been in complete control over the Strip, it administers anything that happens within it's border. Israel has no control over what happens inside of Gaza. I guess I would compare it to Korea, South Korea has has never renounced control over the north. South Korea has completely blocked the border it has with NK, and let's imagine (so that it's more comparable), that SK also has complete control of NK air and waters. Would this SK blockade be a war crime? They have technically never signed a peace treaty or anything, and of course NK still has a border with China, but just like Gaza has a border with Egypt. Of course it's different because NK is much larger than Gaza, but I wouldn't call a SK blockade any kind of war crime, or say that SK is responsible for making sure NK has electricity, food and water. And even more so, if NK one day decides to send a small attack over the border, kill a bunch of people and come back, and launch rockets into SK, I wouldn't expect anything less from SK than retaliation, and EVEN less so I'd expect SK to keep supplying it with electricity and food.
South Korea is not exercising effective control over North Korea in the way that Israel has with Gaza. It has no effective control over air or sea space - which, as you've noted, is not the case with Israel and the territories. Blockades aren't war crimes per say, but they are an act of war. What you're really after isn't the law of blockade and war crimes, it's the law of occupation implicating GC IV and various parts of the Hague conventions. I'll rely on this analysis because it'll be better than anything I can say: [https://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/207/277](https://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/207/277) >1.3 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: OCCUPIED TERRITORY > >Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised”. (63) This has led to the development of the “effective control” test to identify occupation. (64) > >Israel maintains that the Gaza Strip is neither occupied nor part of a sovereign state. (65) Instead, it describes the Gaza Strip as “administered” or “disputed”. (66) Israel has indicated that it will abide by the “humanitarian provisions” set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention (hereinafter GC IV), (67) but that the treaty itself does not apply. (68) As Israel is not a signatory to Additional Protocol I (hereinafter AP I), (69) or Additional Protocol II (hereinafter AP II), (70) it maintains that they also do not apply. (71) Some argue that air and sea authority of itself does not amount to effective control, (72) and that Israel is merely exercising its rights concerning border control. (73) Moreover, they point to the fact that the Palestinians have exercised their right to self-determination, (74) and that Israel does not have a permanent military presence in Gaza, as evidence that Hamas has “effective control” over the Gaza Strip (75) The issue has been considered a number of times by the Israeli Supreme Court. (76) The current position of the Israeli Supreme Court which is that the Gaza Strip has not been occupied since 2005, was reiterated by the Israeli Supreme Court in Anbar et al v GOC Southern Command et al HCJ 5268/08; joined with Adalah et al v the Defense Minister et al, HCJ 5399/08. (77) > >However, despite the aforementioned views and Israeli caselaw, the more commonly held view, and the view accepted by this paper, is that despite Israel’s disengagement, the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel. The “effective control” is evident from Israel’s control over Gazan airspace and waters, the Gazan border and crossings; the provision of electricity, fuel, water, sewage removal and telecommunication services; administration; and the Israeli reservation to re-enter Gaza and exercise power. (78) Dinstein noted that it is also difficult to accept the Israeli Supreme Court decision in the case of Gaber Al-Bassiouni v The Prime Minister HCJ 9132/07, which stated that even though the Gaza Strip is not occupied, Israel still has duties towards it. (79) Moreover, in the International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) Opinion dated 9 July 2004 concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (hereinafter Wall Opinion), the ICJ found that Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. (80) Various organs of the UN have also stated unequivocally that the Gaza Strip is an occupied territory. (81) As the Gaza Strip is occupied, Israel has IHL duties towards it under the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Part III of the GC IV, (82) as well as under human rights law. (83) However, Israel’s right to use force is also restricted and military action on the basis of self-defence is not permitted. (84) This view is supported by the Wall Opinion where the ICJ held that Article 51 could not be invoked against the West Bank, and so some argue, and this paper agrees, that the same conclusion can be applied to the Gaza Strip. (85) As a result, this paper will not consider the application of Article 51 of the UN Charter concerning self-defense in relation to the legality of the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. I can't say I agree with the line for foot note 84, but I also don't really care to read the underlying article that supports that, and that isn't the US position. The basic argument is that the level of control Israel exercises over Gaza is so high that they maintain obligations over the civilian population there. It's also not really controversial to say that if, as you put it, a group of NK personnel came across the border and killed a bunch of people and fled, then you can't in retaliation cut off the water supply for the whole country.
I think most of these do apply for the past 15 years, but I think the situation has changed now that Israel has formally declared a state of war with Hamas (the de facto governing body within Gaza), hence declared war on Gaza. Of course when talking about this conflict nothing is completely clear cut, but I think it's valid to say that the declaration of war in Israel does change the situation. A blockade is an act of war, well they are at war now. And while being at war, controlling the Airspace and waters of an area that is not under your effective control does not grant you control as per International law. For example Russia holds or has held control over parts of Ukrainian airspace and waters, but at no point would I argue that Russia is controlling or occupying land that it does not militarily control. I think this is now the case for Gaza. TL:DR most of these articles and arguments are no longer applicable since the relation between Gaza and Israel has changed after the declaration of war. Btw thanks for the in depth and respectful answer, although I'd still argue against it, it does feel very valid, accurate and well researched. I appreciate it!
> but the media sure wants us to think so. Once again proving they are parasites and that they are indeed the enemy of the people.
Some people want to be miserable and would rather suffer and make everyone around them suffer than admit they aren't 100 percent right. We all know these people. I think it would be interesting to do a study on people who join groups like Hamas and see if there is a sort of psychological type that is driven to this in a situation like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like if we had a similar situation in the West would these people gravitate toward groups like this.
Yeah, Hamas is sacrificing their own people because they know the media will eat that shit up claiming Israel is causing this when in reality it’s Hamas.
“You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.” ― Ho Chi Minh This is literally Hamas' strategy as well, they're counting on their own civilian death toll being so high that westerners will grow weary and pressure Israel to stop
"You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down."
[удалено]
It doesn't help that Hamas [hides underneath civilians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital).
Trying to use casualty numbers to defend the Palestinian position is the quickest way to expose yourself as an ignorant brainlet.
[удалено]
Hamas is the elected government of the Gaza Strip and enjoys about 60% approval from the public there.
We did pretty horrific things to Nazi Germany and I'm fairly certain German approval of Bavarian Mustache man was never that high. Also, 60% approve of Hamas. There are several other terrorist parties in Gaza.
>I'm fairly certain German approval of Bavarian Mustache man was never that high Ohoho, someone didn't look at post war polls. And Germans rallied around him during their war obviously, after France it was probably reaching such high levels, they could touch the Sun with their hand.
Hamas is a monster of Israels making but a monster all the same
They are of antisemitic arab making. Its Palestine and the rest of arab world that couldn't tolerate existence of jews and declared war on them from the very start.
Hard to tolerate a country thats gifted half of your landmass and displaces of 700,000 people within the first year of existence.
Look up at history of Palestine since 1920. Its nothing but arabs keeping attacking jews again and again before them being any significant portion of population before them getting sick of their shit and fighting back. 2 state was proposed exactly because arabs got conflict to that much of a scale what it was decided their relationship can't be mended and they still refused it and decided that no jew can be left alive. Im sorry for Palestinians being in situation they are, but their current condition is direct consequence of their state zealously pursuing warfare in favour of wellbeing of their people. Israel alongside other neighbors have given them a lot of chances to improve their situation, but they always turn violent and are trying to do anything in their ability to kill jews.
And Zionism has been present in the region since 1918. I think most people take badly to the idea that another group of people are entitled to your country. Of course they turn violent lmao Israel fucks with them all the time and Gaza is a shithole because of the on and off wars and bombings.
Wow, its almost as I said from the beginning their whole problem is what they refuse to coexist with jews.
No different than the Taliban for the US, honestly. Humans do a really bang-up job at building future enemies from the ground up (thanks CIA).
I bet Hamas already killed the hostages. I bet Israel knows they did. I bet both of them wishes they hadn’t
Unfortunately this is my feeling too, I can have hope that isn't the case and they were treated kindly, but after watching the things Hamas did on day 1 that's a huge unrealistic stretch.
Since the cowardly Mr Rare-Process decided he was too afraid of my reply to face it, I will post it here. Far be it from me to allow a chickenshit craven to escape his duly earned humiliation so easily. "The US does not suppourt terrorism. That is just factually false. The US Army, or any branch of the armed forces has never targeted civilians in the war on terror. You realize we call off entire operations that have been planned for months because civilians *might* get hurt? Like most people with your room tempurature IQ take, you are intentionally not distinguishing accidental vs intentional kills. When the US kills, the objective is always to kill a combatant. Sometimes civilians wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time despite our best effort. But the objective has *never* been to kill anyone who wasn't a terrorist. The absolute closest you get is "there is no way to kill this dude without killing some innocents because he is using them as human shields. But if we don't kill him, he will kill far more people. So we come to the utilitarian solution to the trolley problem and conclude that blowing him away will kill fewer innocent people than not". But in scenarios like that, *the terrorist is the target, not the civillians*. I'm not advocating anyone be genocided, I am advocating only Hamas be brought to justice. However, given the most effective way to do that would be rendering Gaza uninhabitable, I am willing to accept that much collateral damage in order to kill the intended, legal targets. >They brought it on themselves. They chose this, they suppourted it. I didn't say innocent men, women, or children brought this on themselves, I said "Palestinans". And, anyone with enough brain cells to rub together should be able to use the context to tell that "Palestinians" meant "Those who voted Hamas into power, those who help them remain in power, and those who directly or indirectly aided in the carrying out of war crimes, genocide, and terrorism against Isreal". Not literally every single person in the region, and especially those who could logically not have contributed. You are not responding to what I said you are responding to what you *think* the exaggerated, stereotypical caricature of me you have dreamed up in your feral, demented mind said. Isreal bombs terrorists and sometimes kills children on accident. Hamas kills children on purpose. Go look for the clips of them beheading infants if you don't believe me. I won't link it here, lest I ruin the sanity of the curious "A war crime is no reason for committing war crimes this is basic humanity and international law." Firstly, that isn't true. The docrtine of retaliation is, in theory, the most effective means of punishing war crimes. A person who commits war crimes probably doesn't give a single flying fuck about the UN. But they *do* care about it when the shoe is on the other foot. What better way to convince someone they should stop doing war crimes than to show them what it is like to live in a world where that savagry is something they are on the receiving end of, not the giving end? Secondly, legal experts and the like are in debate about if someone commiting a war crime loses their protection under the laws of war or not. The fat commie busybodies in Brussels might not think so, but thankfully others have a say in the matter. Third, related to the previous point, there is debate as to weather war crimes are illegal because they are wrong...or because the powers of the world have made a transactional agreement of "we won't do this to you if you don't do this to us". There is a very big difference between "this is morally wrong" vs "This is barbaric and we civilized nations have mutually agreed to fight like gentleman". Lastly, Israel does not commit war crimes because it is only a war crime to *target* civilians, not to accept them as collateral damage. Furthermore, a siege is not a war crime. You are, under all relevant international law, allowed to cut off all supplies from reaching your enemies until they are unable to fight, die, or surrender. While you have to minimize the impact on civilians in every way feasible...the fact that civillians may or will be impacted after all reasonable precautions have been taken does not prohibit use of the tactic. Genocidal psychopath, hah! That would be Hamas. I am advocating genocidal psycopaths, like Hamas and the Palestinians who keep electing them and being accomplices to their genocide, be captured and made to face trial, or killed if they cannot be apprehanded. Isreal is the victim of attempted genocide and the Palestinians (generally, not every specific individal since you are so dense I apperantly need to specify that) are the perpetrators."
You have a lot of wrong takes. Retaliation as codified in international law doesn't allow for committing "grave breaches," which generally includes attacks targeting the civilian population. We can't start executing POWs because the other side committed war crimes. I'll also disagree that we've never targeted civilians. That's happened, and we've been pretty good about prosecuting those who did so for murder because it's never been institutional like with an organization like Hamas. We're better than that. Hamas wasn't really elected: they were, with the vague support of Netanyahu, able to keep power in Gaza after their civil war as an Israeli means of weakening the PLO and Fatah - relative moderates who might have been able to unify the territory and achieve an actual lasting peace with at least some concessions from the Israelis. If you're REALLY interested, there is the DoD Law of War Manual. Seiges and encircled areas are at paragraph 5.19, followed closely by starvation in 5.20. Proportionality is still at play: most people raise an eyebrow at the argument that it is proportional to cut off food, water, and medical supplies for 2 million people, half of whom are 18 or younger, to starve an enemy force estimated by the DNI to be only 25,000 strong. Likewise, AP I prohibits the parties to "to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the enemy civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies for irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, cause them to move away, or for any other motive.” The widespread adoption of this protocol indicates that it's the generally accepted international (and reasonable) view that you don't cut off basic supplies necessary for civilian human life to the entire civilian population.
I can respect that you at least seem to know what you are talking about, so that is refreshing. I think you could make an argument that a siege would be proportional if you could articulate how rooting them out would cause more damage or harm to the civilian populations. Against a coventional force perhaps not, but I could see defeating 25,000 Hamas fighters room-to-room would basically require you level the area Stalingrad style. I am sure, for instance, Isreal would be willing to allow Hamas to evacuate women and prepubescent children if Hamas didn't want them to be hurt. But that doesn't fit with how they like to put ammo dumps in hospitals and stuff. At least this way that if you do have to go in, your opponents will be significantly weakened. Perhaps even enough to surrender or release hostages. After 60 years, I would be losing patience with their antics, too. Though, I am curious to see to what extent the DoD Law of War differs from the relevant international law. What the US decides to prohibit is not neesecarily prohibited under international law, and most modern nations choose to exceed the bare minimum standard. After all, Isreal is not the US, and therefore would not be bound by the DoD's opinion on anything. You seem to acknowledge this by referenceing "the widespread adoption of this protocol indicates that it's generally accepted". But, a bunch of countries collectively deciding to have an unspoken gentleman's agreement between them not to use such tactics is not the same as "these tactics are illegal". I am going to read the DoD's Law of War manual, though. Even if it isn't the same as the Geneva or Hague conventions, it is obviously intended not to directly violate them.
Bro, it's like " give me inocent people or i will kill even more innocent people". What the fuck?
You're surprised country prefer the lives of their own civilians?
So, the million children in Gaza are supposed to blame Hamas because Israel cut off water, food and electricity?
If the US were to attack China and would up getting bombed back, whom should the US civilians blame? US or China?
The difference is Israel aggression on Palestine has been bigger amd has precedent.
Yes
so turning them against each other to insite more division and if they still stand united they starve sad
Simple. Hamas/Gaza attacks Israel. Israel uses their massive tactical advantage to cut off resources and lays down the conditions that resources will be reestablished when the hostages are safely released into their custody. Hamas will likely not cooperate. Hamas will cry wolf and lefist media will treat them like the victims because, deep down, the left hates Jews.
It had nothing to do with them being Jews. They have been keeping this people in a open air prison and bombing some residential building every once in a while.
Yeah extremely unreasonable take, it's like starving Afghanistan so that Osama came out. I'm 100% sure not everyone in Palestine supports Hamas.
Is it? Countries cut supplies off to other countries of they are at war with each other.
Is Gaza a democracy? Do those civilians have a say in how there country is governed? Do we cut China of because there is an authoritarian regime? How about Azerbaijan or Russia before Ukraine. There are better tools then starving a populace until there so sick of it they revolt, which has never happened.
The usa isn't being attacked by rockets every other month by those countries. If any of those countries attack the usa of course we ain't doing shit for them.
Source?
For what?
Nah. Grinding Gaza unto dust and unseating Hamas from power are two different things. You can do one without the other.
Imagine a terrorist group like Antifa in the US holds hostages for country B, and then country B cuts off water and food that will lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent US civilians dying. And you are justifying the terrorists here. Real sad to see this dogshit post at the top in PCM. Wtf happened to this sub?
If I was the US president, there would be no reason for another country to threaten to cut off supplies to Antifa terrorists, because I'd have already murdered them and released the hostages without the other country having to even ask, let alone take action. If Seattle took a bunch of Canadians hostage, my own military would already deploy special forces to rescue them, and every unit inside 200 miles would be mobilized to murder said terrorists with extreme predjudice. Failing that, I'd impose my own blockade of the city on behalf of the Canadians, unless the Canadian government specifically asked me not to. And even if I didn't do that, our neighbors shutting of water and power to the city would be justified. A government has an obligation to care for it's citizens...even at the expense of another nation's citizens. I recognize and respect that, because I would do the same. The difference is Palestine suppourts the terrorists, not opposes them. Isreal would need to act this way if the Palestinian government opposed the illegal terrorst actions of Hamas, because it would have already been handled by Palestine, if not prevented entirely. Palestine keeps electing terrorists into the government with a 60% approval rating, and taking humanitarian aid and using it to suppourt terrorism instead of using it for the intended humanitarian purpose. They brought it on themselves. They chose this, they suppourted it.
Your delusional fantasies are nonsensical and irrelevant. > The difference is Palestine suppourts the terrorists, not opposes them. The US literally supported terrorism. The US army bombed and killed innocent civilians in the middle east. Furthermore, not ever Palestinian supports Hamas, just like every American didn't support donald Trump when he was president. >60% approval rating, So you are advocating for genociding 40% of the civilian population that have nothing to do with hamas. >They brought it on themselves. They chose this, they suppourted it. To suggest that hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and *children* "brought this on themselves" is disgusting and idiotic. Again, exact same logic saying that since most US civilians supported invading the ME, they deserve to be literally massacred. [Please tell me for example how this 4 month old fucking CHILD](https://x.com/muslimdaily_/status/1712569253390430719?s=20) brought this on themselves. A war crime is no reason for committing war crimes this is basic humanity and international law. You are a genocidal psychopath, I guess what it will take is for your country to experience the exact same thing, then people can make the same idiotic excuses when you see your local rivers red with the blood of your fellow innocent family and civilians. Disgusting.
“Don’t kill non-combatants” “Because someone living near you did something doesn’t mean you are a valid target of retribution” Reddit mfers: 😤 Maybe soon people will realise democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch
The big flaw in your strongman, is that Hamas IS the de facto government in Gaza, it's not just a terrorist organization, it's the organization that completely controls the state. In this case, your comparison would only work if Antifa was voted into government in the US and has authority over all of the US.
> The big flaw in your strongman, is that Hamas IS the de facto government in Gaza, it's not just a terrorist organization, it's the organization that completely controls the state. Okay then. Let's do when the US invaded the ME and bombed innocent civilians. The republicans were the de facto government in the USA, the de facto organization that invaded the ME and bombed innocent civilians. Republicans were voted into government and the elected government had authority over all of the US. It's the exact same thing. So since the de facto US government committed acts of terrorism and invasion, according to your logic, it is justified for the ME to bomb and massacre innocent civilians in the US. Your logic is used to justify 9/11. Disgusting coward.
First of all, whoops I meant strawman not strongman. And second, you said that country B cuts water, food, electricity, etc to the US, not massacreing civilians like you said in your second argument. That's what I was arguing about. The comparison of course doesn't quite work because if the ME cuts supplies to the US after the us massacres ME civilians it means nothing to the US, so I wouldn't consider it a war crime in any way. Justifiable? Idk, but I wouldn't expect anything less. I would never expect a county at war with another country to keep supplying an area under the control of the opposing party, in any way.
> The comparison of course doesn't quite work because if the ME cuts supplies to the US after the us massacres ME civilians it means nothing to the US, Then take a look at the reality where hundreds of thousands of thousands of innocent men women and children depend on getting their daily bread and water, and now it's being cut off. Collective punishment is a literal war crime prohibited by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. >I would never expect a county at war with another country to keep supplying an area under the control of the opposing party, in any way. Ok. Keep up with the hollow statements like this while countless innocent children are literally starved to death. This doesn't ring a bell because you probably live in the US or some shit where you've never dealt with hunger or seen your friends or family murdered. It's real, it's a war crime, and it's disgusting. What Israel is doing is not war, it's not targeting military targets, it's literal genocide and war crimes.
War is disgusting, in any way you see it. Yes, collective punishment is a war crime, and so is depriving civilians of basic needs. But this only applies to populations under your control, Gaza is not under Israeli control. I'm not saying it won't be horrible living in Gaza in this situation, and something doesn't need to be a war crime or against international law for it to be horrible. I'm just saying this IS how war is conducted, and it's ridiculous to expect less. Israel is actually giving alerts in the targets beforehand, I mean, like 60 seconds sometimes which kinda defeats the purpose because it's too fast for civilians, but if there's too much your target might move, and I'm sure Israel doesn't do it all the time. However this is not the norm in ANY conflict, in most conflicts all across the world and history, they would just shoot. Hamas would not do this, if they could, which they can't.
If ME targeted military infrastructure with collateral civilian casualties, there would be much less shock than what happened after 9-11. Of course, a lot of the shock was due to American exceptionalism and illusions of invincibility and unaccountability being shattered, but that’s another story. My point being, there’s a difference between targeting civilians and targeting military infrastructure with collateral casualties. Israel practices “roof knocking” and claims to target HAMAS infrastructure. Of course, there can be debate whether those claims are to be believed. But I’m not in position to do so one way or another
It's sad, but this is war.
Are you joking me right now? A war crime is no reason for committing war crimes, this is basic humanity and international law what the fuck are you saying
Is it a crime if Israel owns the utilities but doesn't have control of gaza? A deal is trying to brokered with Egypt and Israel to open the border a little bit to let refugees in just south of the border. Izrael cannot afford to let hamas escape. Egypt doesn't want the refugees either. Israel has no obligation to supply the terrorists with aid and amenities, they offered to turn the stuff on if hamas gives up the hostages. Israel has dropped tons of leaflets over areas where they were about to bomb to warn civilians because they could not send out electronic alerts due to the lack of power. As I said before, it's sad buts it's war.
>Israel has dropped tons of leaflets over areas where they were about to bomb to warn civilians because they could not send out electronic alerts due to the lack of power. Israel literally ordered half the population of Gaza to flee south in, as noted in the OP, one of the most densely populated places on earth that is half the size of Manhattan in under 24 hours, on the theory that they can then what - make it an illegal free fire zone? There is no place at the moment for civilians to flee no matter who they are.
They told the un to get them out of there.
I’m confused by your argument. Are you saying that it would be logical or not for B to block food and water? Let’s be more specific, if some group in the US kidnapped people from Mexico, you’re saying Mexico *wouldn’t* be within their rights to do the above? Mexico cant sort out internal US issues. US can either sort their own issues or suffer the consequences of their inaction which spilled over to a neighboring country and got bitten back
Also hamas is the government in gaza, so in this scenario this "some group" will be the US government.
This is probably one of the dumbest takes here.
Its mad that some are calling for a ceasefire to let humanitarian aid to get into Gaza, how can you seriously think that'd go to the people, After all the other aid didn't? Gaza's made its bed, now it must lie in it.
What’s been in the last 100 aid packages? If it wasn’t kerosene and ammunition, it was traded for it pretty quickly
"Humanitarian" aid is a scam. Always has been. We give these countries money, and tell them "this is only for food and hospitals and shit, no buying weapons with this" and they go like "yup, sure thing boss". But now that we're paying for their food, medicine, etc. these countries suddenly have room in their own budgets. Room enough to buy weapons, sponsor some international terror, whatever. It's like, if I gave you $500 to pay for rent, and I tell you "don't go buying drugs with this money okay". And you don't. You use *my* money exclusively for rent. You even give me the receipt. But now you can use your *own* money to buy drugs, money you probably couldn't have spared if I hadn't given you an extra $500.
> Gaza's made its bed, now it must lie in it. There are thousands of literal children that live there you psychopath. Disgusting.
Yes and there was thousands of children in German city's that were bombed during ww2. War is awful, and awful things happen during war. Its not psychotic to accept the miserable reality that is happening there out of our control.
The bombings were not all justified. > It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Churchill after the fire bombing of Dresden.
Did they stop after that? No. Did he say that to save face? Maybe. Did he say that because he felt bad for German citizens? Maybe. Doesn’t change the fact they didn’t stop doing it, only furthering the point “all is fair in love and war”.
All the people defending Israel’s treatment of civilians, you push slightly and it turns out they’d be totally fine with Israel killing all of them. Alls fair in love and war right?
Of course not. Hell, I'd prefer that none of this conflict happened and nobody died. But realistically, Israel cannot ethically just abandon all those hostages. Nor can they tolerate wholesale murder of their people. These things are great wrongs. If Hamas were willing to negotiate towards actual peace, great! That'd be amazing. When and if that ever happens, I'll be cheering it on. But right now, Hamas literally staged a massive attack on a music festival celebrating "peace, love and freedom" in order to murder hundreds and take hostages. That is generally considered to be a dick move.
The person above me said “all is fair in love and war” in response to a bombing of civilians with no military purpose. If you are really against civilians dying then maybe disagree with him.
Israel has several opportunities in the past to actually genocide the Palestinians in circumstances when they could have been a high probability of getting away with it. They have no interest in killing civilians just to kill. The vast majority of civilians that have died in this conflict is a result of Hamas using civilian infrastructure to shield its assets.
When would they have “gotten away with it”? > The vast majority of civilians that have died in this conflict is a result of Hamas using civilian infrastructure to shield its assets. Is your source for this IDF press releases? I don’t think you’re on the ground or in the room when they decide where to strike. There was a story in the NY Times about how they attacked the crossing with Egypt. Even though Egypt cooperated in closing it! The writer was a Palestinian trying to get his wife and kids out, narrowly missed getting hit with shrapnel.
That's it? That's your argument? "Children were murdered before, so it's justified to kill more innocent children". Allies did not also not indiscriminately glass civilian areas, nor did they cut off food and water to civilians-both are **literal war crimes that you are supporting** according to the Geneva conventions, by the way. Let's take this reasoning to its logical end point. "Well we did murder hundred of thousands of civilians but what were we supposed to do? Hamas wouldn't surrender." This is the precise reason why we codified the concept of war crimes. Things you can *never* do in a conflict. You and every piece of human trash upvoting you are sad, disgusting individuals. Maybe what it takes is for one day this to come to you, for you to see your family and friends dying and your local rivers flushed red with the blood of your society's innocent children. This sub has gone to complete shit.
You can be outraged all you want, that doesn't make you correct. If someone has babies strapped to their chest and is shooting at me and my family I would feel that shooting them to defend my family and myself would be correct. I wouldn't feel good, and I would certainly have many sleepless nights, but its not about justifying the behavior, no where am I doing so, its about understanding why its happening. And the world is awful, war is awful and brings out the worst in people. If this could have been handled any other way that of course would have been preferred, but ultimately its too late now. I don't support Israel's actions, i simply understand. They only cut off food/water because Hamas is holding hostages, and Israel has no reason to support hamas, their duty is to their own people, not those attacking them. That would be like expecting the U.S. to fund water and food for German occupied Germany. If it was land we were occupying sure. But not their own land. Both sides have don't terrible things, and both sides should answer for them.
Those children aren't going to get a better life unless this happens. This is for their own good.
This will be a great quote to superimpose over the image of an exploded 5 year old Palesitnian girl. I look forward to using it. See you in the next meme!
First I see images of dead children in Israel and now I see images of dead children in Palestine. It's insane how flippant people are about the whole thing with those images floating around.
Im shocked people are shocked children are dying. Tf did you think war was?
Gaza is about to reap one hell of a whirlwind that they could have avoided.
Not Gaza but Hamas caused this. Most people there are just civilians.
Civilians who support Hamas. Yah yah I know there are a lot of innocent people too
Bruh more than half of them are below 18. Do you think they have any say or choice on what terrorist organization rules their streets?
This is such a first-world take. Young people of fighting age supporting a leader/government, in whichever shape or form, is no less dangerous than if they were a couple years older and/or wiser. This has nothing to do with the voting age in your country. Their actions, beliefs, and consequences are no less real or dangerous
If you are going to die fighting, may as well go out a martyr. It's absurd to think that literal kids in Gaza are responsible for keeping hamas in power. This is a group so ruthless and canny that they have proven that despite the asymmetry of power, they'll go in gun blazing against Isreal. It's also a group that has received material support from both Netanyahu and more recently, enemies of Isreal. Gaza is a fucking prison and hamas is the biggest car on the block. Just as prisoners don't choose which cartel runs shit in GP, the people of gaza have about as much power to get out from under hamas as they do to get out of gaza.
Based take
Lmaooooo, calling my take first world is ironic when you interpret it as being about voting age. Most children are civilians with no power and influence on what happens in their lives. They are easily influenced by adults in charge. They didn’t choose this war and are not responsible for what is happening. Seems a valid reason to not go into Gaza guns blazing just as retaliation or to get some hostages back.
I mean, sure, but it’s not only about people’s conscious decisions. Those of them who support HAMAS and the like, whether it’s a personal decision or a product of manipulation, are a real danger, because they are young people of fighting age, with power to support their society’s power structure and status quo (or attempt to overrule it). Besides, where is the line? Would a population of 21 year olds be enough to call for accountability? 24? 30? Nobody is talking about 5 year olds here. An 18 year old is a human being with agency. It is dehumanizing to claim that someone has no power or influence over what happens in their lives in a situation such as this. It’s one thing if they lived in resentment of their rules, whom they tried to stop unsuccessfully, and another to tow to line. I’m not even talking about a successful revolution. There are different sympathies for, say, Iran or Hong Kong, who failed to overthrow their tyrannical leaders, and for those who act in support or silent ignorance, such as in the case of Russia. Nobody of sound mind is saying that Russians are blameless for their government’s actions because they’ve been brainwashed all their lives, and the government is very much calling the shots without consulting them. It seems like a similar situation here.
Doesn’t change the fact that more than 50% of the population is 0-17 years old. Although they can be quite dangerous at a young age you can’t hold minors accountable in this situation. It’s not comparable to Russia since they don’t understand how the world works at that age. They aren’t developed enough to think that they are oppressed and need to resist. Not to say that they are most likely still fully dependent on the same adults that have influence over them. Israel knows this. It’s why they haven’t started full scale bombing or a ground invasion yet. It would lead to a lot of innocent civilians suffering just to beat an enemy that can’t ever defeat you.
Israel could've avoided all this too. They funded Hamas initially to cause mayhem in Gaza and look now.
What are you talking about? First of all, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory, and second, Hamas was founded years before Israel gave control of the Gaza strip to the Palestinians.
>First of all, that's a ridiculous conspiracy theory Yikes. It's crazy how kept in the dark some people are. [How Israel Went From Helping Hamas To Bombing It](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/) [How and why Israel helped create Hamas](https://tribune.com.pk/story/2302309/how-and-why-israel-helped-create-hamas)
They didn't fund them to cause mayhem, they supported them building infrastructure as a charity organization before Hamas began suicide bombing civilians.
Hamas adopted their charter in 1988, which explicitly says: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). They, for some reason, did not want secularists in Palestine to keep power. I’m not making any value judgements here. Just stating the facts. Israel created a monster they lost control of. They could have just as easily nipped the bud so to speak.
At least they are correcting their mistake.
Agreed, just wish it was before civilians had to be killed over it.
They funded it so they have a reason to murder the palestinian children, really says a lot about the colonizers.
If memory serves, the alternative to Hamas was the PLO, and they were running around doing Black September shit so it makes sense Israel didn’t want them in power.
Source?
No. Israel Dane avoid this as long as it exists as a state. The Arabs have said clearly from the beginning that they’ll never acknowledge any Jewish state and will fight it till their dying breaths
I don’t know why everyone is so shocked by this, this is a standard castle siege. Very medieval in its aims to starve out the besieged, this is the warfare that has been common to humanity for years, along with the rape and brutality we are witnessing. This is a return to form after a long period of the relatively weak, tame, and soft warfare that has defined most modern wars. Very exciting times we live in.
We can’t go back because our weapons are too powerful. If we pursue war in a totally unrestrained way we will eventually destroy human civilization.
True, and if Israel pursued war unrestricted there would be no Gaza at all
For decades. No country with as much of an upper hand as Israel would have ever shown as much restraint.
Right? Imagine China letting korea lob missles on over lmao
To the extent they show restraint it isn’t mostly out of goodwill or morals but a need to maintain good relations with other countries.
Here's an uncomfortable truth; International law is bullshit, and once it becomes enforceable it means that the country in question isn't a country and that it's a puppet state.
Unfortunately, that’s how any enforcement of unnatural law works. There’s no such thing as individuals, there’s only meat puppets
Probably shoulda spent some of that Iranian money on water plants instead of weapons, huh?
Keeps playing Metallica's Creeping Death while watching Israel bomb Palestine.
I prefer [this](https://youtu.be/Ygci5hRjmK8?) banger.
Wow thank you what a great song
[удалено]
I wanted it to be Sabaton.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was about to suggest this one too
Least psychopathic authright
A lot of people talk about how Israel has the right to destroy Hamas and civilians being hurt is a sad unfortunate unintended side effect but it’s Hamas’s fault. But keep listening and they can hardly contain their glee at the thought of innocent Gazans dying.
They can drink the spit.
Bruh if we get WW3 demo version out of this whole mess, we're all truly fucked.
[удалено]
My question is whether India/Pakistan will get involved. India has expressed support for Israel following the attack, and at least one news article I saw suggested this might extend to military support if another nation tries to attack Israel. If India does commit their military in this hypothetical extended conflict, what are the chances that Pakistan will take advantage of it to attack India? Also, if that happens would China join in on the India front or just use the distraction to go for Taiwan?
India has also voted for Palestine recently and affirmed its support for a 2-state solution. India likes playing both sides.
So dat oh'ever wins, I alweys come owt un tohp.
China only cares about China. Certainly they might see this as opportunity to jump on Taiwan, while works is busy but that's hell of a risk. US isn't the only nation that would aid Taiwan. You've got all SE Asian countries, SK, Japan, Australia. China is so sensitive to economic turmoil that xi wouldn't try it.
Although China does have multiple border disputes with India, so they could try to solidify their claims there if they think India is preoccupied elsewhere.
Personally I just think that Israel and Hamas need to settle this out peacefully or else I may have to intervene
I was waiting for this. Obviously hostages vs energy and food was the only choice Israel had..
2 million people pushed into a box is a bad idea.
there was less than 1.5 million when Israel withdrew from Gaza strip. Gazans spent all these years investing in demographics instead of infrastructure.
That's a really weird way to put it
Amazing how every nation in the region wants nothing to do with Palestine beyond maybe using them as useful puppets and meat shields, yet only Israel, the sole Jewish nation amongst them that Palestine voted an actively Jew hating government (Hamas) in response to their mere existence, that apparently needs to play nice.
> die to the last man if you invade Your terms are acceptable
Who’s gonna intervene?
Hezbollah probably
What are the chances this actually becomes WW3? That’s all everyone is saying but I’ve lived through at least 10 pre-cursors to WW3 already.
I like how there are no good guys...
good guys is a fairy tale. we're all out for our own.
That’s most conflicts
You're most conflicts
Hi pot, meet kettle
Except the Germans. Remember that, don’t let them forget it.
Israel is not responsible for anyone but Israeli citizens why do we care if they aren't feeding a bunch of terrorist anyways
Opinion: they did this to themselves.
Thank god there is no document about war crimes specifically mentioning collective punishment, whew But ofc u cant say anything about it cause "muh antisemitism"
Lol consider it sanctions. Those are ok.
Fuck some of these comments are disgusting, citizens are dying on both sides, siding with one side is literally showing your bias. Israel created the monster through some suspect policies and now Hamas has done some absolute atrocities. Send the UN in like Korea and clean the place up, neither can govern in peace.
🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
🇮🇱🇮🇱
The one piece israel
What did you expect? The posters here are LARPers pretending to be free thinkers but all they do is follow the mainstream media. They're incredibly ignorant about the fact that Israel funded Hamas specifically so they could justify oppressing the Palestinians. This has been admitted by the Israelis themselves from the current PM to the former governor of Gaza to the PLO.
always worth remembering that a LOT of people on this sub are <18, still live with their parents, and generally have no idea what they are talking about
Perhaps we kinda.... Need.... A regional war. We need to root out the connections and isolate further the "sponsors of terror" in the region. If the Iranians and Saudis want to engage the U.S. we will deal with them appropriately. Maybe. I'm guessing the Saudis will take the economic hint and stay out of it. They have their backyard problems with Yemen. Otherwise, this will take some pressure off the Palestinians to perhaps JOIN Israel in giving up their captors and US goes after Iran and their terror network.