16/10/2024 — The Canadian government has designated Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, an international network that supports and advocates for
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law
Yes, that is true.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide,
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.>
I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law. I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war>
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.” But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.”
Ok, clear on your meaning now.
But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.
No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.
I don’t disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That’s pretty standard in war. But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.
Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.
The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.>
That is absolutely a valid question. But most people don’t pose it as a question. They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war based on photos of destroyed buildings or abstract death toll numbers. And let’s face it, most people who are critical of the war are staunchly anti-Israel and don’t think Israel should have responded at all. Many people also don’t understand the big picture. They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn’t. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.
The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that’s it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it’s about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn’t do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.
But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.
It does have a different connotation to it - as if the gov’t of Israel was officially allowing and condoning such “reprehensible behavior” as you put it. However, even if it’s against official policy, if the majority of troops are ignoring the laws of their own country’s gov’t and rules of their own country’s military to commit this “reprehensible behavior”, then a lot of folks will think that country should be accountable. But this can easily morph to the former statement if one isn’t careful about nuance.
I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.
Ah, no worries. Though that word is potentially even more confusing - you must mean in the sense of “pursue until finished” as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute but it also has the meaning of bringing legal action about. Which would imply that the war is legal, which could be stretched further to imply that it’s just. Of course, I’d hesitate to go that far on either point (legal or just).
They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn’t. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.
I thought the same, actually. I could go as far as agreeing that a simple retaliation is legal and just, but since this is not that…
Many people also don’t understand the big picture.
Clearly I’m still not getting it.
That’s pretty standard in war.
That’s kind of the problem, though, isn’t it?
They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war
Well though, if not the people, then who can make these judgement? Who is empowered to decide this?
Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords.
Agreed. The evidence I’ve seen so far agrees with this.
Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed.
I support the Accords. But I still worry about innocent civilians - such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives, or the hostages taken on 10/7. And if the beef was just with Iran, why are these folks getting caught in the middle? (Of course it’s not just Iran, Hamas is based in Gaza, but if one can easily confuse the Iranian regime with Hamas, then perhaps it’s easier to confuse Hamas with people from Gaza more generally, which leads to innocent civilians being wrongly treated like hostile military opponents.)
Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore.
And no doubt Israel will win this, but I worry about the human sacrifice required from the innocent.
Here’s one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If there was a magical way to eliminate the genocidal threats facing Israel and bring about peace in the Middle East without a single civilian death, Israel would take that option. Israel haters won’t accept that because they’ve been brainwashed to think that Israel is itself a genocidal threat, intent on taking over the Middle East. Which, for many people, is a reflection of some underlying antisemitic sentiments.
such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives>
I will be honest, though. I’m not sure how many of them would fit in this category. And that’s something I’m struggling with because I used to consider myself fairly left-wing and quite tolerant and respectful of diversity. But I just haven’t seen much if anything over the past 100 years to suggest that there is a critical mass of Palestinian people who are interested in peaceful coexistence. Quite the opposite, actually. But I think the coming days and weeks following Sinwar’s death will be very telling because this does represent the best opportunity the people of Gaza have since Israel’s withdrawal in 2005. Will they choose a different future for themselves, one that focuses on hope and peace? Or will they choose to continue the cycle of violence?
Here’s one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If there was a magical way to eliminate the genocidal threats facing Israel and bring about peace in the Middle East without a single civilian death, Israel would take that option
It is my hope that you are right.
such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives
I will be honest, though. I’m not sure how many of them would fit in this category.
It shows a majority of Palestinians want a two state solution and a majority do not support Hamas, for example.
the best opportunity the people of Gaza have since Israel’s withdrawal in 2005. Will they choose a different future for themselves, one that focuses on hope and peace? Or will they choose to continue the cycle of violence?
How will they do that? I mean, what are the practical mechanics here for these folks to register their choice? What, even, are the specific options being presented to them?
I don’t recall them being asked to vote in a referendum or something similar. Mostly I just see things like this, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/middleeast/gaza-jabalya-idf-shooting-intl/index.html - which suggests a complete absence of choice altogether. I’m not clear on how would even a pro-Israeli Zionist who lives in Gaza and is ethnically Palestinian could get registered as a friend to pro-Israeli forces.
Palestinian people who are interested in peaceful coexistence. Quite the opposite, actually.
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
When I see the headlines from articles like https://time.com/7016741/israel-protests-netanyahu-six-hostages-deaths/ - yes, I can easily believe that.
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that.
In that case, allow me to provide some sources on this matter,
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-15/ty-article/.premium/idf-soldiers-attacked-military-police-at-gunpoint-for-arresting-comrades-at-sde-teiman/00000192-904d-d2db-ab97-dddd31dd0000
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-04/ty-article/.premium/prosecution-seeks-extended-custody-of-five-israeli-soldiers-suspected-of-sde-teiman-abuse/00000191-1caf-db97-a7df-fcffecc00000
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4630363-us-israeli-military-violated-human-rights/ (though this last one is about accusations that predate the current conflict)
Ok, clear on your meaning now.
No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.
I don’t disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That’s pretty standard in war. But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.
Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.
The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that’s it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it’s about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn’t do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.
It does have a different connotation to it - as if the gov’t of Israel was officially allowing and condoning such “reprehensible behavior” as you put it. However, even if it’s against official policy, if the majority of troops are ignoring the laws of their own country’s gov’t and rules of their own country’s military to commit this “reprehensible behavior”, then a lot of folks will think that country should be accountable. But this can easily morph to the former statement if one isn’t careful about nuance.
Ah, no worries. Though that word is potentially even more confusing - you must mean in the sense of “pursue until finished” as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute but it also has the meaning of bringing legal action about. Which would imply that the war is legal, which could be stretched further to imply that it’s just. Of course, I’d hesitate to go that far on either point (legal or just).
I thought the same, actually. I could go as far as agreeing that a simple retaliation is legal and just, but since this is not that…
Clearly I’m still not getting it.
That’s kind of the problem, though, isn’t it?
Well though, if not the people, then who can make these judgement? Who is empowered to decide this?
Agreed. The evidence I’ve seen so far agrees with this.
I support the Accords. But I still worry about innocent civilians - such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives, or the hostages taken on 10/7. And if the beef was just with Iran, why are these folks getting caught in the middle? (Of course it’s not just Iran, Hamas is based in Gaza, but if one can easily confuse the Iranian regime with Hamas, then perhaps it’s easier to confuse Hamas with people from Gaza more generally, which leads to innocent civilians being wrongly treated like hostile military opponents.)
And no doubt Israel will win this, but I worry about the human sacrifice required from the innocent.
Here’s one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If there was a magical way to eliminate the genocidal threats facing Israel and bring about peace in the Middle East without a single civilian death, Israel would take that option. Israel haters won’t accept that because they’ve been brainwashed to think that Israel is itself a genocidal threat, intent on taking over the Middle East. Which, for many people, is a reflection of some underlying antisemitic sentiments.
It is my hope that you are right.
I don’t have exact numbers either, but they do exist, as shown by groups like https://nypost.com/2024/10/14/us-news/jewish-anti-israel-protestors-arrested-after-storming-new-york-stock-exchange/
Also, see https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-palestinians-oppose-terror-mohammed/index.html and https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2024/0314/Hamas-gambled-with-our-lives-Gazans-are-now-daring-to-speak-out
While not quite answering this question, this survey is still informative, https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/12/palestinians-views-oct-7
It shows a majority of Palestinians want a two state solution and a majority do not support Hamas, for example.
How will they do that? I mean, what are the practical mechanics here for these folks to register their choice? What, even, are the specific options being presented to them?
I don’t recall them being asked to vote in a referendum or something similar. Mostly I just see things like this, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/middleeast/gaza-jabalya-idf-shooting-intl/index.html - which suggests a complete absence of choice altogether. I’m not clear on how would even a pro-Israeli Zionist who lives in Gaza and is ethnically Palestinian could get registered as a friend to pro-Israeli forces.
Where are you seeing that?