Israel's genocide of Palestinians and its illegal occupation of their lands must be stopped.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
World News
5 readers
2 users here now
News from around the world!
founded 1 year ago
It will stop when they're finished. I don't think there's many other likely courses from here.
Israel won't stop until Palestine is gone. That's been the plan the whole time. Israel never wanted peace or a two-state solution, they just wanted the land at all costs - including hypocritically committing genocide by erasing a country and many of its inhabitants.
Israel never wanted peace or a two-state solution, they just wanted the land at all costs
Seems like you're suggesting it's Israel's fault a diplomatic solution couldn't be reached. Interesting that this is in Hamas' charter then, the party that Gaza elected to office and is responsible for the recent murder of hundreds of civilians:
article 13, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
The realpolitik of the matter is that Palestine went to war and lost a long time ago but refuses to acknowledge it. They have no viable path to military victory, yet they refuse to concede and refuse to negotiate for a viable peace. Many, like Hamas, instead openly call for genocide and as we have seen their forces indiscriminately murder, rape and kidnap civilians.
Either Palestine needs to come to the table willing to make some serious concessions, willing to enforce pacification of their more hostile elements, or there will not be a Palestine. Gaza will ebb away one destroyed building and one settlement at a time. They no longer can win on the battlefield or, thanks to Hamas, in the court of public opinion. They have no allies willing to help them. Their neighbors won't even let refugees in due to what happened in Lebanon and Jordan.
If there is truly concern for the civilians in Gaza their leadership needs to embrace a viable path to peace. A good start would be returning the kidnapped and bringing the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity to justice.
None of those things will happen. Palestine will be annihilated. Conflict over.
Either Palestine needs to come to the table willing to make some serious concessions
Israel's never honored any established boundary and takes every opportunity to further expand outside of their territory. Saying Palestine needs to negotiate with the Israeli government is the same as saying "Palestine needs to give up and not exist." Hamas's violent behavior and views have a lot to do with how the Palestinians have been treated over the decades and waving away Israel's behavior that led to this is so short-sighted.
Israel's never honored any established boundary and takes every opportunity to further expand outside of their territory.
"We repeatedly tried invading and killing them and every time they defeated us and took our land, the monsters!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_Israel
Saying Palestine needs to negotiate with the Israeli government is the same as saying "Palestine needs to give up and not exist."
Quite the opposite. Negotiation is the only viable way I see to secure peace and security for both parties. Refusing to negotiate with and continually attacking a superior military force is the shortest path to Palestine not existing, they only exist today because Israel has historically shown an incredible amount of restraint. Thanks to the mediaeval brutality Gaza employed they have lost most international goodwill and Israel has little reason to tolerate the constant murder of its people. They have a blank check right now to address the problem and they will use it to make sure they are never attacked like that again.
Hamas's violent behavior and views have a lot to do with how the Palestinians have been treated over the decades and waving away Israel's behavior that led to this is so short-sighted.
No doubt, but I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for those who behead babies, murder old women, rape civilians in front of their dead friends, kidnap civilians to be used as human shields, parade bloody bodies of their enemies through the streets, and murder hundreds of EDM kids at a festival celebrating peace. I don't care how oppressed they've been, that is never acceptable. I was actually quite sympathetic to their cause in the past but after seeing that, Hamas and the Gazans that elected them have earned what's coming next. It was pure barbarism. If they'd stuck to military and strategic targets, like Israel does, this wouldn't be happening.
probably should have thought about that before authorizing the hamas attack.
I don’t think there was a popular vote among Palestinians in Gaza on this.
Well, there kinda was and hamas was elected 15 years ago, when the last elections happened. But still, doing warcrimes(deliberately cutting a large population off electricity, water and food) is not acceptable, even if the other side warcrimed you.
The median age in Gaza is 18 so I don’t think they have much choice in their autocratic regime.
doing warcrimes (deliberately cutting a large population off electricity, water and food) is not acceptable, even if the other side warcrimed you.
It's only a war crime to deny supplies to occupied areas, and Gaza hasn't been occupied since Israel withdrew in 2005. It would be odd if it were a war crime not to provide a hostile enemy territory with supplies while being attacked by them.
In what way Gaza isnt occupied? Can the inhabitants leave? Can you get stuff in and out of that area? Just because it doesnt have actual israeli occupiers inside Gaza, doesnt mean that it isnt occupied.
If you live in a place and armed guards dont let you leave or get anything in or out, are you free?
It would be odd if it were a war crime not to provide a hostile enemy territory with supplies while being attacked by them.
When the territory was never independent and was always dependent on you and you never allowed it to become independent, then yes, you have an obligation to keep those people alive. And thats the bare minimum legal obligation that you have. Dont take my word, literally the EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell says so
"Israel has a right to self-defence, but it has to be done within international law ... cutting water, cutting electricity, cutting food to a mass of civilian people is against international law,"
Even if you ignore the moral thing of you know, not letting people die for no reason, Israel has a legal obligation. Similarly to how when a country occupies a territory, they have an obligation to provide for that territory. So unless Israel decides to recognize Gaza as a sovereign, free and independent state, they are responsible for it and its inhabitants.
In what way Gaza isnt occupied?
Because Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005, as per the above link, and dismantled their settlements there.
Can the inhabitants leave?
Until very recently, yes, into Egypt. They probably won't be allowed to return if they leave, though. Egypt just now closed their border to refugees and is now refusing to let people through, and there's also been some damage to the crossing from recent air strikes so I don't know when it will reopen.
Can you get stuff in and out of that area?
Egypt has agreed to allow supplies through, and air shipments are happening until the crossing is clear. Under normal circumstances they only let people out and oil and some humanitarian aid supplies in, everything else goes through Israel.
Just because it doesnt have actual israeli occupiers inside Gaza, doesnt mean that it isnt occupied.
It literally does. What exists now is called a blockade.
If you live in a place and armed guards dont let you leave or get anything in or out, are you free?
Moving the goalposts from occupation now, but okay. I'd say no, but no one here is making the claim that Gaza is totally free as far as I know.
When the territory was never independent and was always dependent on you and you never allowed it to become independent, then yes, you have an obligation to keep those people alive.
The reason Gaza wasn't allowed total freedom and autonomy has something to do with its regular attacks against civilians, and also Israel wanting leverage over them, leverage they are now using now to get their kidnapped back. When Gaza was given autonomy they used it to elect Hamas to run their government, which recently orchestrated the mass murder and kidnapping of hundreds of Israeli civilians and caused this situation. This is a hostile territory at war with Israel. Why would they encourage its growth or help arm it while it remains belligerent? Why would they provide it with supplies with which to wage war on them?
Even if you ignore the moral thing of you know, not letting people die for no reason, Israel has a legal obligation. Similarly to how when a country occupies a territory, they have an obligation to provide for that territory. So unless Israel decides to recognize Gaza as a sovereign, free and independent state, they are responsible for it and its inhabitants.
Israel recognizes them as a hostile territory, not a state because of political reasons.
Has anyone died of starvation or lack of water in Gaza? If you have any reports I'd be interested to see them. As far as I know, supplies have not yet run out but may soon.
Bold of Gaza to launch a massive terror attack on a state they are dependent on, then complain about human rights abuses when they stop assisting them. If Israel went by Hamas' playbook, there would be no Palestine.
Because Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005, as per the above link, and dismantled their settlements there.
Having the prison guards live next to your house instead of inside your house makes little difference.
Egypt has agreed to allow supplies through, and air shipments are happening until the crossing is clear. Under normal circumstances they only let people out and oil and some humanitarian aid supplies in, everything else goes through Israel.
So they cant move things.
It literally does. What exists now is called a blockade.
So was Vichy France independent just because it technically wasnt occupied by nazi troops? In fact, it was occupied a few years later, when the war started going to shit for the nazis.
The reason Gaza wasn't allowed total freedom and autonomy has something to do with its regular attacks against civilians, and also Israel wanting leverage over them, leverage they are now using now to get their kidnapped back
So how do you think this will ever end? Are you saying that the only solution, is the final solution?
Bold of Gaza to launch a massive terror attack on a state they are dependent on, then complain about human rights abuses when they stop assisting them. If Israel went by Hamas' playbook, there would be no Palestine.
So you think it is unfair for the rest of the world to demand from Israel to be a law abiding nation while fighting a terrorist organization? Do you think Israel should be allowed to kill thousands of innocent palestinians just because Hamas did it?
And does it make that big of a difference if you kill people with an AK or if you bomb and starve them?
I just want you to imagine some other state deliberately going out of its way to cut all water, electricity and food to a region with 2 million people because 1000 "x" people attacked and killed 1000 "y" people. Let's say if Azerbaijan did it to the Nagorno-Karabakh armenian enclave(well not anymore). Do you think that would be morally acceptable?
I am ok with ethnic cleansing, i am actually a big proponent. But if Israel thinks this is the solution, they should come out and state it. Because honestly, i cant justify Israel's actions(cutting water, food and electricity) in any other context.
Having the prison guards live next to your house instead of inside your house makes little difference.
It does legally.
So was Vichy France independent just because it technically wasnt occupied by nazi troops? In fact, it was occupied a few years later, when the war started going to shit for the nazis.
Military Occupation: control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory
The Nazis established a military government in Vichy France. Israel let Gaza elect their own leaders, they chose Hamas. Therefore Vichy France was a military occupation, current day Gaza is not. Definitions matter when we are talking about law.
So how do you think this will ever end? Are you saying that the only solution, is the final solution?
I think the most viable solution would be for Palestine to make serious concessions and negotiate seriously for peace. Since they seem unwilling to negotiate or cease hostilities despite not having any viable path to victory, I would not be at all surprised if Israel systemically levels every structure in Gaza and forces the population there to leave for their own safety. Final solution implies killing them all, which Israel won't do, but it will deny them everything.
So you think it is unfair for the rest of the world to demand from Israel to be a law abiding nation while fighting a terrorist organization? Do you think Israel should be allowed to kill thousands of innocent palestinians just because Hamas did it?
I think Israel has a right to defend itself, and this "terrorist organization" is the elected government of the Gaza territory. This is more like a war between states even though many countries do not recognize one or both parties as states. When a state declares war on and attacks another one it puts their entire population in peril. Unlike Hamas, I don't think Israel is interested in killing civilians, but Hamas has created a situation where many civilians, civilians they are hiding among, will die when Israel predictably defends itself. They will then predictably blame Israel for the consequences of their own bloody, genocidal war crimes.
Let's say if Azerbaijan did it to the Nagorno-Karabakh armenian enclave(well not anymore). Do you think that would be morally acceptable?
I am not familiar enough with the situation there to weigh in.
I am ok with ethnic cleansing, i am actually a big proponent.
Well that's troubling, ethnic cleansing is never okay.
The amount of incredibly stupid comments I've seen since this debate reignited has been more than I ever could have imagined, but this is officially the stupidest and grossly misinformed I've seen yet. Congrats.
you must be new to this "internet" thing.