4 ms·

Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one

Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality. Even if you want to make the argument that Israel is occupying (Hamas-controlled parts of) Gaza, that wouldn't make Gazans Israeli citizens, and realistically every country prioritizes the safety of their citizens; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect otherwise. > One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality. Israel treating their Palestinian-born subjects as stateless would be illegal, so a decision must be made by Israel between the two options I described, with the respective consequences I described. By effectively exerting rule over Palestinians (especially in the West Bank), they have chosen the route that doesn't recognize Palestine as a country, and thus are obliged to treat Palestinian-born subjects equally to any other subjects under their rule. The fact that Israel denies citizenship to the millions of Palestinian-born subjects under their rule, is particularly gross. > You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy. That, in turn, ignores that Israel's actions are still illegal. Put simply, the defense you cite isn't good enough to justify Israel's actions. They tried that defense, it did not succeed, here we are. The reason is that the laws were made with the possibility of "human shields" in mind, and they still made the actions illegal. It's not some novel occurrence excepted from the rules. It does sucks to be IDF right now, but their lives aren't worth more than civilian Palestinian lives, and thus it is immoral for them to take many civilian lives to reduce their own risk of loss, and illegal for them to do so to the extent they have, even if it means they get to kill a terrorist in the process. Here's the most important metric (superceding any Israeli desire): Fewer civilians will die if Israel withdraws and simply secures the border than will die if Israel invades. You don't have to trust me: An independent court actually evaluated both sides here and came to the same judgement, as described in the article we're discussing. Israel will either accept that they can't do whatever they want, up to and including genocide, just because they want to, or continue to parallel Russia's and North Korea's international pariah journey while angrily feigning ignorance and righteously pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Probably the latter.
- dlubarov 2y ago
  If you want my interpretation, it's that Gazans are effectively citizens of Gaza, which Hamas is the de facto government of. (Palestinians in the West Bank are a separate matter.) Gaza should have been a place of freedom, independence, and self-determination since 2005, but Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now. I was never commenting on legality. It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense, whether or not such defense is deemed illegal and/or leads to more deaths overall.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    I appreciate your interpretation, and I don't want this to sound dismissive: The point is that Israel doesn't get to eat their cake and have it, too. Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel, or they treat the Palestinian-born subjects under their rule as citizens with all the same rights as the Israeli-born subjects under their rule. Apartheid and genocide aren't legal options, despite Israel perpetrating both. > Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now. On the contrary: as the world has expressed on multiple occasions in multiple ways, Israel's genocide of Palestinians is what continues to make that difficult. After all, the world sees how Israel abused Palestinians for decades before October 7th. Israel can't say the world didn't warn them as they spiral into the same pariah status as Russia and North Korea. > It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense The "abiding by international law means essentially giving up our defense" claim was put forth by Israel and judged not to be the case. It was expected, both when the law was drafted, and when the case was brought against Israel, given their frequent repetition of the now-debunked claim. It just wasn't credible: neither the court nor most countries or people actually believe Hamas is going to somehow conquer the state of Israel. Indeed, it's inconceivable that over their entire remaining existence Hamas will ever deal out even a small fraction of the damage Israel has dealt to innocent Palestinian civilians over the course of less than 1 year. If, however, one isn't interested in discussing the legality of Israel's behavior (in an HN submission about precisely that), and the topic is reduced to whether Israel will say "whatever, I do what I want" a la Putin or Cartman, then I will submit a bet that they will, and leave it at that.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

> Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality. Israel treating their Palestinian-born subjects as stateless would be illegal, so a decision must be made by Israel between the two options I described, with the respective consequences I described. By effectively exerting rule over Palestinians (especially in the West Bank), they have chosen the route that doesn't recognize Palestine as a country, and thus are obliged to treat Palestinian-born subjects equally to any other subjects under their rule. The fact that Israel denies citizenship to the millions of Palestinian-born subjects under their rule, is particularly gross. > You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy. That, in turn, ignores that Israel's actions are still illegal. Put simply, the defense you cite isn't good enough to justify Israel's actions. They tried that defense, it did not succeed, here we are. The reason is that the laws were made with the possibility of "human shields" in mind, and they still made the actions illegal. It's not some novel occurrence excepted from the rules. It does sucks to be IDF right now, but their lives aren't worth more than civilian Palestinian lives, and thus it is immoral for them to take many civilian lives to reduce their own risk of loss, and illegal for them to do so to the extent they have, even if it means they get to kill a terrorist in the process. Here's the most important metric (superceding any Israeli desire): Fewer civilians will die if Israel withdraws and simply secures the border than will die if Israel invades. You don't have to trust me: An independent court actually evaluated both sides here and came to the same judgement, as described in the article we're discussing. Israel will either accept that they can't do whatever they want, up to and including genocide, just because they want to, or continue to parallel Russia's and North Korea's international pariah journey while angrily feigning ignorance and righteously pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Probably the latter.

dlubarov 2y ago
If you want my interpretation, it's that Gazans are effectively citizens of Gaza, which Hamas is the de facto government of. (Palestinians in the West Bank are a separate matter.) Gaza should have been a place of freedom, independence, and self-determination since 2005, but Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now. I was never commenting on legality. It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense, whether or not such defense is deemed illegal and/or leads to more deaths overall.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  I appreciate your interpretation, and I don't want this to sound dismissive: The point is that Israel doesn't get to eat their cake and have it, too. Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel, or they treat the Palestinian-born subjects under their rule as citizens with all the same rights as the Israeli-born subjects under their rule. Apartheid and genocide aren't legal options, despite Israel perpetrating both. > Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now. On the contrary: as the world has expressed on multiple occasions in multiple ways, Israel's genocide of Palestinians is what continues to make that difficult. After all, the world sees how Israel abused Palestinians for decades before October 7th. Israel can't say the world didn't warn them as they spiral into the same pariah status as Russia and North Korea. > It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense The "abiding by international law means essentially giving up our defense" claim was put forth by Israel and judged not to be the case. It was expected, both when the law was drafted, and when the case was brought against Israel, given their frequent repetition of the now-debunked claim. It just wasn't credible: neither the court nor most countries or people actually believe Hamas is going to somehow conquer the state of Israel. Indeed, it's inconceivable that over their entire remaining existence Hamas will ever deal out even a small fraction of the damage Israel has dealt to innocent Palestinian civilians over the course of less than 1 year. If, however, one isn't interested in discussing the legality of Israel's behavior (in an HN submission about precisely that), and the topic is reduced to whether Israel will say "whatever, I do what I want" a la Putin or Cartman, then I will submit a bet that they will, and leave it at that.