5 ms·

Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention, but it is customary law, so that doesn't really matter. I should have been more precise, I meant Palestinians i

Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention, but it is customary law, so that doesn't really matter. I should have been more precise, I meant Palestinians in Gaza, which isn't occupied. Or at least it wasn't until the attacks. Chances are that it will be again. They do have the right to resist just as Israel did upon its founding. But the attacks in October are certainly not covered by international law. Israel doesn't justify genocide, because genocide is not what is happening. Neither legally nor otherwise. The resistance is of course used to justify security interests, but those don't qualify for genocide either. Still, all that doesn't matter. They need to fix their relation to Israel, accept its existence. That can open the way for their own state and there are few alternatives.

runarberg 2y ago
> Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention Sorry, I meant the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 which adopted the Hague Conference of 1907. Israel signed and ratified the Geneva conventions (I - IV) in 1951 and Part I of the Hague convention in 1962. The relevant part is in article 42 of the Hague convention (Part IV; which Israel didn’t sign) > 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. and in article 2 of the fourth Geneva convention (Which Israel did sign and ratify in 1951): > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Note that the fourth Geneva convention expands both the definition and the obligation of occupation from the Hague convention of 1907. Look, I’m not doing primary research here, I’m simply following the sources cited in the secondary source which I provided you. I’m not an international humanitarian law expert, and I presume neither are you. There is pretty much a consensus among both experts and international organizations (including the UN) that Israel is in violation of agreements they have signed onto. You may deny the occupation of Gaza and justify Israel’s violation on those grounds (just as you deny the Gaza Genocide) but you are simply (and quite obviously) wrong on those ground. Legal experts have made the case pretty clear that all of Palestine, including Gaza and East Jerusalem have been under constant Israeli occupation since 1967. And have since continually neglected their obligations as an occupying power.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I disagree that there is a consensus about genocide at all. These are very selective experts and their argument is for the most part ridiculous, with few exceptions. It is those whose work lead to many resolutions against Israel which highlights their lacking perspective If these people claim to champion the Palestinian cause, the people in Gaza are in peril even more. And no, Gaza was left to its own devices in 2005. With devastating results because there was nobody that had the ability and will to form a state. The Saudi crown prince calls it a genocide too while openly stating that this is due to populism. He has an excuse, which one have these special international lawyers you refer to? What do you suppose will be the future for Palestinians now? They fare worse than before the attacks, what perspective do they have? Again, calling it a genocide is counter factual, regardless of your law degree. The cases in the ICJ didn't even call for a ceasefire, because they knew Israel has the right to defend itself. And recent events have show that it is necessary. If champions of the Palestinians cause cannot come up with more than accusations against Israel, Palestinians don't have a lot to look forward to.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    That is what you believe. But you must be aware of the minority opinion you hold, and how it counters opinion of experts, international humanitarian organizations, several governments, and a Saudi Prince. When the rest of the world talks about genocide, the Gaza genocide fits the definition. The denial of the Gaza occupation is an even more extreme opinion of yours. Very few non-partisans, and even a diminishing number of Israeli institutions, deny that Gaza has been under continuous Israeli occupation since 1967. I’m not gonna try to convince you that you are wrong (you obviously are) but I just hope that you are aware of how fringe of an opinion you have here. Instead I’m gonna do something different. And give you that the occupation was lifted in 2005 (and ignore that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Palestine; and the Israel still illegally occupies the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon). Now that constitutes almost 40 years of illegal occupation, over a land and people who many of which are still refugees from an ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948. In 2005 the occupation ended, and was replaced by a seemingly colonial system where Israel controls 6 out of 7 border crossings fully (and the remaining one partially via Egypt), the population registry, the sea and the airspace, power and telecommunications infrastructure, maintains a no-go bufferzone inside the Palestinian territory where they regularly break up protests with live ammunition, where they regularly conduct air-strikes and military campaigns, etc. Surely you must realize the obligations of the occupier (sorry, blockader) here. That it isn’t just on the Palestinians to form a government and negotiate the end of the blockade, but primarily on Israel (as the party doing the blockade) to end it. In international law this blockade is (correctly) called a manifestation of an ongoing occupation, and Israel has obligations as the occupier, obligations which they have neglected. But even if we give you that, the occupation ended in 2005, you must see that is not in the spirit of the law to replace the occupation with a different form of oppression, just so you can neglect your obligation. That is not how any legal framework works. You can’t just go around the law in this way. EDIT: I also want to talk a little about your believe that just because the ICJ didn’t order a ceasefire in their initial preliminary ruling, that somehow it is ludicrous to entertain the plausibility of genocide after that. That is not the point of a preliminary ruling. The court also ordered Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, to let in aid, etc. which Israel promptly violated. In April a second preliminary ruling ordered Israel to not invade Rafah, which was also almost immediately ignored by Israel. If you take the court at their word that Palestinians’ in Gaza’s rights to be protected from Genocide is at risk, and the following steps are needed to protect that right, and then Israel ignores and repeatedly violates those steps, surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers, quite possibly a conspiracy to commit one even.

runarberg 2y ago

> Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention Sorry, I meant the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 which adopted the Hague Conference of 1907. Israel signed and ratified the Geneva conventions (I - IV) in 1951 and Part I of the Hague convention in 1962. The relevant part is in article 42 of the Hague convention (Part IV; which Israel didn’t sign) > 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. and in article 2 of the fourth Geneva convention (Which Israel did sign and ratify in 1951): > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Note that the fourth Geneva convention expands both the definition and the obligation of occupation from the Hague convention of 1907. Look, I’m not doing primary research here, I’m simply following the sources cited in the secondary source which I provided you. I’m not an international humanitarian law expert, and I presume neither are you. There is pretty much a consensus among both experts and international organizations (including the UN) that Israel is in violation of agreements they have signed onto. You may deny the occupation of Gaza and justify Israel’s violation on those grounds (just as you deny the Gaza Genocide) but you are simply (and quite obviously) wrong on those ground. Legal experts have made the case pretty clear that all of Palestine, including Gaza and East Jerusalem have been under constant Israeli occupation since 1967. And have since continually neglected their obligations as an occupying power.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
I disagree that there is a consensus about genocide at all. These are very selective experts and their argument is for the most part ridiculous, with few exceptions. It is those whose work lead to many resolutions against Israel which highlights their lacking perspective If these people claim to champion the Palestinian cause, the people in Gaza are in peril even more. And no, Gaza was left to its own devices in 2005. With devastating results because there was nobody that had the ability and will to form a state. The Saudi crown prince calls it a genocide too while openly stating that this is due to populism. He has an excuse, which one have these special international lawyers you refer to? What do you suppose will be the future for Palestinians now? They fare worse than before the attacks, what perspective do they have? Again, calling it a genocide is counter factual, regardless of your law degree. The cases in the ICJ didn't even call for a ceasefire, because they knew Israel has the right to defend itself. And recent events have show that it is necessary. If champions of the Palestinians cause cannot come up with more than accusations against Israel, Palestinians don't have a lot to look forward to.
- runarberg 2y ago
  That is what you believe. But you must be aware of the minority opinion you hold, and how it counters opinion of experts, international humanitarian organizations, several governments, and a Saudi Prince. When the rest of the world talks about genocide, the Gaza genocide fits the definition. The denial of the Gaza occupation is an even more extreme opinion of yours. Very few non-partisans, and even a diminishing number of Israeli institutions, deny that Gaza has been under continuous Israeli occupation since 1967. I’m not gonna try to convince you that you are wrong (you obviously are) but I just hope that you are aware of how fringe of an opinion you have here. Instead I’m gonna do something different. And give you that the occupation was lifted in 2005 (and ignore that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Palestine; and the Israel still illegally occupies the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon). Now that constitutes almost 40 years of illegal occupation, over a land and people who many of which are still refugees from an ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948. In 2005 the occupation ended, and was replaced by a seemingly colonial system where Israel controls 6 out of 7 border crossings fully (and the remaining one partially via Egypt), the population registry, the sea and the airspace, power and telecommunications infrastructure, maintains a no-go bufferzone inside the Palestinian territory where they regularly break up protests with live ammunition, where they regularly conduct air-strikes and military campaigns, etc. Surely you must realize the obligations of the occupier (sorry, blockader) here. That it isn’t just on the Palestinians to form a government and negotiate the end of the blockade, but primarily on Israel (as the party doing the blockade) to end it. In international law this blockade is (correctly) called a manifestation of an ongoing occupation, and Israel has obligations as the occupier, obligations which they have neglected. But even if we give you that, the occupation ended in 2005, you must see that is not in the spirit of the law to replace the occupation with a different form of oppression, just so you can neglect your obligation. That is not how any legal framework works. You can’t just go around the law in this way. EDIT: I also want to talk a little about your believe that just because the ICJ didn’t order a ceasefire in their initial preliminary ruling, that somehow it is ludicrous to entertain the plausibility of genocide after that. That is not the point of a preliminary ruling. The court also ordered Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, to let in aid, etc. which Israel promptly violated. In April a second preliminary ruling ordered Israel to not invade Rafah, which was also almost immediately ignored by Israel. If you take the court at their word that Palestinians’ in Gaza’s rights to be protected from Genocide is at risk, and the following steps are needed to protect that right, and then Israel ignores and repeatedly violates those steps, surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers, quite possibly a conspiracy to commit one even.