4 ms·

Hasbara means explaining in Hebrew. So guilty as charged of trying to explain what's going on. I'm not echoing any sort of official message. What people here d

by YZF 1y ago

Hasbara means explaining in Hebrew. So guilty as charged of trying to explain what's going on. I'm not echoing any sort of official message. What people here don't understand is that there is a war going on. In wars people get killed. The war and the condition of the Palestinian population is 100% the responsibility of their government, Hamas, that continues fighting and holding Israeli hostages. Israel can not and will not let Hamas keep going. It is, as is appropriate, putting its citizen's safety as a first priority. I have plenty of criticism of various specific actions of the Israeli government and military. But the big picture is still what it is. And in this big picture no other country, including the one you live in, would respond differently when/where it comes to securing the lives of its citizens. Let Hamas surrender, return the hostages, and then we can discuss the path forward. They are making the choices.

Hikikomori 1y ago
[flagged]
- YZF 1y ago
  Netanyahu does not "support Hamas". Netanyahu did historically prefer Hamas to be in control of Gaza both for some sense of stability (vs. potential total chaos) and as a way of dividing the Palestinians between Hamas and the Palestinian authority. This has obviously turned out to be a big mistake but it's not the same as "supporting Hamas". Since you're saying "70 years" that's sort of a sign you're approaching this from some sort of ideological perspective. The West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian rule respectively until 1967, so about 48 years ago. I.e. your problem is with the existence of Israel in the 1967 lines and Jewish presence and rights in the region and you, like Palestinians, do not support a two state solution. I'll take your 70 years and raise 3000 years in this case. The Jewish people are the indigenous people of the region, not the Palestinians, and they have the historical rights. EDIT: It's worth noting that Israeli governments have done a lot. They agreed to give the Palestinians autonomy as part of the peace agreement with Egypt. They were engaged in good faith efforts to resolve the conflict during the Oslo Accords. They allowed Palestinians to return to the west bank and Gaza from other countries as part of those accords, they allowed the establishment of the PA and gave it control of all the major cities, they allowed the Palestinians to establish a police force and armed and trained that police force (weapons that ended up being turned on Israelis). They withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and returned it to Palestinians. What have the Palestinians done other than use more violence is the question.
elihu 1y ago
> "The war and the condition of the Palestinian population is 100% the responsibility of their government, Hamas, that continues fighting and holding Israeli hostages." No. Israel is an occupying power, and they're heavily restricting food and aid to civilians. Collective punishment is prohibited by article 33 of the 4th Geneva convention. Starvation as a method of war is prohibited by article 54 of the additional protocols. Shooting civilians is a war crime. Hamas is guilty of a lot of things, but they aren't forcing Israel to shoot and starve civilians. That's not a necessary part of Israel's war effort. It doesn't help defeat Hamas or make Israel safer.
- YZF 1y ago
  Israel is not occupying the areas of Gaza where there are civilians in any meaningful way. If it was then the war would be over. Israel is considered an "occupying power" in Gaza by some from a legal perspective simply because the status of Gaza was not fully resolved following Israel's withdrawal in 2005. I.e. because Israel withdrew unilaterally, not as part of an agreement, some consider it to still be the "occupying power" since 2005. However Israel is not present in Gaza, does not run Gaza, does not physically control Gaza, since 2005. The current military situation is that Israel controls 65% of the ground, where there are no civilians, and the rest is controlled by Hamas. Starvation of civilians is indeed prohibited. However siege is permitted as long as civilians can leave. So a siege of Gaza city or the northern Gaza strip would be permitted as long as civilians are allowed to leave that area. A similar example would be Mosul that was under siege while being controlled by ISIS. Killing civilians in the course of attacking military objectives is not prohibited. Intentional killing of civilians for no military purpose would be a war crime. Israeli soldiers who intentionally kill Palestinian civilians for no military reason should be put on trial. Either way, the context is the armed conflict/war which is what Hamas started and is still pursuing. IDF soldiers are killed and injured in Gaza every day, this just doesn't make the news or Hacker News.
  - elihu 1y ago
    Israel has sufficient control that they can decide whether or how much food enters Gaza, and they have substantial control over the means by which food is distributed. (Aid organizations apply to them for travel permits so that they don't get attacked by IDF forces.) That's the relevant thing here, not whether they have 100% control on the ground. Siege is permitted only so far as it doesn't leave civilians without food or vital supplies. Occupying powers may remove the civilian population to a safe place temporarily. I don't think "we asked them to leave and they didn't" is regarded as an acceptable middle ground. Starvation of civilians as a method of war was specifically one of the charges by the ICC against Netanyahu and Gallant. (That was based on things that happened earlier in the war.) Besides, for several months recently, Israel blocked all food and aid into Gaza. The civilians had absolutely nowhere to go. If similar war crimes happened in Mosul those should be prosecuted too.

by YZF 1y ago

Hikikomori 1y ago

[flagged]

YZF 1y ago
Netanyahu does not "support Hamas". Netanyahu did historically prefer Hamas to be in control of Gaza both for some sense of stability (vs. potential total chaos) and as a way of dividing the Palestinians between Hamas and the Palestinian authority. This has obviously turned out to be a big mistake but it's not the same as "supporting Hamas". Since you're saying "70 years" that's sort of a sign you're approaching this from some sort of ideological perspective. The West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian rule respectively until 1967, so about 48 years ago. I.e. your problem is with the existence of Israel in the 1967 lines and Jewish presence and rights in the region and you, like Palestinians, do not support a two state solution. I'll take your 70 years and raise 3000 years in this case. The Jewish people are the indigenous people of the region, not the Palestinians, and they have the historical rights. EDIT: It's worth noting that Israeli governments have done a lot. They agreed to give the Palestinians autonomy as part of the peace agreement with Egypt. They were engaged in good faith efforts to resolve the conflict during the Oslo Accords. They allowed Palestinians to return to the west bank and Gaza from other countries as part of those accords, they allowed the establishment of the PA and gave it control of all the major cities, they allowed the Palestinians to establish a police force and armed and trained that police force (weapons that ended up being turned on Israelis). They withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and returned it to Palestinians. What have the Palestinians done other than use more violence is the question.

elihu 1y ago

> "The war and the condition of the Palestinian population is 100% the responsibility of their government, Hamas, that continues fighting and holding Israeli hostages." No. Israel is an occupying power, and they're heavily restricting food and aid to civilians. Collective punishment is prohibited by article 33 of the 4th Geneva convention. Starvation as a method of war is prohibited by article 54 of the additional protocols. Shooting civilians is a war crime. Hamas is guilty of a lot of things, but they aren't forcing Israel to shoot and starve civilians. That's not a necessary part of Israel's war effort. It doesn't help defeat Hamas or make Israel safer.

YZF 1y ago
Israel is not occupying the areas of Gaza where there are civilians in any meaningful way. If it was then the war would be over. Israel is considered an "occupying power" in Gaza by some from a legal perspective simply because the status of Gaza was not fully resolved following Israel's withdrawal in 2005. I.e. because Israel withdrew unilaterally, not as part of an agreement, some consider it to still be the "occupying power" since 2005. However Israel is not present in Gaza, does not run Gaza, does not physically control Gaza, since 2005. The current military situation is that Israel controls 65% of the ground, where there are no civilians, and the rest is controlled by Hamas. Starvation of civilians is indeed prohibited. However siege is permitted as long as civilians can leave. So a siege of Gaza city or the northern Gaza strip would be permitted as long as civilians are allowed to leave that area. A similar example would be Mosul that was under siege while being controlled by ISIS. Killing civilians in the course of attacking military objectives is not prohibited. Intentional killing of civilians for no military purpose would be a war crime. Israeli soldiers who intentionally kill Palestinian civilians for no military reason should be put on trial. Either way, the context is the armed conflict/war which is what Hamas started and is still pursuing. IDF soldiers are killed and injured in Gaza every day, this just doesn't make the news or Hacker News.
- elihu 1y ago
  Israel has sufficient control that they can decide whether or how much food enters Gaza, and they have substantial control over the means by which food is distributed. (Aid organizations apply to them for travel permits so that they don't get attacked by IDF forces.) That's the relevant thing here, not whether they have 100% control on the ground. Siege is permitted only so far as it doesn't leave civilians without food or vital supplies. Occupying powers may remove the civilian population to a safe place temporarily. I don't think "we asked them to leave and they didn't" is regarded as an acceptable middle ground. Starvation of civilians as a method of war was specifically one of the charges by the ICC against Netanyahu and Gallant. (That was based on things that happened earlier in the war.) Besides, for several months recently, Israel blocked all food and aid into Gaza. The civilians had absolutely nowhere to go. If similar war crimes happened in Mosul those should be prosecuted too.