-30
Anti-Israel agitators continue disruptions with escalations at USC, Harvard and Columbia
(www.foxnews.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
-30 points (17.4% liked)
Conservative
389 readers
41 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Once again that is a straw man.
I'm not sure it's a straw man. Your advice to end the genocide, is to get Hamas to stop doing a thing. But Hamas is not the city. The city is filled with people who are mostly not Hamas. So we're talking about collective punishment. A city is being punished until some people who live in the city, but not all people who live in the city, do a thing. That's classic collective punishment.
So please help me understand, how does a citizen of Gaza, who is not engaged in hostilities, and not a member of Hamas, how do they not get killed?
Nobody made the claim they needed to die. They are dying because of the actions of Hamas and not because of Israel. Hamas declared war on Israel, and Israel had a duty and obligation to fight the war until Hamas surrendered or negotiated a ceasefire.
Hamas is the government of the Palestinians. If they are unhappy with Hamas, they should remove Hamas and ask for a cease-fire, but Hamas is wildly popular with the Palestinians.
When you have combat in a city, civilians will be killed, and Israel tries to avoid that, but warfare isn't a video game. Hamas is the one fighting from the cities to maximize civilian casualties as they think it will gain them support in the world.
They didn't play their cards well because they started off with a mass attack against civilians, taking hostages against international law, raping women, etc.
It's why the world is letting Israel clean up this mess.
If Hamas wanted civilians to stop dying, they would stop using them as shields. The issue is their strategy is to maximize civilian deaths as they think it makes them look good.
I see your logic, but there's one piece missing. The unaligned civilians in the city cannot leave the city. They are trapped inside the city. They are being killed, and being prevented from leaving. It is not a far stretch to say they are in a kill box. Not to mention the food and water denial.
If people were freely allowed to leave the combat zone, and they could leave the country, and they could be refugees, you could have a reasonable argument the people left behind more or less support the belligerents.
Because people are not allowed to leave the combat zone, this logic cannot work.
There are many ways to affect political change, forcing civilians to die, even if they are not part of the military, is classic collective punishment. And if you're saying it's not a genocide because its collective punishment, we have another discussion we should be having.
I agree with you 100% on this, including medical care.
That is because they have pissed off the whole world. Egypt wants nothing to do with them.
You could argue that food, water, and medical care fall under collective punishment, but military assault does not.
It is not a genocide. The US government has even said it is not a genocide. Those are overly emotional words to try to invoke an emotional rather than a logical response.
Okay let's choose an example that we're not emotionally invested in.
There is a protest, in front of a bunch of soldiers. One of the protesters throws a rock at the soldiers killing one of the soldiers. The soldiers open fire on the crowd not knowing who threw the rock, killing random protesters. Is this justified? Is this collective punishment okay?
See, you tried to word it as a logical fallacy.
Israeli soldiers don't do that. American soldiers don't do that.
While someone may panic, that isn't a collective punishment. That is someone who panicked.
A collective punishment is where they calmly line up everyone and then execute them for killing one soldier.
I'm not sure where my logics breaking.
We have a group of people, we cannot attribute who is a belligerent or not, we deny food and water to the entire group, we do not let any of the group Members leave, we bombed the group, this is textbook collective punishment. I'm not sure where the line is in your mind between a war and collective punishment.
In my mind, if people are not allowed to opt out of the combat, it is collective punishment. In most wars, opting out simply means refugees walk away from the combat area. It's still terrible, but at least they're not directly involved in the combat.
That is your opinion, but that isn't how it is defined in law.
If they hadn't attacked all their neighbors, they would have a place to go.
Hamas bears the bulk of the blame here. I do blame Israel for not providing food, water and medical care. That is their obligation, and the world would provide them resources to do it.
You're conflating they the belligerents and they the civilians. You're mixing these two groups.
Which law are you referring to? Quite frankly even international law typically never gets applied inside of a country's borders.
Telling people they have to die, because of where they are born, is a terrible thing. I will stand by that regardless of how you define the labels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment
Nobody is telling them they have to die. If they removed Hamas or Hamas stopped fighting, this would be over tomorrow.
Using your logic, the bombings in WW2 were collective punishment since civilians were hit as well.
Yes. The fire bombings on world war II were absolutely collective punishment.
From the wiki you just linked. Can we agree that there are people who live in Gaza, who do not support Hamas, and who are not actively involved in the fighting? You've just said they have to convince Hamas to stop fighting before things can be " over "?
You're making uninvolved people, responsible for the actions of others. That fits the definition from Wikipedia that you just link to.
No, they were attacking military tagets. They are not collective punishment.
They are not uninvolved. That is their government that started the fight.
I have very little empathy for the Palestinians. When they brought the hostages back, nobody stood up for them. Nobody tried to save any of them.
All right let's go through a thought experiment: You're a 16-year-old girl, you just had a baby. The father is dead. You want to leave the fighting zone. You're not allowed to leave. How do you affect collective action, and change the government? The government which last had an election before you were born
The fact that you and your baby cannot overthrow Hamas, is that enough reason for you to die?
You protest with likeminded people.
I think that's a catch-22. If you organize a protest and you get into a group. You're very likely to be bombed.
We are saying a member of this collective, is responsible for the behavior of other members of that collective. And until they fix the collective behavior, they cannot leave the kill box. That's unethical, that's immoral, that's collective punishment
It’s not. Fighting a war to defend yourself isn’t collective punishment.
You seem to be advocating that Israel should just let Hamas launch rockets and kill their civilians. I think that’s a horrible take on things.
I'm advocating that Israel should allow refugees to leave the combat area. I'm saying no children should die in strategic bombing. There isn't a Hamas armored core resisting the Israeli Air Force. There was total military domination of both the skies and the land. This is asymmetric occupation.
Just so we're clear, if your goal is to end Hamas. But you don't want to actually do the police work on the ground. The best scenario is to create a land bridge between the West Bank and Palestine and allow the Palestinian authority to send troops, facilitators, bureaucrats, into Gaza.
They can leave. They just can't go into Israel and Egypt doesn't want them.
Who has said they would take the refugees? Nobody.
When you spend years attacking your neighbors and supporting terrorism, you find yourself with limited options.
And in our scenario the 16-year-old girl with the baby and Dead family, she has spent years attacking her neighbors? And she must suffer for it? This is the disconnect we're not agreeing on.
They cannot leave. It's literally a closed prison.
She isn't suffering for it. She can't leave because nobody wants her.
Israel isn't bombing a house to punish anyone. They are bombing a house to kill combatants trying to kill them.
That is why it isn't collective punishment. They are fighting a war and not punishing people.
Buy your own admission they're denying food and water and medicine into Gaza. That is also definitional collective punishment.
The whole daddy's home system and the up to 20 collateral budget for strikes inside of Gaza also speaks to collective punishment
You seem to be operating from the theory that as long as there's any military justification, or rationale, it's not collective punishment. Collective punishment is highly effective from a military perspective. There is no denying that. The reason we say collective punishment is terrible, is because your externalizing the pain onto people uninvolved.
You keep trying to define collective punishment as something you don't like and not by the laws of warfare.
I asked you to define the laws of warfare, and you link to the Wikipedia page about collective punishment. I quoted the definition from Wikipedia. This fits that definition. I'm operating by your own rules.
That definition doesn't fit the scenario.
Let's see you articulate exactly how this is collective punishment.
https://hackertalks.com/comment/3556166
You are trying to redefine the situation.
The situation is simple: Hamas declared war on Israel, and Israel is fighting Hamsas. They are not punishing anyone but fighting a war.
Israel's motivation isn't to punish anyone. It is to stop Hamas. Punishment has to happen for it to be punishment.
@wintermute_oregon well...motivation can be tough to deduce, I can see why some people might look at #Israel sideways. But, the #IDF is largely not doing anything outside the normal scope of war.
People who have not trained for war or been in war, often don't get how shitty war is.
Now after this is all done, I do think the US needs to pressure Israel into dealing with the issue.
I am not going to pretend I know what the solution is but we can't have these wars every few years.
My concern is no solution will appease all sides.
@wintermute_oregon Okay to be fair, I in general support #Israel but the siege on #Gaza at the very least constitutes as collective punishment to some degree, intentional or unintentional as it might have been.
I agree the water, food and medical care are potentially collective punishment and at least against the rules of war.
The assault is not.
I’m not pleased Israel hasn’t done more to provide food, water and medical care.