this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024

140 points (80.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26982 readers

2311 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

140

Supporters of Israel's actions in Gaza - why do you think the Geneva convention should not apply? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by frazw to c/asklemmy

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Bluetreefrog 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

In the interest of moderation transparency, we've had a couple of reports about this post.

Here's my thinking about it:

Community purpose

This post is more political that would ordinarily be seen on AskLemmy, ⬇️
it is an open-ended thought provoking question, ⬆️
it is generating healthy and informative discussion and debate. ⬆️

Rule 1:

the post is not trolling, sealioning, racist or toxic, ⬆️
the topic is contentious but seems to be worded politely, ⬆️
the author has voluntarily amended the question to be more sensitive in their framing. ⬆️

Rule 3:

it does not fit the definition of spam or astroturfing ⬆️

On balance, I'm going to let the post remain up.

[–] frazw 16 points 2 months ago

Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 105 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (22 children)

Here's a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I'm just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.

Settlements.

The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel's particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and '73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations' armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.

Gaza civilians

The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that's not what they're doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.

If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What's the justification for that? I think their view is that they're dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn't happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it's a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they're ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It's a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas' when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn't another way.

This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.

America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I'm aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.

Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it's better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?

Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn't have to doesn't take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)

[–] Carrolade 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well written answer. This actually gives me a fantastic chance to argue the pro-Palestinian side for a change, which deserves some nuance of its own that it doesn't get nearly enough of.

I would argue that the realpolitik stance of Netanyahu is grossly outdated. Before the events of Oct 7th, Israel was getting closer and closer to an agreement with Saudi Arabia, indicative of a growing perception that the days of fossil fuel profits running an economy are slowly coming to their end, and the need to transition towards a service sector economy based around tourism, the free flow of business and cultural and technological export. All of these are severely hampered by violence in a way that resource extraction is far less subject to. Because of this shifting economic climate over not just the region, but the whole globe, the days of sudden, large-scale Arab attacks into Israeli territory were growing more and more unlikely. This ultimately makes the wish to secure a greater strategic depth unnecessary.

While that would not remove the chances of terrorism, we can look to the end of The Troubles in Ireland and see that negotiation and autonomy can create a viable path forward for ending local sectarian hostilities. While this would no doubt be a difficult path, requiring significant investment and no small amount of vulnerability from Israel in the short term, it has the potential to secure a lasting peace in a way that bombs simply cannot. If a negotiated peace and independence for the Palestinian people can be achieved, then, further ties with the rest of their Arab neighbors become significantly easier, giving Israel a much better opportunity to rise to a status of acceptance and prominence within the broader Middle East community. This would in turn allow them to exploit the Sunni/Shiite and secular/religious divides within the Islamic world to align themselves with the majority against Iran, and give them much greater security in the long run.

This diplomatic and economic path to security is perhaps barely still possible, if Israel can throw out Netanyahu and change their direction, reversing their pattern of settlement in the West Bank and economically compensating the Palestinians for land already lost. A back-breaking property tax could perhaps be levied on all Israeli citizens living within the West Bank settlements, with the proceeds going to outreach, health and education programs for their neighbors, both Arab and Israeli. This could slowly lead to a sort of economic demilitarized zone, and be the first step towards co-existence.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

Well put.

I think the desire for a national identity (Zionism) is fundamentally at odds with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring ethnic groups. Israel is definitely at a major disadvantage here. Most other ethnic groups have a "homeland" out of sheer geo-historical inertia. Though I wouldn't call it a completely unique situation. We see the tensions arise from the protection (or lack thereof) of national identity all over the world to lesser degrees, especially as globalization creeps in.

And I can empathize with groups that feel marginalized because of it. Though I think letting it boil over into violence is definitely a step too far.

Besides, geography as a means of cultural protectionism may be an outdated idea. We can't underestimate the importance of soft power for spreading cultural influence, and being in a state of constant conflict does not further that goal.

In summary, I think Israel's actions are rational at a tactical level, but ultimately fail to address the big picture you lay out.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago

Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don't just reflexively downvote.

[–] Keeponstalin 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I won't ascribe these views as yours, but I will argue against them from a pro-palestinian standpoint.

Settlements and Security:

Israel does justify the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

This type of settlement, where the native population gets 'Transferred' to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice. See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate, before the mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948: Plan Dalet, Declassified Massacres of 1948, and Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) . Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967: Haaretz, Forward; while the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ). The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

Avi Shlaim

How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.

The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.

https://m.btselem.org/settler_violence

Civilian Deaths and Human Shields:

Israel does deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so: ‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, Lavender, and Where's Daddy. When it comes to Israeli Soldiers and Civilians, there is also the use of the Hannibal Directive, which was also used on Oct 7th.

Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza, 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza , Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated.

On the subject of Human Shields, there are some independent reports for past conflicts of Hamas jeopardizing the safety of civilians via Rocket fire in dense urban areas, two instances during Oct 7th, but no independent verification since then so far. None of which absolve Israel of the crime of targeting civilians under international law:

Intentionally utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain areas immune from military attack is prohibited under international law. Amnesty International was not able to establish whether or not the fighters’ presence in the camps was intended to shield themselves from military attacks. However, under international humanitarian law, even if one party uses “human shields”, or is otherwise unlawfully endangering civilians, this does not absolve the opposing party from complying with its obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects.

Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields: IDF uses Human Shields, including Children (2013 Report), and in the latest war Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds

[–] frazw 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

I'm not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] lennybird 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

First thanks for the response. I'm Neither Pro-Israel; nor Pro-Hamas. I always frame my position as being Pro-Civilian above all. That is:

Who historically has killed the most civilians?
Who is actively killing the most civilians now?
Does the collateral damage of killing these civilians now lead to less civilians dying in the long run?

To me these are the key questions that frame a lot of my positions on this subject.

To the first question, Israel both Pre and Post-October 7th has killed more civilians overall. The general response to this is, "Well sure but that's only because Israel can defend itself." But because you have good defenses -- defenses that arguably should've been able to easily prevent October 7th from happening in the first place, does that really justify the number of civilian deaths, especially when you espouse the moral high-ground in being above a terrorist organization? Israel has the means to target civilians, but should they?

The second question is clear. Israel has committed easily dozens of October 7ths against innocent Palestinian civilians. It would take probably a century for Hamas to be able to commit the amount of atrocities that IDF has done in less than a year. So while not to be callous, by pure logic, the rate of suffering Israel has incurred upon innocent people is overwhelmingly greater than that which Hamas is capable of.

Finally, is this ends-justify-the-means? No, I don't believe so. Never in the history of ever does destabilizing a region by destroying civilian infrastructure and killing vast swaths of families, leaving orphans and parents whose children are dead ever deradicalized a populaton. At least not when the source of that is less an identity with a nation-state and more a festering ideology driving radicalization. Ultimately, Israel seems to be doing all the wrong things in playing whack-a-mole with Hamas; except it's Whack-a-Hydra, and the resulting collateral damage will radicalize further individuals. So what will happen when all these orphans grow up? We all know what. Moreover does this even address the root sources fueling this extremism? No sense of national identity, and Lebanon and Iran? No, Israel won't tackle the source of the problem.

As others pointed out, we would all be utterly shocked if in Die Hard they just decided to level the entire building with everyone inside. We would all be shocked if police just set demolition charges on the latest school shooter with all kids still inside, justifying it as, "Well we had to eliminate the threat!" Israel is justifying widespread, unprecedented collateral damage with this exact mentality... And for what?

At the end of the day we need to step back and look at the big picture. Bibi is deeply unpopular in Israel. He is facing widespread criminal charges in their courts. And now, he is facing crimes against humanity charges by the ICC. He must remain a war time president to avoid criminal prosecution. This is about status & legacy above all else for him. Like all right-wing nationalists, he does not care about innocent civilians; they're merely useful pawns.

Apologies as my response had to be a bit rushed today.

[–] a_new_sad_me 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I'm an Israeli lefty and this is the first time I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I'm actually agreeing with. Thank you.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'm an avid palestine supporter, but what's the point of this thread? You know there are no Israel supporters here save for trolls, and this isn't a question, it's a rant.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Fourpackets posted a complete thought that doesn't seem to be trolling

Edit who the fuck downvotes this

[–] frazw 8 points 2 months ago

No I'm genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

This is a loaded question. It pretends every supporter of Israel also supports the current government, the illegal occupation, the ongoing war, and throwing the Geneva convention out.

I support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state and a homeland for the Jewish people.

But I support none of the above.

And no, I don't have a good solution for this age-old conflict either.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (11 children)

a homeland for the Jewish people.

Weird way to call a stolen property lol

[–] cheese_greater 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Everywhere has been stolen, not to excuse the bullshit happening on the West Bank but still

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes but my tax money paid today didn't support other crimes. They do support Israel and indont like it.

[–] Lifecoach5000 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Well you’re part of the brainbin. What’s your ideal solution?

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The Jewish homeland was formed by killing and kicking out people who were living there.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I think this comment wasn't supposed to be an argument for the existence of Israel, but rather directed at the initial premise. They are challenging the assumption that support for the Israeli state and support for the conflict in Gaza are one in the same.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As were most countries.
And the Jewish people were killed and kicked out everywhere they lived for centuries prior to that.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That not Palestinians fault.

Why not give Jews half of Germany?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

As a German, I'd be fine with that. They can have the Eastern half.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Or Sitka, Alaska?

[–] dondelelcaro 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That didn't work out so well.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] frazw 8 points 2 months ago

I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel's right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.

[–] frazw 6 points 2 months ago

P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two

[–] d00phy 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So as an alternative question so someone who sounds reasonable (it is the Internet after all!), what are your thoughts on a 2-state solution, or Israel’s expansion into the West Bank?

Ignoring of course the fact that a 2-state solution will never ever happen.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Geneva Convention is clearly Hamas.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Everybody I don't like is clearly Hamas

[–] mkwt 10 points 2 months ago

The Geneva conventions are not monolithic documents, and they are not completely uncontroversial. I believe the article 51 you refer to is in a 1978 addon protocol that Israel has not ratified. For reference, there is a different article 51 in the original 1949 conventions, that talks about when an occupying army may conscript civilian labor.

Like any other international treaties, the conventions only apply to countries that have signed on and ratified the treaties. The United States and Israel have not ratified the additional protocol, so from their perspective they are not bound by the text.

The original 1949 conventions do have protections for civilians, but they are weaker protections. Ratiometric evidence of civilian casualties is heartbreaking, but unfortunately simply not relevant to the 1949 conventions. Under those rules, if a facility is used by your enemy to harm you, you can attack that facility. Period.

IDF is always careful to portray how they scrupulously follow the 1949 conventions when they speak to the media. Clear violations that become public are referred to investigation.

As in any war, some elements of IDF are almost certainly violating the conventions. But as a USian I don't think I'll get close to understanding the truth any time soon. I basically don't trust any news source coming out of that region any more.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

This issue is similar to the one with COVID, where it is the facts themselves that are often in question, and people following the leader regardless of what they do. As such, Innuendo Studios' The Alt-Right Playbook works here as well - i.e. it is a mindset held by those who wish that the world were a certain way, and are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

FourPacketsOfPeanuts has already given a good answer specifically about Israel's situation, but I want to say something about international law in general. Law may be written based on moral principles, but law is still not the same thing as morality. In our daily lives, we follow our moral principles because that's what we believe is right, and we follow the law because otherwise cops will put us in jail.

The situation for a sovereign country is different - there are no cops and there is no jail. If other countries wanted to take hostile action, they would even if there was no violation of international law, and if they did not want to take hostile action, the wouldn't even if there was a violation. Morality still exists (although morality at the scale of countries is necessarily not the same as morality at the scale of individuals) but the law might as well not exist because it is not enforced. It's just pretty language that may be quoted when a country does what it was going to do anyway.

I'm not trying to imply that I think that Israel is violating international law. I'm saying that discussing whether it is or not is a purely intellectual exercise with no practical relevance. If I support Israel but you convince me that it is technically breaking some law, I'm still not going to change my mind. If you oppose Israel but I convince you that it is technically obeying every law to the letter, you're still probably not going to change your mind.

[–] JubilantJaguar 3 points 2 months ago

Well, this is certainly one way to goose the participation on Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

There are people who support Israel unconditionally and then there are those of us who just think they're the lesser a-holes in the recent war. I'm definitely not the first group. Nobody with my perspective is saying the Geneva convention (however you take that; one could make the case the convention isn't perfect as a reflection either...) shouldn't apply to them, or that there should be an intrinsic bias towards either side, but at the very start of the war, I said Hamas and even Palestine should be seen as more disappointing, and except for where Israel increased its assholery over time, I did not disappoint myself in hindsight as time passed, as both Hamas and Palestine (as well as other entities now) have still never been passed on the assholery scale yet.

load more comments