Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[Eric Jarvis]

I wonder why they don't mention that at all.

For the same reason that armed gangs of "settlers" on the West Bank murdering Palestinians and burning down their homes are not called "terrorists".

 

[JimW]

it seems disputable whether they have committed any or not

Disputable in the sense that the state of Israel and its supporters will lie until they're blue in the face about almost any outrage.

 

[kabbes]

There’s lots of talk about Israeli war crimes, but it seems disputable whether they have committed any or not - it will require close monitoring and an investigation. Hamas however have indisputably committed war crimes. So it’s not really surprising that many politicians are reserving their condemnation of Israeli war crimes at this stage, and instead warning them to be careful not to commit such crimes. A good summary here:

Experts on how the laws of war apply to Hamas and the Israeli military

More than a century of international conventions and treaties are designed to protect civilians from war crimes.

www.nbcnews.com

“Sure, civilians in Gaza are being killed every day, but …”

 

[Yossarian]

Odd little moment there at the end of the clip where one of the women shakes her captor's hand. I'm going to avoid drawing broader conclusions but it's clear that guy at least treated them well. I found that quite touching in the middle of all of this.

Call me a cynic, but I think the attempt to connect with her former captor has more to do with the fact that they are still holding their husband than with any connection that might have developed since she was abducted.

 

[platinumsage]

“Sure, civilians in Gaza are being killed every day, but …”

Civilians being killed is not in itself a "war crime".

 

[Knotted]

Call me a cynic, but I think the attempt to connect with her former captor has more to do with the fact that they are still holding their husband than with any connection that might have developed since she was abducted.

Could be but then I didn't say that had developed a connection as such. It seems pretty clear to me that he hadn't treated them badly. They weren't afraid of him.

 

[two sheds]

Civilians being killed is not in itself a "war crime".

Ahhh so what Hamas did is ok then

Or are you saying that Israel hasn't deliberately targeted civilians? Really? Or caused mass displacement?

 

[JimW]

Another decent analysis from from a prof writing in New Lines mag: Two Gaza Scenarios: Greater Israel vs. Oslo Expects things to get a whole lot worse, obviously. Thought this detail was interesting and something I'd forgotten:

During his recent speech at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, only two weeks before Oct. 7, Netanyahu brandished a map of the Middle East showing a Greater Israel that included Gaza and the West Bank. Even more relevant to the new Gaza war is the fact — hardly mentioned in the global media — that Netanyahu had resigned from the Israeli cabinet led by Sharon in 2005 in protest against the latter’s decision to withdraw from Gaza. (Sharon had succeeded Netanyahu as the head of Likud in 1999, following the latter’s electoral defeat to the Labor Party then led by Ehud Barak. Sharon then managed to win the next election, in 2003, and offered the ministry of finance to Netanyahu.)

 

[platinumsage]

Ahhh so what Hamas did is ok then

What do you think?

Or are you saying that Israel hasn't deliberately targeted civilians? Really? Or caused mass displacement?

I'm saying that it's arguable whether they have actually committed war crimes, and that's why western politicians aren't condemning them for it. What you or I think about their actions isn't relevant to that.

 

[Yossarian]

Could be but then I didn't say that had developed a connection as such. It seems pretty clear to me that he hadn't treated them badly. They weren't afraid of him.

Yeah, I'm sure Hamas chose some of their most diplomatic and emphatic people to deal with the handover but I don't see anything remotely touching in that video clip, just a couple of terrified old women.

 

[Knotted]

What do you think?



I'm saying that it's arguable whether they have actually committed war crimes, and that's why western politicians aren't condemning them for it. What you or I think about their actions isn't relevant to that.

Releasing white phosphorus on an urban area is a war crime. Whereas I'm not an expert, I remember the discussion from last time. It's unarguably a war crime.

Experts do this thing where they won't say something has been proved prior to an investigation. It's a standard of professionalism. It doesn't mean politicians can't draw the near obvious conclusions and the fact that they haven't is a political decision.

 

[platinumsage]

Releasing white phosphorus on an urban area is a war crime. Whereas I'm not an expert, I remember the discussion from last time. It's unarguably a war crime.

No, all the evidence suggests the white phosphorus Israel used was in the form of smoke shells rather than incendiary shells, the former being excluded from the ban on white phosphorus use in urban areas.

Experts do this thing where they won't say something has been proved prior to an investigation. It's a standard of professionalism. It doesn't mean politicians can't draw the near obvious conclusions and the fact that they haven't is a political decision.

If the potential war crimes committed by Israel were as blatant and undeniable as those committed by Hamas, then these politicians would have taken a different stance.

 

[teqniq]

There’s lots of talk about Israeli war crimes, but it seems disputable whether they have committed any or not - it will require close monitoring and an investigation. Hamas however have indisputably committed war crimes. So it’s not really surprising that many politicians are reserving their condemnation of Israeli war crimes at this stage, and instead warning them to be careful not to commit such crimes. A good summary here:

Experts on how the laws of war apply to Hamas and the Israeli military

More than a century of international conventions and treaties are designed to protect civilians from war crimes.

www.nbcnews.com

'disputable'?
You are clearly taking the piss or trolling or both.

 

[platinumsage]

'disputable'?
You are clearly taking the piss or trolling or both.

If you disagree with David J. Scheffer and David M. Crane quoted in the article it would be good to see your reasoning.

 

[kabbes]

I'm saying that it's arguable whether they have actually committed war crimes, and that's why western politicians aren't condemning them for it. What you or I think about their actions isn't relevant to that.

And what you’re doing with your saying is forever finding reasons to “but” the actions of Israel rather than having to agree that they have done reprehensible things.

You’re a smart man, platinumsage But like a lot of smart men, you are so in love with being a smart man that you’ve made the mistake of thinking your knowledge is simply objective and factual. Knowledge is relational, situational and purposive — there is a knower and there is something known about, and all of this exists in a context and is used for a purpose. When you say that you’re “just saying” things, you miss that you have had to decide what to say, when to say it, what to leave out, any reflection on how or why you came to know that thing and how what you’re saying reproduces any of the assumptions that are embedded within what you’re saying. I mean, we all do that but you’re so in love with your identity as the lone objective realist in a sea of idiots — so sure that nothing matters other than what you can count — that you miss all that stuff hard. And that makes you even more susceptible than most to missing the wood for the trees.

Take a step back. In a world in which thousands of civilians have been killed in a week by a state throwing bombs at them, and where that state is creating a humanitarian disaster by denying those civilians water, food, power and medicine and forcing migration upon them, you are choosing to focus your attention on whether this has been declared a “war crime” by politicians yet. And you’re even saying that’s what matters — our opinions about it are “irrelevant”. Ask yourself how you got to that point. Is it really some context-free commitment to “neutrality” and “fact”?

 

[Ax^]

Yes you’re obviously not a war crimes expert.

yes and you clearly place a higher value to lives on one side of the conflict than the other...

 

[platinumsage]

And what you’re doing with your saying is forever finding reasons to “but” the actions of Israel rather than having to agree that they have done reprehensible things.

You’re a smart man, platinumsage But like a lot of smart men, you are so in love with being a smart man that you’ve made the mistake of thinking your knowledge is simply objective and factual. Knowledge is relational, situational and purposive — there is a knower and there is something known about, and all of this exists in a context and is used for a purpose. When you say that you’re “just saying” things, you miss that you have had to decide what to say, when to say it, what to leave out, any reflection on how or why you came to know that thing and how what you’re saying reproduces any of the assumptions that are embedded within what you’re saying. I mean, we all do that but you’re so in love with your identity as the lone objective realist in a sea of idiots — so sure that nothing matters other than what you can count — that you miss all that stuff hard. And that makes you even more susceptible than most to missing the wood for the trees.

Take a step back. In a world in which thousands of civilians have been killed in a week by a state throwing bombs at them, and where that state is creating a humanitarian disaster by denying those civilians water, food, power and medicine and forcing migration upon them, you are choosing to focus your attention on whether this has been declared a “war crime” by politicians yet. And you’re even saying that’s what matters — our opinions about it are “irrelevant”. Ask yourself how you got to that point. Is it really some context-free commitment to “neutrality” and “fact”?

You can shove your cod-academicalising up your arse, no one cares you did a psychology course because you were bored.

 

[two sheds]

What do you think?

I think you're justifying war crimes.

I'm saying that it's arguable whether they have actually committed war crimes, and that's why western politicians aren't condemning them for it. What you or I think about their actions isn't relevant to that.

No that's not at all why western politicians aren't condemning them. Same as why they've not been condemning the killings in the West Bank, or the denial of food and water and electricity to civilians, or the targeted killings of journalists and kids over the last few years.

You seem to see Palestinian civilians as legitimate targets, which is pretty well the mindset of Hamas.

 

[kabbes]

You can shove your cod-academicalising up your arse, no one cares you did a psychology course because you were bored.

This is a natural response that you would give to my challenge. I understand.

 

[Gramsci]

Another decent analysis from from a prof writing in New Lines mag: Two Gaza Scenarios: Greater Israel vs. Oslo Expects things to get a whole lot worse, obviously. Thought this detail was interesting and something I'd forgotten:

This is very informative.

Two things:

The example of Tamil Tigers - if Israel is going to really get rid of Hamas its going to require a lot of civilian deaths. Unlike Sri Lanka more of worlds attention is on Gaza.

So people turning up to big demos is not a waste of time.

Secondly the Oslo peace process was only ever about giving Palestinians a rump state. Hardly a state really. It was an insult to the Palestinian people.

 

[platinumsage]

This is a natural response that you would give to my challenge. I understand.

From your first post on this thread where you claimed the Hamas attack was an inevitable response to colonisation you've repeatedly demonstrated that you understand very little.

 

[Yossarian]

You’re a smart man, platinumsage But like a lot of smart men, you are so in love with being a smart man that you’ve made the mistake of thinking your knowledge is simply objective and factual. Knowledge is relational, situational and purposive — there is a knower and there is something known about, and all of this exists in a context and is used for a purpose. When you say that you’re “just saying” things, you miss that you have had to decide what to say, when to say it, what to leave out, any reflection on how or why you came to know that thing and how what you’re saying reproduces any of the assumptions that are embedded within what you’re saying. I mean, we all do that but you’re so in love with your identity as the lone objective realist in a sea of idiots — so sure that nothing matters other than what you can count — that you miss all that stuff hard. And that makes you even more susceptible than most to missing the wood for the trees.

No offense, kabbes, but this reads like a really long fortune cookie

 

[Pickman's model]

From your first post on this thread where you claimed the Hamas attack was an inevitable response to colonisation you've repeatedly demonstrated that you understand very little.

Yeh but his very little is better than your none at all

 

[tim]

thread

People have already made it clear on this thread that sadistic torture of civilians including children is an inevitable consequence of Israel's policy towards Gaza. Evidence of people having their eyes gouged out in front of their kids or whatever isn't going to matter to them - Hamas aren't terrorists and their actions and Jew-hating aren't due to their religion or politics or anything but entirely the fault of Israel.

Who are the people on this thread defending or excusing Hamas? Name and shame them.

 

[kabbes]

From your first post on this thread where you claimed the Hamas attack was an inevitable response to colonisation you've repeatedly demonstrated that you understand very little.

What, specifically, you would condemn of Israel’s actions to date?

 

[Pickman's model]

Odd little moment there at the end of the clip where one of the women shakes her captor's hand. I'm going to avoid drawing broader conclusions but it's clear that guy at least treated them well. I found that quite touching in the middle of all of this.

I thought when people brought that up here it'd be accompanied by mention of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[kabbes]

No offense, kabbes, but this reads like a really long fortune cookie

I don’t take offence. I’m not threatened by that fact. If you didn’t understand what I was trying to say then I’m sorry about it. I can expand at much greater length if you like, although this thread is not the place. Maybe by PM, if you have a genuine interest.

 

[platinumsage]

thread
Who are the people on this thread defending or excusing Hamas? Name and shame them.

Read the next couple of pages after that post you quoted.

 

[teqniq]

If you disagree with David J. Scheffer and David M. Crane quoted in the article it would be good to see your reasoning.

This is all rather academic isn't it? Simply because Israel is not a signatory to. the ICC, moreover the US will inevitably support them as it has done previously so that NBC article and the quotes from both men are simply providing cover for prosecutions that they know will actually never happen. Words are cheap.

 

[Rob Ray]

"Read the next couple of pages after that post you quoted."

Writing that took more words than writing names would have. Afraid you might have to justify yourself?

Isn't it amazing, the way people who insist they are the voice of good sense will dip Into hyperbole in an effort to dirty opponents when they feel they're not getting their way ...