6 ms·

> Hamas killed fewer people than Israel did/is That's an understatement, Hamas killed less than 1,000 civilians, Israel killed 20,000+

ajross 3y ago
[flagged]
- Aeolun 3y ago
  I think you are reading mmuch more into that reply than is warranted. It’s simple fact more people have now died due to Israel’s actions. That doesn’t mean they necessarily need to be punished for it. The international community doesn’t really need to. If this is anything like the other 10 times Israel did one of their “Let’s provision some extra terrorists” exercises, they’ve already guaranteed that they’ll deal with two or three more decades of the palestinian population hating their guts.
- aurelien_gasser 3y ago
  Not picking a side or trying to punish anyone, I'm just highlighting that the difference in the number of victims is quite significant. It would be quite a different situation if Israel had killed only sightly more Palestinian civilians than Hamas' did in their attack. Actually, I suspect that this ICJ order would not have occurred, and that there wouldn't be such widespread accusations of genocide.
- albedoa 3y ago
  I march with left-leaning American Jews. Exactly zero of them are called genocidal colonizers by anyone, let alone left-leaning American progressives. Since you are asserting the existence of something here, are you able to provide an example?
  - ajross 3y ago
    Replying here in a flagged subthread because I really do think this is important: So... those two accusations are so commonly made and debated that they both have their own wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusatio... I mean, sure, you can retreat to arguments about whether it's a personal accusation or just an abstract idea, or whether I can substantiate use of the combined pharse "genocidal colonizer" (which of course I can't). But we both know that's hairsplitting. The point I was trying to make is that there is a large population of people[1] out there who AGREE with you on virtually every practical, relevant point of public policy or international relations.... but who will never make common cause with you if they perceive your goals as the invalidation of the nationality of nine million people. There's no solution here that doesn't involve Zionists, just as there's no solution that rejects Islam.[2] [1] And in particular people with significant influence over the Israeli policy you want to see changed! [2] Realistically there's just no solution, and it would do well for everyone involved to recognize that and resign ourselves to the policy of just reducing immediate harm as what amounts to a BATNA.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Both those accusations are colorable and have non-inflammatory interpretations. For example, sociologically speaking, Israel is a settler-colonialist state. What activists don't acknowledge is that the concept of "settler-colonialism" was invented to describe the distinction between extractive colonialism, of the King Leopold of Belgium type, and the long-term sustainable kind, of the New Zealand type. It was a way of working out why some human migration seems to "work" and others don't. Later --- I think probably in part due to the abuses of "settlers" within Israel, in the West Bank --- the term became an epithet. I suspect it's used largely by people who don't know the meaning. Similarly, there's a colloquial meaning to the word "genocide" that doesn't intersect with the legal meaning. It's any campaign of mass violence directed at a race or creed. That meaning is dilutive of the original concept of genocide, which really did mean an effort to erase (through murder, sterilization, or kidnapping) an entire ethnicity. But it has meaning nonetheless. However justified the military operation of Gaza might be, it would be difficult for a supporter of the IDF to argue that it doesn't consistute mass violence targeting Palestinians, even if it pretty clearly doesn't have either the intention or the potential to erase the Palestinian identity (I feel like if you asked an activist selected at random for a percentage of Palestinians killed in Gaza, you'd get a double-digit number from most of them, which of course not even close).
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - albedoa 3y ago
      > Replying here in a flagged subthread This is like the arsonist talking about "a burning house". Whose flagged sub-thread is it? Why is it flagged? > whether I can substantiate use of the combined pharse "genocidal colonizer" (which of course I can't). Hold on. That is quite the lift and shift. You asserted the existence of "many" non-genocidal non-colonizers who are being repeatedly called genocidal colonizers by left-leaning Americans. When pressed to name one (1) of those many, you said that you "of course" can't substantiate the use of that phrase. (Whether that prevents you from naming one is debatable.) Now you are asserting the existence of "a large population of people". How should we expect you to respond if I challenge you to name one (1) of that large population? I don't love chasing goalposts.
gafferongames 3y ago
Hamas directly and intentionally targeted civilians. Israel is doing what it can to limit civilian casualties while destroying Hamas. Hamas is making that very difficult by blending in with the population, putting command centers under major hospitals and so on.
- Lord-Jobo 3y ago
  > Israel is doing what it can to limit civilian casualties while destroying Hamas. You should really read the parent article at the top of the page. It doesn't support this statement and the court ruling was created from a mountain of evidence.
  - Sabinus 3y ago
    How close does it come to intentionally targeting civilians?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      They hunted down, shot, and killed multiple of their own, underwear-clad civilian citizens who were all the while waving white flags and loudly surrendering in hebrew [0] Imagine the sort of intentional targeting we don't get to see, because the journalists are killed [1] or the internet is cut [2] or the power is cut [3] or because everyone hiding is terrified to even move, knowing anything moving will be shot on sight [4], even surrendering Israeli hostages [0]. What a nightmare. Known (indeed, willing) indiscriminate killing of civilians (especially in civilian areas, yikes) is as much a war crime [5] as "intentionally targeting civilians", even if one shouts "get out of there!" or "human shields!" or "terrorists!" or "it's comin' right for us!" in a Calvinball-style declaration whilst doing it. For more detailed analysis of how Israel seems to be ignoring their obligation to protect Palestinian civilians, I recommend consulting the full ruling [6] from the ICJ, the literal judges of this matter. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-rules-of-engagement-hostages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/world/middleeast/israel-h... 1: https://cpj.org/2024/01/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ https://cpj.org/2024/01/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... 2: https://www.wired.com/story/israel-gaza-internet-blackouts-weapon/ https://www.wired.com/story/israel-gaza-internet-blackouts-w... 3: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 4: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/16/middleeast/idf-sniper-gaza-church-deaths-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/16/middleeast/idf-sniper-gaza-ch... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack#The_1977_Additional_Protocols_to_the_Geneva_Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack#The_1977... 6 (PDF warning): https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
weatherlite 3y ago
All Palestinians deaths are civilians by your measures.

ajross 3y ago

[flagged]

Aeolun 3y ago
I think you are reading mmuch more into that reply than is warranted. It’s simple fact more people have now died due to Israel’s actions. That doesn’t mean they necessarily need to be punished for it. The international community doesn’t really need to. If this is anything like the other 10 times Israel did one of their “Let’s provision some extra terrorists” exercises, they’ve already guaranteed that they’ll deal with two or three more decades of the palestinian population hating their guts.
aurelien_gasser 3y ago
Not picking a side or trying to punish anyone, I'm just highlighting that the difference in the number of victims is quite significant. It would be quite a different situation if Israel had killed only sightly more Palestinian civilians than Hamas' did in their attack. Actually, I suspect that this ICJ order would not have occurred, and that there wouldn't be such widespread accusations of genocide.
albedoa 3y ago
I march with left-leaning American Jews. Exactly zero of them are called genocidal colonizers by anyone, let alone left-leaning American progressives. Since you are asserting the existence of something here, are you able to provide an example?
- ajross 3y ago
  Replying here in a flagged subthread because I really do think this is important: So... those two accusations are so commonly made and debated that they both have their own wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusatio... I mean, sure, you can retreat to arguments about whether it's a personal accusation or just an abstract idea, or whether I can substantiate use of the combined pharse "genocidal colonizer" (which of course I can't). But we both know that's hairsplitting. The point I was trying to make is that there is a large population of people[1] out there who AGREE with you on virtually every practical, relevant point of public policy or international relations.... but who will never make common cause with you if they perceive your goals as the invalidation of the nationality of nine million people. There's no solution here that doesn't involve Zionists, just as there's no solution that rejects Islam.[2] [1] And in particular people with significant influence over the Israeli policy you want to see changed! [2] Realistically there's just no solution, and it would do well for everyone involved to recognize that and resign ourselves to the policy of just reducing immediate harm as what amounts to a BATNA.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Both those accusations are colorable and have non-inflammatory interpretations. For example, sociologically speaking, Israel is a settler-colonialist state. What activists don't acknowledge is that the concept of "settler-colonialism" was invented to describe the distinction between extractive colonialism, of the King Leopold of Belgium type, and the long-term sustainable kind, of the New Zealand type. It was a way of working out why some human migration seems to "work" and others don't. Later --- I think probably in part due to the abuses of "settlers" within Israel, in the West Bank --- the term became an epithet. I suspect it's used largely by people who don't know the meaning. Similarly, there's a colloquial meaning to the word "genocide" that doesn't intersect with the legal meaning. It's any campaign of mass violence directed at a race or creed. That meaning is dilutive of the original concept of genocide, which really did mean an effort to erase (through murder, sterilization, or kidnapping) an entire ethnicity. But it has meaning nonetheless. However justified the military operation of Gaza might be, it would be difficult for a supporter of the IDF to argue that it doesn't consistute mass violence targeting Palestinians, even if it pretty clearly doesn't have either the intention or the potential to erase the Palestinian identity (I feel like if you asked an activist selected at random for a percentage of Palestinians killed in Gaza, you'd get a double-digit number from most of them, which of course not even close).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - albedoa 3y ago
    > Replying here in a flagged subthread This is like the arsonist talking about "a burning house". Whose flagged sub-thread is it? Why is it flagged? > whether I can substantiate use of the combined pharse "genocidal colonizer" (which of course I can't). Hold on. That is quite the lift and shift. You asserted the existence of "many" non-genocidal non-colonizers who are being repeatedly called genocidal colonizers by left-leaning Americans. When pressed to name one (1) of those many, you said that you "of course" can't substantiate the use of that phrase. (Whether that prevents you from naming one is debatable.) Now you are asserting the existence of "a large population of people". How should we expect you to respond if I challenge you to name one (1) of that large population? I don't love chasing goalposts.

gafferongames 3y ago

Hamas directly and intentionally targeted civilians. Israel is doing what it can to limit civilian casualties while destroying Hamas. Hamas is making that very difficult by blending in with the population, putting command centers under major hospitals and so on.

Lord-Jobo 3y ago
> Israel is doing what it can to limit civilian casualties while destroying Hamas. You should really read the parent article at the top of the page. It doesn't support this statement and the court ruling was created from a mountain of evidence.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  How close does it come to intentionally targeting civilians?
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    They hunted down, shot, and killed multiple of their own, underwear-clad civilian citizens who were all the while waving white flags and loudly surrendering in hebrew [0] Imagine the sort of intentional targeting we don't get to see, because the journalists are killed [1] or the internet is cut [2] or the power is cut [3] or because everyone hiding is terrified to even move, knowing anything moving will be shot on sight [4], even surrendering Israeli hostages [0]. What a nightmare. Known (indeed, willing) indiscriminate killing of civilians (especially in civilian areas, yikes) is as much a war crime [5] as "intentionally targeting civilians", even if one shouts "get out of there!" or "human shields!" or "terrorists!" or "it's comin' right for us!" in a Calvinball-style declaration whilst doing it. For more detailed analysis of how Israel seems to be ignoring their obligation to protect Palestinian civilians, I recommend consulting the full ruling [6] from the ICJ, the literal judges of this matter. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-rules-of-engagement-hostages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/world/middleeast/israel-h... 1: https://cpj.org/2024/01/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ https://cpj.org/2024/01/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... 2: https://www.wired.com/story/israel-gaza-internet-blackouts-weapon/ https://www.wired.com/story/israel-gaza-internet-blackouts-w... 3: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67073970 4: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/16/middleeast/idf-sniper-gaza-church-deaths-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/16/middleeast/idf-sniper-gaza-ch... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack#The_1977_Additional_Protocols_to_the_Geneva_Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack#The_1977... 6 (PDF warning): https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...

weatherlite 3y ago

All Palestinians deaths are civilians by your measures.