6 ms·

Even accepting that, you can ask what is the limit after which you can say that the occupied does morally reprehensible things

incognos 3y ago
How about when the occupier does morally reprehensible things? how should you react? turn the other cheek? Thank you sir, may I have another... (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc....) Notably: The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that: The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory. Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period. The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation. The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation. The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces. Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited. Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited. Collective punishment is prohibited. The taking of hostages is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited. The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited. The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities. Cultural property must be respected. People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible). Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty. None of which are being respected.... so I ask again, who is morally reprehensible? and if you are referring to the debunked lies about october 7th, I urge you to read up
- rbanffy 3y ago
  There is the legal - armed resistance to an occupation is legal - and there is moral - armed resistance attacking unarmed civilians is never morally right. Settling occupied territory is neither legal, nor moral. Bombing hospitals is both illegal and immoral, as so many other things the IDF has been doing for the past months. Then there are the crimes committed against Palestinians over the past 80 or so years - it's not because the government is different that your ownership rights can be ignored. This becomes worse when the governing political parties in question, Hamas and Likud, have charters that exclude the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
  - incognos 3y ago
    FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews. They specifically speak about coexistence, albeit in a single entity called Palestine. There is not language to exclude other ethnicities or religions, only to remove the colonialist movement referred to as Zionism - which is not Judaism.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      > FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews. Oh yes! Still, that's an untenable position. Israel was created so that all Jews could have a state of their own because of the suffering inflicted upon them. There really is no going back on that. For me, a single democratic and secular state, with a legal framework that protects everybody's rights equally and fairly would be the best possible solution, but that would be a multi-generation effort (about 80 years too late, BTW).
      - incognos 3y ago
        But yet, a single democratic secular state is something that is in the hands of the occupier and their supporters. The Palestinian Authority agreed to the Oslo Accords in 1993 to create a 2 state solution - why has Israel and the USA dragged their feet? Israel has constantly and consistently broken the terms of this agreement without repercussion. We would not be in this situation now if this was enforced then. Let the pot boil long enough, it will overflow.

incognos 3y ago

How about when the occupier does morally reprehensible things? how should you react? turn the other cheek? Thank you sir, may I have another... (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc....) Notably: The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that: The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory. Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period. The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation. The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation. The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces. Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited. Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited. Collective punishment is prohibited. The taking of hostages is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited. The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited. The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities. Cultural property must be respected. People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible). Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty. None of which are being respected.... so I ask again, who is morally reprehensible? and if you are referring to the debunked lies about october 7th, I urge you to read up

rbanffy 3y ago
There is the legal - armed resistance to an occupation is legal - and there is moral - armed resistance attacking unarmed civilians is never morally right. Settling occupied territory is neither legal, nor moral. Bombing hospitals is both illegal and immoral, as so many other things the IDF has been doing for the past months. Then there are the crimes committed against Palestinians over the past 80 or so years - it's not because the government is different that your ownership rights can be ignored. This becomes worse when the governing political parties in question, Hamas and Likud, have charters that exclude the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
- incognos 3y ago
  FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews. They specifically speak about coexistence, albeit in a single entity called Palestine. There is not language to exclude other ethnicities or religions, only to remove the colonialist movement referred to as Zionism - which is not Judaism.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    > FWIW, Hamas's charter states that it's issue is with the Zionist Project and not Jews. Oh yes! Still, that's an untenable position. Israel was created so that all Jews could have a state of their own because of the suffering inflicted upon them. There really is no going back on that. For me, a single democratic and secular state, with a legal framework that protects everybody's rights equally and fairly would be the best possible solution, but that would be a multi-generation effort (about 80 years too late, BTW).
    - incognos 3y ago
      But yet, a single democratic secular state is something that is in the hands of the occupier and their supporters. The Palestinian Authority agreed to the Oslo Accords in 1993 to create a 2 state solution - why has Israel and the USA dragged their feet? Israel has constantly and consistently broken the terms of this agreement without repercussion. We would not be in this situation now if this was enforced then. Let the pot boil long enough, it will overflow.