General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRegarding the multitude of protests about Israel
I find the asymmetry to be objectionable.
The Palestinian people (for lack of a more defined label) are being decimated by Israel, HAMAS, and to a lesser extent, Hezbollah. They have been victimized directly and indirectly by all three parties.
I'd like to see/hear more protests that address all three entities if a sincere criticism is being levied.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)Terrorists and their supporters don't react to civil protests, protesting against the actions of a terrorist organization is futile.
However, protesting against the actions of democratic nations and the other democratic nations that support them can be effective, as we see happening in real time.
no_hypocrisy
(46,211 posts)By solely criticizing Israel, HAMAS looks to having clean hands. My contention is that all parties need to be criticized if the Palestinian people are to be protected. HAMAS doesn't get a free pass because it's impervious to criticism.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)...to the people of Gaza really is a separate issue than the brutality of Israel to the people of Gaza.
no_hypocrisy
(46,211 posts)Think. Again.
(8,448 posts).....STRONGLY encourage you to loudly and consistantly call for action to be taken to effectively target hamas rather than the innocent non-hamas citizens of Gaza.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)The civilian casualties in Gaza inflicted by IDF are a direct consequence of the brutality of Hamas towards Palestinians. Not only did Hamas not lift a finger to protect the civilians in their care, they deliberately placed their military assets among civilians. A fact that is conspicuously disregarded by Hamas apologists on a regular basis.
Israel targets Hamas military infrastructure, not civilians.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)netanyahu has made a choice to disregard the safety of innocent non-hamas civilians instead targetting only hamas members, and that choice has been clearly stated and supported here too.
Yes, hamas did indeed use civilians as shields, and I believe hamas must be eliminated, but the innocent casualities in Gaza ARE NOT SOMEHOW NECESSARY to take out hamas no matter what netanyahu supporters say.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)That is self-evident.
And you are clearly agreeing that Hamas used civilians as human shields.
Based on these two factors alone, international law places the entirety of the responsibility for civilian casualties on Hamas.
As far as IDF, your only argument is that they didn't go above and beyond what was reasonably expected of them in an armed conflict and above and beyond the conditions set in international law. I could argue that IDF did go above and beyond, and so do a number of experts on the subject. The only argument I can legitimately accept is that IDF didn't go above and beyond the threshold that would put their soldiers at risk of losing their lives.
Disregarding the safety of his or her troops as top priority would put the commander of these troops at risk of imminent court martial. This is the choice that, should it be made deliberately, would outrage any reasonable critic of any military command, anywhere.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)...showed that your only concern is for who is liable under law.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)What stopped you? There is plenty in my post that precedes my reference to international law. And what did you find wrong with referring to international law anyway?
It appears that you indeed stopped reading my post at some point, but surely you can come up with a better excuse for replying to it, no? Since you bothered to reply, what happened to the parts that you did finish reading? No comment?
Ok-kay....
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)...the genocide than stopping it. I may be wrong, perhaps you do care about the slaughter of innocent, non-hamas Gaza citizens, but I personally don't see that in your posts.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Because it describes genocide in ways you wouldn't like. It describes genocide in ways that are not applicable to Israel.
And you would be terribly disappointed if you couldn't pin that label on Israel, would you?
If you were so inclined as to seriously address the slaughter of innocents in Gaza, I would consider a serious response. But so far I see no signs of that.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)I merely commented on your mention of it.
And my responses were serious all along, whether you want to acknowledge that or not doesn't really matter because it's whether I intended them seriously that matters. In fact, if I told you knock-knock jokes as my responses, but I merely claim I'm innocent of being un-serious, under the definition of genocide you would have to accept my claim.
Because you see according to the Rome Statute, the only excuse netanyau supporters have to use to shield his actions from the accusation of committing genocide is the claim that there isn't intent to commit genocide.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and substantial.
So, as you can see, without evidence of intent, netanyahu (and his supporters) simply has to keep denying he intends genocide, no matter that his actions clearly fit the physical requirements for a conviction.
That's a really weak point to claim innocence on in the public opinion.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)a mere comment. It is refusing to consider who is liable under the law.
Do you call this serious? I don't.
But at least you looked up the law. And now you are aware that intent is pivotal to the definitions that follow and the consequent application of the law. So now you cannot deny that intent determines crime.
Now let's see if you can legitimately deny this:
IDF's intent is to destroy Hamas' military targets. There was no other intent, articulated or implied, that Israel ever communicated or pursued. If you disagree with this, please cite a source that prompted your disagreement.
Hamas' intent is to place these military targets in heavily populated areas, as numerous records and testimonies from their leaders confirm, time and again.
Unless you want to argue that Hamas keeps conducting military operations from civilian areas unintentionally, the intent of each belligerent party in this war is crystal clear.
And "THIS IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS" is a damn good excuse, don't you think?
You see, you take what you say seriously, and you get a proportionally serious response.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)How's this:
My PERSONAL BELIEF is that netanyahu is commiting genocide by killing vast numbers of innocent, non-hamas, non-combatant, Palestinians while also demolishing their homes, civic structures, food supplies, healthcare, way of life, and culture.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Your above-described personal belief contradicts The International Criminal Court you just cited.
That summarizes my point pretty well. I am content to end it right there.
brooklynite
(94,748 posts)Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)... discussions of whether the U.S. should be unconditionally supporting Israel, and whether educational organizations should divest from Israel, are active and widespread.
That is the goal of the protest, to spur discussion of whether the U.S. should be unconditionally supporting Israel and whether educational organizations should divest from Israel.
Hence, the protests are effective in real time.
brooklynite
(94,748 posts)ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)Abortion has been an issue for decades, so why protest it now?
brooklynite
(94,748 posts)I'm aware that we're doing the hard work of passing legislation and getting initiatives and referenda on ballots. No sign that those actions resulted from protests.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)...but I firmly believe that the right to protest, for the reason of letting representatives know what the people are demanding of them as intended in the Constitution, is working in this situation.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)A ceasefire would apply to all sides.
Divesting would also apply universally. The thing is, the aren't many identifiable investments in hamas weapon procurement since they get them under the table from Iran and probably other Arab groups or states.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)From the news reports, I only hear their demands of cease fire by ISRAEL, and they call for divesting from ISRAELI economy, apparently not realizing it will affect millions of Palestinians.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)It would make no sense to want only a ceasefire by Israel. That wouldn't be a ceasefire.
As for divestment, maybe if one could identify some investments in the terror group hamas, one could divest from them. I doubt columbia holds stock in hamas' home made rocket manufacturers.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Yet, I only hear Israel mentioned in their demands of cease fire, and not Hamas. Feel free to cite a source that shows any mentions of Hamas. In the mean time, Hamas is rejecting all offers of cease fire.
As far as divestment, Hamas is not the issue. It is divesting from the Israeli economy that would harm millions of Palestinians who depend on it for their livelihoods.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)That would not be a ceasefire.
The two sides had a ceasefire already back in November, it just happened to be temporary.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)I think Hamas is completely out of their sight and consideration. Their criticism is laser focused on Israel to the exclusion of any other party. I don't even see any signs that they are aware of the status of the cease fire negotiations. If they were, they would certainly blame Hamas for stalling. Whether this is out of ignorance or by design, makes no difference.
But feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary in addition to merely stating that I am wrong.
BTW, they had a permanent cease fire on October 6, 2023. Remember who broke it on October 7? I doubt that most of the protesters do.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)The parties have had cease fires before, that is one of the aims of the protest movement, along with divestment.
Regardless of how you view the situation, a ceasefire is the only way to stop the killing of civilians.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Do you see the protesters speaking of Hamas at all? Do you see them blame Hamas for repeatedly derailing cease fire negotiations?
Surely you can comment on this instead of deflecting from the outwardly manifested attitudes and preferences of the protesters and telling me what I already know about cease fire in general terms instead!
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)Is almost like all those kids in the 1960s wanted the NVA to slaughter everyone in South Vietnam!
On second thought, perhaps they knew they had more power over the US government and that they could force negotiations between that government and Hanoi.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)On one condition: your next response will address the complete absence of mention of Hamas by the protesters, or I will ignore it.
I am assuming that this post is an attempt to draw an analogy between Columbia protests and protests against the Vietnam wars. In this respect, the analogy is misleading in several ways, and deliberately so.
Vietnam war was a war involving US armed forces, not a foreign war. The protests were prompted by young people being drafted and taking part in military actions far away from their homes, risking their lives. The protests began in earnest a good three years after the US army got militarily involved. The protesters did not demand unilateral declaration of cease fire from the US, or any cease fire between any parties involved. They only called for the withdrawal of US troops from the US, negotiations were none of their concern. The cease fire was negotiated aside of the protesters' demands, years later.
You are comparing apples and pork bellies to avoid the subject I raised.
Mossfern
(2,561 posts)by committing atrocities on innocent Israelis.
What makes you think they will honor an new one?
Mossfern
(2,561 posts)How do you propose to make them comply?
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)Mossfern
(2,561 posts)but it seems quite naive to think that a one sided cease fire will accomplish anything.
It's like asking Israel to surrender.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)Mossfern
(2,561 posts)considering that Hamas doesn't respect cease fires, I'd say they're being quite naive.
I want to be 5 inches taller than I am .....just like Hamas complying with a cease fire - never gonna happen.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)At least the protestors are willing to try.
I say that as someone who believes hamas members all deserve to die for being terrorists. However, it isn't worth the civilian casualties that come from the way Israel is doing it.
Mossfern
(2,561 posts)What is their plan?
What are they "trying" to do?
I guess I can "try" to be 5 inched taller by stretching myself on a a rack.
Again, no real solutions, just acting out.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)I bet they vote as well. What more would you like them to do?
Mossfern
(2,561 posts)If they decided to vote for a candidate that is not Biden, then they are ensuring a Trump win.
Hamas does not honor cease fires- it's been shown historically.
Do you want it to be a one sided cease fire? Honestly there isn't such a thing.
I would like them to return to their studies and develop some critical thinking skills.
Big Blue Marble
(5,151 posts)Who is does not want that? An end to slaughter and starvation
of babies and children. That is what the protestors and most of
the Democratic Party want.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Why do they find this a difficult concept to grasp?
brooklynite
(94,748 posts)So no support for Ukraine?
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)To me personally, ukraine is at least attacking the people who invaded them.
I would not support ukraine nuking belgorod though, regardless of its effect on the war.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)elias7
(4,027 posts)The Israeli people have been attacked for 50 years by Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, Al-Aqsa, Fatah, and more recently the Houthis, along other assorted terrorist groups enabled or literally sponsored by the Palestinians people, the Lebanese, the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Iranians, the Saudis.
The Palestinian people got the lions share of the British mandate when Transjordan (over 75% of the land) was partitioned, and have had at least 5 oppoortunities to declare a state, reach a two state solution offered by the Peel commission, the UN mandate, as well Israel who literally could have committed genocide dozens of times over but havent - including living in peace with 2 million Israeli Arabs who opted to stay during the 1947-48 war.
But Hezbollah has literally nothing to do with Gaza or the West Bank. They were borne out of the fact that PLO was continually attacking Israel from Lebanon to the North, and when Israel finally pushed back, Hezbollah was formed to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression. They continue to bomb away at Israel to this day.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)They are one of the groups standing in the way of peace, which would benefit the Palestinians.
It doesn't seem wrong to state that hezbollah is a net negative for palestine.
Happy Hoosier
(7,404 posts).... gun deaths in the USA, or anti-democratic policies of the GOP, or womens' loss of bodily autonomy.
Seriously... in 2021, we have almost 50,000 Americans killed by guns.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)...student protests concerning all of those issues.
Happy Hoosier
(7,404 posts)Another thing I'm sick of... people carrying water for this stuff... which could GUT US in November.
But hey... at least you'll feel morally superior.
Think. Again.
(8,448 posts)...of millions of innocent victims being brutually slaughtered does actually fit my moral standards, yes.
betsuni
(25,660 posts)ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)I mean, did they just not care?
Happy Hoosier
(7,404 posts)... but you choose to re-direct it.
People can carry about more than one thing. But they've been whipped into a frenzy by this, but apparently don;t care enough about any of the other things to do anything NEAR this scale. I suspect I know why.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)I bet if you asked them, the protestors would say they are as anti gun as anyone, but I couldn't say for sure.
Happy Hoosier
(7,404 posts)I think the American far left is (and pretty much always has been) being manipulated by external forces seeking to undermine progressive progress in the US.
IMO. The empathy of left-leaning folks is being weaponized to undermine Biden's support on the left, especially among young people.
And plenty on the far left seem willing to engage with that, whole-heartedly. And some here have made that pelucidly clear.
BannonsLiver
(16,482 posts)Those issues arent trendy on social media and they dont allow for the opportunity to be performative in public in front of cameras, which is really what its all about. Drill down and theres basically no real fucks to give about the people of Gaza when nobody is looking.
JustAnotherGen
(31,917 posts)How many of the on campus protesters are actually students at the Universities. I caught a few minutes of ABC News 7 this morning (NYC Local) and some of those folks marching didn't look like students. They looked a little long in the tooth to be undergrads living on Campus.
ExciteBike66
(2,375 posts)So non students would have to attend the off campus protest on the street.
Doc Sportello
(7,531 posts)Hamas doesn't get billions in military aid and other largesse from the United States, so we are paying for the bombs and munitions that have killed 10s of thousands. Therefore it makes sense that students in the United States, the majority of whom are American and some are Jewish, would focus on Israel and divestiture from U.S companies.
You could also ask the question of why some on here focus solely on Hamas, while ignoring or dismissing the human destruction that Israel has committed mostly against innocent civilians. I've seen lots and lots of mehs, shit happens, both siderisms and well, that's war, when the slaughter in Gaza is brought up.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Israel gets billions to defend against Hamas, Iran, its Quds forces and other warring factions in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad, ISIL, Al Qaeda, the Houthi pirates, Al Aqsa brigades, and more, cumulatively getting untold billions in support from Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey, the Arab League, etc.
And let me speak for myself: I focus on Hamas for the sole purpose of countering the deluge of ill-informed anti-Israel posts, some bordering on antisemitic, which has overwhelmed this forum lately.
Doc Sportello
(7,531 posts)Israel gets billions every year, which a lot of right now is being used to level Gaza. So yeah Israel's attack on Gaza is being financed to a large degree by the U.S., as have all of their military operations. That's a fact, no matter how much you try to use a sleight of word maneuver here.
And no, the ill-informed take on this forum and the war is this: those who posts opinion as if it's fact (such as you do here) and use antisemitism (or "antisimeticish" as above, another sleight of word trick) as a cudgel to falsely accuse posters stating facts that you don't like to hear. Your time would be better spent trying to get rid of Netanyahu and the RW government running Israel. Israel has every right to defend itself and have a state. It does not have a right to genocide.
Understand that I will correct misstatements from time to time but will not engage regularly with those who are guided by zealotry.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)Does Israel not getting billions to defend against Hamas, Iran, its Quds forces and other warring factions in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad, ISIL, Al Qaeda, the Houthi pirates, Al Aqsa brigades, and more, cumulatively getting untold billions in support from Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey, the Arab League, etc.? Every year?
Do I not focus on Hamas for the sole purpose of countering the deluge of ill-informed anti-Israel posts, some bordering on antisemitic, which has overwhelmed this forum lately? Is this forum not being deluged by anti-Israel posts? Are they not ill-informed? Are some of them not bordering on antisemitic?
Which of the above do you consider my opinions not based on facts? If you are disputing any of the above, you better state the rational reasons for doing so in each instance, instead of falling back on ad hominem rants. Believe me, the former would be far more credible and persuasive. Unless you have none to offer, in which case I totally understand why you are resorting to the latter.
Doc Sportello
(7,531 posts)You have gone off on another tangent that is not relevant to that. Sorry not going to get caught up in your web. As I said I don't engage with zealots who have agendas that depend on groupthink and spurious tactics. You're done. Off to ignoreland you go.
Beastly Boy
(9,477 posts)It addressed reasons why Hamas getting no aid from the US is not a valid argument, it addressed the reason why it cannot be compared to the funding Israel, and it addressed what exactly the US id funding for, all of the above completely disregarded in your post.
It explained why there is asymmetry on those subject in much greater detail than your post did.
Well, if the facts don't agree with your opinions, too bad for the facts, right? Off to ignoreland they go!
Goddessartist
(1,881 posts)Thanks!
JI7
(89,276 posts)around this whole thing.