War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

Well, the United Nations agency responsible for attempting to provide aid to refugees and civilians in Gaza has stated today that nowhere in Gaza is safe and the IDF is killing indiscriminately. Israel ordered a displacement of civilians (a war crime) and then bombed civilian vehicles obeying the evacuation instruction. It appears to be Israel's intention to scorch the Gaza strip and leave nobody alive there.

[Octavious]

Out of curiosity, where is it written that giving civilians advanced warning of a military attack so that they may evacuate the targeted area is a crime?

As for Isreal's apparent intention, that's very much your interpretation and doesn't seem to me to in any way align with the facts as they currently stand.

Frankly, however, my personal view is that the removal of all people from Gaza will be beneficial to Isreal and massively beneficial to the people of Gaza, and I don't give a damn about whether or not this solution would fall under the category of ethnic cleansing. It's a damned shame that the ethnic cleansing label prevents this from being realistically contemplated. The ethnic cleansing of the people from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia (which ora will no doubt ignore because they're "white-ish" and this flies in the face of his "the West acts for whites but not browns" narrative) is on the one hand a tragedy, and on the other hand the only realistic long term solution for a sustainable peace in the region

[Jamiet99uk]

Out of curiosity, where is it written that giving civilians advanced warning of a military attack so that they may evacuate the targeted area is a crime?

The forced mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation (or threat thereof) is a breach of the Geneva Convention. It is written there in Article 49, since you asked.

[Jamiet99uk]

Frankly however, my personal view is that the removal of all people from Gaza will be beneficial to Isreal and massively beneficial to the people of Gaza.

The problem with your personal view here is that Israel's current strategy is to remove all people from Gaza and move them into mass graves. This is not beneficial to the people involved, it is genocide.

[Octavious]

Out of curiosity, where is it written that giving civilians advanced warning of a military attack so that they may evacuate the targeted area is a crime?

The forced mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation (or threat thereof) is a breach of the Geneva Convention. It is written there in Article 49, since you asked.

And as this is not happening there is no breach. Glad we've cleared that up

[Octavious]

Frankly however, my personal view is that the removal of all people from Gaza will be beneficial to Isreal and massively beneficial to the people of Gaza.

The problem with your personal view here is that Israel's current strategy is to remove all people from Gaza and move them into mass graves. This is not beneficial to the people involved, it is genocide.

The problem you have is that you're confusing a bizarre anti-Israelis fantasy with reality. It certainly would be a genocide if true, but it isn't.

[Jamiet99uk]

Out of curiosity, where is it written that giving civilians advanced warning of a military attack so that they may evacuate the targeted area is a crime?

The forced mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation (or threat thereof) is a breach of the Geneva Convention. It is written there in Article 49, since you asked.

And as this is not happening there is no breach. Glad we've cleared that up

They ordered civilians to leave the Northern part of Gaza under threat of force. This is a matter of factual record. Don't lie.

They then bombed convoys of civilians trying to observe the evacuation order. This is also a matter of documented fact.

[Jamiet99uk]

The entire northern 50% of Gaza is not a legitimate military target and you know it.

[worcej]

I look at the middle east and just put my hands up. There is so much chaos and ethnic cleansing on both sides that I just stay out of it.

[Octavious]

They ordered civilians to leave the Northern part of Gaza under threat of force. This is a matter of factual record. Don't lie.

I have not lied. They have informed the civilian population where military operations will be focused in order to allow an evacuation to take place. This does not in any way meet the definition of genocide, and pretending otherwise is fundamentally dishonest.

They then bombed convoys of civilians trying to observe the evacuation order. This is also a matter of documented fact.

No it isn't. It's a matter of intense dispute. Lying about such things benefits no one.

[orathaic]

The ethnic cleansing of the people from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia (which ora will no doubt ignore because they're "white-ish" and this flies in the face of his "the West acts for whites but not browns" narrative) is on the one hand a tragedy, and on the other hand the only realistic long term solution for a sustainable peace in the region

That is utter rubbish.

There are numerous long term solutions which don't involve removing people from their homes. Look at Northern Ireland for an example where we have a peace agreement despite a long history of violence (on both sides).

I'm not sure what your comment on the colour of the skin has to do with anything. Aside from the fact that the irish were once refered to as 'the blacks of europe' despite being a milky pale skinned a people as you can find... Rascism uses skin colour as a justification for discrimination, but it can cone up with wuatever justification it wajts when skin colour is not sufficient (see also Islamophobia)

Lastly. Oct you seem insistent on ignoring the arguments which Jamie is making and instead responding to different imagined comments.

Very dissappionting.

1) Jamie has claimed there is ethnic cleaning by the IDF.
2) Jamie has claimed removing people by the threat of military occupation is a breach of the Geneva convention.
3) Jamie has claimed the IDF has intentionally targetted fleeing civilians.

Can you address these three claims seperately, rather than lumping them all together and ignoring the evidence?

[Octavious]

What about those things Jamie has said do you believe hasn't been addressed? What evidence do you think has been ignored?

The colour thing was raised by you. I merely pointed out that the clear case of ethnic cleansing that has taken place this year involved white people, and that the end result (as unpalatable as it is) will be a far more stable region.

Northern Ireland is a completely different situation. For a start the differences between the sides in the argument were pretty small to begin with, and with increasing secularisation on both sides the direction of travel has been very much towards the sides being so similar it takes genuine effort to find reasons to keep fighting

[orathaic]

You conflated the answers to the three questions to come to a completely different conclusion.

I did address your comment about colour and race, i am askong if you can actually address the three seperate claims seperately.

For a start the differences between the sides in the argument were pretty small to begin with, and with increasing secularisation on both sides the direction of travel has been very much towards the sides being so similar it takes genuine effort to find reasons to keep fighting

That is utterly untrue, but i am not going to address until you have answered my question above.

[Jamiet99uk]

Let us all make a note that this is the thread where Octavious said that ethnic cleansing is beneficial.

[Octavious]

I really don't mind if you address it or not. Don't feel obligated to attempt it.

I'm still not sure what you are getting at... but I shall attempt an answer. If there's any evidence that needs addressing I can't say I saw it.

So...

1) Jamie has claimed there is ethnic cleaning by the IDF.

Let's have a look at what Jamie said

Israel's current strategy is to remove all people from Gaza and move them into mass graves. This is not beneficial to the people involved, it is genocide.

I think there's no doubt that removing all people from Gaza into mass graves would indeed count as genocide. However Jamie has provided no evidence that this is happening. The reason he has provided no evidence that this is happening is because it is not happening. It is rather blatantly not happening. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could delude themselves into thinking it was happening as it is so far removed from reality it makes flat earthers look like moderate philosophers. I also have no idea why you want what is clearly absolute bollocks treated as an argument. It is not an argument. It is deranged ravings that, if I didn't know Jamie better, I'd assume was symptomatic of antisemitic ranting.

2) Jamie has claimed removing people by the threat of military occupation is a breach of the Geneva convention.

Jamie said

The forced mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation (or threat thereof) is a breach of the Geneva Convention. It is written there in Article 49, since you asked.

I do not doubt him. And if this was what was happening he would have a point. But it is not. Isreal has advised Gazans to leave a northern region of Gaza whilst military operations are carried out. Jamie inaccurately described it as 50% which is obviously wrong to anyone who cares to look at a map. No one has been forced out of the territory of Gaza, and I've yet to see any evidence that those who have moved will be prevented from returning once military activity has concluded

3) Jamie has claimed the IDF has intentionally targetted fleeing civilians.

We have established beyond doubt that Jamie's claims are as reliable as Eddie Jones' coaching abilities. Jamie has provided zero evidence to support this particular claim either. Even if it turns out that Israel did hit a civilian convoy I don't see how Jamie can possibly be privy to the motivations and intentions behind it. What we have is clearly nothing other than pure speculation on Jamie's part, and quite why you want it treated as if it is something more than this is something of a mystery.

Are you satisfied? I don't think that anything has been added that isn't blatantly obvious.

[Jamiet99uk]

2) Jamie has claimed removing people by the threat of military occupation is a breach of the Geneva convention.

Jamie said

The forced mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation (or threat thereof) is a breach of the Geneva Convention. It is written there in Article 49, since you asked.

I do not doubt him. And if this was what was happening he would have a point. But it is not. Isreal has advised Gazans to leave a northern region of Gaza whilst military operations are carried out. Jamie inaccurately described it as 50% which is obviously wrong to anyone who cares to look at a map.

You are splitting hairs here. I suppose you think you are clever.

According to maps published by the BBC it looks like nearly 50%. Its more than 50% based on population density. Perhaps 45% of the actual land area? Do I need to share a link? Why is 45% of the strip very much more acceptable than 50%?

I wager they will not be able to return because Israel will destroy their already impoverished and battle-scarred homes.

[Octavious]

It's about a third, and as Gaza is such a small territory its pretty tiny. We're talking about somewhere around the size of a city like Bristol. But as you're focusing on the most trivial of the points I'm assuming that you are in agreement with the rest of it.

[Jamiet99uk]

It's about a third, and as Gaza is such a small territory its pretty tiny. We're talking about somewhere around the size of a city like Bristol. But as you're focusing on the most trivial of the points I'm assuming that you are in agreement with the rest of it.

None of this is trivial.

First of all Gaza is such a small territory because ISRAEL STOLE ALL THE OTHER LAND for fuck's sake.

Second of all if the people of a large city like Bristol were told to evacuate or die, by an occupying force, so that they could bomb Bristol to the ground, would you consider that acceptable, or a breach of the Geneva Convention?

[Octavious]

Do I take it, as you are now referring to the more general Geneva convention, that you have dropped the ridiculous genocide point?

[Jamiet99uk]

Do I take it, as you are now referring to the more general Geneva convention, that you have dropped the ridiculous genocide point?

Nice use of "now" to attempt to belittle my point about forced relocation.

I have been making reference to the Geneva Convention, which Israel does not care about and is in breach of, multiple times in this thread, as you are well aware of.

And no, I believe the Israeli state wishes to erase the Palestinian people from existence, as demonstrated by their conduct. Every year they steal more and more land, and continue to murder women and children for the crime of being Palestinian.

But that's ok isn't it, because you support ethnic cleansing?