War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

Let me address all of Octavious's bad-faith push-backs in a single post.

War is chaotic. Sometimes we might establish facts in real time, at other times those facts may emerge after investigation, while at still other times it will just be impossible. The Al Ahli hospital was undoubtedly hit, there were clearly hundreds of deaths and devastating injuries.

We also know that the IDF lie habitually about their operations, with the aim of avoiding scrutiny, even temporarily - knowing that they will often benefit from the confusion, and that people most often believe the first thing they’re told, even after the truth emerges.

Horrific though the circumstances are, however, it’s not individual atrocities that constitute the biggest crime against the people of Gaza the West Bank, but multiple attacks on civilians, bombing residential buildings, bulldozing villages, killing and maiming thousands of innocent people.

These atrocities happen daily - right now hourly and by the minute in Gaza. But, in different forms, they have gone on for decades. The Nakba - the catastrophe - where 700,000 Palestinians were violently and unlawfully expelled from their land, happened 75 years ago, in 1948.

There is the longest context, the longest history to this latest violence.

It isn’t “two sided” as the liberal media present it. It has been a campaign of dispossession, occupation, harassment, oppression, and displacement by an oppressive ethno-fascist Israeli state. And they have done so mostly with impunity, or, as at present, with the active support of Western nations.

That is why, when we talk about the conflict, and the current violence, it’s unacceptable to ignore the context. Even when there are atrocities on both sides, we still have to tell that history - otherwise we are doing Israel’s erasing for them.

[Octavious]

So do I take it from the above desperate attempt to sound reasonable that you are withdrawal your previous vile and extremist rhetoric that:

Israel's current strategy is to remove all people from Gaza and move them into mass graves.

?

[Octavious]

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

Ah, sorry... Missed this little gem on the previous page. Clearly not.

Frankly the crap you've been writing in this thread has been pretty sickening, even for you on a dark day. Let's hope an anti Nazi protester punches you in the fucking face and brings you back to your senses

[Jamiet99uk]

So do I take it from the above desperate attempt to sound reasonable that you are withdrawal your previous vile and extremist rhetoric that:

Israel's current strategy is to remove all people from Gaza and move them into mass graves.

?

You like deflecting and not answering, don't you?

Israel is deliberately killing Palestinian civilians and non-combatants. For me to point that out is not "vile".

[orathaic]

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.

Yep, far better.

On 2) i think that your interpretation is wrong.

On 3) i have seen reports that the Israeli military did not deny hitting a civilian vechile fleeing the situation (ie they said they couldn't rule out the possibility that they hit a vechile, but it wasn't intended) - this isn't to say that they are telling the truth, nor that Jamie's claims are correct. Merely that a vechile (i don't know what kind, a car i presume) was hit by some explosive.

At least one incident happened. Of course if Israel wants people to move (so they can minimize the civilian casualties) then Hamas has reason to prevent them from leaving (so actually have an incentive to bully people into staying, and hitting vechiles with rockets to terrify them into staying).

(It is vitally important to recognise the difference between Hamas and Palestinians, but it is like recognising the difference between Labour party members or Union members and British subjects...)

Lastly given 2) and 3), i find it harder to agree with you on 1). Maybe we would agree entitely on 3), but i am pretty sure you have 2) completely wrong.

[Jamiet99uk]

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

Ah, sorry... Missed this little gem on the previous page. Clearly not.

Frankly the crap you've been writing in this thread has been pretty sickening, even for you on a dark day. Let's hope an anti Nazi protester punches you in the fucking face and brings you back to your senses

You said ethnic cleansing was sometimes "desirable".

Are you withdrawing this vile and extremist rhetoric?

[Jamiet99uk]

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

Ah, sorry... Missed this little gem on the previous page. Clearly not.

Frankly the crap you've been writing in this thread has been pretty sickening, even for you on a dark day. Let's hope an anti Nazi protester punches you in the fucking face and brings you back to your senses

Encouraging individual acts of violence against forum users?

I see.

Who are you to call me vile when you are capable of such hate speech?

[orathaic]

The Al Ahli hospital was undoubtedly hit, there were clearly hundreds of deaths and devastating injuries.

All i have heard today, assuming it is the same hospital, is US mil-bloggers daying there was no way hundreds could have been killed (based on the images they analysed) that the crater in the hospital car park was only big enough for about 20 people to have been killed, even if they had been unlucky to have been a very crowded time.

And also that Israel have much bigger weapons they are using, this warheads was toi small.

I don't have any other data on this particular attack.

[Octavious]

On 2) i think that your interpretation is wrong.

Then the basis of our disagreement is the intended definition of "a territory"?

It would be interesting to get a bit of legal certainty on this. But intuitively I feel my interpretation should be correct because if it isn't then Isreal should logically have bombed the northern area of Gaza without any attempt to warn the civilian population as this would be the lesser crime. And I do not want to live in a world where bombing civilians without any attempt to mitigate the death toll is considered the better option

[Octavious]

Who are you to call me vile when you are capable of such hate speech?

We're done, Jamie. There is no value in talking to you when you are in this mood. Perhaps when you've had a chance to calm down you won't be quite so deranged. .

Off you fuck

[orathaic]

The Al Ahli hospital was undoubtedly hit, there were clearly hundreds of deaths and devastating injuries.

All i have heard today, assuming it is the same hospital, is US mil-bloggers daying there was no way hundreds could have been killed (based on the images they analysed) that the crater in the hospital car park was only big enough for about 20 people to have been killed, even if they had been unlucky to have been a very crowded time.

And also that Israel have much bigger weapons they are using, this warheads was toi small.

I don't have any other data on this particular attack.

Let me first correct myself.

BBC's analysis of the same suggests it may have been a rocket (small crater as i noted above) but a failed launch with fuel explosion could have killed far more people. Especially if they were all sheltering in the courtyard at the time.

This theory posits that it was a failed rocket attack targeting Israel.

[Jamiet99uk]

Who are you to call me vile when you are capable of such hate speech?

We're done, Jamie. There is no value in talking to you when you are in this mood. Perhaps when you've had a chance to calm down you won't be quite so deranged. .

Off you fuck

Nice way to ignore all my points.

You literally hoped for me to be attacked.

You literally defended ethnic cleansing.

You called me vile.

You'd like me to fuck off, but I won't. Because this is important and you're trying to deflect me with hatred and insults.

[orathaic]

On 2) i think that your interpretation is wrong.

Then the basis of our disagreement is the intended definition of "a territory"?

It would be interesting to get a bit of legal certainty on this. But intuitively I feel my interpretation should be correct because if it isn't then Isreal should logically have bombed the northern area of Gaza without any attempt to warn the civilian population as this would be the lesser crime. And I do not want to live in a world where bombing civilians without any attempt to mitigate the death toll is considered the better option

Maybe, but given the context and history. It seems like Israel is planning a land invasion, the bombing campaign and warnings combine to allow them claim 1) that all Palestinians who are killed in the coming ground war are militants 2) that the land now belongs to them or 3) that they need to continue occupying the territory to prevent Hamas returning/for Israeli security.

I suspect that rule in the Geneva convention was not written with Gaza (effectively an open air prison) and the repeated territorial occupation by one group over the other which Israel has continued since 1967 (and before).

Trying to remove a people from their land is ethnic cleansing, right?

[orathaic]

The Al Ahli hospital was undoubtedly hit, there were clearly hundreds of deaths and devastating injuries.

All i have heard today, assuming it is the same hospital, is US mil-bloggers daying there was no way hundreds could have been killed (based on the images they analysed) that the crater in the hospital car park was only big enough for about 20 people to have been killed, even if they had been unlucky to have been a very crowded time.

And also that Israel have much bigger weapons they are using, this warheads was toi small.

I don't have any other data on this particular attack.

Let me first correct myself.

BBC's analysis of the same suggests it may have been a rocket (small crater as i noted above) but a failed launch with fuel explosion could have killed far more people. Especially if they were all sheltering in the courtyard at the time.

This theory posits that it was a failed rocket attack targeting Israel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061

[Jamiet99uk]

On 2) i think that your interpretation is wrong.

Then the basis of our disagreement is the intended definition of "a territory"?

It would be interesting to get a bit of legal certainty on this. But intuitively I feel my interpretation should be correct because if it isn't then Isreal should logically have bombed the northern area of Gaza without any attempt to warn the civilian population as this would be the lesser crime. And I do not want to live in a world where bombing civilians without any attempt to mitigate the death toll is considered the better option

Maybe, but given the context and history. It seems like Israel is planning a land invasion, the bombing campaign and warnings combine to allow them claim 1) that all Palestinians who are killed in the coming ground war are militants 2) that the land now belongs to them or 3) that they need to continue occupying the territory to prevent Hamas returning/for Israeli security.

I suspect that rule in the Geneva convention was not written with Gaza (effectively an open air prison) and the repeated territorial occupation by one group over the other which Israel has continued since 1967 (and before).

Trying to remove a people from their land is ethnic cleansing, right?

Yes it is but Oct is willing to support ethnic cleansing.

[Octavious]

Trying to remove a people from their land is ethnic cleansing, right?

Clearly not, otherwise compulsory purchase orders to build infrastructure and evacuating residential blocks in a fire would qualify, and clearly calling either scenario ethnic cleansing is ridiculous.

To be ethnic cleansing there needs to be a certain scale, a certain duration, and it needs to be forced. Whilst I would agree that the prospect of military action is sufficient to meet the "force" requirement, I remain utterly unconvinced regarding the scale (for which clarification on the definition of "a territory" would be useful) and the duration.

[orathaic]

Trying to remove a people from their land is ethnic cleansing, right?

Clearly not, otherwise compulsory purchase orders to build infrastructure and evacuating residential blocks in a fire would qualify, and clearly calling either scenario ethnic cleansing is ridiculous.

"People" and "a people", are not equivalent.

To be ethnic cleansing there needs to be a certain scale, a certain duration, and it needs to be forced. Whilst I would agree that the prospect of military action is sufficient to meet the "force" requirement, I remain utterly unconvinced regarding the scale (for which clarification on the definition of "a territory" would be useful) and the duration.

Well for scale, there is the majority of the land (78%) from which Palestinians were driven in 1948, and then there is the continued illegal occupation of the West Bank despite the Oslo accords. The Israeli military's defence of illegal settlements, and the division of the west bank into smaller and smaller seperate parcels of land...

And now the excuse to finally move into the northern part of Gaza. Given the history, i doubt we will see Israeli troop leaving Gaza for the forseeable future. So the time scale at least is sufficient. Permanently abolishing the rights of Palestinians to live anywhere in the territory that was the British Mandate of Palestine (1917-1948).

[Octavious]

"People" and "a people", are not equivalent.

My apologies, I misread the post. Although I stand by the point regarding force, scale and duration.

Well for scale, there is the majority of the land (78%) from which Palestinians were driven in 1948, and then there is the continued illegal occupation of the West Bank despite the Oslo accords. The Israeli military's defence of illegal settlements, and the division of the west bank into smaller and smaller seperate parcels of land...

There may well be some validity to the argument regarding past actions, but I don't think it would be helpful to confuse long term Isreali strategy in the West Bank with what a short term military response to a terrorist outrage

And now the excuse to finally move into the northern part of Gaza. Given the history, i doubt we will see Israeli troop leaving Gaza for the forseeable future. So the time scale at least is sufficient

I would argue that history shows us that Israel tries to get out of Gaza at the earliest opportunity. But whichever of these turns out to be true we will be unable to say with any confidence that Israel are removing the Gazans for the foreseeable future until either they confirm it to be their intention or it becomes apparent that they are doing it

[orathaic]

"People" and "a people", are not equivalent.

My apologies, I misread the post. Although I stand by the point regarding force, scale and duration.

Fair enough.

Well for scale, there is the majority of the land (78%) from which Palestinians were driven in 1948, and then there is the continued illegal occupation of the West Bank despite the Oslo accords. The Israeli military's defence of illegal settlements, and the division of the west bank into smaller and smaller seperate parcels of land...

There may well be some validity to the argument regarding past actions, but I don't think it would be helpful to confuse long term Isreali strategy in the West Bank with what a short term military response to a terrorist outrage

i don't think it is fair to assume Israel has a long term strategy. Or at least, that starving Palestinians in Gaza along with blowing up civilians is liable to lead to more support for Hamas.

The Palestinian ambassador to the UK made a very clear case for Hamas' victory in the 2006 election being a direct result of the failure of Israel to abide by the promises made in the Oslo peace accords. IE the PLO gave up everything, dedicated to resolving things by peaceful means, and recognised Israel's right to exist. But were then seen as weak because they gave up so much and got nothing in return - and Israel did this without a single ounce of international pressure to live up to their commitments.

So maybe there is a long term strategy, and it is to make Hamas so dangerous that they can justify the murder of millions of Palestinians and theft of their land.

I am not convinced this is strategy, rather than a series of unfortunate events, combined with ongoing bigotry. But i may be misreading you, and/or infering a lot.

And now the excuse to finally move into the northern part of Gaza. Given the history, i doubt we will see Israeli troop leaving Gaza for the forseeable future. So the time scale at least is sufficient

I would argue that history shows us that Israel tries to get out of Gaza at the earliest opportunity. But whichever of these turns out to be true we will be unable to say with any confidence that Israel are removing the Gazans for the foreseeable future until either they confirm it to be their intention or it becomes apparent that they are doing it

Given the Israeli government, hard right allies and their desire to make all land between the sea and the (Jordan) river theirs, i think you are wrong. Or at least that past behaviour is not predictive of future behaviour.

They have gotten out of Gaza before, and for good reasons. The population density is far different to that of the West Bank (and i have never looked this up, but i will attempt to do so now )

~512 person per km^2 vs 6,301 persons per km^2

There is far more territory which is far more sparsely populated in the West Bank, and occulying Gaza would require removing the people living there first... Which they are now doing.

[orathaic]

And to be clear. I am specifically talked about Israel's current government and their religious ideology. Not Israeli citizens, and their justified desire for security, or Jewish peoples all over the world who deserve to be safe in their home countries.