The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.
So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add “do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?”
Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.
EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions
In the interest of moderation transparency, we’ve had a couple of reports about this post.
Here’s my thinking about it:
Community purpose
- This post is more political that would ordinarily be seen on AskLemmy, ⬇️
- it is an open-ended thought provoking question, ⬆️
- it is generating healthy and informative discussion and debate. ⬆️
Rule 1:
- the post is not trolling, sealioning, racist or toxic, ⬆️
- the topic is contentious but seems to be worded politely, ⬆️
- the author has voluntarily amended the question to be more sensitive in their framing. ⬆️
Rule 3:
- it does not fit the definition of spam or astroturfing ⬆️
On balance, I’m going to let the post remain up.
Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.
Here’s a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I’m just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.
Settlements.
The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel’s particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and ‘73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations’ armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.
Gaza civilians
The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that’s not what they’re doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.
If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What’s the justification for that? I think their view is that they’re dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn’t happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it’s a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they’re ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It’s a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas’ when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn’t another way.
This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.
America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I’m aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.
Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it’s better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?
Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn’t have to doesn’t take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)
Well written answer. This actually gives me a fantastic chance to argue the pro-Palestinian side for a change, which deserves some nuance of its own that it doesn’t get nearly enough of.
I would argue that the realpolitik stance of Netanyahu is grossly outdated. Before the events of Oct 7th, Israel was getting closer and closer to an agreement with Saudi Arabia, indicative of a growing perception that the days of fossil fuel profits running an economy are slowly coming to their end, and the need to transition towards a service sector economy based around tourism, the free flow of business and cultural and technological export. All of these are severely hampered by violence in a way that resource extraction is far less subject to. Because of this shifting economic climate over not just the region, but the whole globe, the days of sudden, large-scale Arab attacks into Israeli territory were growing more and more unlikely. This ultimately makes the wish to secure a greater strategic depth unnecessary.
While that would not remove the chances of terrorism, we can look to the end of The Troubles in Ireland and see that negotiation and autonomy can create a viable path forward for ending local sectarian hostilities. While this would no doubt be a difficult path, requiring significant investment and no small amount of vulnerability from Israel in the short term, it has the potential to secure a lasting peace in a way that bombs simply cannot. If a negotiated peace and independence for the Palestinian people can be achieved, then, further ties with the rest of their Arab neighbors become significantly easier, giving Israel a much better opportunity to rise to a status of acceptance and prominence within the broader Middle East community. This would in turn allow them to exploit the Sunni/Shiite and secular/religious divides within the Islamic world to align themselves with the majority against Iran, and give them much greater security in the long run.
This diplomatic and economic path to security is perhaps barely still possible, if Israel can throw out Netanyahu and change their direction, reversing their pattern of settlement in the West Bank and economically compensating the Palestinians for land already lost. A back-breaking property tax could perhaps be levied on all Israeli citizens living within the West Bank settlements, with the proceeds going to outreach, health and education programs for their neighbors, both Arab and Israeli. This could slowly lead to a sort of economic demilitarized zone, and be the first step towards co-existence.
Well put.
I think the desire for a national identity (Zionism) is fundamentally at odds with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring ethnic groups. Israel is definitely at a major disadvantage here. Most other ethnic groups have a “homeland” out of sheer geo-historical inertia. Though I wouldn’t call it a completely unique situation. We see the tensions arise from the protection (or lack thereof) of national identity all over the world to lesser degrees, especially as globalization creeps in.
And I can empathize with groups that feel marginalized because of it. Though I think letting it boil over into violence is definitely a step too far.
Besides, geography as a means of cultural protectionism may be an outdated idea. We can’t underestimate the importance of soft power for spreading cultural influence, and being in a state of constant conflict does not further that goal.
In summary, I think Israel’s actions are rational at a tactical level, but ultimately fail to address the big picture you lay out.
Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don’t just reflexively downvote.
This is the kind of response I was looking for.
I’m not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.
As fucked up as Israel’s actions are, it’s important to remember they’re surrounded by countries who want to do to them what they’re doing to Gaza. Israel kicks all their butts, in no small part because of the US. They’ve developed a real Mexican drug cartel “I’ll cut all your familys’ heads off in front of you if you mess with me” vibe, and you can see why.
And doing that creates terrorists, and you can see why.
I’m an Israeli lefty and this is the first time I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I’m actually agreeing with. Thank you.
If I may add to this, while the Geneva Convention prohibits attacking hospitals, the International Committee of the Red Cross states that hospitals and similar buildings may become legitimate targets “for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters.” NATO intelligence (PDF warning) states that Hamas is well known to launch attacks from civilian locations ordinarily protected by the Geneva Convention. In other words, they’re using their own population as human shields. It is extremely difficult to completely prevent civilian casualties in these cases, especially when Hamas discourages people from leaving areas that Israel warns will be attacked (see the NATO document above).
To put it simply, if Israel decides that they are no longer willing to risk the safety of civilians, then Hamas will continue attacking with impunity from civilian areas. Israel absolutely should minimize civilian causalities, but when Hamas hides their fighters and weapons within their civilian population, some of them will unfortunately die. Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.
This is a flase equivalence. The “terror” element is a distraction and a poor argument
It would be like Russia coming in and taking Donbas and saying “this is ours”, and the world being outraged if Ukrainians fight back and if Ukrainians are still fighting back in 50 years people saying Ukrainians are terrible people look at the terror with zero context and worse still for people to be arguing for Russia, what a skap in the face that would be.
Would people still be outraged at the “terrorism” being wrought by Ukrainians because Russia says its terrorism ? Surely Israel’s existence is a travesty, it does exist but obviously there is no dealing with this any other way until Israel stops. This never ends.
Israel just keeps taking more and more and being more and more provocative. What of Indonesia in West Papua? Or more recently Indonesia in Timor ?
This never ends, this is just another phase.
I’m an avid palestine supporter, but what’s the point of this thread? You know there are no Israel supporters here save for trolls, and this isn’t a question, it’s a rant.
Fourpackets posted a complete thought that doesn’t seem to be trolling
Edit who the fuck downvotes this
No I’m genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.
There are quite a few on Lemmy.
One is a mod on News on Lemmy.world
This is a loaded question. It pretends every supporter of Israel also supports the current government, the illegal occupation, the ongoing war, and throwing the Geneva convention out.
I support Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state and a homeland for the Jewish people.
But I support none of the above.
And no, I don’t have a good solution for this age-old conflict either.
The Jewish homeland was formed by killing and kicking out people who were living there.
I think this comment wasn’t supposed to be an argument for the existence of Israel, but rather directed at the initial premise. They are challenging the assumption that support for the Israeli state and support for the conflict in Gaza are one in the same.
As were most countries.
And the Jewish people were killed and kicked out everywhere they lived for centuries prior to that.That not Palestinians fault.
Why not give Jews half of Germany?
As a German, I’d be fine with that. They can have the Eastern half.
Or Sitka, Alaska?
I read the book because my wife is from Sitka. Apparently there is a disproportionately large Jewish population in real life as well, though not nearly like in the book.
That’s how it should have been handled tbh
a homeland for the Jewish people.
Weird way to call a stolen property lol
It’s not stolen. Brief history lesson:
The lands of Israel and Jordan used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans sided with the Nazis.
Brief aside: we know the Arabs believe that if you win a war, you win the land, and if you lose a war, you lose the land, because that’s what they want to happen with Israel. So this principle applies to them as well.
When the Nazis lost, the Ottomans also lost, and that’s where the British and French Mandates began. The land was no longer owned by the Arabs because, according to the principle they live by, they lost the war, therefore they lost the land.
The British Mandate for Palestine comprised an amount of previously Ottoman land, of which they allocated one third to the new country Israel (which includes Gaza and the West Bank), and two thirds to the new country Transjordan, later renamed Jordan. The land of Israel was not stolen by the Jews from the Arabs, it was lost by the Arabs in a war they lost. But they got two thirds of that land back, i.e. Jordan.
It’s remarkable how respectful you are of Arab views that you don’t also hold but which happen to be convenient for you.
They also completely lied.
The Ottoman empire didn’t exist after the Great War.
Israel forcefully displaced Palestinians and moved in “lord’s chosen” people to live there.
I am not sure what else to call it lol
Good thing is that people are wising up about how israel came to be and public opinion is turning against the genocide state and its parasitic relationship with the US.
One day Israel will pay for this once US stops protecting it. And many people will say FAFO
The Ottoman empire sided with the Nazis?
How has no one commented on this ahistorical nonsense.
The Ottoman empire dissolved in 1922.
After The Great War aka World War One, the British took over the area called Mandatory Palestine in 1920.
Everything about this post is insanely wrong.
Perhaps you could update the Wikipedia article with your knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers
“It consisted of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria; this was also known as the Quadruple Alliance”
For the historical record:
https://lemm.ee/u/letsgo intentionally confusing the Central Powers with the Axis and deceptively editing a quote to try and sell the lie.
All in order to justify a genocide.
Maybe you could update it with yours:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
In the aftermath of World War I, the victorious Allied Powers occupied and partitioned the Ottoman Empire, which lost its southern territories to the United Kingdom and France. The successful Turkish War of Independence, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk against the occupying Allies, led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy in 1922, formally ending the Ottoman Empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
Mandatory Palestine[a][4] was a geopolitical entity that existed between 1920 and 1948 in the region of Palestine under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[5] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt but, in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Another issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain promised its support for the establishment of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. Mandatory Palestine was then established in 1920, and the British obtained a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1922.[6]
Also, this is literally copied from your link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Powers
For the World War II alliance, see Axis powers. The Central Powers, also known as the Central Empires,[1][notes 1] were one of the two main coalitions that fought in World War I (1914–1918). It consisted of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria; this was also known as the Quadruple Alliance.[2][notes 2]
Jesus, the link you provided was FOR the great war.
Did you even read it? Of course you did, you bad faith liar, the text literally from before your quotes was the time period that you intentionally removed.
On the tiny miniscule chance you actually believed the nonsense you spouted, do you see that you were either taught completely erroneously, or outright lied too?
EDIT: To address the racism of the original post:
Do you think Ottomans are Arab? Do you think Persians are Arab?
The whole point of Lawrence of Arabia was the attempt to get the Arabic people to mutiny against the Ottoman empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
Maybe you can read this and actually learn that Arab isn’t a generic term for middle easterner.
Well, I’m not intentionally lying but I may have been misinformed. TIL, thanks.
I apologize for the accusations of lying and bad faith arguments.
If you actually want to learn about the history of the area, these are good starts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement
The long and short of it is that the British promised the Arab’s self determination, and then broke the promise to give the land to Zionist immigrants mostly from Europe who absolutely stole the land from the indigenous people, with terrorism being one of the tools used. See the Irgun, Heganah, and Lehi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
Fun fact: The first Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, organized kidnapping operations for the Irgun before the establishment of Israel. He was also in charge during the massacre of Deir Yassin.
I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel’s right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.
P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two
So as an alternative question so someone who sounds reasonable (it is the Internet after all!), what are your thoughts on a 2-state solution, or Israel’s expansion into the West Bank?
Ignoring of course the fact that a 2-state solution will never ever happen.
The most optimistic resolution to this conflict would be the German/French model. 2 states that have been arch-enemies for over a millennium forged a close bond and lasting partnership within just one generation after WW2.
But I don’t think this is possible before both countries are completely exhausted or destroyed by the war, and a strong party from outside (likely the US again) steps in and forces them into a pact.A one-state solution would be unthinkable and completely without historical precedent, unless Israel either declares Palestine to be dissolved and rules over the land with an iron fist, or is itself wiped off the map.
The Geneva Convention is clearly Hamas.
Everybody I don’t like is clearly Hamas
This issue is similar to the one with COVID, where it is the facts themselves that are often in question, and people following the leader regardless of what they do. As such, Innuendo Studios’ The Alt-Right Playbook works here as well - i.e. it is a mindset held by those who wish that the world were a certain way, and are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
There are people who support Israel unconditionally and then there are those of us who just think they’re the lesser a-holes in the recent war. I’m definitely not the first group. Nobody with my perspective is saying the Geneva convention (however you take that; one could make the case the convention isn’t perfect as a reflection either…) shouldn’t apply to them, or that there should be an intrinsic bias towards either side, but at the very start of the war, I said Hamas and even Palestine should be seen as more disappointing, and except for where Israel increased its assholery over time, I did not disappoint myself in hindsight as time passed, as both Hamas and Palestine (as well as other entities now) have still never been passed on the assholery scale yet.
FourPacketsOfPeanuts has already given a good answer specifically about Israel’s situation, but I want to say something about international law in general. Law may be written based on moral principles, but law is still not the same thing as morality. In our daily lives, we follow our moral principles because that’s what we believe is right, and we follow the law because otherwise cops will put us in jail.
The situation for a sovereign country is different - there are no cops and there is no jail. If other countries wanted to take hostile action, they would even if there was no violation of international law, and if they did not want to take hostile action, the wouldn’t even if there was a violation. Morality still exists (although morality at the scale of countries is necessarily not the same as morality at the scale of individuals) but the law might as well not exist because it is not enforced. It’s just pretty language that may be quoted when a country does what it was going to do anyway.
I’m not trying to imply that I think that Israel is violating international law. I’m saying that discussing whether it is or not is a purely intellectual exercise with no practical relevance. If I support Israel but you convince me that it is technically breaking some law, I’m still not going to change my mind. If you oppose Israel but I convince you that it is technically obeying every law to the letter, you’re still probably not going to change your mind.
Well, this is certainly one way to goose the participation on Lemmy.
Because they believe in a 3000 year old fairy tale that gives the ‘promised land’ to them, and condems all non-believers to death.
Because they are fascists, and dictators think they can do what ever they want.
Which side are you referring to there? Both of them?
there was no side in question chump.
Hamas was using Al Shifa hospital as a base, tunnel entrance, and torture site.
Using human shields is war crime. Torture is a war crime. Killing your hostages is a war crime. Raping prisoners is a war crime.
It basically turns into “who is committing less serious war crimes” and attacking the place where they torture prisoners and use them as human shields, imo, is a valid military attack.
This is wrong, you’re just spreading nonsense misinformstion.
Im in no way a supporter but I am voting for the choice that is less worse for them but still is supporting the country dut to complex tangle of history that created the damn country with our help along with a recent historical terrorist attack that the israeli current situation match is reminiscent of. Anyway I wish countries would follow it regularly rather than when it suits them.
Some kind of a supporter here, I guess. Or let’s say that I’m so much anti-Hamas that it’s logical to be a bit anti-Palestine and pro-Israel.
Legality of Israeli settlements
Some of those settlements are not legal and israelis should leave those areas.
Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside.
It’s questionable if this applies when the other side violates other Geneva conventions by using the hospitals for military activity.
Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.
If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.
Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I mean yeah if both conventions revolve around the same thing, like for instance if the same hospital is both a sanctuary for civilians but also being used by soldiers. A more general whataboutism is another thing.
I’ll just add that according to modern Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) the current definition of a military target may include schools, hospitals, religious sites and culturally relevent monuments should they be used by enemy forces.
Even in WW1 and WW2 when these rules were being written, if your enemy was hiding in a church, that was okay. But if they stored munitions or fired from the church, it and everyone in it would be considered valid military targets.
It was designed that way in order to stop soldiers from hiding in hospitals and schools saying “You can’t shoot us, there are women, children and the sick in here” while they used that amnesty to kill countless others.
Just a distinction a lot of people tend to miss when they talk about “The Geneva Convention.”
Not really questionable - hospitals explicitly lose their protection if they are used for military activity.
Geneva convention is anti semetic.
Things have gone so far south now.
As South as Iran one might say.
