Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[HenrySwanson]

Allegations of war crimes are a serious matter and should be addressed through legal and international mechanisms, not blanket accusations. The laws of war (international humanitarian law) are designed to regulate the conduct of armed conflict, and violations of these laws can indeed constitute war crimes. Israel, like many other nations involved in conflicts, has faced accusations of war crimes, particularly regarding civilian casualties in Gaza or the West Bank. However, it’s essential to note that the Israeli military claims to take precautions to minimize civilian harm and conducts investigations into its own actions.

If war crimes are committed, they should be investigated and prosecuted under international law by relevant bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other impartial legal mechanisms. At the same time, it's important to remember that allegations have been made on both sides of the conflict, including against groups like Hamas, which deliberately target civilians—something that also qualifies as a war crime.

Rather than reducing the entire conflict to accusations, we should push for accountability, transparency, and peaceful resolution that addresses the root causes of the conflict

The legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and other territories is indeed one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The majority of the international community, including the United Nations, considers these settlements illegal under international law, specifically citing the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies. This is why many argue that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights violate international law.

However, Israel disputes this interpretation. The Israeli government argues that the territories in question are 'disputed' rather than 'occupied' and that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply in the same way, as the West Bank was not recognized as sovereign territory before Israel took control in 1967. Additionally, Israel claims historical and security-based justifications for its presence in these areas. Some Israeli legal scholars and politicians argue that Jewish settlements in these areas are not illegal due to historical Jewish ties to the land.

Ultimately, the issue of settlements is highly complex and politically charged, with strong arguments and emotions on both sides. Resolving the status of these territories will require negotiated agreements between Israelis and Palestinians, with the backing of the international community. Peaceful resolution is key to ensuring the rights and security of both peoples.

OK, but what's your opinion?

I think it was a mistake to allow Zionism to flourish, and we're playing catch up.

 

[Duke]

Because it's what happened when Hamas attacked on the 7th of October 2023.

So, what did Israel do in the year or two preceding that attack, which might have provoked it?

Hint: it wasn’t nothing.

 

[novcze]

OK, but what's your opinion?

I think it was a mistake to allow Zionism to flourish, and we're playing catch up.

My opinion is that we can't call Israel a terrorist state, that's an oversimplification of a really complex situation

 

[Duke]

Allegations of war crimes are a serious matter and should be addressed through legal and international mechanisms, not blanket accusations. The laws of war (international humanitarian law) are designed to regulate the conduct of armed conflict, and violations of these laws can indeed constitute war crimes. Israel, like many other nations involved in conflicts, has faced accusations of war crimes, particularly regarding civilian casualties in Gaza or the West Bank. However, it’s essential to note that the Israeli military claims to take precautions to minimize civilian harm and conducts investigations into its own actions.

If war crimes are committed, they should be investigated and prosecuted under international law by relevant bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other impartial legal mechanisms. At the same time, it's important to remember that allegations have been made on both sides of the conflict, including against groups like Hamas, which deliberately target civilians—something that also qualifies as a war crime.

Rather than reducing the entire conflict to accusations, we should push for accountability, transparency, and peaceful resolution that addresses the root causes of the conflict

The legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and other territories is indeed one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The majority of the international community, including the United Nations, considers these settlements illegal under international law, specifically citing the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies. This is why many argue that Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights violate international law.

However, Israel disputes this interpretation. The Israeli government argues that the territories in question are 'disputed' rather than 'occupied' and that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply in the same way, as the West Bank was not recognized as sovereign territory before Israel took control in 1967. Additionally, Israel claims historical and security-based justifications for its presence in these areas. Some Israeli legal scholars and politicians argue that Jewish settlements in these areas are not illegal due to historical Jewish ties to the land.

Ultimately, the issue of settlements is highly complex and politically charged, with strong arguments and emotions on both sides. Resolving the status of these territories will require negotiated agreements between Israelis and Palestinians, with the backing of the international community. Peaceful resolution is key to ensuring the rights and security of both peoples.

That’s great, except that the moment you try to criticize Israel in any way, you are branded an anti-Semite and reminded that Hamas are animals who deserve to die by any means necessary.

Kind of puts a damper on reasonable discussion.

 

[Scaff]

The term 'terrorist state' is a misleading and inflammatory label when applied to Israel.

if it walks like duck...

Israel is a sovereign nation that operates within international legal frameworks, and like any state, it has the right to defend itself from attacks, especially from groups recognized as terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. While its military actions can be controversial and have been criticized, especially regarding civilian casualties, these actions are conducted by a state acting under laws of war,

its not operating under international legal frameworks.

not through terrorism, which is defined as violence by non-state actors against civilians.

Nope, definitions of terrorism (and no subheading agreed one exists) do not require it to only be non state actors.

Definition of terrorism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DK]

If Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc carried this out, would you be so quick to excuse them?

 

[Famine]

Allegations of war crimes are a serious matter and should be addressed through legal and international mechanisms, not blanket accusations.

It was a question, of your opinion.

You say that Israel's at-best lackadaisical approach to civilian casualties, wherein its attacks not only pay no heed to them thereby begetting terror among civilians as they appear to be acceptable losses in attacking intended targets, is not terrorism because it's a state actor and the country is at war.

The attacks, conducted during a state of unilaterally declared war (by Israel), should therefore class as war crimes - by your own opinion.


If it helps you draw a conclusion, "indiscriminate attacks" - those which do not distinguish valid military targets from civilian populations - are prohibited by the Geneva Convention, by international law, and class as a war crime under the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Additionally, terrorism has no single agreed definition other than the use of terror (through violence or threat of violence) against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims and there is no sane reason to exclude states from this. What would you call a plane-bombing conducted by a state rather than by a non-state actor? Why is it different? What would you call the Vlakpaas?

Fun fact, your own country has declared Russia a terrorist state...

 

[Joey D]

Israel is a terrorist state, it just has money and technology to actually make it look like legitimate acts of war. They aren't driving a Toyota Hilux filled with explosives into a hospital; they're using precision-guided weapons launched from an F-35 to blow up that same hospital. It's the same results, just better means to carry out the attacks.

And even if Israel it's a "terrorist state," it sure as hell is a genocidal state which is really, really screwed up considering less than 100 years ago they were the target of the Germans.

 

[novcze]

Fun fact, your own country has declared Russia a terrorist state...

and another fun fact, we fully support Israel in its right to defend itself against actual terrorists.

The situation with Russia isn't that complicated though. It's a shame that our current government is making clueless statements. They probably want to highlight Russia's propensity to target civilians, but those actions are, in fact, war crimes, not terrorism.

I understand that some people interpret certain actions by Israel as fitting terrorism definitions, especially when civilians are harmed. But those definitions generally focus on non-state actors deliberately targeting civilians for political ends, which is different from a recognized state conducting military operations. Israel’s actions, even when controversial or resulting in civilian casualties, are generally framed within the context of self-defense and state-led warfare.

While Israel’s policies and military operations can and should be scrutinized for possible violations of international law, calling the entire state 'terrorist' ignores the broader legal and political context, including the fact that it faces threats from actual terrorist groups. This is why I see it as an oversimplification to use that label.

So I agree, if Israel does something illegal, it would be considered a war crime, not terrorism.

 

[inCloud]

Additionally, terrorism has no single agreed definition other than the use of terror (through violence or threat of violence) against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims and there is no sane reason to exclude states from this.

By that logic US, UK and Ukraine all terrorist states, because they targeted civilian infrastructure during conflicts.

 

[Danoff]

My opinion is that we can't call Israel a terrorist state, that's an oversimplification of a really complex situation

With the pager bombs, they targeted people they don't know are terrorists and detonated bombs in a civilian area with no knowledge or care about who is nearby for the purpose of creating fear, in this case about a particular technology, in order to achieve a political/military goal. That is terrorism.

By that logic US, UK and Ukraine all terrorist states, because they targeted civilian infrastructure during conflicts.

Using my above definition of terrorism, please explain to me which actions taken by any of those states fits that definition. I'm not saying you can't, but you need to do the exercise.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Israel’s actions, even when controversial or resulting in civilian casualties, are generally framed within the context of self-defense and state-led warfare.

They could be framed that way....but why are we arguing about semantics?

How does any of this help the civilians in Lebanon/Israel/Palestine?

 

[Famine]

While Israel’s policies and military operations can and should be scrutinized for possible violations of international law, calling the entire state 'terrorist' ignores the broader legal and political context, including the fact that it faces threats from actual terrorist groups. This is why I see it as an oversimplification to use that label.

Why? If both "sides" perform terrorist acts, would they not both be terrorists?

Should two states attack each other - one as aggressor, the other in response - with biological weapons, are they both not conducting bio-terrorism (or, in declared war, bio-warfare)? Why is the idea that the other guys did a terrorism first exclusionary to the idea that they can do a terrorism back?

So I agree, if Israel does something illegal, it would be considered a war crime, not terrorism.

And since "indiscriminate attacks" (which is any attack that does not attempt to limit non-combatant casualties) are illegal, and Israel has carried them out, that means...?

One doesn't have to think too hard to come up with an infamous example of state terrorism during declared war either. The Rape of Nanjing was both a terrorist massacre (specifically targetting a civilian population) and a war crime simultaneously (regarding the execution of such Chinese military personnel as remained).

By that logic

Why is this always used to mean "by my extremely selective and exclusive re-reasoning of that"?

I'm not sure why it appears to be presented as a gotcha either. The UK and the USA have most definitely employed at least proxy terrorism - even during war - and been rightly criticised for it. Why would you think that's a counter-argument?

 

[Danoff]

Why? If both "sides" perform terrorist acts, would they not both be terrorists?
...
I'm not sure why it appears to be presented as a gotcha either. The UK and the USA have most definitely employed at least proxy terrorism - even during war - and been rightly criticised for it. Why would you think that's a counter-argument?

I know you already know this, but I feel like stating it explicitly anyway. The reason that's supposed to be a gotcha is because you're expected to have a huge helping of national pride that makes you bristle at the notion that your great nation might have engaged in terrorism. This will enable your misclassification of your own nation's activities to be used to similarly misclassify Israel's activities.

 

[Famine]

I know you already know this, but I feel like stating it explicitly anyway. The reason that's supposed to be a gotcha is because you're expected to have a huge helping of national pride that makes you bristle at the notion that your great nation might have engaged in terrorism. This will enable your misclassification of your own nation's activities to be used to similarly misclassify Israel's activities.

Oh yeah, right. Go Team Bulldogs, or whatever.

«waves faded St. George's cross with random things written in the quadrants»

 

[inCloud]

Using my

Quote plz. I find you link to wiki, which states thats everyone have its own view on this.

please explain to me which actions taken by any of those states fits that definition

Bombing of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia by US/UK, bombing of civilian powerplants by Ukraine had purpose of terrorise civilian population.

Why would you think that's a counter-argument?

Because you mixing up two different words with different meanings, which is unacceptable. BTW, you doing this alongside with our ****ed government that also thinks that Ukraine performing acts of terrorism.

 

[Famine]

Because you mixing up two different words with different meanings, which is unacceptable.

Nope. But please tell the native English-language speaker and journalist more about how to use English words properly when you repeatedly cannot - and we have to go through this ridiculous ballet of your deliberate misinterpretations every time.

The fact that the US, UK, and others have engaged in at least proxy terrorism during (and outside of) conflict is not a counter-argument to the fact that Israel has and is doing the same. It's nonsensical to present it as such.

 

[Danoff]

Bombing of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia by US/UK, bombing of civilian powerplants by Ukraine had purpose of terrorise civilian population.

To what end? Infrastructure, when being used to assist a military operation, becomes military infrastructure. You state that the goal is to terrorize civilians, but what is the goal of the terrorism in this case? There is a difference between people who get angry at their government for starting a war that results in destroyed roads or powerplants and a civilian population that knows they are being actively targeted in that war, not indirectly but directly.

To be clear, if you're talking about this:

NATO bombing of Albanian refugees near Gjakova - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think it's at least worth acknowledging the possibility of mistakes during a military operation.

I was really expecting Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[novcze]

With the pager bombs, they targeted people they don't know are terrorists and detonated bombs in a civilian area with no knowledge or care about who is nearby for the purpose of creating fear, in this case about a particular technology, in order to achieve a political/military goal. That is terrorism.

Oh, the pager bombs! I thought they were a success, resulting in less collateral damage than any military operation could ever achieve. But I didn't follow it closely, how many Hezbollah members were killed?

And since "indiscriminate attacks" (which is any attack that does not attempt to limit non-combatant casualties) are illegal, and Israel has carried them out, that means...?

Did they? And who decided that their actions were indiscriminate?

 

[Danoff]

Oh, the pager bombs! I thought they were a success, resulting in less collateral damage than any military operation could ever achieve. But I didn't follow it closely, how many Hezbollah members were killed?

I don't think that has been released. At least not to my knowledge.

The idea that terrorism may be more precise than an Israeli military operation is an interesting one, but it's a false dichotomy. Even if Israel mobilizing and attacking would have resulted in more casualties, that does not mean that pagers dispersed within a civilian population should be detonated. Israel had the option to do nothing. In otherwords, it resulted in MORE collateral damage than doing nothing.

Israel sent a package of bombs, hoping/suspecting they were going primarily to terrorists, into a civilian population, and then detonated them without knowledge or regard for who was holding them or which civilians would be hurt. That's the "indiscriminate" part, and it's why way too high a percentage of the dead are children. They hoped they were going into the hands of terrorists, and then beyond that they didn't know or care who was around.

 

[novcze]

I don't think that has been released. At least not to my knowledge.

The idea that terrorism may be more precise than an Israeli military operation is an interesting one, but it's a false dichotomy. Even if Israel mobilizing and attacking would have resulted in more casualties, that does not mean that pagers dispersed within a civilian population should be detonated. Israel had the option to do nothing. In otherwords, it resulted in MORE collateral damage than doing nothing.

Israel sent a package of bombs, hoping/suspecting they were going primarily to terrorists, into a civilian population, and then detonated them without knowledge or regard for who was holding them or which civilians would be hurt. That's the "indiscriminate" part, and it's why way too high a percentage of the dead are children. They hoped they were going into the hands of terrorists, and then beyond that they didn't know or care who was around.

According to this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7xnelvpepo

"Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, said the pagers belonged “to employees of various Hezbollah units and institutions” and confirmed the deaths of eight fighters."

and sadly, one child was killed, but their assumption was correct: they use pagers instead of smartphones for security reasons. Any normal person would use a smartphone.