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.