I would argue that it's quite easy to judge, at any distance, the collective punishment of civilians through the withholding of the essentials of life.
We've a referendum this weekend largely on whether we're ready to confront uncomfortable and complex consequences of a history of colonial violence. What's more difficult is reconciling these sorts of statements from a government that says it is.
The Aboriginal tribes didn't slaughter civilians, or rape and murder aid workers, to be fair.
And the Palestinian population at large has done that have they? Maybe we should judge the so called "settlers" for stealing peoples homes and having picnics while watching Palestinian protestors shot by IDF snipers? Or shall we just pretend that Israel has been the perfect "neigbour"?
Imagine going to bat for Hamas, of all people.
They didn't, maybe you'd be able to read better if you took your head out of your arse?
They're whatabouting the fact that Hamas do, in fact, represent the views of most Palestinians. Comparing them to the Aboriginal tribes is a grave insult to the latter.
oh I'm sorry I can't support Palestine because they won't lie down and die
Imagine only supporting oppressed peoples when they don't fight their oppressors.
If your support is conditional you are not supporting.
A bunch of teenagers at a music festival are not "their oppressors".
A bunch of rich kids partying on land pissing distance from the walls erected to lock in 2 million Palestinians, which was stolen from those Palestinians grandparents, are most definitely the fucken oppressors here mate.
Especially when you throw in compulsory military service
Or, as the Bolshevik who bayoneted the Romanov children put it, “nits grow up to be lice”
OK, wow.
It wasn't stolen from them, what is currently Israel was British territory prior to ww2.
And Britain never stole anything from anyone, right?
If you go back far enough with that line of reasoning, you end up back at Jewish territory anyway.
So really, they just gave it back to the original owners.
Administered by Britain but owned by Palestinians
Oh I suppose then it should be given back to the native British then.
There were two 'Reigns of Terror,' if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the 'horrors' of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break?
What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror--that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Mark Twain
"hamas" is quickly becoming an anti-Palestinian slur
It's almost like they're the government or something.
We had a period of frontier wars that lasted 150 years. It was grossly asymmetric but the estimates for colonial casualties run into the thousands.
Were those casualties civilians though, or were they mostly soldiers? That's the key difference.
Good thing war is so blank and white, makes it easier to affirm my side is the good side
There's one side that have done some very questionable things over the years, and there's another that went out of their way to massacre civilians. I'm by no means a fan of Israel, but Hamas are outright evil.
Well, looking at the Geneva convention and Article 8 "War Crimes" of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, "Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions."
And one committing a crime doesn't allow the other to do the same. So either get pissed at both sides for war crimes or get pissed at none. But trying to excuse war crimes for one side in a war is a disgustingly hypocritical thing to do.
So either get pissed at both sides for war crimes or get pissed at none.
Yeah, not many people are taking that step.
I tend to think of it this way, personally: stealing is wrong, but it's more acceptable to steal when you're poor than when you're rich. Both sides are committing attrocities, but one does so to opress while the other to liberate themselves from opression. I will acknowledge that my understanding of the conflict is very limited though, so this might be oversimplified or outright incorrect.
In practical terms how do you organise aid for a state you're at war with? How do you ensure the safety of your aid workers in a way that doesn't involve your military, but also doesn't just provide new hostages? How do you stop your own aid workers from getting in the way of military operations?
I guarantee you Israel wouldn't do this if they had a better option, this will only radicalise the normal people who start to go hungry and thirsty.
In practical terms you avoid the situation entirely by not operating an open air prison for decades and indiscriminately bombing civilians, thereby breeding terrorists with nothing to loose, and then cutting off the food, water and electricity to civilians as a collective punishment.
You guarantee Israel wouldn't do this if they had a better option? I think it's far more likely that the far right in Israel have just been waiting for an excuse to do this.
Seems like not cutting off food water and electricity would be easier than "organizing aid"
You understand food does not come through a pipe right
You understand food has to come from somewhere and Israel controls the sea, the air and most of the land while bombing the fuck out of the people and infrastructure.
Yeah and so it's not simple for them to provide the necessary logistics while taking into account their other priorities.
Not starving millions of people right on their doorstep is not highest on their list of priorities?
It's pretty easy to not cut off their power supply that they control.
It's pretty easy to stop carpet bombing civilians (including the banned use of phosphorus weapons near densely populated areas which happened yesterday)
It's pretty easy to not stop humanitarian aid.
It's pretty easy to stop blockading them.
It's pretty easy to stop killing them indiscriminately.
They just choose not to do the right thing.
Why should they provide those things to a group they are at war with? After their government slaughtered a bunch of civilians?
It wasn't their government. It was an organisation started by an Israeli government at the time to combat the PLO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election
Hamas is the elected government of Gaza.
17 years since the last election indicates that may no longer be the case
and the median age of someone living in the gaza strip is 19.
There is no reason to supply the means of sustenance to an active enemy you are at war with.
then they should end the occupation.
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone