Hamas must be eradicated

[Little Dragon]

Given the context that they are at war, I believe the opposite is true.

Awesome.

 

[setarcos]

I am sure we can let the Hague determine that. Starting with this little issue.

I think before we start throwing Geneva articles around in condemnation we must first realize that the dynamic and chaotic nature of fighting a war, especially a war with an enemy not bound by the Geneva convention is nearly impossible for a nation bound by the GC to accomplish without inevitably breaking some of its articles. The articles were written as an idealized version of what conventions should be followed by civilized nations at war that have the capability of following those conventions without suffering defeat or total destruction. A gentleman's war if you will.
The type of war such as we have between Israel and Hamas doesn't always allow for such things as tragic as that fact is. Pray God we never have to experience such things and pray for those that do. I really feel for the Palestinian people...at least those that don't adhere to the ideologies and tactics of entities like Hamas. But look at the war between Russia and Ukraine even. Russia has seemingly deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and even housing complexes with no apparent military objective. At least Israel has only discriminately targeted areas of detected Hamas rocket launches and activity. Are the Palestinians not able to vacate the immediate area of such activity knowing that an Israeli response is immanent? Is Israel to simply not respond to Hamas rockets being indiscriminately targeted at Israeli neighborhoods?

Those that embrace Hamas ideologies in my opinion forfeit their right to Geneva convention protections.
For example...
Walking through your quote...
"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited." Article 33 of the Geneva Convention (IV)

No protected person...
Article 4. -"Persons protected by the Convention are those who at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of persons a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

From this we can presume that civilian Palestinians are protected persons. Though its not quite clear if, given the nature of Hamas tactics whether the Palestinian non - combatants are in the hands of Israel or Hamas.
However, lets consider the following...

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." ibid.

Now since the state of Palestine by accession is bound by the conventions it must be protected. Yet the question arises , If a state willingly and deliberately ignores the GC by which it claims to be bound then does that state forfeit its protections? If so then we must ask,
Has Hamas deliberately and willingly ignored the convention and do Palestinians identify Hamas as representative of Palestinian ideologies and conventions as so many Palestinians say they do here in the states? And whose intercepted Hamas calls to Palestinian civilians bragging about what they've done to Israelis seem to indicate? In other words is Hamas representative nationals of the Palestinian state?
IF so then may we conclude that the Palestinian state has forfeit being bound by the convention and therefore is not protected by it.
IF not then we may conclude that the Palestinian people are being oppressed by Hamas but since their representatives have not condemned Hamas's actions with some even praising such actions how then do we conclude that Hamas doesn't represent Palestinians and is oppressing them?
Or perhaps we should ask who actually represents the Palestinians and where are they and is Hamas an occupying force?

"Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are." ibid.
So if the Palestinians are complicit in the actions of Hamas then again they are not protected persons. Again we must ask who the heck actually represents the Palestinians as a state?
To my knowledge no Palestinian representative of the state has condemned Hamas and their actions.

Lets just presume, and I hope this is the case, that the Palestinian state proper is not represented by Hamas and its methods, are incapable of ousting Hamas and establishing a civil representative government and so they should be protected under the GC.
That's how it should be but let me give you an example of how complicated, morally, ethically, and objectively war can be...
Hamas's professed objectives, as are many Palestinians, are to kill all Jews as inhumanely as possible and eliminate the existence of the state of Israel off the face of the earth. Not very reasonable if you ask me.
Israel's professed objectives are to ensure its own existence continues while protecting its own citizens from harm. Reasonable if you ask me.
Hamas's recurring rocket attacks and minor attacks coupled with the recent major attack on Israel has indicated to the powers that be in Israel that Hamas must be eliminated in order to ensure a more sustainable future of safety. Reasonable if you ask me.
Now, the only way to eliminate the threat of Hamas is to eliminate Hamas's hateful ideologies which is synonymous with eliminating Hamas.
You don't just ignore a rat problem. The only way of eliminating the problem in such cases is eliminating the rats where the rats go hide and plan and direct their next attack from. So Israel finds itself pursuing Hamas into Gaza.
In doing so lets say Israeli forces come upon a building which is a critical objective to clear of Hamas before other objectives can be implemented successfully. But this building has non-combatants as well as combatants within it. Israel issues a warning for all non-combatants to evacuate to areas where they will be given provisions but Hamas forcibly won't let them. How about Israel drops off a bunch of provisions for the non-combatants where their being forced to remain as shields-surely the combatants won't simply use those provisions for their own tactical advantage - while it waits to figure out how to separate the two classes safely? Easy Peasy. Or perhaps Israel should just pack their stuff up and go home because this war isn't being fought according to the GC by the enemy? Should they say lets just pick up this war when the enemy decides to play by the rules?
And as a plus when we do pick this war back up the enemy will have time to replenish its forces, improve its tactics, be encouraged and continue its oppression of its own people while increasing the odds of worse casualties, both non-combatant and combatant in the future. Yay!

"Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
Its not so easy in war to distinguish collective penalties from necessary actions that are critical to objectives.
What is intimidation in war? The threat of getting your *** kicked if you attack me? Terrorism requires the deliberate intention to cause terror in non-combatants without due cause. It goes without saying that war is terrorism. Its non sensical to separate the two. What makes it criminal is intent and without due cause. For instance it was critical that the Allies in WWII destroy the infrastructure of the enemy in order to win the war. That included ability to produce fuel for combat, source food for its combatants, and other infrastructures capable of dual use in war time and piece time. I can imagine that most of the German civilians felt terrorized during the waning years of WWII. As were Allie civilians during the opening years of that world war.
Israel's due cause is it was attacked. Israel's legal intent is self defense by eliminating the threat posed by Hamas.

 

[setarcos]

That is an entirely separate debate not within the scope of this thread. However, I will summarize my position by saying I believe human morality, social contracts, social taboos and other things are entirely subjective and products of historical accident necessity and naturalistic causation. Not any God given absolute notion of morality.

I agree and your ideas on the matter are duly noted and will not be debated here.
I didn't mention God. Although that is my belief. What I did say was "some sense of innate belief". I personally suspect they may be nuanced subjectively but without a universally recognized objective template with which to work from human civilization would be impossible. But as you've said, this is not the thread to debate that.

 

[Little Dragon]

I think before we start throwing Geneva articles around in condemnation we must first realize that the dynamic and chaotic nature of fighting a war, especially a war with an enemy not bound by the Geneva convention is nearly impossible for a nation bound by the GC to accomplish without inevitably breaking some of its articles.

I didn't see that clause.
A war is fought between nation states and armies, that is not the case in this situation. This is a slaughter, a disproportionate series of atrocities.

 

[Little Dragon]

The only way of eliminating the problem in such cases is eliminating the rats where the rats go hide and plan and direct their next attack from. So Israel finds itself pursuing Hamas into Gaza.

Would Israel be so keen to indiscriminately bomb Israeli towns and cities, if Hamas had fled there instead?

 

[setarcos]

Perhaps it is your understanding that is wanting?

Perhaps.
The Article II that you quoted must be understood in the light of the deliberate "intent to destroy" those classes not actively combat orientated towards the destroyer.
Otherwise the destruction of an enemies ability to cause harm and or wage war in the future while creating unintended collateral damage by this definition is genocide and no modern war is possible without the possibility of such things happening rendering it pretty much meaningless in times of war. Yet the Article was meant to apply to times of war.
Not only has Israel announced, prior to attack, those areas that need to be evacuated it has publicly declared its intention is not to harm Palestinians but to destroy Hamas. If anything Hamas, by preventing its own people from evacuating is intentionally committing genocide of its own people.

 

[Little Dragon]

Not only has Israel announced, prior to attack, those areas that need to be evacuated it has publicly declared its intention is not to harm Palestinians but to destroy Hamas

Actions speak louder than words. Over 10,000 dead and missing, and that's an old figure now. I'd say their warnings aren't working.

 

[setarcos]

The combatant which is attacking an unarmed civilian population, should pull punches yes.

Why do you keep talking as if that is the directed purpose and intent of the attacks? It is not. What Israel is doing is attacking Hamas. What Hamas is doing is not allowing unarmed civilians to get out of the way.

Hamas leadership is not even in Gaza*
*Source: Private Eye Nov 2023 issue

I'm not sure what this means since a confirmed kill of a high ranking Hamas leader has been announced in the news. If this is incorrect are you saying that Hamas in Gaza is leaderless? And if so what does that mean? The war should be over?

 

[Little Dragon]

Otherwise the destruction of an enemies ability to cause harm and or wage war in the future while creating unintended collateral damage by this definition is genocide and no modern war is possible without the possibility of such things happening rendering it pretty much meaningless in times of war. Yet the Article was meant to apply to times of war.

In general terms, that argument could be used to excuse any atrocity imaginable. The reality is, there are lines, that must not be crossed. As the Nazis at their war crime trials discovered.
As Mr Putin knows, given his outstanding arrest warrant for genocide.

 

[Little Dragon]

What Israel is doing is attacking Hamas. What Hamas is doing is not allowing unarmed civilians to get out of the way.

Well it's doing it with extreme indifference to human life and to the rule of international law and swathes of public opinion, across the planet.

 

[Little Dragon]

Legal illegal, whatever.
What I do know, is this, to show mercy is not weakness.
I hope the people of Israel, can find mercy, in the midst of their horror and fury.

 

[Bthoth]

especially a war with an enemy not bound by the Geneva convention is nearly impossible for a nation bound by the GC to accomplish without inevitably breaking some of its articles. The articles were written as an idealized version of what conventions should be followed by civilized nations at war that have the capability of following those conventions without suffering defeat or total destruction. A gentleman's war if you will.

I agree, israel does not abide by the GC and why the GC has issued doctrine addressing the illegal occupation and uprooting the people of palestine.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.Jan 30, 2019

Israel created the concentration camp GAZA and has been breaking the rules of civility for decades.

 

[setarcos]

Hmmm, it is backed by leading scholars on genocide. Did you even read it?

Yes I've read the article.
There's nothing in the article about interpreting what actually is genocide in war time and whether or not what Israel is doing is actually genocide by definition.
What is being said is, basically war is genocide, war is bad, stop war. I agree with all of that. But no matter how much I agree with all of that, it doesn't make it possible. Nor meaningfully practical to apply it in times of war.
Show me a war that isn't hell, that doesn't have unintended collateral damage, especially when one combatant ensures it? Show me a war that someone can point to and say that was a good war that has no atrocities, no senseless killing, no tragic losses?
The only way to stop genocide in war is to not start a damn war in the first place. But in order to stop war in the first place...sometimes wars must be fought and with tragic consequences.

I'd hardly model the British gov response to the IRA as a model to follow, but I guess the bar is pretty low with what people in this thread are willing to defend Israel for.

So how do you think Israel should have responded? How do you think this war should be fought?

 

[Orbit]

Yes I've read the article.
There's nothing in the article about interpreting what actually is genocide in war time and whether or not what Israel is doing is actually genocide by definition.
What is being said is, basically war is genocide, war is bad, stop war. I agree with all of that. But no matter how much I agree with all of that, it doesn't make it possible. Nor meaningfully practical to apply it in times of war.
Show me a war that isn't hell, that doesn't have unintended collateral damage, especially when one combatant ensures it? Show me a war that someone can point to and say that was a good war that has no atrocities, no senseless killing, no tragic losses?
The only way to stop genocide in war is to not start a damn war in the first place. But in order to stop war in the first place...sometimes wars must be fought and with tragic consequences.

So how do you think Israel should have responded? How do you think this war should be fought?

I have made several posts, with links, defining what is a war crime and how Israel's activities fit the bill. The most obvious example is collective punishment, but there are others.

I find it puzzling that when someone points out war crimes being committed, the response is "what do you think Israel should do?". Uh, how about not war crimes? Israel can do anything it wants that is within international law, including war, and including negotiations. It's really not up to me, but collective punishment and indiscriminate bombing of a civilian population is a war crime. Collateral murder is not an option, and the scale of the murder being perpetrated here is horrifying.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the only way to eliminate the threat of Hamas is to eliminate Hamas's hateful ideologies which is synonymous with eliminating Hamas..

..too simplistic.
The only way to peace, is about compromise.
It is easy to claim that the Palestinians won't comprise, so they deserve
everything they get.
It seems that human beings never learn. If we want a decent future for our grandchildren,
the international community should INSIST on a settlement.

..but overall, they don't .. they merely carry on with the 'status quo'.
If you tease and provoke 'animals' in a cage, what do you expect to happen?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems that human beings never learn. If we want a decent future for our grandchildren,
the international community should INSIST on a settlement.

What might the process and settlement terms look like?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What might the process and settlement terms look like?

Well, they certainly don't consist of 'giving up', and USA president blocking UN resolutions,
and announcing Jerusalem as capital of Israel.

I believe the plan for Jerusalem was one of an international rule, by the UN in 1947.
One might understand how it is seen by some nations in the world, as a conspiracy to remove power from Palestinians entirely, blaming them for acting like 'animals'.

 

[icehorse]

Well it's doing it with extreme indifference to human life and to the rule of international law and swathes of public opinion, across the planet.

no it's not.

 

[We Never Know]

To be clear, I'm making a distinction between Palestinian civilians, and members of Hamas. All members of Hamas must be dealt with, for example by imprisoning them for life. This terrorist organization must be utterly destroyed, even the leaders sitting in cushy hotels a thousand miles away from the war.

The world has left it to Israel to perform this task, and much of the world complains about how Israel is going about it.

Fine, the world needs to step up and finish the job for Israel. Easy Peasy.

The news just reported intel shows hamas is using hospitals as bases.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, they certainly don't consist of 'giving up', and USA president blocking UN resolutions,
and announcing Jerusalem as capital of Israel.

^ worth discussing

I believe the plan for Jerusalem was one of an international rule, by the UN in 1947.

^ not worth discussing

One might understand how it is seen by some nations in the world, as a conspiracy to remove power from Palestinians entirely, blaming them for acting like 'animals'.

Can you name a nation or two that holds such a view?