A very depressing video from Gaza

[Meadmaker]

meanwhile, 2 states.
what other choice is there?

I agree.

Hamas doesn't agree. So how do we get there from here?

[Meadmaker]

What Israel is doing amounts to collective punishment, which is a war crime.

When one thing "amounts to" another thing, it probably isn't that other thing.

What happened to German citizens in WWII "amounted to" collective punishment. They suffered horribly. And yet, historians generall don't say that American and British bombers committed war crimes, depite hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of German civiian deaths.

On the other hand, when the SS would hang civilians after partisans killed German soldiers, everyone agrees it was a war crime.

I guess that distinction is confusing to some people, but most people can sort it out.




So is the thing that Israel is doing more like the first example, or more like the second example? The body count alonne is not sufficient to answer the question.

[Admin]

What happened to German citizens in WWII "amounted to" collective punishment. They suffered horribly. And yet, historians generall don't say that American and British bombers committed war crimes, depite hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of German civiian deaths.

History is written by the victors.

The fact that no UK/US commanders were tried and hung for war crimes is a travesty. Goring was executed for far less than Bomber Harris* did.

*Ironically died in Goring.

[arthwollipot]

What happened to German citizens in WWII "amounted to" collective punishment. They suffered horribly. And yet, historians generall don't say that American and British bombers committed war crimes, depite hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of German civiian deaths.

Since when?

[Meadmaker]

What happened to German citizens in WWII "amounted to" collective punishment. They suffered horribly. And yet, historians generall don't say that American and British bombers committed war crimes, depite hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of German civiian deaths.

Since when?

Oh, come now. Make an effort. You found a wikipeida article that uses those words in a sentence. Bravo.



But the point remains. Whatever may have happened in individual cases. Historians, scholars, lawyers, the general public, do not generally regard allied bombers, or their commanders, as war criminals, and it has nothing to do with the fact that our side won the war.

Maybe Dresden was a war crime. Maybe. I don't think so, but a case could be made.


At any rate, it's a distraction. Your point was about "collective punishment". Was the bombing of those cities "collective punishment"? I gave another example that everyone agrees is collective punishment.

I ask again, in slightly different terms. The IDF is engaging in war related activities in Gaza. Are their actions more like those sorts of activities that have been called "collective punishment", or are their actions more like other, different, actions which have resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths, but which are generally not considered war crimes?

[Meadmaker]

What happened to German citizens in WWII "amounted to" collective punishment. They suffered horribly. And yet, historians generall don't say that American and British bombers committed war crimes, depite hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of German civiian deaths.

History is written by the victors.

The fact that no UK/US commanders were tried and hung for war crimes is a travesty. Goring was executed for far less than Bomber Harris* did.

*Ironically died in Goring.

I don't think Goering was executed as a result of his actions as commander of the Luftwaffe. The Blitz was a horrific activity, which resulted in a huge number of civilian deaths, but no one was prosecuted for it, as far as I know. (Now I'll have to go look that up.)

ETA: I did look it up. No one was prosecuted. There was no crime.


Perhaps there are conventions that have arisen since WWII that govern airstrikes, shelling, other activities where civilian deaths might be involved If so, perhaps those conventions could be cited.

In general, though, I'm quite confident that simply causing civilian deaths, even in very large numbers, is not, by itself, evidence of war crimes.

[Meadmaker]

By the way. The Wikipedia article Arthwollipot cited in his first post on "collective punishment" does give examples of thing that could be considered as collective punishment and war crimes.

I emphasize "could be".

I see such things as refusing humanitarian aid access and forced evacuations as very suspect sorts of acts.

I don't think the case has been proven, though. I can't see how cutting off water is justified, but I'm willing to listen to an explanation.

[stanky]

The U.S. has never been concerned with war crimes. Since i've been alive, all of our wars have been crimes.

There was a time when wars avoided civilian casualties. In the bloodiest battle of the Western hemisphere, only one civilian was killed...accidentally.
These days, civilian casualties often comprise 90% of the deaths from war. The bombs dropped on Japan are a good example of the trend.
I forget...was that a crime? It's disgusting and laughable simultaneously, this attempt to give war a sane and legal moniker.

It's a fucking shame that we have no memory. Wars like the Korean war are all but forgotten. In that nasty struggle, the U.S. went above and beyond what was needed. As in Vietnam, the land itself was destroyed, along with the means to prevent starvation. Talk about overkill! Still, we didn't exactly 'win' that one...though it's no surprise the NK has a bad attitude about the kind of freedom we'd like to impose on the world. Instead, we simply label certain people as 'evil', while making sure that the historical facts remain obscured. While we were sleeping, bold new laws have been enacted, making certain protests illegal. We can lock people up without a trial now. And we can't even manage to close down Gitmo.

[Meadmaker]

Sometimes things get lost in the back and forth, and I like to periodically refocus things.

Removing Hamas as the government in Gaza is a legitimate goal that can only be achieved through military means, and civilian deaths are inevitable as long as Hamas continues to fight back.

Either you agree with the above, or you don't.

If you agree, then what do you think Israel should do differently than what it is doing now?

If you disagree, I'm not sure where to go, but explaining what you disagree about would be a good start.

[stanky]

I guess i'd have to disagree then, if there are only two choices. I think there might be more choices. Removing Bibi would be a good start. He's already pledged to continue the slaughter after this brief repose. Some compromise might be an answer; possibly more digestible now for Hamas. Like, maybe stop with the expansion? Do you think that what Hamas did was fairly inevitable, given their circumstance? That it might have been preventable with gestures of common decency? What would the Jews have done if roles were reversed? What does anyone do when put in a cage? Try to get out.

Ever heard Gaddafi's only speech at the U.N.? It's worth a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3nVBTT ... %C3%87enet