Because none of the rest of the worlds problems are going to be affected at all by this turn of events…
I'm all for sitting back and watching the leopards eat US faces, I do like a little schadenfreude, but other parts of the world are going to be negatively affected too as is well documented.
More like the solution - Iraq threatened all of the Middle East. So does Iran. America is a security guarantee to countries who don't make a noise about it all.
As can be seen in Africa now, if America doesn't intervene then Russia or China will - there's no nice safe forum to criticise such actions in Russia. Sri Lanka - poor old Tamils got "sorted" with Chinese help.
Then the US oil price will go up no matter how isolationist it tries to be. That will hit people's pockets.
I think the South Koreans are extremely grateful not to be part of the North. That's a terrible example for you to pick.
Iraq...well they might not be too happy but I bet their neighbors insisted on Hussein being sorted out.
etc etc.
It isn't noble, it's practical. The US protects countries that supply oil to it. Korea turns out to be an extremely important ally and part of the world economy....etc.
I lot of Iraqis are very happy the US intervened, even though IMO it was a terrible move for many reasons (starting with the BS about WMD). The sunnis that supported Saddam didn't like it of course, but the other groups he oppressed were happy about the US invasion.
US is not the cause of the problems in the Middle East. It has interests in the Middle East. The problems in the region were created by the people inhabiting the region. If anything, US foreign politics sometimes come as detached from the reality of the problems of the area rather than creating those. I don't know what makes Americans take so much credit for the bad things that they hadn't contributed to all that much.
The US is directly responsible for millions of deaths in the Middle East.
It's supporting Israel's genocide right now, and would have continued to do so whichever candidate won.
It's arming Saudi Arabia to help its war in Yemen.
It killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, and armed the Taliban before that (back when the USSR was also killing Afghans by the hundreds of thousands).
It participated in the coup against Iran's last democratic government (together with the UK), re-installing the deposed Shah (he was later deposed yet again, but this time by fundamentalist revolutionaries, instead of the democracy that had replaced him last time). Before the revolution, they the Shah with the start of nuclear tech, which formed the basis of the current Iran nuclear program. They then supported Saddam and had him attack Iran, before later losing control of him as well.
Now, the root cause of many of the worse issues in the Middle East is in fact not the USA, but the British Empire, which drew most of the insane borders of Middle East states that are causing problems to this day. But the USA proudly took on the mantle of main meddler in the region in the last 50-70 years.
Millions of deaths? Where do you get your numbers from? The bloodiest war in the Middle East, the Syrian Civil War maybe has a million killed... all other conflicts in this area have low two-digit figures. Iraqi campaign, since the very start in 2003 has total killed at around 100k-200k, which, I believe, is the second bloodiest war in that area.
To give this some context: Iran-Iraq war, where US didn't really participate, scored 1m-2m deaths.
And of those killed in the conflicts, overwhelming majority were killed by the locals, in order to further some local ideology, gain some local control etc.
Military, I'd imagine, US may be directly responsible for some couple thousands deaths, maybe dozens of thousands. But that's it. US has absolutely no reason to waste troops and ammo on killing a bunch of nobodies in ME. That furthers no military or political goals. Even if you believe that US is colonial / militaristic or whatever other sticker you like, US is pragmatic in what it's doing. There's just no point in killing many people. It's a waste of resources.
Also, you obviously have never been to ME, and have no clue of what's going on there right now. The idea that Israel is somehow performing genocide is, again, laughable. Yes, they don't care about how many people in Gaza will die. But that's it. They don't care. The Israelis want the deplorables behind the fence to stop launching rockets at them. If that means that the civilians will die behind the fence--so be it. Genocide is when a state kills off everyone belonging to a particular group, no matter what that group does. Israeli military nor police nor any other force has no programs of exterminating Gazans. It's just not useful, there's nothing to be gained from it. And it would've been a huge investment in terms of paying salaries to the force hired to perform the alleged genocide, to organize the logistics around it etc. It's truly bizarre how someone can come up with such b/s ideas and never have a reality check.
The same, I imagine, goes for Saudi Arabia. They don't want the deplorables from Yemen to shoot at their oil drilling installations. They don't care about the lives of the people on the other side of the fence. In fact, they probably don't see them as people at all. But they don't care enough about them to organize a genocide. That's just too expensive, unproductive and wasteful.
As for Iran, you are missing the point: US has interests in the area, that's why they choose to side with this or the other political / social group and support / oppose some groups. They aren't responsible for what those groups want or do. The Iranian revolution happened because people in Iran revolted. Not because US organized it.
The "millions" figure is related to all of the people who died in wars started or cheered on by the USA. I wasn't trying to suggest that the US military has shot millions of people in the ME.
The Iran-Iraq war was supported by the USA, who armed Saddam as long as he promised to attack Iran, to try to take back control of, or at least punish, Iran after the Islamist revolution.
> The idea that Israel is somehow performing genocide is, again, laughable.
This is not just wrong, it's not even debatable today. Every single international organization that has analyzed the situation, from the UN, ICC, ICJ, journalist organizations, NGOs, even medical orgs: they all agree that a genocide is happening there. All senior Israeli officials (president, prime minister, defense minister, finance minister, and others) have said that they intend to punish the people of Gaza for October 7th (collective punishment is a form of genocide). I can find quotes, all from Israeli media or their own Twitter accounts, I had a collection of them once. Plus, they have destroyed every single hospital, university, and high-school in Gaza. They have forced the entire population to move from the North to the South, and then kept attacking them there as well. There is no other name whatsoever for what Israel is doing than genocide.
> They don't want the deplorables from Yemen to shoot at their oil drilling installations. They don't care about the lives of the people on the other side of the fence.
The war is about more than that (those "deplorables" are Iran aligned, a traditional enemy of SA). But it's irrelevant: the problem is that we know they're killing people quasi-indiscriminately (though nowhere near the wanton destruction that Israel unleashed in Gaza, especially in terms of leveling all civilian infrastructure), and yet the USA is still arming Saudi Arabia to facilitate this. So, the USA bears at least some responsibility for the deaths of all of those Yemenis.
> The Iranian revolution happened because people in Iran revolted. Not because US is organized it.
Sure, the Islamist revolution was not caused by the USA. But the coup against Mossadegh, the one that re-installed the US and UK puppet Shah, was indeed organized by the CIA. You had Iran go from a despotic king to a democracy, and then the UK and USA conspired to bring down this democracy and re-install the despotic king. And then proceeded to arm this king, including trying to help him build nuclear weapons. When the people rose again against the despot, the second time they were more radicalized than the first time, which has now made Iran one of the most dangerous countries in the region - including a nuclear weapons program that the USA helped start.
> All senior Israeli officials (president, prime minister, defense minister, finance minister, and others) have said that they intend to punish the people of Gaza for October 7th (collective punishment is a form of genocide). I can find quotes, all from Israeli media or their own Twitter accounts, I had a collection of them once.
Yes. There are some politicians quoted with ethnic cleansing, borderline genocidal intent. They're called extremists, every country has them. They don't call the shots.
Kind of different from a popular government that prepares for years and executes a massacre
You have quotes from Yoav Gallant (then Minister of defense) like "I am saying here to the citizens of Lebanon, I already see the citizens in Gaza walking with white flags along the coast... If Hezbollah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza, we know how to do in Beirut.".
You have quotes from Isaac Herzog, President, like “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true. They could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime.” .
The ones from Netanyahu are somewhat more metaphorical/veiled, but for example "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible", which is a reference to a passage in Deuteronomy where the Israelites are instructed by their god to "blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven".
While all of these people are extremists, they are also in charge of the country.
And... what's the problem with Gallant's statement? Where's any calls to the genocide in it?
It says that if Hezballah chooses to fight the same way Hamas is fighting (i.e. by hiding behind civilians, occupying civilian infrastructure) then the civilian death are going to be high. This warning is very much warranted because that's exactly how Hezballah fights (by putting their ammo stockpiles in civilian infrastructure, by launching rockets from civilian areas etc.) I.e. in other words, it's saying to Hezballah that if they think that hiding behind civilians will give them any kind of tactical advantage, they may forget about that.
The message is not addressed to Hezbollah, it is addressed to the citizens of Lebanon. It is a threat against the civilians in an entire country: Israel is going to kill you the way we are killing the people of Gaza, unless you yourselves take some steps to distance yourselves from them.
Imagine what outcry there would be if Iran came out and said the same thing, warning the civilians of Israel to distance themselves from the IDF, lest they become collateral damage.
Yes, it is addressed to the citizens of Lebanon... why would you think this is a necessary detail to clarify?
It is a threat, alright, but it's only realistic to say that if Hezballah is where it is, then these citizens of Lebanon are held hostages by Hezballah, so they shouldn't have any illusions about what is going to happen.
But no, it's not Israel who is going to kill them. It's Hezballah. Metaphorically, Israel is the train coming to the platform, while Hezballah is the guy who pushes the other guy on the tracks as the train approaches. Citizens of Lebanon being killed in this way have to thank Hezballa for their fate. This is the point of the message.
In the trolley problem, the IDF chose to direct the trolley towards the Lebanese citizens in order to spare the Israeli citizens, and this is what it's telling them. Hezballa is the guys pushing the trolley.
> Imagine what outcry there would be if Iran
Iran are scumbags who say plenty of much worse stuff on regular basis. Nobody would notice this particular statement because that'd be just Tuesday by Iranian standards. There'd be no outcry because people get used to the way things are, even if things are bad.
> why would you think this is a necessary detail to clarify?
Because it makes it a threat against the civilian population of a country.
> But no, it's not Israel who is going to kill them. It's Hezballah. Metaphorically, Israel is the train coming to the platform, while Hezballah is the guy who pushes the other guy on the tracks as the train approaches. Citizens of Lebanon being killed in this way have to thank Hezballa for their fate. This is the point of the message.
This is a completely silly argument. The people bombing you are the people killing you. That they claim to have some higher purpose is irrelevant. Hezbollah at best presents a minor threat to civilians in Israel, claiming that they are an existential threat that would justify scorching the civilian population of an entire country is ludicrous.
Let's also not forget that Hezbollah itself was formed as a defense force trying (and eventually succeeding) to drive out the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. So, by your own logic (that I don't share), we should say that it's "actually" Israel who is responsible for all of the deaths that Hezbollah caused, since Hezbollah's formation is a consequence of Israel's previous attack on Lebanon. It's like a trolley problem: Hezbollah chose to direct the trolley at Israeli soldiers and citizens in order to free the Lebanese tied to the tracks - but it was the IDF pushing that trolley in the first place.
> Every single international organization that has analyzed the situation, from the UN, ICC, ICJ
Every single hand-picked organization you mean? The organizations that act on identity politics of being Muslim / Arabs and wanting to trample Israel for religious / identity reasons you mean? Yeah... that's about right. The rest can be explained by Israel being a US ally, when it's not for the fact that Muslims just want to slaughter Jews if given a chance. The countries / governments that campaign against Israel do it so that they can stick it up to the US, but in the way they don't directly confront the US, because they are too scared of the repercussions.
> have said that they intend to punish the people of Gaza
And? Where's genocide in that? Where are the concentration camps, the gas chambers, the paramilitary force guarding the camps and executing prisoners? Where's all that? Yes, of course they want to punish people responsible for Israelis' death. Why wouldn't anyone? Do they send them in droves into gas chambers? -- Absolutely not.
> collective punishment is a form of genocide
Really? By whose definition? What about riding in a sled and saying ho-ho-ho? Is that a form of genocide too? Gazans are being collectively punished by denying them work permits in Israel. Is that a genocide? If so, then I have really bad news for you...
Ultimately, Gazans are the culprit of Gazans' problems. They started this war. They had dozens of off-ramps to stop it. They could surrender any time they want, and their beloved infrastructure would've been spared. They have a death wish, and Israel doesn't feel like stopping them from throwing themselves on the bayonets.
Please choose one international organization that has had people in Gaza and has declared it's not a genocide.
As for colective punishment, I did make a small mistake. This is "just" an explicit war crime, not a direct proof of genocide. Of course, it easily leads to genocide if you feel that an entire people are responsible for an attack perpetrated by a few dozens of terrorists. After all, if all Gazans are responsible for October 7th, doesn't it just make sense to kill or at least harm all of them, per this deranged logic?
Just like like if someone said "Israelis and all Jewish people deserve to die for the crimes committed by Israel's military against Palestine" would be a demented war criminal and instigator to genocide. This is exactly what Israel's leadership is saying, only it's about Palestinians as a people and Hamas as the army instead. And it is just as deranged and disturbing and frankly disgusting.
> Ultimately, Gazans are the culprit of Gazans' problems. They started this war.
Another historical misguided statement. Israel has been occupying Gaza and not allowing it to be recognized as a state, or to control its own borders, for decades. Every year, even before this war, for every Israeli killed by someone from Gaza, Israel has killed two, three, sometimes even ten Gazans (and the balance is sitting at 45-100:1 for the current invasion, not counting all of the mass rape and torture and other crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against detainees). The people of Gaza are not allowed to leave the country unless approved by Israel, not allowed to import or export anything unless approved by Israel, and not allowed to be recognized in any international organization. The same is true of the West Bank. Additionally, in the West Bank, Israel is taking more and more of the Palestinians' lands and settling colonists, who often attack nearby villages as well.
This "war" did not start on October 7th. It started decades ago, and Israel has been the aggressor throughout.
Edit: same person as simiones for personal reasons, not an attempt at dogpiling or anything like that
> "it easily leads to genocide if you feel that an entire people are responsible for an attack perpetrated by a few dozens of terrorists"
3,000 Gazans crossed into Israel on October 7th. Not dozens. Also not close to the entire population of 2.1 million.
Nobody is talking about killing or harming all 2.1 million. In fact nobody is talking about killing or harming any civilians at all. The only dial the Israelis can turn is how much effort they put into avoiding civilian casualties - and by effort, I mean sacrificing Israeli soldier lives instead of air force munitions and/or missing opportunities to target militants, which then leads to these militants attacking Israeli civilians.
Hamas consistently uses the Gazan population as human shields. Israel is already leads and bounds ahead of any other armed force with the lowest ratio of combatant to civilian death ever in an urban setting. What's happening in Gaza is a calamity, but I'm not sure any other nation would handle it better in Israel's place.
This war (no need for scare quotes) definitely started on October 7th. The conflict may not have, but wars have beginnings and ends, and this one was started, by Hamas, on October 7th.
> "Israel has been occupying Gaza"
Nope. Left in 2005.
> "not allowing it to be recognized as a state"
Not allowing how? All Israel asked was a declaration of willingness to live side-by-side with Israel, without hostilities. Are you saying that's too much for Israel to ask?
> "or to control its own borders, for decades"
There are two sides to every border. Israel controls the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border.
> "Every year, even before this war, for every Israeli killed by someone from Gaza, Israel has killed two, three, sometimes even ten Gazans (and the balance is sitting at 45-100:1 for the current invasion, not counting all of the mass rape and torture and other crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against detainees)."
This is not a game. You don't aim for equal numbers. Israel is going for dead or surrendered Hamas militants, and Hamas is going for dead Israeli civilians. The Israelis are better at it. That doesn't make them wrong.
> "not allowed to import or export anything unless approved by Israel"
Yes, because they kept trying to import arms, explosives, and rockets. Look up the Karine-A affair. Apparently, given what happened on October 7th, the control is likely not strict enough.
> "in the West Bank, Israel is taking more and more of the Palestinians' lands and settling colonists"
Sounds like the Palestinians' top interest should be to get a deal struck as soon as possible that forces Israel to remove the settlers. Like they did with the Oslo accords in 92', until Arafat was found to be straight-up lying to Clinton, negotiating with Clinton and Rabin in the morning and directing terrorist attacks in the evening.
--
Leaders of western nations are not generally allied with Israel because they particularly like Jews. They are allied with Israel because Israel is the historical homeland of the Jews, a full democracy with democratic values (...for now), and the most successful decolonization project in history; and it has from day one strived to make peace with any willing country, while successfully defending itself from numerous assaults by its neighboring countries, the Palestinians, and the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
> This war (no need for scare quotes) definitely started on October 7th.
This is not a war, it's a one-sided genocidal invasion, part of a decade-long war. There have been periods of ceasefire in this war, but it is the same conflict that has lasted for decades.
> Nope. Left in 2005.
Nope, they are still controlling the border (see below) and periodically bombing Gaza, keeping records of every citizen of Gaza, rationing power and water, etc. That is an occupation, even if there aren't Israeli troops constantly on the border.
> All Israel asked was a declaration of willingness to live side-by-side with Israel, without hostilities.
This is completely facetious. Netanyahu has been very clear that there Israel will not allow a two-state solution, long before the October 7th attack. He even explicitly supported Hamas's stay in power [0]:
> For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.
> The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Here is a quote from him directly [1] about his vision for a Palestinian state, where he is asking for infinitely more than a commitment to not attack Israel:
> “[A]ny final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would have Israel controlling security – overriding security responsibility in the area west of the Jordan.
> [...] “And I said, you’re right. But – I don’t know what you’d call it, but it gives them the opportunity to control their lives, to elect their officials, to run their economy, to run their institutions, to have their flag and to have their parliament, but we have to have overriding security control.”
I think it's obvious this is not a serious proposal that any state would accept. It also happens to be almost exactly one of the things Putin was asking of Ukraine, widely viewed in Europe and the USA as an absurdity.
> Israel controls the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border.
Israel controls all sides of the Gaza border, including Gaza's border with the sea. Even the USA wasn't allowed to bring in medicine and food to Gaza over boat unless Israel approved it. The Gaza-Egypt border is nominally controlled by Egypt, but Egypt has long agreed to follow Israel's requests on who and what is allowed through there.
> Yes, because they kept trying to import arms, explosives, and rockets.
Which they should be allowed to do, if you are claiming they are not under occupation. Every free state in the world is allowed to import weapons.
> Sounds like the Palestinians' top interest should be to get a deal struck as soon as possible that forces Israel to remove the settlers.
The Palestinians shouldn't need to reach a "deal", since the settlements are fully illegal under international law, as recognized even by the USA.
> Like they did with the Oslo accords in 92', until Arafat was found to be straight-up lying to Clinton, negotiating with Clinton and Rabin in the morning and directing terrorist attacks in the evening.
The Oslo accords were a sham. There is nothing about a Palestinian state in the Oslo accords. Israel's leaders had no intention whatsoever to commit even to a vision that would eventually lead to a Palestinian state under numerous conditions. Arafat kept negotiating, but at some point this became apparent. Was he fully committed to the process? No. Was the process ever plausibly going to lead to any good solution for Palestinians even if he had been? Absolutely not. The Israelis were occupying Gaza at the time, and busy settling the West bank. They were adamantly opposed to any kind of third party monitoring or enforcement of any term that they would agree to: who would be foolish enough to sign something like this? Here is a good article on the overall process and how one-sided it was [2], written by one of the US negotiators who was present.
> They are allied with Israel because Israel is the historical homeland of the Jews
Most Jews that founded Israel had lived for hundreds of years, more than a thousand often, in various places in Europe. Israel is about as much their "historical homeland" as Rome is the "historical homeland" of the Spanish. Calling the most clear modern example of colonization a "decolonization" project is preposterous. There were hundreds of thousands of people who had been living in Palestine for generations, who were displaced to make room for the Zionist project. Initially, this was done mostly peacefully; only later, after the British took and then ceded control of the territory, did the forceful removal of Palestinian Arabs start, to make room for the new state of Israel. And then the colonization of this state by settlers from all over the world.
Collective punishment is not a war crime either. Why do you keep talking about something you have no clue about? I've given you an example of collective punishment that Israel did perform (unlike many idiotic claims made by people who just like to make stuff up). Israel canceled work permits for everyone from Gaza be those terrorists or not. How's canceling a work permit a war crime?
You just keep using the words, but you don't understand what they mean...
Now, were there war crimes committed by IDF during the Gaza war? -- Yes, and some were punished for that, while even more were claimed. This is a nature of any war. Were there more crimes than in any other war? How do you even measure and compare these things?
As I lived through several wars, I can tell that Israeli wars, at least from my perspective as a bystander, are very mild in terms of cruelty towards both combatants and non-combatants. This is not a unique Israeli virtue. In general, wars waged by well-to-do countries are less cruel to the opposing side simply because soldiers growing in well-to-do countries are not exposed to the everyday violence as much as their counterparts in poor countries. They are brought up in an environment where human life has intrinsic value, where critical thought is encouraged and so it's harder to brainwash a soldier into a mindlessly cruel machine.
Now, my childhood in Ukraine had seen this, for example, beside other multiple such incidents: on my way back home from school my mom pulled my hand hard in order to get me to walk faster. Before that, I've heard voices of some youth cursing and taunting someone. I also saw some guys kicking something in the mud, but it was too dark and too far to see what that was. Next morning there was a makeshift fence erected by the police around that place, and the school sprouted rumors that a bunch of alcoholics / homeless people were mauled to death at that place.
This was during peace time. And this would've been a typical fate for the homeless / drunks, unless hypothermia got them first. Very rarely would anyone get in jail for that. Imagine now people like that being drafted into the military. First Karabakh war, for example. Or Chechen wars. These were real torture fests. Both sides deliberately looked for more painful ways to kill the opponent. And they made little distinction between combatants and non-combatants. People who signed up for the military were driven by the idea that they will be allowed to kill and torture legally even more so than by money or status.
The horrors soldiers routinely commit in poor countries eclipse anything you could dream up in your wildest dreams living in the EU, US or another wealthy place. Does this mean that war crimes committed by IDF shouldn't be prosecuted? -- Of course not. But you shouldn't infer from there being war crimes any sort of intention on the state level, nor should this be any kind of supporting argument to claim genocide or any other such wide-reaching policy. Putting things in perspective and in proportion: if Gazans were instead fighting Russians, there wouldn't have been any Gazans left in about two months since the start of the war. And it's not unique to Russians. Bet you, that if they wanted the same kind of fight with Egypt, they'd be similarly dying in much larger numbers.
And this isn't even because of the calculus of achieving military objectives. Poorer armies are both more cruel and more crude, while valuing the lives of their own soldiers less. Poorer army would both need to expend more ordnance per target (accidentally missing / hitting unintended targets) and having more vicious soldiers abuse the population being invaded.
> Israel has been the aggressor throughout.
You couldn't be more delusional / ignorant about the subject.
It is you who have no idea of what you are talking about.
Here is article 33 [0] of the (Foruth) Geneva Convention (emphasis mine):
> ART. 33. — 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.
Here is a summary of more international humanitarian law on the matter [1]:
> Rule 103. Collective punishments are prohibited.
> Were there more crimes than in any other war? How do you even measure and compare these things?
> As I lived through several wars, I can tell that Israeli wars, at least from my perspective as a bystander, are very mild in terms of cruelty towards both combatants and non-combatants.
> Putting things in perspective and in proportion: if Gazans were instead fighting Russians, there wouldn't have been any Gazans left in about two months since the start of the war.
This is all entirely wrong. We can even compare directly, as there is currently a Russian invasion in Ukraine in parallel to the Israeli invasion in Gaza. After almost two years, there are approximately 11 500 civilians killed in Ukraine, of which ~650 are children [2]. There are ~43 000 total killed in Gaza, of which at least ~20 500 are civilians, including more than 13 000 children [3]. Note that the population of Gaza is about 19 times smaller than that of Ukraine (~2.1 millions in Gaza, ~38 million in Ukraine).
And these are just direct deaths from the war. While Russia also has an appalling record of attacking and deliberately targeting healthcare facilities in Ukraine, Israel has destroyed every single hospital or clinic in Gaza. Russia has killed ~234 healthcare workers in Ukraine in two years of invasion [4]. Israel has killed ~765 healthcare workers killed in Gaza, in just one year of war [5].
> You couldn't be more delusional / ignorant about the subject.
Look just at the amount of people killed every year in Gaza vs Israel before this war. Please tell me how Gaza has been terrorizing Israel, when in every single year, Israel has been killing many times more people in Gaza then the terrorists have in Israel [6]. Several human rights organizations have called Gaza "an open air prison" before this war, including this UN special rapporteur [7]. In fact, I challenge you to find a single human rights organization that has done work in Gaza who doesn't consider what Israel is doing to be deeply oppressive.
I have no words. You really have no idea what those words you read mean, do you?
No, denying work permits is not a war crime. You took the quote out of context and have no clue what it refers to. No country owes it to another country to provide their citizens (or non-citizens in this case) with work permits. There's no crime in cancelling work permits. But it is a punishment. Similarly, when a country enacts a policy of tariffs on imported goods, visa restrictions etc. They apply indiscriminately to all the citizens of the country against which the measures are applied, yet these aren't even crimes, let alone war crimes!
To sum it up for you: not all punishments are crimes. Thus a collective punishment doesn't have to be a crime, let alone a war crime. Being collective rather than individual changes nothing about the nature of this relationship.
> Pillage is prohibited.
Pillage of what? Gaza is a downtrodden hellhole. Life there is destitute and miserable. Unlike you, I've been there. There's nothing Israelis want from that place. There's nothing Israelis could possibly use from that place. It's a huge ghetto dumpster, revolting in every respect.
I've been to Gaza because I worked for a grocery store in Ashqelon, and we used to deliver some produce from there. The cabbages and the cucumbers to be specific. They were awful. Nobody would buy that stuff. My understanding was though that this must've been some coverup for buying weed or similar. I was too low on the totem-pole for this info to be shared with me. But, even if it was weed, it wouldn't be coming from Gaza! Lol. It'd be coming from Sinai, transiting Gaza.
> Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
What does this have to do with cancelling work permits? Nobody owes Gazans work permits to begin with. That was a humanitarian measure to try and get these people to see the light. No sane Israeli wants to employ Gazans, but the government tried to encourage this cross-border employment in hopes to sooth the tensions. Guess that didn't work well. In Hebrew, the expression "Arab work" is similar in spirit to "Chinese quality" in English. If your house is falling apart months after renovation because the workers stole concrete, painted over spots that should've been removed prior to painting, put the breaker room under the leaking sink -- that would be described as "Arab work" (even if not performed by Arabs).
This results from the almost ubiquitous attitude among Gazans employed in Israel, where they'd do as little and as bad of work as possible, just to stick it up to people who hired them. Kind of similar to how black slaves sabotaged their work for white masters in the US etc. Except Gazans aren't slaves. They were given these jobs as a means to help them accumulate wealth and possibly develop some better understanding of their neighbors...
> After almost two years, there are approximately 11 500 civilians killed in Ukraine,
Again, you are pulling your numbers out of your rear. Mariupol alone suffered close to 30K civilian casualties. But Ukrainian reporting is honest, unlike that from Gaza. Ukraine doesn't have the means to count their dead. And they don't disguise their projections, even though they might be very close to reality. Unless they can actually find the body and establish the cause of death, they don't report it as death.
Also, Ukraine can fight and it protects its own citizens. And it has a very good reason: Russians will not hesitate to torture and abuse its population. Gazans cannot fight. Their strategy is to bleed on the enemy, and they go cry to the international community about how bad their enemy had beaten them. Also, Israelis don't torture the enemy, at least not systematically the way Russians do. And I say this because I served half a year in Israeli military prison in Tzrifin. It's not a five-star hotel, but if I were in a fight against Israel, and my situation looked dire, I'd go to the prison again. It sucks, but it's livable. Also, in my first month in Tzrifin I was in the "alef" division (that's the place for the soldiers who want to return to service and generally obey the orders etc.). Alef would be sometimes sent on the guard duty to Makhaneh 16, which is the military prison for the terrorists. At least was at the time. And, yes, it's a prison, it sucks, but it's nothing like Russian prisons...
In a similar situation, but against Russia: I wouldn't hesitate to shoot myself. The depravity and torture performed systematically by Russians is on a completely different level.
I have provided links for every single claim I made, including the numbers of dead in Ukraine and the articles of the Geneva convention that I quoted verbatim and in its entirety.
I didn't say that refusing work permits constitutes collective punishment. The mass destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, including, again, all hospitals, high schools, university, most schools, kindergarten etc. constitute collective punishment in a form that is a clear crime under the Geneva conventions. See the ICJ finding of plausible genocide if you want to see this from actual international law judges, not some rando on HN.
Thanks for the lesson in anti-Arab racism among common Israelis though. And for confirming that Gaza was already a miserable ghetto that no one would want to live in under the "benevolent" Israeli occupation.
Your links are worthless because you don't understand what they say...
Anyways, here's another example, which was in the news right now. Dutch Muslims attacked Israeli soccer fans. This is an example of collective punishment because people who probably have nothing to do with what's going on in Gaza have been beaten, ran over by cars etc. in a fit of collective punishment.
And while this is definitely a crime, it's not a war crime, because it wasn't committed by soldiers and the Netherlands and Israel aren't at war.
The level of sophistry here is amazing. The Dutch are neither at war with Israel, nor occupying them. The actions of some Dutch civilians against some Israeli tourists can not constitute war crimes, because these are not combatants. They are crimes, make no mistake: the penal system of the Netherlands will hopefully see to that.
In contrast, Israel is at war with Gaza, and all of the actions I am discussing are official military and government actions. Cutting off the supply of power and water, cutting off food and medicine, deliberately bombing civilian infrastructure: these are all explicit actions taken by Israel as retaliation against the civilians of Gaza in a form of collective punishment, as their leaders gleefully proclaim internally. And they constitute undeniable war crimes because of this.
Hopefully in time the ICJ will receive enough support from the EU to actually prosecute this obvious violation, though my hopes are slim: the pressure from the USA to shield Israel from international law is immense.
You just repeated what I wrote, but tried to make it a counter-argument? That makes zero sense...
But later you demonstrate that you have no effing clue, not even the basic outline of what can possibly qualify to be a war crime. And this was the whole point: you don't understand what the words you are so eager to use mean.
Now, while people at ICJ aren't impartial in this case, they aren't as dumb. So, this is why, for example, they only charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes. Even though, for example, Smotrich would be a lot more fitting their obviously politically-motivated narrative. And the reason for this? -- A technicality! Only a military person can commit a war crime. Netanyahu and Gallant are military, and that's why they are on the file, while Smotrich or any other minister isn't (and couldn't possibly be, because that'd be just too much to laugh at).
So, you saying "government actions [...] constitute undeniable war crimes". Is just an example of brain rot. You literally don't understand what a war crime is. A civilian, no matter how ruthless, no matter the extent of their actions, cannot technically commit a war crime. It's impossible by definition, in the same way how triangular squares aren't possible. War crimes have "war" in the names specifically to separate them from other kinds of crimes based on the criteria that they are committed by military. That's the whole point of the term.
And, similarly to how you have no clue about the language you use, you have no clue as to what happens on the ground in Gaza, who's responsible for what kind of bad stuff, the extent of it etc. You are just regurgitating the talking points you've learnt from people who you feel politically aligned with, but you have no practical way and no motivation to figure out the true state of events. And, you'll continue to believe whatever makes you feel more comfortable with the group of people you want to be associated with, no matter what anyone from outside that group would tell you. So, convincing you is pointless. You need to at least be ready to try to figure out why people might disagree with you, but you are still miles away from there.
"The government" is an entity controlling the military. You can split hairs and discuss which specific people in the government are actually liable and which are not, but the general point I was making was more broad: Israeli leadership is clearly committing war crimes in Gaza, and it is very easy to argue that they are beyond that, that they are carrying out a genocide. Even you admit that the prime minister and minister of defense could be liable for war crimes, so saying "the government" is not some huge generalization. Especially when the rest of the government is very much aligned (or even more extreme) than those two.
And in relation to who is biased or basing their views on some obscure and highly biased sources: it's probably the side of the conversation who is denying what, again, every single international organization who has sent people in Gaza is saying. There is absolutely no debate from any credible source that what is happening in Gaza is wanton destruction on Israel's part.
If you cared to ask you will discover that a huge cohort of people "on the right" do not want the US involved in foreign entanglements, including with Israel.
Political solutions for the rest of the world would appear to include increasing the amount of money you spend on your national defense and/or the amount of money you spend renting rooms at Trump International Hotel Washington D.C to curry favor.
As the rest of the world, why would I care about elections results on another continent? US should sort their problems themselves. I don't even want a vote, our countries are independent from each other and we both decide for our own.
As someone with a german passport (federal elections next year) and living in france (next presidential in 2027) I do care. Europe is next. Make no mistake, the money that bought this election will try to get the european power houses at a discount, now that they have an ally in the white house.
The money in this election was mostly on Harris' side. It lost. It's not money that decided this election, it's hubris and bold face lying by a charlatan.
I'm an Israeli who was born in Ukraine and lives in the Netherlands. And I care a lot about the outcome of the US election because of Israeli military partnership that is going to be affected by the new administration and because of the new US administration trying to break free from NATO, which will put my livelihood and that of those close to me in danger due to the looming war with Russia. Not to mention that I don't expect to see a lot of the male classmates to show up at the next class reunion because of how US foreign policies will affect the war in Ukraine.
They have their own countries with candidates to consider. They should mind their own business and US citizens should mind theirs. The US needs to move closer to isolationist policies for that reason.
It was true 2 centuries ago. In the age we are now where each country is interconnected at every level of a society (economy, culture, trade, innovation, research, military…) that’s not possible anymore. WW2 showed it. You can’t play head in the sand and think that everything will be fine. Since then every major economy drawbacks showed the world we live today is all interconnected and interdependent. And that’s the same for any other type of backlash or drawbacks from politics, alliances, society…
Sadly, this is not true under neoliberal capitalism. With the correct oversimplified messaging and a lot of money, you can influence a lot of people to behave a certain way.
We definitely had microtargeting ads by the trump team to make Harris look bad with conflicting messages, we also define had a musk PAC collect data in an unethical way to eventually do door to door canvas for Trump, and it goes without saying that one of the biggest social network in the US is skewed towards conspiracies (musk posted a video endorsement of Trump yesterday where the Q letter appeared together with Trump and similar bullshit)
