Israel declares war on Hamas

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're wrong, he was the victim. Just ask Fuzz and his gang of cohorts.

What a terrible "gang of cohorts" that just wants less dead civilians. I can't believe anyone would have the gall to question a war and whether an occupying nation could just kill less civilians. What a preposterous notion, we all know that anyone who's ever questioned or protested a war has been on the wrong side of history!

Originally Posted by Azure

Ignorance is you not acknowledging that there is obviously a religious fanaticism behind wanting to destroy Israel, and that a scumbag like Sinwar clearly subscribed to this, and manipulated the lives of thousands of innocents of people to try and accomplish that goal.

But all the dodging and 'oh reflection' on you BS is clearly helping your case. Great job all around by team anti-Israel as usual.

Are you not acknowledging that there is religious fanaticism on both sides? Or do the Israeli settlers continually killing Palestinians and taking their land not exist to you?

[Pointman]

The world has become a better place today.

Conversely, this thread has not..

[jatylo]

Originally Posted by Looch City

So like what happens now? War is over?

We'll wait a couple years for a new leader to take place and then rinse and repeat?

Or should we exterminate all of Gaza since they're all basically Hamas?

Maybe Hamas or the people of Palestine will elect a new leader that wants to agree to a peace deal with Israel. So that the wheel of war doesn't keep spinning.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think at this point it’s pretty evident the US is using Israel as a proxy to mess around and kill people inLebanon, Iran, and other Middle East nations.

Leave no Middle East nation unbombed, a continuation of 50+ years of US policy.

You are correct in that it is essentially a USA-Iran proxy war.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Looch City

So like what happens now? War is over?

We'll wait a couple years for a new leader to take place and then rinse and repeat?

Or should we exterminate all of Gaza since they're all basically Hamas?

Gaza is a rebel exclave, that overthrew Palestinians and killed everyone associated with Palestinian authorities. Now with Hamas leader dead, it would likely mean the end of their 20 years of independence (from Palestine).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ignorance is you not acknowledging that there is obviously a religious fanaticism behind wanting to destroy Israel, and that a scumbag like Sinwar clearly subscribed to this, and manipulated the lives of thousands of innocents of people to try and accomplish that goal.

But all the dodging and 'oh reflection' on you BS is clearly helping your case. Great job all around by team anti-Israel as usual.

####ing LOL. Hey guys, Azure thinks I don't see religious fanaticism as a problem. I'm the guy who created a thread to point out how awful religions are. This is why I'm left questioning your intelligence. You know it can be more than one thing, right? And that religious fanaticism is part of the source of the entire problem...on both sides.


But hey, keep ignoring PERFECT examples of how these situations and actions of the past can haunt you in the future, and in 30 years you can sit in your diaper outraged and confused about Israel being attacked again, despite having the answer directly in front of you. Genius stuff.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Gaza is a rebel exclave, that overthrew Palestinians and killed everyone associated with Palestinian authorities. Now with Hamas leader dead, it would likely mean the end of their 20 years of independence (from Palestine).

Uh, it was Hamas who did that, not Gaza. Gaza is a piece of land, not an agent of politics with agency. Or does that make the collective punishment easier to take if you word it that way?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Uh, it was Hamas who did that, not Gaza. Gaza is a piece of land, not an agent of politics with agency. Or does that make the collective punishment easier to take if you word it that way?

If you look up the definition of "collective punishment", it is something that happens after the war is over. If Hamas surrenders and then Israel jails Gazans simply because they lived in Gaza, that would be collective punishment.

What currently happens can not be described as "punishment", because punishment implies that one side gave up and is receiving a "punishment".

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by Looch City

So like what happens now? War is over?

We'll wait a couple years for a new leader to take place and then rinse and repeat?

Or should we exterminate all of Gaza since they're all basically Hamas?

Hopefully in the short term a negotiated settlement with whoever is running Hamas. Prisoners for a cease fire.

I won't hold my breath.

Long term nothing changes. Israel continues to value their own lives and security more than anyone else's, and Iran continues to sponsor religious fanaticism with the goal of eliminating Israel.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

If you look up the definition of "collective punishment", it is something that happens after the war is over. If Hamas surrenders and then Israel jails Gazans simply because they lived in Gaza, that would be collective punishment.

What currently happens can not be described as "punishment", because punishment implies that one side gave up and is receiving a "punishment".

FWIW I looked for a few definitions, and didn't find one that defines it the way you do, that is, only after a conflict. Do you have one?

Collective punishment is a punishment or sanction imposed on a group or whole community for acts allegedly perpetrated by a member or some members of that group or area, which could be an ethnic or political group, or just the family, friends and neighbors of the perpetrator, as well as entire cities and communities where the perpetrator (s) allegedly committed the crime. Because individuals who are not responsible for the acts are targeted, collective punishment is not compatible with the basic principle of individual responsibility. The punished group may often have no direct association with the perpetrator other than living in the same area and can not be assumed to exercise control over the perpetrator's actions. Collective punishment is prohibited by treaty in both international and non-international armed conflicts, more specifically Common Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 4 of the Additional Protocol II.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

International humanitarian law posits that no person may be punished for acts that he or she did not commit. It ensures that the collective punishment of a group of persons for a crime committed by an individual is also forbidden, whether in the case of prisoners of war or of any other individuals (GCIII Art. 87, API Art. 75.2.d, APII Art. 4.2.b). This is one of the fundamental guarantees established by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. This guarantee is applicable not only to protected persons but to all individuals, no matter what their status or to what category of persons they belong, as defined by the Geneva Conventions (GCIV Art. 33).
Collective punishment is prohibited, based on the fact that criminal responsibility can be attributed only to individuals. Respect for this principle can be ensured solely by establishing guarantees that protect judicial procedures. This principle must also be monitored in the context of disciplinary sanctions procedures.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/c...ve-punishment/

Please explain to me how these definitions do not apply. The people of Gaza are being collectively punished by Israel for the actions of Hamas. You say a side must have "given up" for it to be punishment, but that's just you saying stuff to avoid the actual definition.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Pointman

If you look up the definition of "collective punishment", it is something that happens after the war is over. If Hamas surrenders and then Israel jails Gazans simply because they lived in Gaza, that would be collective punishment.

What currently happens can not be described as "punishment", because punishment implies that one side gave up and is receiving a "punishment".

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this 'explanation.'

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

FWIW I looked for a few definitions, and didn't find one that defines it the way you do, that is, only after a conflict. Do you have one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/c...ve-punishment/

Please explain to me how these definitions do not apply. The people of Gaza are being collectively punished by Israel for the actions of Hamas. You say a side must have "given up" for it to be punishment, but that's just you saying stuff to avoid the actual definition.

The actual text of article 33 with official commentary. It talks about penal liability and "penalties".

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ih...958?activeTab=

' Prohibition of collective penalties '

The first paragraph embodies in international law one of the general principles of domestic law, i.e. that penal liability is personal in character



Similar point is in the article you quoted, even if it's not an official definition:

as defined by the Geneva Conventions (GCIV Art. 33).
Collective punishment is prohibited, based on the fact that criminal responsibility can be attributed only to individuals. Respect for this principle can be ensured solely by establishing guarantees that protect judicial procedures.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this 'explanation.'

Neither. You should read and educate yourself. If you are not capable of positing anything that resembles a valid argument, you better off refrain from posting.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

The actual text of article 33 with official commentary. It talks about penal liability and "penalties".

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ih...958?activeTab=

' Prohibition of collective penalties '

The first paragraph embodies in international law one of the general principles of domestic law, i.e. that penal liability is personal in character

I don't think you are interpreting that correctly at all.

"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".

That's the text. It makes no mention of giving up, or applying only after hostilities. The only argument you could try to make here, is that Israel isn't punishing them purposefully, it's just a side effect of killing Hamas. But that would be avoiding the very real facts on the ground, and would require Israel to be unaware of the effects of their weapons. And good luck arguing that.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

FWIW I looked for a few definitions, and didn't find one that defines it the way you do, that is, only after a conflict. Do you have one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/c...ve-punishment/

Please explain to me how these definitions do not apply. The people of Gaza are being collectively punished by Israel for the actions of Hamas. You say a side must have "given up" for it to be punishment, but that's just you saying stuff to avoid the actual definition.

According to the way you understand "collective punishment", people of Russia are being collectively punished for actions of Putin. Which, in turn, is a war crime. So, for example, banning russian airlines from entering Canadian airspace is a war crime by Canada. See, how stupid it is.

[Fuzz]

And your additions of the bold bits after my post just make the law even more clear that what Israel is doing is collective punishment. You really are mis-reading that.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think you are interpreting that correctly at all.



That's the text. It makes no mention of giving up, or applying only after hostilities. The only argument you could try to make here, is that Israel isn't punishing them purposefully, it's just a side effect of killing Hamas. But that would be avoiding the very real facts on the ground, and would require Israel to be unaware of the effects of their weapons. And good luck arguing that.

No, the argument is that "collective punishment" applies to penalties that are penal, legal in nature. Not for deaths of civilians during the war.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

According to the way you understand "collective punishment", people of Russia are being collectively punished for actions of Putin. Which, in turn, is a war crime. So, for example, banning russian airlines from entering Canadian airspace is a war crime by Canada. See, how stupid it is.

No, that's dumb. Russian Airlines have no innate right to enter Canadian airspace. That's granted to whoever the Canadian government deems able to follow the rules of law. It's a privilege. So no rights are being denied, therefore there is no punishment. And in fairness, Russia is also a democracy. Well, more so than Gaza anyway. No, if Canada, say, blockaded Russia, and prevented them having access to fresh water, sanitation, medicine, food and control over their own borders, well...hrmm, what would that be?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

No, the argument is that "collective punishment" applies to penalties that are penal, legal in nature. Not for deaths of civilians during the war.

So your argument is that what Israel is doing isn't illegal, so it can't be collective punishment?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, that's dumb. Russian Airlines have no innate right to enter Canadian airspace. That's granted to whoever the Canadian government deems able to follow the rules of law. It's a privilege. So no rights are being denied, therefore there is no punishment. And in fairness, Russia is also a democracy. Well, more so than Gaza anyway. No, if Canada, say, blockaded Russia, and prevented them having access to fresh water, sanitation, medicine, food and control over their own borders, well...hrmm, what would that be?

How about you saying that Ukrainians have every right to retaliate against Russian civilians? Wouldn't it make a collective punishment? Correct answer is actually it wouldn't.

Israel is not obligated to provide water and power to another country. It's perfectly with Israel right to shut down a border with Gaza and don't let anything in. Gaza also have a border with Egypt. Oh wait, Egypt also has no interest in providing them power and water. Too bad, I guess. And I mean it sincerely. I'd rather wish Gaza would be a prospering state.