Gaza has gone dark ... and I am very afraid!

On a more simplistic level, if your relatives and friends are being being bombed or attacked, you will see the ones doing it as evil.

Because it's a human response to be protective of your own.

There are many many people in the UK in that situation. Of course they are going to react badly to violence.

We need to understand this and say this is an ok response. What is not an ok response is to wish for more violence or to condon violence in response.

Because this should be about de-escalation versus escalation rather than who is in the right and in the wrong.

Cos frankly everyone is in the wrong on some level because human rights have been regarded as inconvenient to geopolitical interests in various ways. And human rights have been politicised to somehow only apply to certain groups when it suits our agenda. Human right increasingly feel like they only apply to a privileged group.

And frankly no one benefits from a war on these grounds.

We can't switch off humanitarian need because it's a difficult subject or because it's 'not our people'. We do though.

I'm not seeing any international leader preparing for this in any way on a meaningful level. It's not a vote winner. So we will continue in a reactionary and destructive way rather than being proactive and recognised we can't just bury our heads in the sand over it.

not a different question.

@Reallifelurker It’s not a question. I asked for the differences because I don’t see them. But please tell us all why it is the same circumstances?

Is the answer - England couldn’t possibly bomb NI because they’re British that would be mean but Israel can bomb Gaza because, hey, not Israelis?

I do believe that is how governments tend to act but again I’m open to examples in the West of governments bombing their own citizens?

I agree with you.
Many people don’t believe in things like climate repatriations but our carbon footprint does impact others in poorer countries. Somalia, Ethiopia are severely impacted by climate change drought. Do those lives matter less?

its so complex & Im not sure what the answer is, glib statements that ignore the complexities are pointless though.

Even on a domestic level we can’t grasp it. Obviously a healthier, more educated society is better for all of us but you get the usual benefit bashing completely ignoring socioeconomic factors.

you are just being obtuse. I ask again you see no difference between NI & England & Gaza & Israel?

That’s actually a different question to the one you originally asked but ok

Is the answer - England couldn’t possibly bomb NI because they’re British that would be mean but Israel can bomb Gaza because, hey, not Israelis?

We really aren't having proper conversations about refugees and statelessness generally.

The permanenance of some camps is staggering. These are areas full of lack of opportunity and desparation. They are the people no one wants. Shared religion isn't enough - there are still cultural and political issues. One of the reasons Egypt will not open the border (aside from issues with needing Israel's agreement) is because of the consequences of simply moving the problem onto their land. They would become responsible for them and would bring the political issue into Egypt rather than separate from it. Egypt has the second highest level of debt in the world. It can not afford to house these refugees. Politically it would destabilise its own government.

Climate change will only make refugee and migrant issues worse.

I think we have to note that in the past we didn't have borders in the same way - so refugee camps of these nature are in effect a modern invention of the last century. Populations would previously either been wiped out or melted away into other communities. They might create new settlements and enclaves but they would eventually become part of society rather effectively outside it which is what has been created.

Israel's creation was in part about similar - what do you do with large numbers of Jewish people who were displaced and unable to go and live back within the communities that had harmed them in the first place? Again the UK and US didn't particularly want them due to prejudice. So an artificial 'solution' was created. In part because it aligned with Jewish dreams but also because it solved a refugee issue for Western nations.

Today we just talk about 'keeping the boats out' and paying Turkey to deal with the problem on their soil. But it's not solving issues. It's just kicking the can down the road. Or just saying it's not our problem or responsibility.

This simply isn't true. We can't have large areas of population which are stateless and then complain about the problems which originate from the desperation they create. Cos stateless doesn't mean leaderless nor without organisation.

We need to really wake up to the fact that geopolitics matter to us all and that what happens far away does impact on us and we can't keep ignoring the long term chronic issues associated with places like Gaza.

@Reallifelurker you are just being obtuse. I ask again you see no difference between NI & England & Gaza & Israel?

I fear that may be wishful thinking

Not really, can you think of many examples in the West?

@RedToothBrush that is an excellent post & explains the complexities far better than I could.

I think one of the central problems is over whether it is actually possible to wage war and NOT commit war crimes as we understand them.

We've grown used to the concept that you can - in order to appease domestic audiences who are squeamish about war and because it creates domestic civil unrest. This has been an issue for the West since the Vietnam war - how do you manage your own internal opposition to war because of images of violence don't sit well with media audiences.

If we are going to have a grown up conversation about this, maybe we need to touch on this rather than using phrases like collateral damage.

We maybe need to talk about how massive assault may not achieve the intention of improving security and may in fact do the opposite.

I do think you can try to limit civilian casualties but asymmetric warfare (warfare by a small state or organisation against a much bigger power or state) by it very nature will deliberately tap into the fact that they know there is a western weakness to images of violence and will use civilians as shields because they simply can't match firepower of nation states and this is the only way they can 'even the playing field' to their strategic advantage.

In trying to completely sanitise war, I don't think we have done anyone any favours in the long term. People can see through it and that's created alienation and problems of its own. There is a problem with how the concept of war crimes have become quite so politicised and in the way it's become politicised and where war crimes by the 'right side' have been ignored for 'the greater good'. The lack of accountability and transparency when you are pursuing the moral high ground is an issue. The space to say 'we got it wrong' isn't necessarily available - cock up result in massive loss of trust. This is why rhetoric really really matters.

Some of the comments from high level Israelis are the biggest issue, because the rhetoric is so off. Words matter more than is being acknowledged by the Israeli government and they are being incredibly negligent in this area. The language used relates to intent unfortunately. Stuff like 'wipe out', tent city and stating anyone in a certain area is a hostile when civilians simply don't have the means to leave (which the Israeli government KNOWS) are particularly difficult. And that's coupled with an embargo on aid. The lack of aid IS collective punishment and restricting help to civilians. This can't be argued differently.

We also need to have some conversations about 'terrorism' and what this actually is meaning now in practice.

We've got great big camps of people displaced by conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq full of people still sympathetic to al-qaeda, isis etc and no idea how to deal with that because it effectively does fit into how we organise the world with recognised approved governance frameworks because they don't effectively belong to recognised nation states. They still have leadership structures and organisation - just not ones which fit into our world system. We also don't have presence or influence with them due to this nor do they have political representation (with whom you can establish diplomatic ties and then normalisation of relations). This means you also have large groups of vulnerable people dependant on these organisational networks but not necessarily supporters of them. They just live in that world with no way to live that world or perhaps understand there is an alternative available. This is going to be an ongoing issue for a long time and one we perhaps need to think about.

The lack of recognition of Palestine as a state fits into the same problem. It's meant that Israel has had influence over it to a degree that's dangerous and unhealthy and without accountability and transparency (the UN report saying Gaza could become unliveable by 2020 since 2012 because of embargoes). Again failure of diplomacy.

This is all way more complex than so many people want it to be.

There is an anti-western religious movement that exists. And the west has committed what it itself would constitute war crimes if done by others which creates mistrust. And going forward there are issues with asymmetric warfare and civilians dependent on organisational structures outside recognised frameworks.

Until we start having these conversations properly we are not going to solve issue even on a domestic level.

I don’t know why he doesn’t compassionately call on “his friends” Hamas, who are the elected government in Gaza, to provide their citizens with some of the fuel and food they have stockpiled. Or why he hasn’t, in the last decade, called on his friends in Hamas to spend some of the billions £££ of aid money on improving life for those it was intended for. I have no idea why he hasn’t called on his friends in Hamas to stop ripping up vital water pipes to make rockets to fire on Israel. Funny how his compassion only seems to extend to his friends in Hamas, except when it suits his social media followers.

you don’t see any difference between a war in one nation of a country which had the same government & a war between 2 different countries with different governments?
Gaza is not a country. I’m not even sure Hamas counts as a government.

For one governments don’t tend to bomb their own citizens, infrastructure etc.
I fear that may be wishful thinking

I should add, the British military now always stress the point about intelligence and targeted attacks.

If you are flattening whole neighborhoods, how do you justify that? This is not 'targetted' based on intelligence.

From 2020.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/09/israelopt-respecting-fundamental-rights-gaza-pre-condition-achieving-peace

“Instead of meaningful steps to end the blockade of Gaza to relieve civilians, Israel has maintained its tight grip. We are no longer on the edge of a humanitarian crisis, but in the middle of one. This is purely a human-made disaster, and could be quickly reversed if the political will existed,” said Lynk.

“This blockade has no meaningful security rationale,” he added. “It inflicts great misery on the two million civilians in Gaza, while imposing little harm on any security targets. Israel remains the occupying power, and international law – including Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention – strictly forbids the use of collective punishment by the occupier.”

As a result of this prolonged blockade, Gaza’s two million residents endure a collapsing health care system, undrinkable and unaffordable water, inadequate and sporadic power supplies, an economy on its back, deep poverty and among the world’s highest unemployment rates, said Lynk.

“Gaza is on the verge of becoming unlivable. There is no comparable situation in the world where a substantial population has endured such a permanent lockdown, largely unable to travel or trade, and controlled by an occupying power in breach of its solemn international human rights and humanitarian obligations. Our international standards of dignity and morality do not allow such experiments in human despair.”

These warnings about the blockade date back to 2012. The situation currently is even worse. It was already a breach of article 33 of the Geneva convention before this crisis.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml#:~:text=rendering%20an%20area%20ethnically%20homogeneous,and%20terror%2Dinspiring%20means%20the

As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

Israel has been telling Palestinians to move from the North to the South (under constant shelling) or they will regard everyone as a hostile. If someone can explain how this DOESN'T give cause for concern that it meets the above definition of ethnic cleansing, I'd be intrigued as to their reasoning. Especially in the context of article 33 as mentioned above.

Good luck.

Israel won’t be able to “beat” Hamas so hopefully there will be a ceasefire soon.

This is still problematic because of how the UK has conducted itself in war in the past

I was making this point on another thread as obviously the war on terror killed hundreds of thousands directly & indirectly. I don’t think the UK has said Israel has committed any war crimes?

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in a densely populated area is the line we generally accept in the UK in 2023.

But in reality any bombing there will be in high density areas because it’s already high density. Israel gov will argue they had 2 wks notice, Hamas hide in those areas etc.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in a densely populated area is the line we generally accept in the UK in 2023.

So by UK terms what Israel is doing meets that definition at this point - there is evidence of entire neighbours being flattened and there was a senior Israeli defence person who made the comment about turning Gaza into a tent city (clear intent).

This is still problematic because of how the UK has conducted itself in war in the past (there's still a massive debate over Dresden - by definition it wasn't a 'war crime' because it didn't break the international law of the time - but certainly there were even at the time huge questions over proportionality and strategic gain. Dresden is not the only example).

Basically I think the definition is really at the point arguing about the extent of civilian loss of life become problematic and hard to justify versus strategic gain and removal of threat. And the numbers of civilians is huge.

God help all the innocents being slaughtered tonight and all those who’ve made it happen

Shame on the politicians with blood on their hands - I hope they are justly punished in ever way possible

shame on us all for allowing this to happen in this world with all the lessons we should have learned

WHERE is the line between defending yourself and war crimes?

Cos it DOES exist.

Thats the question isn’t it @RedToothBrush I don’t know where that line is myself during the reality of war.

I find the % of Israelis themselves who do not think the actions their government are taking are right, is worth pointing out at this point.

WHERE is the line between defending yourself and war crimes?

Cos it DOES exist.