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

[HeidiInTheBigCity]

Tonight, as Gaza has gone dark, tonight, as Gazan civilians have lost that lifeline that used to be "publishing their cries for help to the Internet, as they were literally dying", tonight, as even that option has ceased to exist!

I STAND WITH CIVILIANS!

Not with Hamas!
NOT with the ultra-far-right Israeli government - out for revenge!

Tonight, I STAND WITH CIVILIANS, as innocent men, women and children are dying, collectively punished, for the crime of having been born in the wrong place, at the wrong time!

Tonight, I STAND WITH CIVILIANS, as the families of Israeli hostages watch helplessly, as their missing loved ones are bombed into oblivion, and their own PM has not even bothered to meet with them! Because, once again, revenge has won! Violence has won! Barbarism has won! Death has won!

Tonight, I stand with my friend, a Palestinian-born [what he does for a living] currently getting drunk at a bar in [not where you'd expect] - because he cannot stand watching anymore! We cried together on the phone - it felt nice to know there was someone else out there - but it also felt supremely disempowered and helpless! Tonight, I stand with men, women, boys, girls ... just people, people who want to live!

Tonight, as I recall how utterly terrified I used to be when I, myself, became an accidental witness to the assault on [Palestinian city], some 20 years ago now! I also recall the good times: I recall standing on the rooftop of the [name] family's home, watching flares in the sky, deliberately pretending they were just very bright stars, kissing, and dancing with my fiancé. Snuggling up to him under the wide open sky, as we ignored the sound of shooting in the background, as we just wanted to ... live a little! ... under circumstances that didn't leave much room for living. For life! Knowing we would learn about names of people we knew and the fact that they had been killed while we had been trying to ... just live a little ... as the following day would break!

Tonight, I stand with civilians, realising that this particular, comparatively "fluffy" version of war - a version, make no mistake, that has left me deeply traumatised for life, bittersweet memories aside! - this is just NOT AN OPTION for Gazans tonight!

Tonight, I CRY FOR CIVILIANS! Especially, but not only, for civilians in Gaza!

We have GOT TO DO better!

Note: yes, I have censored a number of data points - because that is how afraid I am! I am not willing to potentially expose people I consider friends, family even, unnecessarily as I, frankly helplessly, post to the so-called Internet, pleading for their lives or, at the very least: sympathy!

So only Israel have the right to defend then ?

I think Israel IS guilty of war crimes in Gaza. I think that trying to say differently at this point, undermines international laws on war. That in turn puts us all at greater risk.

The reality is these rules are only regarded as relevant to those who are signed up to them and regard them as worthwhile. The Russia and Syrian governments don't pretend to regard them as worthwhile.

Cluster munitions are another really good example of how this works in practice. There are a number of international declarations 'banning them' for war crimes related reasoning. However not everyone is signed up to these and the countries which haven't signed up to this are notable. There are 111 countries who are fully signed up to the treaty and another 12 who have agreed in principle but haven't ratified it. The US, Ukraine, Russia and Israel are NOT on the list. (The State of Palestine, somewhat ironically is). There are some other interesting omissions to the list: Finland, Latvia and Estonia. I don't think I need to do any research to work out why those last three aren't signed up to this particular treaty (I know that Finland refuses to ban landmines explicitly due to Russia).

Then there's the point about enforcement. Even if you DO break the international laws on war, what happens then? How are you held to account? The UN security council presents a massive geopolitical barrier to that: if you buddy up with one of the five permanent members (or you are one of the 5 members) as they can veto any 'difficult questions'. So you just make sure you are in a geo-political block. The only places that end up deemed a problem are the places without mates.

You end up with the issue of hypocrisy.

Why should others observe these laws if you don't and you just protect yourself with your political alliances?

Anyone who makes a big point about crimes against humanity and then decides they aren't convenient anymore because of a percieved (or actual) threat, is a risk to all humanity. The ultimate principle about crimes against humanity is that ALL humans should be protected by them. You don't get to pick and choose.

This is DEEPLY problematic for the state of Israel and its formation. And those who helped to form it.

That does not take away from the fact that Hamas clearly commited war crimes.

Anyone who believes in Human Rights should say this. Even if its really deeply uncomfortable to say. Even if it puts you at risk. Because not saying it, merely ends up being a justification in itself for more war crimes. It doesn't matter what you faith or political allegiance.

Why do I think Israel is engaging in war crimes?

1. rhetoric and stated aims
2. cynically asking civilians to do things which are impossible for many under the circumstances
3. the sudden media blackout so theres a lack of transparency
4. unwillingness to enable humanitarian aid

BUT where were are right now, requires careful handling to enable de-escalation too. And I don't think we can get there without governments being willing to be pragmatic about diplomacy and politics. Attaching labels to Israel's actions may be unhelpful and at odds with your goal - at this stage - if you are a government (Note: this may change at a later stage). Not so if you are an individual who is freer to make such statements.

Cos diplomacy.

We DO need to see and understand why governments (and political parties) may behave in ways we don't necessarily like on this and it doesn't mean that the position is going to stay like that indefinitely either.

Israel DOES have a right to defend itself. I don't think we can argue with that.

The problem is what constitutes 'defence' and what constitutes a war crime. I think the problem is this isn't as clear cut as it should be because of how assymetric warfare works and the recent history of it. I think Israel has crossed that line, but others are scared to say this, because of the implications for themselves. Nor does unilaterally declaring something a war crime actually stop it happening in real time. Labels of war crimes remain political devices not really laws which people are taken to trial for and held accountable for.

What we can't lose sight of, is the only thing that stops a war ultimately is complete victory or diplomacy. This ISN'T a war that can be won by complete victory because of the wider geo-politics. What stops it is diplomacy.

Constantly saying x can justify y because of z warcrime fundamentally misses this point.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

@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?

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.