Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Besides that, you are also putting forth the argument that Gazan's have been forced to stay in the Gaza Strip.

Yow Matt! You've given me a Bengalzona-level response here. Good work, though my response will require more than one post.

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: There are three issues i have with this argument.
1. The claim suggests that no one is ever allowed to leave Gaza, which is false.

At one point Israel allowed work permits for as many as 17,000 of 2+ million Gazans living in the strip, still less than 1%.  So strictly speaking, it’s not true that “no one is ever allowed to leave.” But the claim is not that “no one is ever allowed to leave”; it is that Israel occupied the Strip until 2005, and has enforced a blockade since 2007 with deadly force. So yes, Israel decides who comes and goes, and Gazans are forced to stay there. Gaza is not sovereign.

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 2. The claim does not explain why people are denied from Gaza. In order for this to be a contstuctive argument, you would have to break down on a case by case basis why people are being denied travel across the border. WIthout that type of analysis all you really have is a generalized statement that makes Israel look like the "bad guys" because the premise itself presents them in that light by default by suggesting that Israel is "Imprisoning innocent people". Okay, but who are these innocent people? How do you know they're innocent? What makes them worthy of entry into Israel?

It's HISTORY that explains why people are denied movement out of Gaza, as a group, not "case-by-case." It is hard to fathom the question—"how do I know 2+ million, mostly young people, are 'innocent'.” Most are in Gaza because their land was taken from their grandparents; now they are unarmed and just trying to say alive during a two-decade siege. Surely they are not guilty of robbing themselves, so who is responsible for that initial dispossession and the containment which followed? Unless a double standard is the intent, we should not avoid the answer because it might make Israel look like “ the bad guys.”

What makes Palestinians "worthy” of re-entry into the land taken from them by force? If someone jacked your legally owned car, you wouldn't see the need to explain to law enforcement why you are worthy of getting your car back. Many Americans accept that double standard for Palestinians, though.

To continue with the jacking analogy, if the police just stand by and it’s up to you to get your car back yourself from a better-armed thief, you may decide it’s not worth your life and let the theft go, or you might decide it was forth fighting for—in which case the thief would do his best to deny you access to your property. Israel fears with good reason that some Palestinians will fight to get their land back. That's why people are denied entry from Gaza. And it's only going to be ok for people who think Israel had the right to take the land and then contain its former owners in a stateless limbo for generations.

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 3. The claim suggests that there shouldn’t be a barrier to entry/exit to begin with. Perhaps you can enlighten me Dill, but I don’t see why so many people who share your opinion assume that it should be really easy for people to leave Gaza. Why should it? Are they not being controlled by a terrorist organization that vows to destroy Israel? Israel doesn’t have to make the assumption that everyone in Gaza is evil to deny them entry. They just simply have to desire to protect their border due to a clear threat of violence against them from Hamas. Therefore, anyone living under Hamas rule would then be percieved a possible threat. Not a threat, but a possible one. It has already been established in this thread that you can’t tell a regular Palestinian from a Hamas supporter. Just on that basis alone anyone looking to cross the border will be under heavy scrutiny. 

This all again goes back to my argument that there are consequences to living with extremists with genocidal intentions. Dying with them was the first consequence I mentioned. Having your border crossing privileges severley limited is another consequence to living with extremists. Whether it was your choice or not in this particular instance doesn't matter. 

HISTORY again. The border was controlled and the land occupied before Hamas existed, and since effects cannot precede causes, Hamas doesn’t explain Israel's dispossession, occupation, and successive blockades. But that dispossession and occupation do explain why there are Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel.

Why can’t your "living with extremists" argument apply to Israelis? Why isn't "the threat of violence" and "dying" the expected consequence of taking someone else's home? Why can't you say that the Palestinians "simply have a desire to protect their border due to a clear threat of violence against them" from the people who have driven them to Gaza and blockaded them there? 

If Palestinians have equal human rights, then you can say that.

Next I'll look, again, at your argument that Hamas declaring genocidal intent should exempt the vast majority of innocents in Gaza from IHL, which forbids collective punishment and won't recognize efforts to impute responsibility for Israeli war crimes to their victims.