Israel Announces Total Blockade of Gaza Strip

[justaprogressive]

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip on Monday, pledging to block food and fuel from entering the occupied enclave and cut off the territory’s electricity — steps that international law experts and other observers decried as a clear war crime that will devastate civilians.

“There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” said Gallant.

Using rhetoric that one commentator called “blatantly genocidal,” Gallant added that “we are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

Israel has been imposing a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip for nearly two decades, impoverishing much of the crowded enclave’s population and denying millions sufficient access to clean water and other necessities. Children, who make up roughly half of Gaza’s population, have been disproportionately affected.

An intensification of the blockade against Gaza — often described as the world’s largest open-air prison — would be both unlawful and catastrophic, analysts warned.

[link:https://truthout.org/articles/israel-announces-total-blockade-of-gaza-strip/|

[The Magistrate]

1. A Quite Predictable Consequence Of Hamas Atrocity

You have recently cited someone whose argument boils down to 'Hamas wasn't left any other choice'. Let's turn that pitiable claim Hamas has no moral agency around. What choice has Israel been left by the atrocity visited mere hours ago on its civilian populace? A blockade seems preferable to, say, an artillery barrage lasting several days....

[Chainfire]

2. "We are fighting human animals." That kind of language should have a familiar ring to Israelis.

I understand and support the need to defend Israel. I even understand "punishment" for the guilty but I do not understand, nor can not either support, nor turn my head, for the actions and language of a pogram. Israel's history does not grant them license to repeat the past.

I am not anti-Semitic, I have always supported and defended the Jews and their rights to live in peace in Israel, but there are places that I will not travel with them any more than I would go there with my own neighbors or family.

If they need to occupy Gaza in order to remove the terrorists, I would understand, but don't make war on the innocent because they are "human animals."

[Beastly Boy]

4. This is uncalled for

The defense minister was obviously referring to the war criminals and the nazi propaganda was obviously referring to all jews

Don’t tell me you are blind to the difference between the two.

I believe that references to various nazis being human animals were made during the Nuremberg trials, and no one found them to be inappropriate.

[Chainfire]

8. You need to re-read the original post. The Defense Minister is refering to the people of Gaza.

The ones that he plans to starve. The last ones to go hungry will be the fighters and leaders.

If he uses the language of Gobbles to justify starving civilians, then I have no use for him. Israel has every right to defend their people and their government, they even have the right to "punish" Hamas for the unacceptable terror attack, but that right doesn't extend to proposing war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Defense Minister's language is the dehumanizing the population of Gaza so that the soldiers and airmen aren't killing "real" people. It is the first step of a pogram; it is straight out of the Nazi handbook.

[Beastly Boy]

9. I don't need to re-read anything.

I read the quote the first time in the OP, the second time in the article and the third time in your post. Actually I read two quotes, which are not connected except by prejudicious commentaries not belonging to the quote source. The commentaries in all of the above, including yours, are not part of the quotes cited.

The quote in question clearly attributes the "human animals" description to the people Israel is fighting. Unless you fancy the ridiculous notion that Israel is fighting all of Gazans and not the terrorists, the quote is clear: it is Hamas terrorists who are being referred to as human animals. I challenge you to contest this description of the war criminals.

Spare me your idle speculations and Goebbels references, they are as insulting to the victims of terror in Israel as they are to the victims of Goebbels in Europe. And for gawd's sake and your own, re-read the Defense Minister's language before you start making stuff up up about the Defense Minister's language.

[Chainfire]

10. He intends to starve the population.

If he gets his way, it is a war crime.

[Beastly Boy]

11. He does not intend to starve the population. If he gets his way,

Hamas will cease to exist and blockade will be lifted. Israel has no other interest in Gaza. If Hamas is out of Gaza tomorrow, the blockade will be lifted tomorrow.

[FBaggins]

21. It wouldn't really be a war crime

Bernie Sanders just tried to argue as much...

But there's a difference here. The laws of war would forbid intentionally targeting essential infrastructure that would unnecessarily impact civilians - though even that could be ok if there's no way to target military infrastructure without also harming civilians (as is almost always the case in Gaza) - but nothing says that an invaded country needs to supply food/water/electricity to the enemy during wartime.

Here's a good source for example from the Geneva Convention additions:

It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

Nothing about "and if you were supplying them with water prior to the enemy attacking you without warning - you must continue to do so"

Gaza does have access to water. It's of poor quality and limited, so they've cut a deal with Israel to import more/better supplies - but they won't die of thirst - they just won't be able to bathe or water their crops.

Put much more simply - you don't get to slaughter babies on camera and then accuse anyone else of war crimes. Certainly not for merely refusing to provide services.

[Bucky]

13. If he was referring only to the Hamas terrorists...

How come Israel is cutting off electricity, food, and water to all of Gaza? This is literally a war crime.

Israel should and must and go after these mass murderers. I just don't think attacking Gaza's civilian population is going to get them to where they need to be.
The Israelis are almost creating the false equivalency they ought to denounce

[Beastly Boy]

14. Suggest how it is possible to cut off electricity, food and water only for the terrorists

who are hiding among civilians, and you may have an argument.

Hiding among civilians is a war crime, and Hamas is guilty of all the consequences that result in their war crime. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians, and they have an obligation to defend themselves. Hamas is making sure that civilians are harmed in that process.

[Bucky]

16. I don't think anyone is surprised Hamas terrorists are committing war crimes

Even if they happen to have Stockholm syndrome, the people of Gaza are hostages too. If not directly the hostages of Hamas, they're definitely hostages to the situation

Anyway, the laws of war are not up for negotiation. It's a war crime to starve civilians.

This is a perfect example of Israel needing to choose its enemies carefully. Hamas attacked Israel. The general populace of Gaza did not.

How would you feel if following 9/11 the United States cut off all the food and water going into Afghanistan instead of just invading and attacking Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

Obviously they were going to be collateral unintended the deaths among the civilian population in any war. But targeting civilians like Hamas did--and like Israel is doing by other means--is a different matter. It's a complicated problem and Israel in its justified rage is trying to solve it with a sledgehammer.

And in the process they're giving Hamas exactly what it wants

[Beastly Boy]

18. A few questions:

Who is holding the Gazans hostage? The intent makes all the difference when it comes to international law.

Is it the intent of Israel to starve civilians, or is it to starve the terrorists out of hiding. The intent makes the difference.

Does israel act in self defense against Hamas, or is Israel waging war against all Gazans indiscriminately? The intent makes the difference.

Is Hamas intentionally hiding among civilianz with full knowledge and intent to inflict additional casualties on civilians in combat? The intent...Ok, you get it.

Is it Israel's INTENT to harm civilians in Gaza?

How would I feel with Afghanistan? Well that depends on intent, doesn't it?

[Magoo48]

3. So, the latest unspeakable horror against innocent people, the most recent in a long list of

horrors perpetrated against innocent people in the region, will be paid for by the suffering of another already long suffering population of innocent people.

This, while the real motherfuckers from the end of WWII until the present, the crazed religious fanatics and the power hungry politicians’ obscene dance of death and mayhem goes on.

[Beastly Boy]

5. It is up to Hamas to stop it.

It’s not too late. They can start with returning all the hostages immediately.

[Magoo48]

6. Terrorists are responsible for the attack on innocent lives.

Those who respond are responsible their attack on innocent lives.

[Beastly Boy]

7. Not in this case.

Your premise presumes that the terrorists would abide by the rules of warfare and not hide behind the backs of the innocents.

Hamas are the cowards who use civilians to shelter themselves. They keep doing this again and again.

They have the option of separating themselves from the innocents. Israel cannot do it for them.

[Magoo48]

12. Shifting responsibility for killing is as well documented as the killing itself.

You and I will never agree on this subject.

[Beastly Boy]

15. If you are committed to this proposition, why even bother?

[Bucky]

17. No one "assumes that terrorists would abide by the rules of warfare"

That's a ridiculous argument to red-herring across this discussion. No one expects terrorists to behave like armies. We're just saying Israel's army shouldn't behave like terrorists.

[Beastly Boy]

19. If that is not your assumption,

how can you possibly assume that the response will be conducted with the rules of war intact? Hamas is free to violate any obligations they are under, including the obligation to protect civilian population of gaza under their rule. Is that the choice that Israel is making?

Who is being ridiculous here?

[Bucky]

20. The enemy do it therefore we must do it too.

That was literally one of the jokes from the Naked Gun movies where Ricardo Montalban took a hostage at gunpoint, so Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) responded by taking his own hostage at gunpoint.

Your arguments are literally just as serious as the Naked Gun movies, except you're rationalizing that Israel should commit war crimes because their enemies do war crimes. Like we should have responded to 9/11 by sending planes full of civilians into the tallest office buildings in Kabul -- after all, that's how they fought we got it shown we're ready to get tough.

Again, you're not helping your case by dumbing down the ethical arguments. "Hamas commits war crimes, so Israel needs to do the same". Should Israel "get tough" with Hamas? Of course. Everybody thinks that.

But does getting tough include cutting off food and water to those millions of civilians? Not according to the International Criminal Court's laws of war. Article 8 of the Rome Statute says unambiguously that cutting off food and water to an enemy held position is a war crime against the non-combatant citizens in that area.

If you insist on citing the terrorists of Hamas as the yardstick you measure acceptable behavior by, you're basically saying it's okay for the IDF to be terrorists. I'm betting IDF doesn't stick to that strategy, even if you personally think it's okay to target families for starvation.

[Beastly Boy]

22. I don't think "literally" means what you think it means.

Last edited Wed Oct 11, 2023, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

"The enemy do it therefore we must do it too" is not what i literally said. It is what YOU literally said. Should anything you literally said remind you of a Naked Gun joke, it's none of my concern. You can have fun with that in the privacy of your own home.

What I literally said, and I am quoting it literally, typos and all, is: "Hamas is free to violate any obligations they are under, including the obligation to protect civilian population of gaza under their rule."

Have you ever heard of a Strawman fallacy? Judging by the expertly manner you are using it, I suspect you have. If not, look it up. Then read what I literally said. Make sure you don't put your words in my mouth as you go through what I literally said. Note that my argument is not ethical but legal. My legal argument is supported by Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, among other sources:

ART. 28. — The presence of a protected person may not be used
to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

ART. 29. — The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected
persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them
by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may
be incurred

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf

These are the obligations Hamas has, being the Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons (in this case Gaza civilians) are, one of the obligations, which they feel free to violate, being "responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents" (Hamas terrorists). If Hamas terrorists hide behind civilians, Hamas is solely responsible for the fate of those civilians. No way to spin it.

So where exactly does the outrage with Israel and the both side-ism come in?