University of Southern California, Harvard University, University of Texas at Austin and Columbia University all had student riots on Wednesday, as anti-Israel hostility on college campuses grows.
I’m not sure it’s a straw man. Your advice to end the genocide, is to get Hamas to stop doing a thing. But Hamas is not the city. The city is filled with people who are mostly not Hamas. So we’re talking about collective punishment. A city is being punished until some people who live in the city, but not all people who live in the city, do a thing. That’s classic collective punishment.
So please help me understand, how does a citizen of Gaza, who is not engaged in hostilities, and not a member of Hamas, how do they not get killed?
o the people who are ethnically Palestinian who live in Gaza and are not a part of Hamas need to die so that Hamas gets punished?
Nobody made the claim they needed to die. They are dying because of the actions of Hamas and not because of Israel. Hamas declared war on Israel, and Israel had a duty and obligation to fight the war until Hamas surrendered or negotiated a ceasefire.
Hamas is the government of the Palestinians. If they are unhappy with Hamas, they should remove Hamas and ask for a cease-fire, but Hamas is wildly popular with the Palestinians.
When you have combat in a city, civilians will be killed, and Israel tries to avoid that, but warfare isn’t a video game. Hamas is the one fighting from the cities to maximize civilian casualties as they think it will gain them support in the world.
They didn’t play their cards well because they started off with a mass attack against civilians, taking hostages against international law, raping women, etc.
It’s why the world is letting Israel clean up this mess.
If Hamas wanted civilians to stop dying, they would stop using them as shields. The issue is their strategy is to maximize civilian deaths as they think it makes them look good.
I see your logic, but there’s one piece missing. The unaligned civilians in the city cannot leave the city. They are trapped inside the city. They are being killed, and being prevented from leaving. It is not a far stretch to say they are in a kill box. Not to mention the food and water denial.
If people were freely allowed to leave the combat zone, and they could leave the country, and they could be refugees, you could have a reasonable argument the people left behind more or less support the belligerents.
Because people are not allowed to leave the combat zone, this logic cannot work.
There are many ways to affect political change, forcing civilians to die, even if they are not part of the military, is classic collective punishment. And if you’re saying it’s not a genocide because its collective punishment, we have another discussion we should be having.
I agree with you 100% on this, including medical care.
Because people are not allowed to leave the combat zone, this logic cannot work.
That is because they have pissed off the whole world. Egypt wants nothing to do with them.
collective punishment
You could argue that food, water, and medical care fall under collective punishment, but military assault does not.
It is not a genocide. The US government has even said it is not a genocide. Those are overly emotional words to try to invoke an emotional rather than a logical response.
Okay let’s choose an example that we’re not emotionally invested in.
There is a protest, in front of a bunch of soldiers. One of the protesters throws a rock at the soldiers killing one of the soldiers. The soldiers open fire on the crowd not knowing who threw the rock, killing random protesters. Is this justified? Is this collective punishment okay?
We have a group of people, we cannot attribute who is a belligerent or not, we deny food and water to the entire group, we do not let any of the group Members leave, we bombed the group, this is textbook collective punishment. I’m not sure where the line is in your mind between a war and collective punishment.
In my mind, if people are not allowed to opt out of the combat, it is collective punishment. In most wars, opting out simply means refugees walk away from the combat area. It’s still terrible, but at least they’re not directly involved in the combat.
So the people who are ethnically Palestinian who live in Gaza and are not a part of Hamas need to die so that Hamas gets punished?
How can group killings end the genocide?
Once again that is a straw man.
I’m not sure it’s a straw man. Your advice to end the genocide, is to get Hamas to stop doing a thing. But Hamas is not the city. The city is filled with people who are mostly not Hamas. So we’re talking about collective punishment. A city is being punished until some people who live in the city, but not all people who live in the city, do a thing. That’s classic collective punishment.
So please help me understand, how does a citizen of Gaza, who is not engaged in hostilities, and not a member of Hamas, how do they not get killed?
Nobody made the claim they needed to die. They are dying because of the actions of Hamas and not because of Israel. Hamas declared war on Israel, and Israel had a duty and obligation to fight the war until Hamas surrendered or negotiated a ceasefire.
Hamas is the government of the Palestinians. If they are unhappy with Hamas, they should remove Hamas and ask for a cease-fire, but Hamas is wildly popular with the Palestinians.
When you have combat in a city, civilians will be killed, and Israel tries to avoid that, but warfare isn’t a video game. Hamas is the one fighting from the cities to maximize civilian casualties as they think it will gain them support in the world.
They didn’t play their cards well because they started off with a mass attack against civilians, taking hostages against international law, raping women, etc.
It’s why the world is letting Israel clean up this mess.
If Hamas wanted civilians to stop dying, they would stop using them as shields. The issue is their strategy is to maximize civilian deaths as they think it makes them look good.
I see your logic, but there’s one piece missing. The unaligned civilians in the city cannot leave the city. They are trapped inside the city. They are being killed, and being prevented from leaving. It is not a far stretch to say they are in a kill box. Not to mention the food and water denial.
If people were freely allowed to leave the combat zone, and they could leave the country, and they could be refugees, you could have a reasonable argument the people left behind more or less support the belligerents.
Because people are not allowed to leave the combat zone, this logic cannot work.
There are many ways to affect political change, forcing civilians to die, even if they are not part of the military, is classic collective punishment. And if you’re saying it’s not a genocide because its collective punishment, we have another discussion we should be having.
I agree with you 100% on this, including medical care.
That is because they have pissed off the whole world. Egypt wants nothing to do with them.
You could argue that food, water, and medical care fall under collective punishment, but military assault does not.
It is not a genocide. The US government has even said it is not a genocide. Those are overly emotional words to try to invoke an emotional rather than a logical response.
Okay let’s choose an example that we’re not emotionally invested in.
There is a protest, in front of a bunch of soldiers. One of the protesters throws a rock at the soldiers killing one of the soldiers. The soldiers open fire on the crowd not knowing who threw the rock, killing random protesters. Is this justified? Is this collective punishment okay?
See, you tried to word it as a logical fallacy.
Israeli soldiers don’t do that. American soldiers don’t do that.
While someone may panic, that isn’t a collective punishment. That is someone who panicked.
A collective punishment is where they calmly line up everyone and then execute them for killing one soldier.
I’m not sure where my logics breaking.
We have a group of people, we cannot attribute who is a belligerent or not, we deny food and water to the entire group, we do not let any of the group Members leave, we bombed the group, this is textbook collective punishment. I’m not sure where the line is in your mind between a war and collective punishment.
In my mind, if people are not allowed to opt out of the combat, it is collective punishment. In most wars, opting out simply means refugees walk away from the combat area. It’s still terrible, but at least they’re not directly involved in the combat.