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 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.
In my mind, if people are not allowed to opt out of the combat, it is collective punishment.
That is your opinion, but that isn’t how it is defined in law.
opting out simply means refugees walk away from the combat area.
If they hadn’t attacked all their neighbors, they would have a place to go.
Hamas bears the bulk of the blame here. I do blame Israel for not providing food, water and medical care. That is their obligation, and the world would provide them resources to do it.
Yes. The fire bombings on world war II were absolutely collective punishment.
Collective punishment is a punishment or sanction imposed on a group for acts allegedly perpetrated by a member of that group, which could be an ethnic or political group, or just the family, friends and neighbors of the perpetrator.
From the wiki you just linked. Can we agree that there are people who live in Gaza, who do not support Hamas, and who are not actively involved in the fighting? You’ve just said they have to convince Hamas to stop fighting before things can be " over "?
You’re making uninvolved people, responsible for the actions of others. That fits the definition from Wikipedia that you just link to.
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.
That is your opinion, but that isn’t how it is defined in law.
If they hadn’t attacked all their neighbors, they would have a place to go.
Hamas bears the bulk of the blame here. I do blame Israel for not providing food, water and medical care. That is their obligation, and the world would provide them resources to do it.
You’re conflating they the belligerents and they the civilians. You’re mixing these two groups.
Which law are you referring to? Quite frankly even international law typically never gets applied inside of a country’s borders.
Telling people they have to die, because of where they are born, is a terrible thing. I will stand by that regardless of how you define the labels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment
Nobody is telling them they have to die. If they removed Hamas or Hamas stopped fighting, this would be over tomorrow.
Using your logic, the bombings in WW2 were collective punishment since civilians were hit as well.
Yes. The fire bombings on world war II were absolutely collective punishment.
From the wiki you just linked. Can we agree that there are people who live in Gaza, who do not support Hamas, and who are not actively involved in the fighting? You’ve just said they have to convince Hamas to stop fighting before things can be " over "?
You’re making uninvolved people, responsible for the actions of others. That fits the definition from Wikipedia that you just link to.