OccamsTeapot @ OccamsTeapot @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

770

Joined

2 yr. ago

I know you're not necessarily making this argument but you mention that the most important issue for voters includes...

and "The Middle East/Israel/Palestinians" (2%).

In Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin the margin in 2020 was less than 2%. Michigan and Nevada were under 3%.

It's a small number, yes, but this argument that it "won't matter because people vote on domestic issues" ignores these thin margins, imo. It really might matter more than people think.

Well said!

We're speaking of people held without charge under administrative detention. It falls short of rote internment only by the fact that it's intended to and generally is reasonably temporary. Read your own article. It's like a revolving door.

Yeah I did read it. It's often for longer than 6 months and even longer than a year, I even saved this graph to show you...

Since 2017 there has generally been 200+ in for longer than 6 months, sometimes much more. Each order lasts up to 6 months so it's not so short, in fact Hamas' hostages released in the cease fire a while back had been there much less time. I don't think that makes it OK in either case. Like the hostages still there now are like the Palestinians who've had their detention extended once.

These folks aren't accused, they are suspects albeit still being investigated, but there's enough suspicion to justify holding them longer than what would be typical in the usual criminal setting

Except this evidence isn't shared so how do we know this? Imo if there's no charge and you hold someone for a long time (over 48 hour seems reasonable) then these people are simply hostages. Like if Hamas said that the current hostages are suspected of aiding the IDF in "criminal" activity and provided no details would that be acceptable to you? It would not be to me.

I hate what this administrative detention means to well-founded, hard-won notions of fairness and justice

Absolutely, as everyone should.

I know there's no justice for those wrongly caught up in it. That doesn't make it unjustified.

I mean by definition it kind of does make it unjustified. Nobody, Israel and Hamas both included, has the right to keep people captive without charge. An opaque military justice system and evidence-free accusations don't make what Israel is doing in any way justified.

Paragraph three is what I'm citing for the proposition that Israel is redeemable. Their government has a Supreme Court and in it exists a right of habeas corpus.

Absolutely it is redeemable if it releases the "Innocent people held against their will" immediately and gives restitution as you said. Until that day this is functionally identical to what Hamas did, imo.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing! Whst happens to these people disgusts me, truly.

At this time of year, at this time of the day, in this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?!

Nobody is trading them for anything stop calling them hostages. Call them detainees. As usual the claim you've made against Israel is wildly exaggerated.

We can break down the terminology issue.

We have people who are not charged with any crime (ie innocent), who are taken against their will and held in captivity until their captor either decides to let them go or somebody breaks them out.

We could call it anything we want. "Innocent people held by someone/an organisation against their will." Both the Israelis taken on October 7th and the Palestinians held without charge are "Innocent people held by someone/an organisation against their will." The same thing has happened to them.

So do we call them all hostages or all detainees?

They couldn't play nice in the neighborhood without helping trying to blow anything up so they don't get to play outside with their friends.

You're a lawyer, right? Is this a fair description of someone who is not charged with a crime?

They have a long way to go on anti corruption and human rights before they deserve membership.

What about China? Myanmar? Venezuela? Tons of others. This is clearly not a requirement.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-2

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

Literally would be possible if not for the US's veto.

They shouldn't die because of tunnels. They should evacuate and get somewhere there isn't tunnels.

Aren't there tunnels basically all over? And how the hell would they know where there aren't tunnels? Leave your home and go to the middle of nowhere amidst constant bombing and chaos with thousands of others so Israel can bomb it's way down to subterranean tunnels?

"Your apartment block has been marked for destruction, please climb over the bodies of your neighbours and calmly make your way to the designated safe zone... by which we mean the zone that is probably safe for now"

Some dystopian shit right there. Everyone went to Rafah and now look

Gaza is not forfeit, it can be rebuilt. But anyway, if you agree to a state in the West Bank, then you should have no problem with Palestine having full UN membership, right?

the West only sends money if Hamas tricks enough human shields into being "martyred."

This comes across dehumanizing and frankly, disgusting. They are not "shields" by living in their fucking houses. They didn't build the tunnels did they? Why should they die because of them?

I've seen the link spammed again and again. You should read it so you can appreciate that you're talking about a few hundred to a few thousand people.

So more hostages than Hamas is holding?

Listen I can totally face up to the war crimes. There have been many.

Thank you. This is very bad and I'm sure you can see that not all have been punished, in fact I think the WCK attack is one of the only ones recently that have?

But Israel is still allowed at the UN. They should be in the UN despite all of the (IMO) horrendous things that the country is doing and has done. Since Hamas would not be the representatives of Palestine at the UN (so complaining about them is not relevant), why should Palestine not have full UN membership? Why do they not deserve a proper seat at the table?

It would be like saying Israel doesn't deserve membership because settlers are terrorists and the IDF and the current government supports them. I don't understand how you can apply the logic to Hamas and Palestine but not there?

If you answer nothing else, please answer this: do you think that the state of Palestine has the right to exist?

This is what "administrative detention" means: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention

I shared this link with you a couple of messages back. Do you agree that being imprisoned indefinitely, not during an explicit time of war (ie it has happened for many many years now, these are not prisoners of war) and with NO CHARGE is equivalent to being a hostage?

Why only 7 months and not more? Did something change Israel's intentions to spend more time on commiting war crimes?

Yeah I mean we can keep going back if you like, but I was just talking about the current war, obviously.

I could say hamas has been commiting war crimes for years now. Would that be wrong?

It would be totally right. Why stop there? They have not allowed a free and fair election since they were voted in. They are tyrants.

Sorry did you just totally ignore the administrative detention thing? We can talk about this stuff afterwards. Do you see how these people are hostages?

Like you totally ignored all points of fact raised by me and didn't even know that Israel detains Palestinians without charge all the time outside of active war?

I'll tell you why I didn't fight you on these points: the topic of conversation is Palestinian statehood. NOT Hamas. What you are doing is classic hasbara bullshit, if in doubt and people start talking about human rights for Palestinians, shift the conversation to Hamas. You think or at least imply that the actions of a few can detract from the need for basic rights for every single human being. As I said, if that was the case then Israelis lose them too.

And guess what? Hamas are terrorists and I agree they are shit. Now if you could face up to the various despicable crimes of Israel we might actually get somewhere here.

Prisoners taken in a warzone under suspicion. Administrative detention. Call it however.

Here you go, something fun to learn: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention

Again, nothing to do with war, NOT prisoners of war. Hostages by another name. How did you not know about this?

They are actual war criminals for all intents and purposes, and in all pursuits. War crimes are never punished in Gaza Israel, often rewarded, always revered.

Also true this way around. Israel has been committing war crimes for 7 months straight now.

I'm not talking about prisoners of war anywhere there.

If they want more rights that begins with following International law on any occasions. Rejecting terrorism. Putting your soldiers in uniform. Freeing hostages. Not targeting innocent people every single day with indiscriminate rocket attacks.

Apart from the fact that they do have uniforms for soldiers (except for during that little hospital "operation" some months back), you see that Israel is guilty of all of this too, right?

Eg being held in "administrative detention" without charge is being held hostage, harming or threatening innocent civilians so they put pressure on their government is terrorism. Killing AI-identified "targets" while they're at home with their families because it's easier is targeting innocent people every day. And withholding the necessities of life from civilians on purpose is against international law. Nice uniforms though yeah.

Should we take away Israelis' rights by your logic? Or should we not punish innocents for the actions of people who claim to speak for them?

Basic rights are not conditional. Not sure how I can explain that to you if you don't understand that already. Jesus christ.

Yeah I wasn't suggesting otherwise! But if people criticised Bush in that situation, you would understand why, surely?

If through some insane series of circumstances George W. Bush was running against Trump, as the democratic nominee, would you have this same attitude to criticism of him?

Palestinians' tactic of "existing and deserving rights" is paying off, yeah.

Human shields are kind of useless against an army with no morals ¯(ツ)/¯