Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday gave one of his most direct condemnations of the civilian death toll in Gaza and said more needs to be done to “minimize harm to Palestinian civilians.”
Although Blinken commended Israel for its announcement of daily military pauses in areas of Northern Gaza and two evacuation corridors, he said that “there is more that can and should be done to minimize harm to Palestinian civilians.”
The top US diplomat has subtly shifted his messaging in the days since he departed the Middle East earlier this week to more directly voice condemnation of the civilian toll in Gaza and the US’ expectations for the Israeli government. However, he still has not condemned the Israeli government offensive and has continually voiced support for its right to defend itself.
“I’m sorry, retaliating against the slaughter of your people is unacceptable. Please patiently await the next nightmarish orgy of mass murder, kidnapping, violence, and rape that will be visited upon you.”
Seems to sum up Lemmy’s take on this conflict.
Get off their land .
Said lands were annexed by a foe they declared war on and lost to, repeatedly. It’s clearly not theirs anymore. They do not have the means to occupy or control the lands they are claiming rights to.
The 1967 war that Israel started?
Did you know annexation of land is illegal in both offensive and defensive wars, too?
My understanding is that this was a preemptive strike against Egyptian forces that were staging invasion along the Sinai border and blockading Israel.
Who started this war, again?
And yet they still happen. Expecting lands and access to them to be granted to an enemy while they remain belligerent is absurd.
Well, first off, apologies for writing an essay in this comment, but I did a deep dive checking all my facts here.
So, right off the bat, simply pointing to a seemingly offensive intent does not enter a “preemptive war” into a legal grey area under international law. The UN Charter (Article 2 (4)) simply prohibits the initiation of armed conflict, absent a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an enforcement action.
Second, this is naturally a huge oversimplification to portray the origins of the conflict as “preemptive defensive attack”. As you’ll typically find with this kind of “let’s destroy Israel for no reason!” rationale being painted over Arab countries.
The actual origin of the conflict goes back to the mid 1950s, with the Suez Crisis. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956, prompting Western powers to try to find a way to unseat Nasser. Israel invaded the Sinai on Oct 29 1956 - the UN Security Council convened the next day, US submitted a draft resolution calling for Israel to withdraw behind the 1949 armistice lines, which Britain and France vetoed and then sent in an air attack the next day. Security Council passed resolution 119, which called for an emergency special session of the UN GA, which passed resolution 997 (ES-I), calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of all forces behind the 1949 armistice lines, arms embargo, and the reopening of the Suez Canal. Soon after, they passed resolution 1001, establishing the UNEF force to perform peacekeeping throughout the Sinai, prompting the withdrawal of British and French forces by the end of the year, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces by March 1957. This was the source of the general tension prior to the 1967 war - the “tripartite conspiracy” between Britain, France and Israel, to coerce control of the Suez Canal via an invasion of the Sinai.
Going into the 1960s - the first key event is Israel invading Jordan in the Samu Incident, on Nov 13 1966 (and, as usual, they destroyed everyone’s houses in the village of Samu). Yitzhak Rabin, then the Chief of General Staff in Israel, declared “the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government” in response to the Ba’ath party coming into power in Syria and sponsoring guerilla Palestinian groups attacking Israel. Israel shot down 6 MIG-21s from the Syrian Air Force on April 7th. Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister, attested to a reporter that they were purposefully instigating clashes on the Syrian border basically by having a tractor cross territorial lines until troops on the other side became aggravated. An apparently false report was delivered on May 13 to Nasser from the USSR, that Israel had been amassing its army on the Syrian border, and the next day he ordered the troop movement into the Sinai, on May 13/14. All these things indicated a sense that Israel was escalating hostilities and prompted a defensive troop movement from Egypt, and Nasser’s vice president requested the UNEF peacekeeping force evacuate in the case of hostilities breaking out. Israeli planes, soon after (May 17/18), had fired warning shots and “buzzed” a UNEF plane to attempt to force it to land inside Israel, claiming it had violated Israel’s air space (despite that it was flying within Egyptian territory, from El Arish to Gaza). At this point, on May 23, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran on its eastern border to Israeli ships, a contentious closure that the U.S. maintained was illegal, but predicated on agreements (namely this) Egypt was not yet a party to (see also this re: the legality) - and Nasser suggested adjudicating the issue in the ICC. Egyptian radio was publicly announcing during this general period whole period that they were on “maximum alert” for an Israeli attack. The “Waiting period”, the article you linked, describes exactly that - Egypt moved its troops into a defensive position and waited for three weeks in anticipation of an Israeli attack, which materialized as Operation Focus, a surprise attack on the air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the first clear act of hostilities.
To provide some key quotes to this point:
Some sources: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-six-day-war-and-a-possible-resolution/
https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/0345-1967-06-KS-a-EYJ.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn3RUZsaPmg&t=1s
I say again, annexation of land is a violation of international law, either in an offensive or defensive war. It is not a “grant”, it’s that state’s land to begin with.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=cn3RUZsaPmg&t=1s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The history of this conflict is pretty messy when you dig down into it, isn’t it? It’s long and complicated enough that either side can create a compelling narrative to justify their national interests. I appreciate that you delved into it. You might also be interested in the greater Cold war context of this conflict.
Nasser was keenly aware that his actions would trigger a confrontation and war with Israel:
He did it anyway. Claims that he didn’t want war seem odd to me considering all of his public statements at the time. Perhaps he wasn’t ready for war just yet, but his intentions seem clear.
Access to annexed lands would have to be granted by Israel because Israel controls and de facto owns them. International law is relatively meaningless if one cannot enforce it. Egypt got Sinai back via treaty and Palestine would likely have to do the same.
Retaliation à la “well do a nightmarish orgy of mass murder, kidnapping, violence, and rape to get back at the nightmarish orgy of mass murder, kidnapping, violence, and rape” is truly fucked up.
Seeking justice is one thing, but going to war doesn’t end wars and terror doesn’t end terror.
What makes you dispute that this conflict is, as Israel claims, about self-defense and not inflicting terror? According to the IDF, they are supposedly targeting valid military targets with less concern for collateral damage than Hamas would like, thereby devaluing their human shield tactics. Intentionally targeting civilians in mass terror attacks is something done by only one side in this conflict, and Hamas owns it and celebrates it. Israel at least ostensibly holds itself to higher standards.
Opinion discarded
Based.
Guess you know their intentions better than they do, random internet stranger. Is your dismissal based on some evidence you can share with us, or just a gut feeling?
You can’t take terrorists words at face value. The IDF has a long history of lying about their intentions, especially when it comes to their military conquests and expansionism.
I’ll just pick the easy one today: Self defense ends where a non related human dies.
But even disregarding what history created the terrorist attack feels dirty.
If one truly wants a moral high ground, it should be preeetty unwavering. Now it’s just silly to say one thing and do another. Well more sad because people are dying.
If that’s your standard you’ve made retaliation impossible, there’s always collateral damage in war. Interesting limitation to impose on Israel, considering the initial attack that caused said retaliation was all about slaughtering and kidnapping non-related human civilians.
A repeatedly vanquished foe who constantly starts wars and loses, resulting in more and more land and freedoms taken from them each time, yet still refuses to sue for viable peace after 70+ years of this? The various Palestinian factions have remained belligerent while launching terrorist attacks and insisting on genocide against a foe they cannot defeat, and with each failed attempt they lose more. This reality hasn’t deterred them, and a refusal to accept these consequences has made groups like Hamas popular. Yeah this situation sucks but what caused this was a nation ignoring the realpolitik of their situation and poking the bear rather than trying to achieve peace, choosing pride over pragmatism. They are the ones who can end this conflict any time they want but it will mean giving up on some of their unattainable goals and laying down arms. Israel has all the cards and going all in against them, reality be damned, will yield tragic but predictable results.
Sure. Principles go all ways
Yes. The pretend of defense has been passed. It’s a tragedy which seems to just be escalating
It’s self-defense until Hamas has been rendered incapable of launching another such attack, stopping before then does not provide the safety that they claim this entire operation is about.
If they’d only defend towards Hamas. But now the world knows it’s not the case.
Huh? That’s a bit garbled. Are you suggesting they aren’t attacking Hamas, the government of Gaza? Are you suggesting they intentionally let the October 7th attack happen? Neither of these make sense to me and I’d like to see some supporting evidence if that’s what you’re getting at. Vague phrases like, “the world knows,” are empirically useless, like supporting a claim with, “people say.”