The Greens are literally saying it’s OK for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians.
Where? When? You can’t just claim that without providing a source and expect us to believe it.
While they do state on their website that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas should release all remaining hostages, they immediately follow it up with this (translated by me to the best of my ability):
Israel’s military operation must happen under the conditions of international humanitarian law. The new military offensive of Israel’s government in Gaza will further worsen the dramatic humanitarian conditions for civilians in Gaza. The suffering of the people of Gaza is immeasurable. We expect the federal government to increase their efforts to advocate for Israel’s government to obey international humanitarian law, for a ceasefire and for an immediate end of the blockade of humanitarian aid. The people of Gaza need access to vital help right now. Every day costs more human lives. For this, the federal government should strengthen the principles of the G7 - no displacement, no occupation, no decrease in territory, no decision about the future of Gaza without the Palestinian people.
How is that “OK for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians”?
Edit: Rephrased the initial “They don’t” to a question about the source; translated a bit more of the page.
Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, addressed parliament yesterday and justified Israel’s targeting of civilians in Gaza. ‘Self-defence means not only attacking terrorists but destroying them. When Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools… civilian places lose their protected status because terrorists abuse it.’
This, however, is not true, according to human rights lawyer, Craig Mokhiber. The former senior UN human rights official told MEMO claims that Israel has a right to ‘self-defence’ in Gaza don’t have a standing in international law.
And where does that say that it’s okay to kill civilians? She very clearly says that civilian places, not people can, not must, lose their protected status if Hamas, not the civilian population, use them to hide weapons or active combatants. This is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions:
The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.
How about you stop assuming things that I never said or meant? I fully agree that Israel has no rights to set even one foot into Gaza, that every dead civilian is one too many and that Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be dragged before the ICC as soon as possible.
But it’s still important to look at facts about what some party or the other said and not your twisted interpretation based on what you want to believe the world to be. Calling everyone who even slightly deviates from your opinion Zionist and a Nazi just strengthens the actual Nazis in the AfD, the right wing of the CDU/CSU, the Republicans in the USA and so on. This is exactly what I meant by ‘left half of the spectrum (SPD, Grüne and LINKE) still can’t agree which flavor of “left” is the correct one’. If we want to prevail against the flood of right-wing hatemongers who twist the narrative to their advantage, we must stick together and we must stick to the facts. Otherwise, we are, as you have phrased it, doomed.
I never said, that what she said is factually correct. I said that what you said is not what she said and that you are interpreting things that are not in the original video you linked, let alone in the full-length unedited version.
Also, quoting someone to illustrate what they actually said does in no way mean that one agrees. What I quoted was a text straight from the Greens website as well as part of the Geneva Conventions. I clearly marked both as such and I included them to illustrate someone else’s opinion, not my own.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Well the Greens are still voting to send weapons to the genocide.
That’s indeed correct, it’s a huge problem, it’s something that the Greens’ base has massively criticized about the higher ranks in the party and, as a personal aside, was one of the reasons why I refused to vote for them in the last election (the other being that they were absolutely incompetent in defending their climate politics against the FDP).
So it really doesn’t sound like they disagree with Israel to me.
Best I can do for an up-to-date source is an Article from German newspaper Die Zeit which also mentions Merz’ quote that started this thread. According to the article (not myself!), Greens leader Felix Banaszak argues that Israel is surrounded by enemies that have an interest in destroying it, especially Iran and that they need weapons to defend against possible attacks on their own land. At the same time, he concedes that those same weapons being used in Gaza is a problem which why a nuanced discussion is necessary.
From here on, personal opinion:
That’s why this whole thing is so difficult. If someone who says “Israel has a right to defend itself”, some people (apparently including you) take that to mean they have a right to attack Gaza. I can’t look into people’s heads, but if “Israel has a right to defend itself” means “Israel has a right to defend its civilian population inside its pre-1967 core territory, explicitly excluding Gaza and the West Bank”, things sound a lot different. We could still argue all week long if the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948/49 was a good idea. It was probably at least short-sighted. But the fact is that this region has been part of Israel for over 75 years now and not a single Israeli civilian alive today had a say in the matter. Even Netanyahu, as much as I hate him, wasn’t even born when the Green Line was drawn. The world is in the difficult position where it seems almost impossible to protect Israeli and Palestinian civilians at the same time. In an ideal world, we could establish a united Palestine where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully but let’s face it, that doesn’t sound very realistic. On the other hand, forcefully removing either population can’t be the solution either. Palestinians/Arabs have lived in the region for millennia, as have some of the Jews. And even for those whose families got relocated after WW2, it’s now the region where they, their parents, for some even their grandparents have lived their whole lives. The chance to find a better place for them was in the 1940s, the Allies messed it up and we have to deal with the consequences.
So what do we do now? How do we even talk about the topic, espcially in Germany? If one says even one positive thing about Israel, they immediately get called Zionist and Nazis because apparently it means you fully support the genocide in Gaza. If one sides with Palestine, they also get called Nazis because apparently it means you hate all Jews. And if you say nothing you get called a Nazi because saying nothing apparently means you’re okay with the status quo.
So please, I beg you, stop treating everyone who tries to have a calm and nuanced discussion as the enemy, just because they disagree with you in a few points. I assure you that for the vast majority of people, saving civilian lives on both sides is the top priority. It’s just that this situation is so extremely complex, has been brewing for decades (and if you really want to get into it, since the Crusades or even the Greek, Roman or Babylonian occupation), nobody has a clue how to solve it without making things even worse and everybody feels utterly helpless.
Where? When? You can’t just claim that without providing a source and expect us to believe it.
While they do state on their website that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas should release all remaining hostages, they immediately follow it up with this (translated by me to the best of my ability):
How is that “OK for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians”?
Edit: Rephrased the initial “They don’t” to a question about the source; translated a bit more of the page.
And where does that say that it’s okay to kill civilians? She very clearly says that civilian places, not people can, not must, lose their protected status if Hamas, not the civilian population, use them to hide weapons or active combatants. This is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions:
(GC (I), Article 21, emphasis mine)
Stop with the Zionist propaganda. You are literally doing the Nazi thing. “Hitler defended himself into Poland”.
Also
How about you stop assuming things that I never said or meant? I fully agree that Israel has no rights to set even one foot into Gaza, that every dead civilian is one too many and that Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be dragged before the ICC as soon as possible.
But it’s still important to look at facts about what some party or the other said and not your twisted interpretation based on what you want to believe the world to be. Calling everyone who even slightly deviates from your opinion Zionist and a Nazi just strengthens the actual Nazis in the AfD, the right wing of the CDU/CSU, the Republicans in the USA and so on. This is exactly what I meant by ‘left half of the spectrum (SPD, Grüne and LINKE) still can’t agree which flavor of “left” is the correct one’. If we want to prevail against the flood of right-wing hatemongers who twist the narrative to their advantage, we must stick together and we must stick to the facts. Otherwise, we are, as you have phrased it, doomed.
What she is saying is not facts it is Zionist propaganda contradicting international law.
Adolf Hitler said he was defending himself into Poland. Was he? Is anyone repeating what he is saying “repeating the law”?
I never said, that what she said is factually correct. I said that what you said is not what she said and that you are interpreting things that are not in the original video you linked, let alone in the full-length unedited version.
Also, quoting someone to illustrate what they actually said does in no way mean that one agrees. What I quoted was a text straight from the Greens website as well as part of the Geneva Conventions. I clearly marked both as such and I included them to illustrate someone else’s opinion, not my own.
This section of
the Geneva Conventioninternational law. does not apply to a belligerent occupying force. Which is what Israel is.The line “Israel has the right to defend itself” legally does not apply to Gaza or the West Bank.
Well the Greens are still voting to send weapons to the genocide. So it really doesn’t sound like they disagree with Israel to me.
Wrong, see Article 2.
That’s indeed correct, it’s a huge problem, it’s something that the Greens’ base has massively criticized about the higher ranks in the party and, as a personal aside, was one of the reasons why I refused to vote for them in the last election (the other being that they were absolutely incompetent in defending their climate politics against the FDP).
Best I can do for an up-to-date source is an Article from German newspaper Die Zeit which also mentions Merz’ quote that started this thread. According to the article (not myself!), Greens leader Felix Banaszak argues that Israel is surrounded by enemies that have an interest in destroying it, especially Iran and that they need weapons to defend against possible attacks on their own land. At the same time, he concedes that those same weapons being used in Gaza is a problem which why a nuanced discussion is necessary.
From here on, personal opinion:
That’s why this whole thing is so difficult. If someone who says “Israel has a right to defend itself”, some people (apparently including you) take that to mean they have a right to attack Gaza. I can’t look into people’s heads, but if “Israel has a right to defend itself” means “Israel has a right to defend its civilian population inside its pre-1967 core territory, explicitly excluding Gaza and the West Bank”, things sound a lot different. We could still argue all week long if the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948/49 was a good idea. It was probably at least short-sighted. But the fact is that this region has been part of Israel for over 75 years now and not a single Israeli civilian alive today had a say in the matter. Even Netanyahu, as much as I hate him, wasn’t even born when the Green Line was drawn. The world is in the difficult position where it seems almost impossible to protect Israeli and Palestinian civilians at the same time. In an ideal world, we could establish a united Palestine where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully but let’s face it, that doesn’t sound very realistic. On the other hand, forcefully removing either population can’t be the solution either. Palestinians/Arabs have lived in the region for millennia, as have some of the Jews. And even for those whose families got relocated after WW2, it’s now the region where they, their parents, for some even their grandparents have lived their whole lives. The chance to find a better place for them was in the 1940s, the Allies messed it up and we have to deal with the consequences.
So what do we do now? How do we even talk about the topic, espcially in Germany? If one says even one positive thing about Israel, they immediately get called Zionist and Nazis because apparently it means you fully support the genocide in Gaza. If one sides with Palestine, they also get called Nazis because apparently it means you hate all Jews. And if you say nothing you get called a Nazi because saying nothing apparently means you’re okay with the status quo.
So please, I beg you, stop treating everyone who tries to have a calm and nuanced discussion as the enemy, just because they disagree with you in a few points. I assure you that for the vast majority of people, saving civilian lives on both sides is the top priority. It’s just that this situation is so extremely complex, has been brewing for decades (and if you really want to get into it, since the Crusades or even the Greek, Roman or Babylonian occupation), nobody has a clue how to solve it without making things even worse and everybody feels utterly helpless.