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.
an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn’t a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.
And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn’t apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.
Also note that I’m not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.
I don’t quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.
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.
Remember that you were originally citing the electoral success of the Greens to evidence that Germany wasn’t all in support of the genocide. That doesn’t’ really work when you admit that the Greens are, in fact, in support of the genocide.
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.
Yes, that’s because that’s what it was coined to mean, and overwhelmingly used to mean.
It’s just that this situation is so extremely complex, has been brewing for decades
Technically true of the Holocaust as well, but you still rightfully accuse anyone of saying so of trying to obfuscate a very clear case of right and wrong. The same applies to the Gaza genocide.
I assure you that for the vast majority of people, saving civilian lives on both sides is the top priority.
I assure you that this is not true; the lives of Palestinian civilians are very much not top priority. For many westerners, they are a negative priority.
nobody has a clue how to solve it
Yes, the Nazi’s said the same thing about the Jews. And then they came to the same solution that Israel has come to.
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.
Yes it triggers article 51
Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn’t a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.
And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn’t apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.
Also note that I’m not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.
You are right I confused the Geneva Convention for international law there i will correct it.
Edit: apparently the other poster switched trom international law to Geneva Convention which caused my confusion.
I don’t quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.
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.
Bonus Nazi points for Baerbock participating in the große Lüge: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/german-foreign-minister-says-she-saw-nonexistent-7-oct-rape-video
“We gotta send weapons to the people committing genocide because Iran!”
Wow another bad excuse to keep sending the new Nazis weapons.
Thank you for nuancing the Holocaust. I wonder if anyone has improved their view of Hitler. I haven’t.
Bo
Remember that you were originally citing the electoral success of the Greens to evidence that Germany wasn’t all in support of the genocide. That doesn’t’ really work when you admit that the Greens are, in fact, in support of the genocide.
Yes, that’s because that’s what it was coined to mean, and overwhelmingly used to mean.
Technically true of the Holocaust as well, but you still rightfully accuse anyone of saying so of trying to obfuscate a very clear case of right and wrong. The same applies to the Gaza genocide.
I assure you that this is not true; the lives of Palestinian civilians are very much not top priority. For many westerners, they are a negative priority.
Yes, the Nazi’s said the same thing about the Jews. And then they came to the same solution that Israel has come to.