MAGA Convoy Confused By Lack Of 'Invasion' As They Arrive At Border
MAGA Convoy Confused By Lack Of 'Invasion' As They Arrive At Border
You're viewing part of a thread.
The 15 permanent judges of the ICJ unanimously said as much, and Israel and Netanyahu basically calling it a genocide themselves.
No they didn't. Not saying the ruling is right or wrong but the court did not call it a genocide (yet).
The ruling has been massively downplayed by the german media with headlines like "does not order ceasefire" when it ordered Israel to "stop killing members of the group", basically ordered them to stop committing acts of genocide. At this stage they could not be any clearer!
They also ordered under 80. the immediate provision and humanitarian aid. On the same day Israel comes up with this accusation about some 12 out of thousands of aid workers being member of hamas. Then Germany among others cuts of humanitarian aid, directly in violation of the ICJ order. Which now makes Germany complicit in the genocide.
If Israel is allowed to continue a million innocent civilians could easily die horribly from starvation, thirst or disease, as well as just exposure.
For reference: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
- The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.
- The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
- The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
- Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
My point is that the judges did not unanonimously called it genocide. I just don't want fake news being spread. The ruling has much more nuance than that.
All this nonsense can be removed with one simple statement. One simple argument.
Gaza is as dense as New York City.
If they wanted to commit genocide deaths would be far higher than 30,000.
Also you're ignoring the absolute fact that has been demonstrated many many times, that palestinian terrorists like Hamas embed themselves within civilian infrastructure and hide among civilian populations.
This is why Israel has to warn people before they bomb a certain area. And of course the terrorist escape due to these warnings as well.
Does that sound like a genocide to you? Not if you're honest it doesn't.
If Israel wanted to genocide Gaza the numbers would be far far higher we're talking over a quarter million deaths. It would be absurdly easy. It's important that you be honest internally otherwise you make the world worse despite what you might think are noble intentions.
You're completely uninformed about the definition and the laws against genocide.
I'm actually not and genocide doesn't have multiple definitions which is a thing that unfortunately people who claim to be progressive love to do... I'm progressive myself but I draw distinction between myself and many progressives by calling myself a moderate progressive. I don't try and redefine words to fit my ideology.
Genocide means to try and wipe out totally a people or an ethnicity through means of violence or deliberate actions. Things like the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are good examples as is the Khmer Rogue terror in Cambodia.
However horrifying examples of violence on a grand scale like the rape of Nanking during World War II do not count because they are not attempts to eradicate an entire ethnicity or people nor do they end up having that impact whether the intention was or not.
If the rape of Nanking does not qualify as a genocide then there's no way in heck the Gaza war does. I need you to be honest and have integrity so that we can make the world better. As progressives we will only have ourselves to blame if we let emotion and passion override logic and truth. Because it WILL make the world worse long-term.
I'm in favor of a ceasefire at this point but it is absolutely not a genocide nor was it ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide
Note the words "acts committed with **intent **to destroy, in whole or in part"
Also "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;" There is evidence of Netanyaho and other ministers doing this. Just now some minister was talking about settling Gaza, again implying the total removal of Palestinians.
On 28 October 2023, as Israeli forces prepared their land invasion of Gaza, the Prime Minister invoked the Biblical story of the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites, stating: “you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”.446 The Prime Minister referred again to Amalek in the letter sent on 3 November 2023 to Israeli soldiers and officers.447 The relevant biblical passage reads as follows: “Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses”
This is Israel's stated intent! If we let them continue, that is what we have to assume will happen! 1.5 million refugees inside Gaza, locked in, no power, not enough food and water, most hospitals bombed, population density of new york. What do you think is going to happen?
It's called the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", not the "lets sit back and discuss the finer technical details until they are all dead before we judge" convention.
There is a story how all this is obfuscated at CNN but similar is happening in German public broadcasting. Germany admirably protests against the AfD, but the government is making Germany complicit in Genocide again.
So under this ridiculously broad definition any war whatsoever is genocide.
We both know that's not a good definition nor is it really an accurate one historically. Nor is it what the vast overwhelming majority of people think genocide means.
And if the vast overall majority of people think one thing of a word that it doesn't matter that a book says this is the actual meaning because people collectively decide what the meaning of words are.
Either way even this broad approach fails anyway because Israel is not trying to destroy Palestinians They're trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
Ok. Do you think after this bombing campaign - one of the most intense in modern history - in your judgement if you look at what the 1.5 million Palestinians are going through: Do you think there are now more or less of them wanting to fight for Hamas?
Hyperbole. Why don't you stick to the actual facts? It's okay to be wrong. In fact being wrong is an opportunity! It's an opportunity for growth and improvement! You literally cannot do either of those things unless you acknowledge that you're wrong at times.
No I'm genuinely curious. If those are the state goals of the campaign that justify all this slaughter, you must think this is eventually going to stop before it becomes a genocide? You must think eventually "oh we got the last hamas fighter, now we can leave!".
If you don't think that, honestly to yourself, then you must agree that at best the motivation is blind raging hatred (racism) or vengeance or political opportunism, or at worse the motivation is a "final solution" for the palestinian question.
I think the solution is a permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza using this as a pretext. This is something that I support because a two-state solution is not practical considering the geography of Israel and turns Israel into Swiss cheese when you look at the borders on a map.
Israel holds the high ground morally ever since they were attacked during the wars of the 20th century. There's not a shred of religious influence in my support. It's purely the fact that they've been the underdog throughout the 20th century and attacked endlessly by their neighbors yet they have been gracious to them in victory and yet all it has inspired is further enmity and war. That is why I side with Israel. When Egypt attacked them in the 1960s they took the entire Sinai peninsula and they gave it back out of Goodwill. How have they been repaid for their generosity in victory? They were attacked in a defensive war and then took enemy territory and then gave it back out of generosity. And what was the reward? Terrorist attacks and more war of aggression. Israel has made some mistakes in the way they've handled the Palestinian situation. There have been times when they have unnecessarily harm civilians and they certainly don't have blood free hands. But they are light years cleaner than all their neighbors. They are absolutely 100% the lesser of all evils in that area.
So I support the occupation of Gaza and I support the permanent annexation of Gaza. Its very clear to me that that's what this is about. But annexation and occupation do not equate to genocide. You can annex a territory and give it citizens civil rights. Over time they become more like the original state. They become israelized. Romanized. Americanized. Etc.
When Israel controls all of the territories within its borders including the West Bank then there will be peace. And they should give civil rights to those conquered peoples and treat them with respect.
A one state solution to create a Israel/Palestine and an end to Apartheid is the only sensible long term solution. I fully agree.
But we are further away from that than we ever were. Not even the most progressive voices in politics suggest that. I think you're very unaware how bad things have gotten in Israel, how far into fascism they have gone.
There are only few independent dissident voices that are not part of competing geopolitical camps (e.g. rt, aljazeera) but they exist: Democracy Now and The Majority Report w/ Sam Seeder. They interview actual experts or professors about these topics instead of pundits. I strongly suggest you search for "Israel" for articles from those channels to get a different perspective.
Look at the corruption of Netanyaho and how they removed the PLO and propped up Hamas for political gain. Look at their laws that criminalizes expressing support for Palestine (suggesting a one state solution would most likely get you arrested in Israel). Look at the fervent fascism blooming there. Look at all the war crimes, and look at how they occupied Gaza for more than 50 years and what that does to a people. Look at the talk about the biblical story of amalek.
And I don't think it makes sense to argue from history, e.g. why Israeli's deserve a homeland and why the arab states had a problem with that. But before 1950 there was apparently very little anti-semitism in arab states so the opposition is political. If you want to talk about the wars around the time, you'd also have to talk about how Israel came to live where Palestinians used to live before (Nakba). The Arabs had no hand in the holocaust. From there perspective Israel was a colonial enterprise by white European people that displaced the people who lived there for a millennium. Unfortunately that gets us nowhere.
Saying Israel holds the moral high ground and is somehow pure is absolute madness!
You can also argue that Israels geopolitical role in the region is to be a proxy for US empire interests - to destabilize and control Arab countries in the region and prevent democracy in Arab countries. Because that would make them much harder to control and exploit for resources. You can find much in declassified or even public documentation. This is at least partially true and has a major effect on the situation.
Israel effectively occupied and controlled Palestine for 50 years and had that long to turn things around. Using education, propaganda and stability to create a lasting peace. But they simply didn't and still don't want that, they want a country all to their own based on their identity as Jews and not be "outbred" by Arabs.
So how can you get to a one state solution when there are so many geopolitical and cultural forces pushing to the exact opposite direction? We do not even have mainstream press reporting accurately on any of this, so you can't even have a discussion based on reality.
For a working democracy you need modest prosperity, education and safety. The prerequisites are worse than ever for both parties.
BTW the US alleges that what China is doing to alter the culture of uyghur is a "cultural" genocide. Which btw was a reaction after the US funded radical Islamic separatists in China.
To stand by Israel and say "they wouldn't go that far" is not learning from history.
I will admit that I know nothing about Israel's current politics other than that Netanyahu is corrupt and if not for this war he'd likely have been impeached and ousted. I appreciate this post and all this information.
I need you to do better and read the actual definition before spouting off about it.
This is a waste of my time because you're not listening to what I'm saying.