For those of you that believe "From river to sea, Palestine must be free"... answer this!

[cnm]

and yet very little loss of life.

How much loss of life is very little? The US wet itself over 3000 odd.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How much loss of life is very little? The US wet itself over 3000 odd.

that was a terror attack the Israeli's went to war against an opponent that hides among civilians and puts their bases inside schools and hospitals.

 

[Shusha]

Again, this is a case where war can be used to excuse anything.

Seems to me you are doing the inverse - using the permitted acts of war as "proof" (excuse) of genocide. In order to prove genocide, you would have to demonstrate that the acts of war committed by Israel had intent OTHER than permitted acts of war. The "on the whole" won't be sufficient to negate the reality of armed conflict.

 

[Shusha]

Not necessarily. The movement of civilians into “safe” areas technically avoids the charge of genocide. But the movement of civilians and subsequent bombing in those “safe” puts it into question.

The evacuations combined with deliberate scarcity and locations of humanitarian aid were geared toward forcing masses of people south, concentrating them and managing them through forced expulsions to other countries, a so called humanitarian city where they could enter but not leave and “ be processed for immigration”, or other concentration schemes. Individually those acts could be viewed as part of war but collectively they paint a different particular in light of statements made and information leaked.

But it does not meet the threshold for the crime of genocide. You can "view" it that way, if you like, but it does not meet the legal threshold for the crime of genocide.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)
JUDGMENT OF 26 FEBRUARY 2007​

(excerpts, emphasis mine):

425. In its Trial Chamber Judgment in the Babić case, the ICTY, following the defendant’s guilty plea, held that there had been a joint criminal enterprise whose objective “was the permanent and forcible removal of the majority of Croat and other non-Serb populations from approximately one-third of Croatia through a campaign of persecutions in order to make that territory a Serb-dominated state” ... According to the ICTY, the leadership of Serbia and that of the Serbs in Croatia, inter alia, shared the objective of creating an ethnically homogeneous Serb State. That was the context in which acts were committed that constitute the actus reus of genocide within the meaning of Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention. However, the conclusion of the ICTY indicates that those acts were not committed with intent to destroy the Croats, but rather with that of forcing them to leave the regions concerned so that an ethnically homogeneous Serb State could be created. The Court agrees with this conclusion...
...With regard to the period from 1992 to 1995, the Trial Chamber has been furnished with a substantial amount of evidence of massive and widespread acts of violence and intimidation committed against the non-Serb population, which were pervasive throughout the RSK territory. The Trial Chamber notes, in particular, that during this time period there was a continuation of incidents of killings, beatings, robbery and theft, harassment, and extensive destruction of houses and Catholic churches carried out against the non-Serb population. These acts created a coercive atmosphere which had the effect of forcing out the non-Serb population from the territory of the RSK. As a consequence, almost the entire non-Serb population left the RSK
...Based on the substantial evidence referred to above, the Trial Chamber finds that due to the coercive atmosphere in the RSK from 1992 through 1995, almost the entire non-Serb population was forcibly removed to territories under the control of Croatia.”
428. The Court therefore concludes that Croatia’s contentions regarding the overall context do not support its assertion that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference to be drawn.

 

[Shusha]

Israel didn’t just destroy infrastructure…they completely irradicated it, turning Gaza into a wasteland that observers said surpassed any conflict they’d seen before. Agricultural land (olive trees were deliberately uprooted and destroyed, water, housing etc. The excuse that Hamas was hiding in all those areas doesn’t hold, Israel frequently did not provide any evidence to support or provided photos of “evidence” that was actually taken that was elsewhere.

...completely destroying infrastructure (what wasn’t flattened by bombs was systematically bulldozed into rubble), destruction of all cultural institutions and artifacts, education centers, hospitals, religious centers. The evacuations combined with deliberate scarcity and locations of humanitarian aid were geared toward forcing masses of people south, concentrating them and managing them through forced expulsions to other countries, a so called humanitarian city where they could enter but not leave and “ be processed for immigration”, or other concentration schemes. Individually those acts could be viewed as part of war but collectively they paint a different particular in light of statements made and information leaked.

Yes, each of those acts occurred within the context of war and there is a military purpose (whether you care to see it or not) for each of these acts.

‘The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly stated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent’. (para 373, Bosnia).

Israel will (correctly) argue that the explicitly stated war aims to dismantle Hamas and the military capabilities of Hamas, along with its extensive efforts to preserve civilian life, illustrates that its pattern of conduct was not to cause the destruction the Palestinians as a national group.


Regarding the points laid out above, do you not agree that Hamas was deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure in Gaza? That there were tunnels under hospitals, schools, mosques, universities? That there were weapons caches in children's bedrooms? That IEDs and other ambush and traps were laid in civilian areas and buildings? That rocket launch sites were placed in olive groves next to schools? That Hamas terrorists largely operated in civilian clothing, moving from house to mosque to house using tunnels and/or under the cover of civilians?

Do you believe this is completely untrue, or do you believe this is true, but Israel could have "done better"?

 

[ben barach]

Some of you believe "From river to sea, Palestine must be free".. means the genocide of Israel.
I simply ask you "do you then support these billionaires that make money from the war with Israel?

View attachment 1166408View attachment 1166409

Correct. NO ONE ever talks about these Hamas supporting billionaires. You know, the ones that fly under the radar. Bet not one person here or man on the street could name one name of the sheik regime funding this. Hell, you can't even pronounce their stupid names.

 

[healthmyths]

Correct. NO ONE ever talks about these Hamas supporting billionaires. You know, the ones that fly under the radar. Bet not one person here or man on the street could name one name of the sheik regime funding this. Hell, you can't even pronounce their stupid names.

And as I pointed out... they live in Qatar not in Gaza! The truly sad part is the biased ignorant MSM supporting Hamas!
They are so dumb, if they were in Gaza they would be killed...by the Hamas!

 

[ben barach]

And as I pointed out... they live in Qatar not in Gaza! The truly sad part is the biased ignorant MSM supporting Hamas!
They are so dumb, if they were in Gaza they would be killed...by the Hamas!

Any journalist supporting hammas needs to be at least fined or put in jail

 

[GLASNOST]

Some of you believe "From river to sea, Palestine must be free".. means the genocide of Israel.

I believe "Screw Zionists" and let them **** off back to New York. I have nothing against Judaism or Jews in general but Zionism must be eliminated.

 

[GLASNOST]

Any journalist supporting hammas needs to be at least fined or put in jail

No "freedom of speech" for you, huh? It's Zionism = Nazism.

 

[ben barach]

No "freedom of speech" for you, huh? It's Zionism = Nazism.

Were not talking about 'freedom of speech' mister muh freedoms......perhaps you don't understand the first amendmant.....your 'freedoms' end where my begin.....you can't just say whatever the **** you want and be okay......good god.....taking a ******* civics class already

 

[Shusha]

...but Zionism must be eliminated.

I always wonder what people actually mean when they say "Zionism" must be eliminated. What are you desiring to eliminate? A State? A national identity? A people? An ethnic group? An ideology?

If it is the last, what is the ideology that you are wishing to eliminate? Self-determination for the Jewish people? Connection to the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people? Jewish heritage? Jewish return to the land of their ancestors? What, exactly, is the ideology that you want gone? And how does that ideology correlate or fail to correlate with Palestinian ideology, especially the ideology expressed in "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab"?

 

[GLASNOST]

Were not talking about 'freedom of speech' mister muh freedoms......perhaps you don't understand the first amendmant.....your 'freedoms' end where my begin.....you can't just say whatever the **** you want and be okay......good god.....taking a ******* civics class already

I don't give a fiddler's g-string about your first amendment for several reasons. First of all it's an amendment, note the letter "e". Do you know what an amendment is. I don't think you do. Secondly and MOST IMMPORTANT, I will say what I think of both Zio-Nazism and Hamas ... and if you want to have me jailed for saying it then bring on your CIA henchmen and do the job. Your Zionists have run the course and turned everything to shit for both the Palestinians and decent Jews as well. Hamas is giving the inhabitants of Israel what they deserve and if good Jews cannot rid the government of Zionist treachery then they'll just have to suffer alongside them. Too f-ing bad.

 

[rosends]

First of all it's an amendment, note the letter "e". Do you know what an amendment is. I don't think you do.

What do you mean by this? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[Coyote]

Seems to me you are doing the inverse - using the permitted acts of war as "proof" (excuse) of genocide. In order to prove genocide, you would have to demonstrate that the acts of war committed by Israel had intent OTHER than permitted acts of war. The "on the whole" won't be sufficient to negate the reality of armed conflict.

I’m using examples of “permitted” acts of war taken way too far as well as examples of intent.

Intent is there in multiple statements by people in political and military power with the ability to carry it out and the actions that have followed. There were several points where Israel’s military leadership said they had gained all they could militarily and it was time for political solutions but Israel didn’t stop bombing and then unilaterally broke a ceasefire.

When they said they were going to flatten all of Gaza and turn it into an uninhabitable wasteland so the Palestinians would have nothing to return to…and they did exactly that…that is intent followed by action. Retribution? Collective punishment? Genocide?

The ONLY times Israel has drawn back a little (such allowing some humanitarian aid in) has only occurred under intense international pressure particularly from the U.S.

It seems as if anything can be justified as a legitimate act of war. Intent that case why even have war crimes? Sending people into “safe” zones only to bomb them? Shooting civilians and children (leading to soldiers suffering moral injury)? Remember …. there are no innocent civilians right? That is what they said.

 

[Coyote]

But it does not meet the threshold for the crime of genocide. You can "view" it that way, if you like, but it does not meet the legal threshold for the crime of genocide.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)
JUDGMENT OF 26 FEBRUARY 2007​

(excerpts, emphasis mine):

425. In its Trial Chamber Judgment in the Babić case, the ICTY, following the defendant’s guilty plea, held that there had been a joint criminal enterprise whose objective “was the permanent and forcible removal of the majority of Croat and other non-Serb populations from approximately one-third of Croatia through a campaign of persecutions in order to make that territory a Serb-dominated state” ... According to the ICTY, the leadership of Serbia and that of the Serbs in Croatia, inter alia, shared the objective of creating an ethnically homogeneous Serb State. That was the context in which acts were committed that constitute the actus reus of genocide within the meaning of Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention. However, the conclusion of the ICTY indicates that those acts were not committed with intent to destroy the Croats, but rather with that of forcing them to leave the regions concerned so that an ethnically homogeneous Serb State could be created. The Court agrees with this conclusion...
...With regard to the period from 1992 to 1995, the Trial Chamber has been furnished with a substantial amount of evidence of massive and widespread acts of violence and intimidation committed against the non-Serb population, which were pervasive throughout the RSK territory. The Trial Chamber notes, in particular, that during this time period there was a continuation of incidents of killings, beatings, robbery and theft, harassment, and extensive destruction of houses and Catholic churches carried out against the non-Serb population. These acts created a coercive atmosphere which had the effect of forcing out the non-Serb population from the territory of the RSK. As a consequence, almost the entire non-Serb population left the RSK
...Based on the substantial evidence referred to above, the Trial Chamber finds that due to the coercive atmosphere in the RSK from 1992 through 1995, almost the entire non-Serb population was forcibly removed to territories under the control of Croatia.”
428. The Court therefore concludes that Croatia’s contentions regarding the overall context do not support its assertion that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference to be drawn.

Yes, I think it does.

Unlike the Serbian situation, the people of Gaza couldn’t leave. Is Israel trying to create a homogeneous state? Or is it trying to eliminate an annoying population? Or both?

 

[Coyote]

Yes, each of those acts occurred within the context of war and there is a military purpose (whether you care to see it or not) for each of these acts.

The problem with that is anything can be and is being justified as having a military purpose.

‘The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly stated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent’. (para 373, Bosnia).

I would argue that there were plans made that plans made that would support the intent to destroy the group in whole or part.

Plans to concentrate them into zones they would not be allowed to leave, reeducate them, forceably expel them, create conditions so bad they would either die or leave, starve them.

Israel will (correctly) argue that the explicitly stated war aims to dismantle Hamas and the military capabilities of Hamas, along with its extensive efforts to preserve civilian life, illustrates that its pattern of conduct was not to cause the destruction the Palestinians as a national group.

I would not say there were extensive efforts to preserve civilian life particularly when they deliberately created famine. When you completely destroy their homes, historic sites, schools, cultural centers and monuments, agriculture, religious sites by not just bombing but razing and turning it into rubble …and then try to forceably expel them into other countries, then Yes, you are causing their destruction as a national group.

Regarding the points laid out above, do you not agree that Hamas was deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure in Gaza? That there were tunnels under hospitals, schools, mosques, universities? That there were weapons caches in children's bedrooms? That IEDs and other ambush and traps were laid in civilian areas and buildings? That rocket launch sites were placed in olive groves next to schools? That Hamas terrorists largely operated in civilian clothing, moving from house to mosque to house using tunnels and/or under the cover of civilians?

I agree that some of that is true but I also there has been a lot of exaggeration to justify extensive bombing. Too often Israel has been unable to provide evidence of its claims after a bombing and too many times civilians in supposedly safe zones have been bombed. Most recently the bombing of a known site with journalists that killed five and was bombed not just once but a second time.

This is not the only conflict where the enemy hides among civilians or has disguises themselves as protected groups.

Do you believe this is completely untrue, or do you believe this is true, but Israel could have "done better"?

I believe it is true but exaggerated and yes, Israel could have done better.

 

[Coyote]

and yet very little loss of life. Go figure Isreal is so inept that they can't even kill large numbers of the group it is supposedly committing genocide on

I wouldn’t call over 70,000 killed and likely thousands more buried in rubble “very little”.

 

[Shusha]

I wouldn’t call over 70,000 killed and likely thousands more buried in rubble “very little”.

Two years of war, in a densely populated area, under cover of civilian shields/sacrifices, with maybe 35,000 civilian casualties is objectively a war of remarkable restraint.

 

[Shusha]

Yes, I think it does.

That's fine. If you want to think it is a genocide, because you think it is a genocide, I can't stop you. But I've offered evidence from the only source of actual evidence we have for the legal determination of genocide - which is the ICJ opinions - that the legal criteria for genocide is not met. You are rejecting evidence in favor of your feelings or your own personal opinion.

The problem I have with that is that it creates harm to the Jewish community because they are accused of the most heinous crime but objectively have not committed that crime.

Unlike the Serbian situation, the people of Gaza couldn’t leave.

Yes. A crime against humanity committed by Egypt. But no one is going on about taking them to the ICJ for the crime of genocide. Why not? By refusing to honor the commitment to provide refuge for those fleeing war, is Egypt not also committing genocide, by your standards? Do they not have the intent to destroy the group?

Is Israel trying to create a homogeneous state?

No. Further proof that the destruction of the group is not on the agenda.

Or is it trying to eliminate an annoying population?

Annoying? You mean murderous and ACTUALLY genocidal?