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

[Coyote]

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.

70% are estimated to be women and children and the count is likely much since there are many buried in the rubble and not all men are fighters.

Civilian deaths in 13 years of war in Iraq (which included urban warfare) was something like 190,000. Compare that to Gaza.

Doesn’t like much restraint to me. Certainly not admirable.

 

[Shusha]

It seems as if anything can be justified as a legitimate act of war. Intent that case why even have war crimes?

This is the crux of the discussion. If a State and that State's actors conduct only legitimate acts of war, under the just cause of self-defense after an invasion by a belligerent (arguably State) actor, CAN they be guilty of the crime of genocide?

In other words, is it possible to commit a genocide within the confines of international law?

My argument is that it is not possible and absurd to even suggest it. How could you possibly cause the destruction of a people within the confines of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict? This makes no sense.

Do you agree or disagree with me on that point?

 

[Shusha]

70% are estimated to be women and children and the count is likely much since there are many buried in the rubble and not all men are fighters.

Civilian deaths in 13 years of war in Iraq (which included urban warfare) was something like 190,000. Compare that to Gaza.

Doesn’t like much restraint to me. Certainly not admirable.

I've combed the numbers, in all the reports, and have reached my conclusions. I do not believe that oft-repeated "70% are women and children" (which began to be circulated way back in 2023 and hasn't let up since, even with better data-capture).

Comparing with other wars needs to take into consideration all of the factors, not simply raw numbers.

I'm happy to have these discussions with you. But let's not derail here.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Deliberately inducing starvation is not a legitimate military objective.

Destroying hospitals and restricting medical aid coming in or people leaving to get treatment.

Complete demolition of something like 90% of Gaza - culture, history, education etc.

Those are all part of the destruction of a people.

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.

It shouldn’t create harm to the Jewish community because they aren’t responsible. They aren’t Israel. Israel is one nation not all Jewish people.

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?

Now that is a real stretch accusing Egypt of genocide for not taking millions of refugees Israel wants to expel? They aren’t attacking anyone. There is no intent and no expressions of intent. There is with Israel.

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

Annoying? You mean murderous and ACTUALLY genocidal?

 

[Coyote]

This is the crux of the discussion. If a State and that State's actors conduct only legitimate acts of war, under the just cause of self-defense after an invasion by a belligerent (arguably State) actor, CAN they be guilty of the crime of genocide?

In other words, is it possible to commit a genocide within the confines of international law?

My argument is that it is not possible and absurd to even suggest it. How could you possibly cause the destruction of a people within the confines of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict? This makes no sense.

Do you agree or disagree with me on that point?

I’m not I understand your point.

It sounds like what you are saying is that in a war the side that is defending could completely wipe out the civilian population of the agresser with intent and it would not be genocide.

I will also argue that Israel’s war in Gaza ceased to be one of defense but became one of retribution. That is not just my “opinion” but the opinions of others including those in Israel.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Deliberately inducing starvation is not a legitimate military objective.

Destroying hospitals and restricting medical aid coming in or people leaving to get treatment.

Complete demolition of something like 90% of Gaza - culture, history, education etc.

Those are all part of the destruction of a people.




It shouldn’t create harm to the Jewish community because they aren’t responsible. They aren’t Israel. Israel is one nation not all Jewish people.



Now that is a real stretch accusing Egypt of genocide for not taking millions of refugees Israel wants to expel? They aren’t attacking anyone. There is no intent and no expressions of intent. There is with Israel.

Hamas is the one stopping the food from reaching civilians, Hamas is the one filling false reports on who has died, Hamas is the one that hides among civilians, builds tunnels under hospitals and schools and stores arms and munitions in civilian structures. Hamas is the one that murdered 1200 plus civilians in horrible manners including women and children, and you have never once blamed them.

 

[Shusha]

I’m not I understand your point.

It sounds like what you are saying is that in a war the side that is defending could completely wipe out the civilian population of the agresser with intent and it would not be genocide.

The opposite of what I am saying. I'm arguing that the limitations of the laws of armed conflict and humanitarian law preclude the ability to commit genocide. If one follows the law, it is impossible to commit genocide ("wipe out the civilian population"). Do you agree or no?

 

[Shusha]

Deliberately inducing starvation is not a legitimate military objective.

Destroying hospitals and restricting medical aid coming in or people leaving to get treatment.

Complete demolition of something like 90% of Gaza - culture, history, education etc.

I understand what you are saying. These are points of disagreement of fact. We hold different "facts" to be true. Again, happy to discuss them.

The point being, for now, that it sounds like you might agree that it is only outside the law that a genocide can occur. That war crimes, or crimes against humanity, or other crimes must occur for genocide to have occurred. Yes? And, in addition to that, the crime of genocide requires the specific intent to bring about the destruction of the protected group.

It shouldn’t create harm to the Jewish community because they aren’t responsible. They aren’t Israel. Israel is one nation not all Jewish people.

We agree. It shouldn't. But it unfortunately does.

Now that is a real stretch accusing Egypt of genocide for not taking millions of refugees Israel wants to expel? They aren’t attacking anyone. There is no intent and no expressions of intent. There is with Israel.

The Egyptian government fully intended to ensure that there was no refuge for those wishing to escape war in violation of agreements and humanitarian law. You've seen the fence, yes?! Why would that not be intent? If not the commission of genocide, surely complicity.

 

[Shusha]

Sending people into “safe” zones only to bomb them? Shooting civilians and children...

Let me see if I can give you an example to show you what I mean, using this scenario, remembering that what we are looking for are acts which cause, or are intended to cause, the destruction of a protected group.

Imagine a residential building which, for the sake of argument, has a military objective embedded in it. Israel drops leaflets, sends text messages, makes phone calls demanding an immediate evacuation of the building. Israel facilitates the evacuation of the building, and provides a safe (as possible under conditions of war) corridor to a (protected) humanitarian zone.

Scenario A: Israel subsequently learns that several Hamas operatives are conducting a meeting, using the cover of the humanitarian zone. Israel launches a precision strike which takes out the operatives and also causes civilian casualties.

Scenario B: Israeli snipers shoot every person as they exit the building, without distinction.

Make the case that BOTH of these are "proof" of causing the extermination of a protected group.

 

[Stryder50]

They didnt just bomb the enemies headquarters. They've practically destroyed everything.

As so typical of agents in support of Evil, like yourself ~ Komrade; you over look this key aspect;
" ... who at the last minute puts ring of children around the building before you can stop the bombing. (Then the biased MSM blames YOU(IDF) for the children's deaths!")

You and your evil friends of Islamic Jihad are the ones responsible for the death and destruction in Gaza since you lack the courage to stand in the open to fight, rather than hide behind the skirts of women and children !

COWARDS!
As always!

 

[pknopp]

As so typical of agents in support of Evil, like yourself ~ Komrade; you over look this key aspect;

bugger off.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

bugger off.

cant handle being told you support murderers and terrorists?

 

[pknopp]

cant handle being told you support murderers and terrorists?

What did I say that was incorrect?

 

[Shusha]

What did I say that was incorrect?

They didnt just bomb the enemies headquarters. They've practically destroyed everything.

The implication is that Israel intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure that neither contained military objectives embedded within it nor was being used as part of the military operations nor was of military necessity.

If you use language such as the above, or if you scream, "but schools and mosques", without also noting how those schools and mosques were being used by Hamas, you are projecting a false reality. And thus, incorrect.

 

[pknopp]

The implication is that Israel intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure that neither contained military objectives embedded within it nor was being used as part of the military operations nor was of military necessity.

If you use language such as the above, or if you scream, "but schools and mosques", without also noting how those schools and mosques were being used by Hamas, you are projecting a false reality. And thus, incorrpuss?

So what i said was correct.

 

[Shusha]

So what i said was correct.

No, what you said was a lie of omission deliberately crafted to present a false reality in order to color Israel as malicious.

 

[pknopp]

No, what you said was a lie of omission deliberately crafted to present a false reality in order to color Israel as malicious.

The reality is the area is completely destroyed.

 

[Shusha]

The reality is the area is completely destroyed.

And the reality is that the responsibility for the destruction rests with Hamas. Neglecting to mention that is the lie of omission.

 

[Shusha]

pknopp

Yeah, I see you disagree. Support your claim, then. Does Hamas bear no responsibility for 700km of tunnels; 7000 tunnel entrances; IEDs in civilian structures; booby-trapped civilian structures; weapons caches in children's bedrooms; commander centers under hospitals; using hospitals to hold hostages, interrogate "traitors" and move militia? Does Hamas bear no responsibility for failing to wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from the civilian population? Does Hamas bear no responsibility for fighting from civilian buildings and other protected places?

 

[pknopp]

pknopp

Yeah, I see you disagree. Support your claim, then. Does Hamas bear no responsibility for 700km of tunnels; 7000 tunnel entrances; IEDs in civilian structures; booby-trapped civilian structures; weapons caches in children's bedrooms; commander centers under hospitals; using hospitals to hold hostages, interrogate "traitors" and move militia? Does Hamas bear no responsibility for failing to wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from the civilian population? Does Hamas bear no responsibility for fighting from civilian buildings and other protected places?

I made a simple statement. Its destroyed. You want to make it a bigger issue. I was simply making a factual statement.