If Israel intends “genocide,” why did they evacuate 90% of Palestinians before heavy warfare began?

[Failzero]

How can you commit genocide if your operating in an Area half the size of Santa Monica

 

[rosends]

I'm sure your source, the Jewish Virtual Library, is totally fair and unbiased, but I thought an AI review of the entirety of the internet would offer a nice, concise, and balanced view.

What prompt did you use, and on what platform?

 

[cnm]

The Hamas charter states that their objective is the destruction of the Zionist state as Iran supplies them with millions of dollars a year to do just that.

Original Likud Party Platform​

​

'between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.'​

 

[cnm]

It doesn't matter who said what. The word, genocide, has a legal definition - an effort to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group - and if the action referred to does not fit that definition, it is not genocide. Clearly, what is happening in Gaza does not fit that definition of genocide, it is not a genocide.

Lucky thing we've got courts to decide those points, eh? Looks as though you could use a bit of clarity.

What the ICJ genocide ruling means for Israel and its Gaza war - NBC News​

26 Jan 2024
The International Court of Justice effectively ruled Friday that when it comes to accusations of genocide there is a case to be heard, and immediate action that Israel must take.​

 

[gipper]

It doesn't matter who said what. The word, genocide, has a legal definition - an effort to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group - and if the action referred to does not fit that definition, it is not genocide. Clearly, what is happening in Gaza does not fit that definition of genocide, it is not a genocide.

 

[cnm]

The Hamas charter states that their objective is the destruction of the Zionist state as Iran supplies them with millions of dollars a year to do just that.

Do you think we don't read or something?

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces​

7 Oct 2023
For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas...​

 

[gipper]

You should read up on it. Start here:
"In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees."

and in the meanwhile,

https://www.gov.il/en/departments/units/cutodian_unit

 

[rosends]

View attachment 1120372

Why is that a response to anything I wrote?

 

[rosends]

Lucky thing we've got courts to decide those points, eh? Looks as though you could use a bit of clarity.

What the ICJ genocide ruling means for Israel and its Gaza war - NBC News​

26 Jan 2024​

The International Court of Justice effectively ruled Friday that when it comes to accusations of genocide there is a case to be heard, and immediate action that Israel must take.​

You didn't read the ruling then. The ruling says Israel must do what it can to prevent a genocide, thus affirming that there is, as of yet, no genocide.

 

[alang1216]

What prompt did you use, and on what platform?

Google. No idea what search string.

 

[rosends]

Google. No idea what search string.

Ok, did you check the sources? Are they more reputable than what I posted? Or are they Wikipedia and jvp?

 

[alang1216]

Ok, did you check the sources? Are they more reputable than what I posted? Or are they Wikipedia and jvp?

Certainly no worse.

 

[toomuchtime_]

AI sees it a little differently:

AI Overview

No, Israel did not allow Palestinians to return to their homes and land after 1948. In fact, Israel actively prevented their return, which has been a major point of contention and a central issue in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Palestinian Displacement:
  Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, a large portion of the Palestinian population was displaced, either fleeing or being forced to leave their homes.
  
  
• Israel's Refusal:
  Israel refused to allow these Palestinians to return, citing concerns about maintaining a Jewish majority and the potential for a Palestinian majority within its borders.
  
  
• International Recognition:
  Despite Israel's position, the UN General Assembly repeatedly recognized the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
  
  
• Ongoing Dispute:
  The right of return is still a highly contested issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with Palestinians demanding their right to return while Israel continues to oppose it.

UN resolution 194 stated that those Arabs who had left Israel during the war should be allowed to return if they were willing to live in peace with the Jews. In 1949, Israel agreed and opened an office to process applications to return, but no one applied, presumably because doing so would recognize the jurisdiction of the new state of Israel.

Two years later, having received no response from the Arabs regarding its offer to allow those Arabs who would live in peace with the Jews to return, Israel passed new laws reorganizing land ownership and effectively closing the door on the Arabs' opportunity to return. Clearly, the Arabs were not willing to live in peace with the Jews, just as the so called Palestinians today are not ready to live in peace with the Jews and just as the members of the new religion of Islam in the seventh century were unwilling to live in peace with the Jews and the Arabs of every century since have been unwilling to live in peace with the Jews.

The Arab nations and the Palestinian Arabs intended the 1948 war to be a war of extermination, in their own words, in which they would massacre all the Jews, but the Arab nations and the Palestinian Arabs were defeated and fled. Yet in agreeing to UN 194, despite all the recent bloodshed, Israel offered to allow those Arabs willing to live in peace with the Jews to return, and the Arabs refused that offer, giving credence to Abba Eban's conclusion that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Clearly, the Arabs of the Nakba were not victims but simply failed aggressors.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Lucky thing we've got courts to decide those points, eh? Looks as though you could use a bit of clarity.

What the ICJ genocide ruling means for Israel and its Gaza war - NBC News​

26 Jan 2024​

The International Court of Justice effectively ruled Friday that when it comes to accusations of genocide there is a case to be heard, and immediate action that Israel must take.​

Try harder to tell the truth. The Court decided that steps should be taken to prevent a genocide from occurring, not that there was a genocide.

 

[cnm]

The ruling says Israel must do what it can to prevent a genocide, thus affirming that there is, as of yet, no genocide.

Jesus. What a fuckwit. As though affirming the plausibility of genocidal acts affirms there is no genocide.

Are you Israeli or something?

 

[cnm]

Try harder to tell the truth. The Court decided that steps should be taken to prevent a genocide from occurring, not that there was a genocide.

I love all the Zealots asserting that an accusation of genocide means there is no genocide.

I guess Good Germans will always be with us.

 

[rosends]

Jesus. What a fuckwit. As though affirming the plausibility of genocidal acts affirms there is no genocide.

Are you Israeli or something?

But that's not what it affirmed. Are you out of grade school? You realize that "prevent" means to stop something before it starts. As Israel is charged with PREVENTING then the act must not yet have happened.

 

[Shusha]

Jesus. What a fuckwit. As though affirming the plausibility of genocidal acts affirms there is no genocide.

Are you Israeli or something?

The Court has not adjudicated on the matter of whether or not Israel "plausibly" committed acts in violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Order of 26 January 2024 addresses whether South Africa plausibly had the right to seek compliance under the Convention and whether the people of Gaza plausibly have the right to protection under the Convention.

Excerpt:
54. In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.

The Order reads as follows (excerpt):
86. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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:

Since Israel, as a signatory to the Convention, was ALREADY obligated to prevent the commission of acts prohibited by the Convention, this Order does exactly nothing.

Again, the Court has NOT addressed the issue of whether or not acts were committed by Israel (or the government of Gaza, for that matter) which violate the Convention.

 

[Shusha]

from the separate Opinion of Judge Barak 24 May 2024 (emphasis mine), outlining some of the problems arising from the Court's handling of this case:

6. The first problem is that regulating the conduct of hostilities falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction, which is limited to the Genocide Convention. The Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with possible violations of international humanitarian law per se. Any measures indicated by the Court must be based on a plausible intent to commit genocide. If intent is not plausible, no measures can be ordered under the Genocide Convention. The Court’s reasoning today is far removed from the Genocide Convention and based primarily on humanitarian considerations. The plausibility analysis has gone from thin to essentially non-existent, and the central question of intent has completely disappeared. In short, the Court has accepted South Africa’s invitation to become the micromanager of an armed conflict and use the Genocide Convention as an excuse to rule on the basis of international humanitarian law. Managing an armed conflict under the Genocide Convention is a dangerous endeavour, especially when one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention
7. The second problem is that the Court is intervening in an armed conflict between Hamas and Israel, but only Israel is bound by its decisions. Hamas is not a party to these proceedings, and therefore the Court cannot direct orders at it. This creates a structural imbalance which is particularly acute in the case of provisional measures addressing the conduct of hostilities. The Court is confronted with the impossible task of squaring a circle. While the Court is powerless to change its Statute, it must take account of this imbalance in its reasoning. Unfortunately, it has failed to do so. The Court has failed to consider that the effective provision of humanitarian aid is not a one-way street; it requires the collaboration of other actors, including Hamas. In effect, part of today’s Order shields Hamas while imposing interim obligations on Israel.

9. There is little doubt that greater effort is needed to increase the delivery of aid. However, unlike the Security Council, the Court’s powers are limited under the Genocide Convention. In today’s Order, the Court has artificially linked the Genocide Convention to the provision and access of basic services and assistance, which are issues regulated by international humanitarian law. The thin line it walked in the Order of 26 January 2024 has now been crossed. The Court has not only failed to draw a strong link between the measures it has indicated and any plausible rights under the Genocide Convention, but has also disregarded that the other belligerent, Hamas, is not a party before the Court.

10. I worry about the turn that the Court is taking. Its approach to this case is steadily leaving the land of law and entering the land of politics. The ideas of a judge as a human being should not determine the opinions of a human being when he or she acts as a judge.

 

[Shusha]

Oops! Meant to include this as well:

Order 26 January 2024:

30. At the present stage of the proceedings, the Court is not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred. Such a finding could be made by the Court only at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case. As already noted (see paragraph 20 above), at the stage of making an order on a request for the indication of provisional measures, the Court’s task is to establish whether the acts and omissions complained of by the applicant appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Genocide Convention (cf. Allegations of  Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 222, para. 43). In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.