Israel invaded

[fizz47]

Ah yes .. dictionary.com. The website that courts of justice rely on ..

Meanwhile in grown up land where the legal definition of genocide is set out clearly and relied on by the international community ( unless you are Israel as it’s anti-Semitic to even take them to court according to them):

According to article II of the Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

(a) Killing members of the group

(b) Causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group

(c) Intentionally subjecting the group to living conditions intended to cause its physical destruction, in whole or in part

(d) Imposing measures aimed at preventing the birth of children within the group

(e) Forcibly transferring children from the group to another group

There is no ‘number’ but rather intent …

The iDF in the countless videos alongside the immoral Israeli politicians have not hid their intent that Gaza should be destroyed along side its inhabitants.

[julian987R]

fizz47 said:

Ah yes .. dictionary.com. The website that courts of justice rely on ..

Meanwhile in grown up land where the legal definition of genocide is set out clearly and relied on by the international community ( unless you are Israel as it’s anti-Semitic to even take them to court according to them):

According to article II of the Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

(a) Killing members of the group

(b) Causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group

(c) Intentionally subjecting the group to living conditions intended to cause its physical destruction, in whole or in part

(d) Imposing measures aimed at preventing the birth of children within the group

(e) Forcibly transferring children from the group to another group

There is no ‘number’ but rather intent …

The iDF in the countless videos alongside the immoral Israeli politicians have not hid their intent that Gaza should be destroyed along side its inhabitants.

By ‘International Community’ , you mean Owen Jones and Whoopie Goldberg.

[youngsyr]

fizz47 said:

Ah yes .. dictionary.com. The website that courts of justice rely on ..

Meanwhile in grown up land where the legal definition of genocide is set out clearly and relied on by the international community ( unless you are Israel as it’s anti-Semitic to even take them to court according to them):

According to article II of the Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

(a) Killing members of the group

(b) Causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group

(c) Intentionally subjecting the group to living conditions intended to cause its physical destruction, in whole or in part

(d) Imposing measures aimed at preventing the birth of children within the group

(e) Forcibly transferring children from the group to another group

There is no ‘number’ but rather intent …

The iDF in the countless videos alongside the immoral Israeli politicians have not hid their intent that Gaza should be destroyed along side its inhabitants.

You fail to grasp that this definition includes any intentional harming of a single person of any group.

Convention said:

...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

(a) Killing members of the group

(b) Causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group

It's a nonsensical definition.

What people understand genocide to mean comes from it's very clear etymological roots:

it comes from Greek genos "race, kind" and cide a suffix for "a killing".

Even if it's intentional, killing 30,000 members out of a race of 2 million is not a genocide in common parlance.

[Electro1980]

a) Common parlance or entomology (which for many words is two different things anyway) has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the legal definition.

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Edited by Electro1980 on Tuesday 26th March 07:08

[fizz47]

A lovely Israeli govt minister …..

‘Palestinian people do not exist’

https://x.com/middleeasteye/status/177251644361718...

Remind me who voted for these ministers and politicians? People will still defend the indefensible the same way they defended apartheid, the same the will defend other atrocities that have occurred throughout history..

The hypocrisy and double standards shown again and again for those supporting this disgusting rhetoric ..

[isaldiri]

Electro1980 said:

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Before you edited my post just to snip out that bit as if I was suggesting or supporting removing all the palestinians, perhaps you might want to read it first fully with the post I was replying to before accusing me of your latter statement.......

[Electro1980]

Apologies, I accept you are not supporting it. It is the people you were replying to, who are supporting Israel’s actions that you are explaining who my statement should be aimed at.

[youngsyr]

Electro1980 said:

a) Common parlance or entomology (which for many words is two different things anyway) has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the legal definition.

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Edited by Electro1980 on Tuesday 26th March 07:08

The legal definition is nonsense:

Russia 's special action against Ukraine: genocide.

IRA's attacks on Northern Ireland: genocide.

Allies' invasion of Germany in WW2: genocide.

Allies invasion of Afghanistan: genocide.

The UN's definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

[NRS]

julian987R said:

soupdragon1 said:

Right at the beginning of the war I tried to highlight that picking a side in this war would make us look foolish, and here we are.

Hamas will be remembered for their brutality and Netanyahu as the head of an obvious genocide operation.

There is nowhere to go now for Netanyahu. He can't win this war without killing an entire populace. Even a temporary 'success' of killing most of Hamas doesn't get him anywhere. The hate will be as deep as it's ever been before, and that's saying a lot.

Revenge will be the goal for any Palestinians that remain, which should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.

So what's the endgame? Netanyahu has taken the Israeli people down a path of failure, both locally and globally. There is no victory to be had but to be honest, there never was. There was only ever a diplomatic compromise and that's been pushed so far away it seems impossible now.

So we're left with failure. History won't be kind to him.

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aNwywQ0_460s...

He helped get these fruitcakes into power as he thought it would split the Palestinians. Unfortunately like the US support of a certain Bin Laden it came back to bite him.

[soupdragon1]

youngsyr said:

Electro1980 said:

a) Common parlance or entomology (which for many words is two different things anyway) has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the legal definition.

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Edited by Electro1980 on Tuesday 26th March 07:08

The legal definition is nonsense:

Russia 's special action against Ukraine: genocide.

IRA's attacks on Northern Ireland: genocide.

Allies' invasion of Germany in WW2: genocide.

Allies invasion of Afghanistan: genocide.

The UN's definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

Think we're all dancing on the head of a pin here. Does the official label matter in the context of the overall discussion? We've a good idea of what's happening so putting an official label on it doesn't really matter, especially considering recent ceasefire votes and USA abstaining.

[Electro1980]

youngsyr said:

Electro1980 said:

a) Common parlance or entomology (which for many words is two different things anyway) has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the legal definition.

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Edited by Electro1980 on Tuesday 26th March 07:08

The legal definition is nonsense:

Russia 's special action against Ukraine: genocide.

IRA's attacks on Northern Ireland: genocide.

Allies' invasion of Germany in WW2: genocide.

Allies invasion of Afghanistan: genocide.

The UN's definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

a) you are wrong about all but one of those.
b) that doesn’t change the fact that it is the definition that is being used in international law, which is all that matters when judging if a country has broken international law.

[Jinx]

Electro1980 said:

a) you are wrong about all but one of those.
b) that doesn’t change the fact that it is the definition that is being used in international law, which is all that matters when judging if a country has broken international law.

International law is pretty meaningless to any country that wishes to ignore it.

[youngsyr]

Electro1980 said:

youngsyr said:

Electro1980 said:

a) Common parlance or entomology (which for many words is two different things anyway) has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the legal definition.

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Edited by Electro1980 on Tuesday 26th March 07:08

The legal definition is nonsense:

Russia 's special action against Ukraine: genocide.

IRA's attacks on Northern Ireland: genocide.

Allies' invasion of Germany in WW2: genocide.

Allies invasion of Afghanistan: genocide.

The UN's definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

a) you are wrong about all but one of those.
b) that doesn’t change the fact that it is the definition that is being used in international law, which is all that matters when judging if a country has broken international law.

a) telling someone they are wrong in part of their argument without any further explanation is just a more contrived way of avoiding their argument.

b) accepting a law at face value and refusing to discuss its relevance and appropriateness is an extremely narrow-minded position to take.

[youngsyr]

soupdragon1 said:

youngsyr said:

Electro1980 said:

a) Common parlance or entomology (which for many words is two different things anyway) has nothing to do with it. The important thing is the legal definition.

b) the poster I was replying to wasn’t even talking about the current deaths, but about

isaldiri said:

Remove them all but whatever means

So, genocide. Being generous you could argue they are talking about genocide or ethnic cleaning, but that hardly improves matters. Either way we are talking about people supporting crimes against humanity.

Edited by Electro1980 on Tuesday 26th March 07:08

The legal definition is nonsense:

Russia 's special action against Ukraine: genocide.

IRA's attacks on Northern Ireland: genocide.

Allies' invasion of Germany in WW2: genocide.

Allies invasion of Afghanistan: genocide.

The UN's definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

Think we're all dancing on the head of a pin here. Does the official label matter in the context of the overall discussion? We've a good idea of what's happening so putting an official label on it doesn't really matter, especially considering recent ceasefire votes and USA abstaining.

The label is very important - it's a dog whistle label that is about a bad a crime as it's possible to commit, which is why certai people are keen to throw it at the Israelis.

It's especially powerful in this case because it is doubly harmful to Israelis- it accuses them of the worst crimes possible, whilst devaluing the horrific crimes their ancestors suffered (because apparently now even psychiatric harm against a handful of victims in a group is "genocide").

[julian987R]

More than 15,000 people have died and millions more have been displaced in the brutal war which has raged in Sudan for almost a year.

Children as young as ten are being handed automatic rifles along with orders to "kill 300 fighters", reports The Telegraph.

And nearly 18 million people - of a total population of 49 million - are facing acute hunger, with many dying of starvation and unable to receive aid due to the heavy fighting.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26576341/sudan-world...

Oh!! Hang on? This isn’t the fashionable war. The one that gets me likes in my echo chamber. Oh I see. Ok, well forgot the ‘genocide’ in Sudan then. #gazaisthenewblack

[JJJ.]

Douglas Quaid said:

Israel just want to kill all the Palestinians. Hostages are irrelevant at this point, on both sides. They just want to starve and shoot them all to death to have the entire territory.

Yes, absolutely. But not just in Gaza, the West Bank also which strangely gets little if any press coverage considering the Israeli army (and civilians) have killed c.400 Palestinians and in prisoned thousands.

[skwdenyer]

Jinx said:

Electro1980 said:

a) you are wrong about all but one of those.
b) that doesn’t change the fact that it is the definition that is being used in international law, which is all that matters when judging if a country has broken international law.

International law is pretty meaningless to any country that wishes to ignore it.

It isn’t meaningless if the Arab world uses it as a pretext for war.

It isn’t meaningless if a global wave of Palestinian terrorists start to wreak revenge upon Israel and its friends in the name of avenging genocide.

And it isn’t meaningless if our Govts continue to provide support arms and aid to Israel.

This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides. To the extent of calls for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (and the unusual acknowledgement of their existence) - see for instance https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-u...

It is hard to overstate the zealous hawkishness of many Israeli politicians - and (if we assume representative democracy is working) amongst a pretty large slice of the Israeli population. In fact, Israeli politics often seem little different to those of other dogmatically religious regimes such as Iran.

Israel and its surroundings seem, sadly, to be condemned to a Balkan future. Just imagine what would have happened had some of the former Yugoslav forces had had access to Israeli’s military might. In fact, how long before Israel’s actions in Gaza are compared to those of, say, the Serbs?

Walking back from the brink is critically important. But I’m not at all sure there’s much hope of that.

[julian987R]

skwdenyer said:

It isn’t meaningless if the Arab world uses it as a pretext for war.

It isn’t meaningless if a global wave of Palestinian terrorists start to wreak revenge upon Israel and its friends in the name of avenging genocide.

And it isn’t meaningless if our Govts continue to provide support arms and aid to Israel.

This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides. To the extent of calls for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (and the unusual acknowledgement of their existence) - see for instance https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-u...

It is hard to overstate the zealous hawkishness of many Israeli politicians - and (if we assume representative democracy is working) amongst a pretty large slice of the Israeli population. In fact, Israeli politics often seem little different to those of other dogmatically religious regimes such as Iran.

Israel and its surroundings seem, sadly, to be condemned to a Balkan future. Just imagine what would have happened had some of the former Yugoslav forces had had access to Israeli’s military might. In fact, how long before Israel’s actions in Gaza are compared to those of, say, the Serbs?

Walking back from the brink is critically important. But I’m not at all sure there’s much hope of that.

'This conflict has already brought out the worst on all sides' and goes on to zero in on Isreal and no mention of Hamas.

[XCP]

One tries to understand the Israeli attitude in the light of what happened to Jews 80 years ago. But this is ridiculous.

[youngsyr]

XCP said:

One tries to understand the Israeli attitude in the light of what happened to Jews 80 years ago. But this is ridiculous.

You should really try a little harder.

80 years ago a government vowed to wipe out their people and nearly succeeded. 6,000,000 of their women, children and men were murdered in the most horrific manors possible. The Jewish people were powerless to stop them.

The West knew exactly what was going on in the death camps and concentration camps 3 years before the end of the war, but did nothing to stop it.

The Israelis have then had to defend themselves agains Arab nations, who often team up against them and are intent on wiping them out for the past 75 years.

Seems like they've had enough of half measures and compromises and are putting their foot down to ensure that the most commitedly genocidal of their neighbours never attacks them again and if that means 30,000 of their civilians, who let the genocidal death cult members use their hospitals and schools as military bases, have to die, so be it.

Does that make it any clearer?