|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On August 28 2026 04:59 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its like putting 5000 innocent people in a prison with 5 criminals and then complaining that you can't flatten it with bombs because the criminals are using the innocents as human shields. Then bombing the shit out of it anyway.
And then saying "Well we didn't FORCE those 5 criminals to commit their crimes" as an excuse for killing the 5000 innocent people. The October 7th attacks and the killing, raping, and kidnapping must be freebies, because war in Gaza against Hamas would be unconscionable with the dense urban environment and predictable levels of civilian casualties. Hamas holds the trump card. Why pretend otherwise? This is a full-throated endorsement of the Hamas strategy. A bunch of Jews will die, and a bunch of Jockmcplops will say the civilian costs of counterattacking Hamas mean your hands are tied. He’s right though. A bunch of Jews die, then a bunch more Palestinians die and then the cycle repeats itself. And the decision makers on both sides are aware and willing to pay that price as long as it helps them. Do you think Israel’s bombing or Hamas is going to work? I don’t. The leaders, including the ones outside of Gaza and Israel all should be held accountable. So much pointless suffering. Whether they worked is a different question than whether Israel bears responsibility for the population density of the Gaza Strip. I say that his logic demands October 7th be a freebie in terms of not begetting a war in Gaza. What other way to interpret "those 5 criminals to commit their crimes." Jockmcplop wants the worst of both worlds, and you might notice the construction.
On August 28 2026 05:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 00:05 dyhb wrote:
If we just pretend that Ukraine is a super densely populated urban battlefield like the Gaza Strip, I'm sure all kinds of statistics are shocking. And also pretend that Zelensky deliberately conceals his military among and beneath civilian infrastructure, and threatens said human shields with gunfire should they try to leave.
But keep displaying the foolishness for all to see. Any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with Jankisa and not you? They've all weighed in on the Ukraine example and the similarities between Ukraine and Gaza?
|
United Kingdom10015 Posts
On August 28 2026 08:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 04:59 Billyboy wrote:On August 28 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its like putting 5000 innocent people in a prison with 5 criminals and then complaining that you can't flatten it with bombs because the criminals are using the innocents as human shields. Then bombing the shit out of it anyway.
And then saying "Well we didn't FORCE those 5 criminals to commit their crimes" as an excuse for killing the 5000 innocent people. The October 7th attacks and the killing, raping, and kidnapping must be freebies, because war in Gaza against Hamas would be unconscionable with the dense urban environment and predictable levels of civilian casualties. Hamas holds the trump card. Why pretend otherwise? This is a full-throated endorsement of the Hamas strategy. A bunch of Jews will die, and a bunch of Jockmcplops will say the civilian costs of counterattacking Hamas mean your hands are tied. He’s right though. A bunch of Jews die, then a bunch more Palestinians die and then the cycle repeats itself. And the decision makers on both sides are aware and willing to pay that price as long as it helps them. Do you think Israel’s bombing or Hamas is going to work? I don’t. The leaders, including the ones outside of Gaza and Israel all should be held accountable. So much pointless suffering. Whether they worked is a different question than whether Israel bears responsibility for the population density of the Gaza Strip. I say that his logic demands October 7th be a freebie in terms of not begetting a war in Gaza. What other way to interpret "those 5 criminals to commit their crimes." Jockmcplop wants the worst of both worlds, and you might notice the construction.
The way to interpret it is that collective punishment is morally wrong. The deliberate slaughter of innocents in revenge for crimes of the guilty. There is no case to be made for it.
You call it a 'freebie' but that isn't the point at all. The punishment is largely falling on the wrong people. YOu yourself say that Hamas don't care about the civilian population around them. So Israel isn't punishing Hamas by slaughtering kids, raping innocent prisoners etc.
Its just vengefully attempting to satisfy the ravenous, unquenchable bloodlust of its insane death cult of a government and its supporters.
|
On August 28 2026 09:16 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 08:56 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 04:59 Billyboy wrote:On August 28 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its like putting 5000 innocent people in a prison with 5 criminals and then complaining that you can't flatten it with bombs because the criminals are using the innocents as human shields. Then bombing the shit out of it anyway.
And then saying "Well we didn't FORCE those 5 criminals to commit their crimes" as an excuse for killing the 5000 innocent people. The October 7th attacks and the killing, raping, and kidnapping must be freebies, because war in Gaza against Hamas would be unconscionable with the dense urban environment and predictable levels of civilian casualties. Hamas holds the trump card. Why pretend otherwise? This is a full-throated endorsement of the Hamas strategy. A bunch of Jews will die, and a bunch of Jockmcplops will say the civilian costs of counterattacking Hamas mean your hands are tied. He’s right though. A bunch of Jews die, then a bunch more Palestinians die and then the cycle repeats itself. And the decision makers on both sides are aware and willing to pay that price as long as it helps them. Do you think Israel’s bombing or Hamas is going to work? I don’t. The leaders, including the ones outside of Gaza and Israel all should be held accountable. So much pointless suffering. Whether they worked is a different question than whether Israel bears responsibility for the population density of the Gaza Strip. I say that his logic demands October 7th be a freebie in terms of not begetting a war in Gaza. What other way to interpret "those 5 criminals to commit their crimes." Jockmcplop wants the worst of both worlds, and you might notice the construction. The way to interpret it is that collective punishment is morally wrong. The deliberate slaughter of innocents in revenge for crimes of the guilty. There is no case to be made for it. I don't think you can even have a real discussion of war if strikes are morally illegitimate in an urban environment. You're just saying Hamas can rape, murder, and kidnap 1400+, and Israel is powerless to respond with war in Gaza.
That's what the "5 criminals in 5000" tripe gets at.
But I appreciate that everybody dropped Ukraine the minute there was any pushback.
|
I didn’t read, they are powerless to respond. And there is a big difference between the pager attack and bombing some low level fighters camped out under a day care. Expecting zero civilians, which would be ideal, and the number that have. Not all the attacks have been war crimes but there has also been war crimes.
|
United Kingdom10015 Posts
On August 28 2026 09:28 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 09:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 08:56 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 04:59 Billyboy wrote:On August 28 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its like putting 5000 innocent people in a prison with 5 criminals and then complaining that you can't flatten it with bombs because the criminals are using the innocents as human shields. Then bombing the shit out of it anyway.
And then saying "Well we didn't FORCE those 5 criminals to commit their crimes" as an excuse for killing the 5000 innocent people. The October 7th attacks and the killing, raping, and kidnapping must be freebies, because war in Gaza against Hamas would be unconscionable with the dense urban environment and predictable levels of civilian casualties. Hamas holds the trump card. Why pretend otherwise? This is a full-throated endorsement of the Hamas strategy. A bunch of Jews will die, and a bunch of Jockmcplops will say the civilian costs of counterattacking Hamas mean your hands are tied. He’s right though. A bunch of Jews die, then a bunch more Palestinians die and then the cycle repeats itself. And the decision makers on both sides are aware and willing to pay that price as long as it helps them. Do you think Israel’s bombing or Hamas is going to work? I don’t. The leaders, including the ones outside of Gaza and Israel all should be held accountable. So much pointless suffering. Whether they worked is a different question than whether Israel bears responsibility for the population density of the Gaza Strip. I say that his logic demands October 7th be a freebie in terms of not begetting a war in Gaza. What other way to interpret "those 5 criminals to commit their crimes." Jockmcplop wants the worst of both worlds, and you might notice the construction. The way to interpret it is that collective punishment is morally wrong. The deliberate slaughter of innocents in revenge for crimes of the guilty. There is no case to be made for it. I don't think you can even have a real discussion of war if strikes are morally illegitimate in an urban environment. You're just saying Hamas can rape, murder, and kidnap 1400+, and Israel is powerless to respond with war in Gaza. That's what the "5 criminals in 5000" tripe gets at. But I appreciate that everybody dropped Ukraine the minute there was any pushback.
I never once mentioned Ukraine. I joined the conversation when you used the human shield argument.
You're just saying Hamas can rape, murder, and kidnap 1400+, and Israel is powerless to respond with war in Gaza.
No, I'm not, and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. If you're going to argue at least argue against the actual point I'm making.
Its about how the war in Gaza is conducted, how long it lasted, what the objectives were etc.
Using mass casualty weapons to absolutely destroy entire towns and neighbourhoods for years with the objective of exterminating the local population and radicalising the rest is blatantly the wrong way to conduct the war. The objective of war should not be further perpetual war.
|
|
|
On August 28 2026 08:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 05:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 28 2026 00:05 dyhb wrote:
If we just pretend that Ukraine is a super densely populated urban battlefield like the Gaza Strip, I'm sure all kinds of statistics are shocking. And also pretend that Zelensky deliberately conceals his military among and beneath civilian infrastructure, and threatens said human shields with gunfire should they try to leave.
But keep displaying the foolishness for all to see. Any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with Jankisa and not you? They've all weighed in on the Ukraine example and the similarities between Ukraine and Gaza?
I see, my apologies. So, outside of this little quibble that you have with the analogy that Jankisa chose, you agree with him and the experts? I did not know that. It's a bit weird given how you're now talking about it with Jock, but I am glad to learn new things about you.
|
On August 28 2026 09:35 Jockmcplop wrote:
Using mass casualty weapons to absolutely destroy entire towns and neighbourhoods for years with the objective of exterminating the local population and radicalising the rest is blatantly the wrong way to conduct the war. The objective of war should not be further perpetual war.
look at Israel's meandering borders since the day it was concieved. Look at every new iteration of Israel's borders since 1940-whatever.... Israel is made for conflict ... by design. Israel has been fighting virtually since day 1.
And, the thing is that is why Israel exists. Israel's purpose is to create more customers and more demand for expensive military hardware. it is working. Even factoring in inflation, the USA next year will spend more money on military that it did during the peak of WW2. Casualties are no where near as high as they were during WW2. The elite puppet masters who tell US presidents and other world leaders what to do are pretty happy with the result. Sky high military spending... and low casualties. on a per-capita basis, today's conflict mortality is dramatically lower than during the World Wars and many other periods of the 20th century.
Humans will always want military and war. So low casualties is the best possible outcome. Zero military conflict and zero casualties are only a dream.
So, relative to other eras in human history, we're doing ok. Relative to some dream world where no one ever dies during military conflict.. well the sky is falling.
Source of "Israel is always fighting"
+ Show Spoiler +Israel was founded in 1948 and immediately went to war. Since then there has been an unusually persistent sequence of wars, insurgencies, uprisings, terrorist attacks, occupations, border clashes and military operations.
A rough timeline explains why it feels continuous:
1948–49: Arab-Israeli War immediately after independence.
1956: Suez War against Egypt.
1967: Six-Day War against Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
1967–70: War of Attrition, principally with Egypt.
1973: Yom Kippur War against Egypt and Syria.
1982: Lebanon War.
1987–93: First Palestinian Intifada.
2000–05: Second Intifada.
2006: Lebanon War against Hezbollah.
2008 onward: repeated major rounds of warfare with Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza.
2023 onward: October 7 attack and Gaza war, followed by major fighting involving Hezbollah/Lebanon, Iran and other regional actors
|
On August 28 2026 09:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 09:28 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 09:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 08:56 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 04:59 Billyboy wrote:On August 28 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 03:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 28 2026 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its like putting 5000 innocent people in a prison with 5 criminals and then complaining that you can't flatten it with bombs because the criminals are using the innocents as human shields. Then bombing the shit out of it anyway.
And then saying "Well we didn't FORCE those 5 criminals to commit their crimes" as an excuse for killing the 5000 innocent people. The October 7th attacks and the killing, raping, and kidnapping must be freebies, because war in Gaza against Hamas would be unconscionable with the dense urban environment and predictable levels of civilian casualties. Hamas holds the trump card. Why pretend otherwise? This is a full-throated endorsement of the Hamas strategy. A bunch of Jews will die, and a bunch of Jockmcplops will say the civilian costs of counterattacking Hamas mean your hands are tied. He’s right though. A bunch of Jews die, then a bunch more Palestinians die and then the cycle repeats itself. And the decision makers on both sides are aware and willing to pay that price as long as it helps them. Do you think Israel’s bombing or Hamas is going to work? I don’t. The leaders, including the ones outside of Gaza and Israel all should be held accountable. So much pointless suffering. Whether they worked is a different question than whether Israel bears responsibility for the population density of the Gaza Strip. I say that his logic demands October 7th be a freebie in terms of not begetting a war in Gaza. What other way to interpret "those 5 criminals to commit their crimes." Jockmcplop wants the worst of both worlds, and you might notice the construction. The way to interpret it is that collective punishment is morally wrong. The deliberate slaughter of innocents in revenge for crimes of the guilty. There is no case to be made for it. I don't think you can even have a real discussion of war if strikes are morally illegitimate in an urban environment. You're just saying Hamas can rape, murder, and kidnap 1400+, and Israel is powerless to respond with war in Gaza. That's what the "5 criminals in 5000" tripe gets at. But I appreciate that everybody dropped Ukraine the minute there was any pushback. I never once mentioned Ukraine. I joined the conversation when you used the human shield argument. The author wrote it and immediately fled, and nobody joined him on it.
Show nested quote +
You're just saying Hamas can rape, murder, and kidnap 1400+, and Israel is powerless to respond with war in Gaza.
No, I'm not, and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. If you're going to argue at least argue against the actual point I'm making.
Because you're smart enough to know exactly what you're doing.
Its about how the war in Gaza is conducted, how long it lasted, what the objectives were etc.
Using mass casualty weapons to absolutely destroy entire towns and neighbourhoods for years with the objective of exterminating the local population and radicalising the rest is blatantly the wrong way to conduct the war. The objective of war should not be further perpetual war.
Suffice it to say that if I thought you were right in the premises I would agree that the conclusions follow. But I do believe you're very far off on every single word here.
|
Even Gaza says 1,300 killed since October. Over 10 months. (Printed this week.) That's just not genocide.
Gaza’s Ministry of Health said at least 1,288 Palestinians have been killed and 4,290 wounded since a US-brokered “ceasefire” came into effect in October.
At least 73,422 Palestinians have been killed since attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian groups in southern Israel resulted in about 1,200 people killed and 240 taken captive on October 7, 2023. That same day, Israel began its war on Gaza.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/26/israel-hamas-truce-failure-point-of-no-return-envoy-warns
|
On August 28 2026 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 08:56 dyhb wrote:On August 28 2026 05:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 28 2026 00:05 dyhb wrote:
If we just pretend that Ukraine is a super densely populated urban battlefield like the Gaza Strip, I'm sure all kinds of statistics are shocking. And also pretend that Zelensky deliberately conceals his military among and beneath civilian infrastructure, and threatens said human shields with gunfire should they try to leave.
But keep displaying the foolishness for all to see. Any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with Jankisa and not you? They've all weighed in on the Ukraine example and the similarities between Ukraine and Gaza? I see, my apologies. So, outside of this little quibble that you have with the analogy that Jankisa chose, you agree with him and the experts? I did not know that. It's a bit weird given how you're now talking about it with Jock, but I am glad to learn new things about you. I was unaware that making a direct comparison between (dissimilar) statistics was now just an analogy and a quibble. If he, and you, attached so little importance to it, I should have thought it not worth my time to make a topical reply.
|
On August 28 2026 05:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2026 00:05 dyhb wrote:
If we just pretend that Ukraine is a super densely populated urban battlefield like the Gaza Strip, I'm sure all kinds of statistics are shocking. And also pretend that Zelensky deliberately conceals his military among and beneath civilian infrastructure, and threatens said human shields with gunfire should they try to leave.
But keep displaying the foolishness for all to see. Any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with Jankisa and not you?
Well, only 28% of the International Association of Genocide Scholars voted on that poll. So the distinction here is:
Supported by 86% of voting IAGS members on that specific question = true.
Supported by 86% of IAGS members = false.
The vast majority of all genocide scholars worldwide support it = could be, but not demonstrated by a representative survey.
I guess I don't have to spam-post again the reasonings why Human Rights Organizations have a strong interest in this being a genocide or which data they used to come to that conclusion (just a quick refresher: data, that was silently corrected by the MoH).
Or how the key word "intent" is what - at least in all other cases that were classified genocide - made the distinction between crimes against humanity or war crimes and a genocide.
And so far, I have not seen that intent demonstrated convincingly, particularly when comparing the evidence with previous cases that have been legally classified as genocide (Notice: I am merely talking about the legal definition)
What matters is whether the perpetrator possessed the specific intent to physically destroy the protected group (or a substantial part of it).
So to me, the big question still is:
What evidence establishes that the Israeli government/military possessed the specific intent to physically destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group or a substantial part of it?
And then you have to distinguish between evidence that:
a. establishes intent to destroy Hamas,
b. establishes reckless/disproportionate disregard for Palestinian civilian life, and
c. actually establishes intent to physically destroy Palestinians in whole or substantial parts.
A lot of arguments about Gaza jump from A/B -> C without adequately demonstrating the transition.
People argue correctly that that specific intent can be inferred from a pattern of conduct; you don't need a signed document saying “destroy the Palestinians.” That's legally correct. The question is whether the inference is sufficiently strong.
I am really looking forward to the ICJ ruling (which will probably take a couple more years), but so far - with the evidence that we have at hand at this very moment - I don't expect it to rule this case a genocide.
Facts that we have at hand that speak against genocide:
- Israel has repeatedly facilitated substantial humanitarian aid into Gaza (yes, even taking into account the blockade where they wanted to starve out Hamas, which was in my opinion a war crime against the population aka collective punishment)
- Israel has facilitated medical evacuations of Palestinian patients out of Gaza
- Israel has provided medical supplies, vaccines, fuel and equipment to Palestinian hospitals
- Israel has issued evacuation warnings and established evacuation routes (probably the most extensive warnings ever conducted when a faction was attacked in that fashion)
- Israel has facilitated vaccination campaigns during the war
- Israel's stated war objective is explicitly Hamas, rather than Palestinians as an ethnic/national group
- There are numerous instances of targeted strikes, warnings, evacuations and arrests rather than simply indiscriminate destruction of everyone in an area
None of these facts proves that Israel did not possess genocidal intent. A state could, in principle, commit genocide while simultaneously providing some humanitarian assistance. And humanitarian measures can have explanations other than humanitarian intent. But that cuts both ways.
If genocidal intent is being inferred from the totality of the circumstances, then the totality has to include evidence that cuts against that inference as well.
So legally speaking, the totality of Israel's conduct contains substantial evidence inconsistent with an intent to physically destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group: Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid, medical treatment and evacuations, supported vaccination campaigns, allowed international medical organizations to operate, issued evacuation warnings and conducted at least some operations designed to distinguish civilians from combatants. These facts don't establish that Israel has not committed war crimes or that civilian deaths are lawful or justified, but they are relevant counter-evidence when inferring the specific intent required for genocide.
And, again, I am not claiming that there have been no individual acts or statements that could potentially constitute genocidal acts. I am talking specifically about whether the evidence currently demonstrates genocidal intent by the Israeli government as such, as required for a finding of genocide under the legal definition.
|
We can complement the IAGS with for example the dutch study in may 2025, where they interviewed top genocide scholars and they were all unanimous.
"Can I name someone whose work I respect who does not think it is genocide? No, there is no counterargument that takes into account all the evidence," Israeli researcher Raz Segal told NRC.
Professor Ugur Umit Ungor of the University of Amsterdam and NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies said that while there are certainly researchers who say it is not genocide, "I don't know them".
The Dutch paper reviewed 25 recent academic articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research, the field’s leading journal, and found that “all eight academics from the field of genocide studies see genocide or at least genocidal violence in Gaza”.
But you knew that already.
|
A review of 25 recent academic articles in the Journal of Genocide Research. How many different authors were those 25 articles written by? And how were those authors selected? Same question about those 7 experts.
That's relevant because this still isn't a representative survey of genocide scholars worldwide, which I think you tried to give the impression of. It's a survey of a relatively small, selected group of prominent academics and a review of literature in one particular journal.
Back then, I actually emailed some of these professors and scholars myself and asked them explicit legal questions about the Genocide Convention and the ICJ's jurisprudence. Some of the answers I received appeared to use a considerably broader, more morally based definition of genocide, while others didn't respond at all.
So I would be interested in knowing: when these scholars say “genocide”, are they actually making a claim about genocide in the specific legal sense under the Genocide Convention and the relevant international jurisprudence, or are some of them using genocide in a more and more en vogue broader moral/political sense?
Because those are not necessarily the same proposition. And this is why I keep coming back to the legal precedents.
Croatia v. Serbia... where he ICJ accepted that Serbian forces had committed acts constituting the actus reus of genocide - killings and serious physical/mental harm against Croats. But it did not find genocidal intent established. Why?
Because the Court examined whether the overall pattern of conduct demonstrated an intention to physically destroy a substantial part of the Croat population. It concluded that it did not.
The Court explicitly said that, absent direct evidence of genocidal intent, the pattern of conduct must be such that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference, which what I was trying to express with A/B -> C before.
The court basically said: Yes, terrible things happened. Yes, some of the underlying genocidal acts occurred. But that does not automatically establish the additional mental element of genocide.
Another useful example: Stakić. The ICTY dealt with more than 1,500 killings, mass killings in camps and villages, persecution, deportations and approximately 20,000 people being driven from their homes. Yet the Trial Chamber did not find the specific intent for genocide proven. It convicted him for crimes against humanity and other crimes instead.
That's important because it demonstrates that: Even extremely large-scale atrocities + persecution + killing + forced displacement do not automatically satisfy the genocide threshold.
The missing element was the specific intention to physically destroy the protected group.
Goaran Jelišić is even more striking. He personally committed murders and other atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. The Tribunal found the underlying criminal conduct established, but acquitted him of genocide because the prosecution had not proven the required genocidal intent beyond reasonable doubt. He was nevertheless convicted of 31 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Again: Horrific crimes do not automatically equate to genocide.
The critical question isn't therefore: “Did Israel do things that caused enormous Palestinian suffering?”
There is obviously abundant evidence that it did.
Nor is it: “Can some Israeli conduct be interpreted as consistent with genocidal intent?”
Almost any sufficiently destructive military campaign can potentially be interpreted that way.
The question needs to be about intent:
Does the totality of the evidence establish that the intention to physically destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group, or a substantial part thereof, is the only reasonable inference?
Previous jurisprudence demonstrates that even very large-scale killing and persecution can fall short of genocide when the specific intent to physically destroy the protected group has not been established.
I don't really want to engage in too much of a dog fight again so I am fine with leaving this as an argument of supposed authority versus establishing the rulings on genocide.
But I hope I made it clear that I simply analyzed the situation how I see it. And perhaps you won't be as surprised if the ICJ doesn't rule the way you expect it to do. I am unsure, but at the moment, I don't see the legal threshold being passed.
|
I am sorry that I was unable to convince you. See you next time then.
|
At this point, any ruling that ICC makes is absolutely tainted by the relentless campaign by Israel and US to discredit it, sanction its judges and attack it and them at every turn.
This "analysis" is weird, why would you go over cases which were not ruled Genocide but skip the one that started this thread back up where Mladić was convicted?
You go ahead and talk about every crime except the one that actually got a genocide conviction, and then go on to talk about intent, when the intent of Israeli generals and politicians has been very well documented.
Yoav Gallant (Former Defense Minister)
October 9, 2023: "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly."
Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister)
October 28, 2023 & November 2023 letter: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember."
Isaac Herzog (President)
October 13, 2023:"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d'état."
Itamar Ben-Gvir, (National security minister):
"It's no secret I disagree with the prime minister. I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night..."
And those are the prominent ones with cabinet positions, there are many, many much worse ones from Knesset members and other politicians and influential people form Israel.
|
If only Gallant knew that calling Hamas 'human animals' constituted intent to genocide. Hamas chopped off breasts and mutilated corpses. The whole of the Palestinian people are human animals and must be destroyed or exiled? Not the quote.
Remember Amalek is just ignorance of the Hebrew scriptures. The phrase appears on Holocaust remembrance sites such as The Hague.
The moral culpability of the Palestinian people for not violently revolting against the oppression of Hamas, and whether the civilian population knew about the planned atrocity beforehand is a potentially arguable point, though I'd say that the weapons and the alternative clans/gangs are also a good argument against. But, here again, you have an issue. Fuller quote + Show Spoiler +First of all we have to understand there’s a state, there’s a state, in a way, that has built a machine of evil, right on our doorstep. It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about, ‘civilians were not aware, not involved,’ it’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime, which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat, murdering their family members who were in Fatah.
Itamar Ben-Gvir (Smotrich same story) disagreed with the Prime Minister running the war, and both were kept out of the war cabinet making decisions on the war for that reason.
I've seen the cherry-picked quotes before. An attempt was made. The quality of the attempt is poor, not from lack of effort, but from the lack of results.
|
United Kingdom10015 Posts
On August 29 2026 02:56 dyhb wrote:
If only Gallant knew that calling Hamas 'human animals' constituted intent to genocide. Hamas chopped off breasts and mutilated corpses.
A point I've made before and will keep making is that it is no less brutal to bomb a family home leaving the child to slowly be crushed to death while staring at their dead parents for a couple of days.
Its just propaganda.
There is no civilized way to commit mass murder, whether you are Hamas or Israel.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
Nah it’s just totally grand to kill tens of thousands of civilians, nothing to see here…
|
On August 29 2026 03:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2026 02:56 dyhb wrote:
If only Gallant knew that calling Hamas 'human animals' constituted intent to genocide. Hamas chopped off breasts and mutilated corpses. A point I've made before and will keep making is that it is no less brutal to bomb a family home leaving the child to slowly be crushed to death while staring at their dead parents for a couple of days. Its just propaganda. There is no civilized way to commit mass murder, whether you are Hamas or Israel. You don’t have to make a difference between killing by gunshot with nothing more and mutilating the corpse’s genital area with sharp objects after death, but you certainly should not be so ignorant of people that do. Especially if you’re trying to determine the meaning of statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
