Israel declares war on Hamas

[zunie75]

Originally Posted by blankall

You may not think it's enough, but contrary to implications here, Israel isn't doing everything in their power to take Hamas in a way that 's most beneficial to them. That would have involved carpet bombing the Gaza Strip on day 1. There would be hundreds of thousands of dead Gazans instead of 10s of thousands. And before anyone asks if that's "right", with the way Hamas is set up in Gaza, it's not possible to take them out without some civilian losses.

It's a question of balance and whether Israel is doing enough to protect Gazans and accomplish military goals that will ensure the safety of their own citizens. I would agree that Israel could do more. Are they doing so little to protect Gazan lives that it amounts to genocide, I would say no.

I agree, what's happening isn't genocide. That has been thrown around a lot and the definition twisted. But like you mentioned, Israel has to do better in protecting civilian life and ensuring aid is given.

Other wise they should receive no military aid, support or funding from the rest of the world. If they want to proceed like a unchecked militia, then go ahead but do it on your own and don't cry when the world continues to protest and call you out.

Side question that maybe some posters here can shed light on. If Israel knows that for instance Hamas is operating in tunnels under hospitals etc., how long has this been known and are more covert operations not being pursued? or is bombing the only option? What ever came from that other hospital being bombed, the one where Israel was first blamed but then said it was not them?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem is that the "surgical strikes" are what got Israel to this point.

There's also no way to get to the leaders any other way.

Someone such as yourself who has been happy to “educate” others on the issues surrounding this conflict should know that neither of these statements are remotely fact-based.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zunie75

I agree, what's happening isn't genocide. That has been thrown around a lot and the definition twisted.

How do you feel the definition has been twisted?

Mokhiber, an international human rights lawyer, had been with the UN since 1992 and worked previously as a human rights adviser in Afghanistan and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Q&A: Former UN official Craig Mokhiber on Gaza, Israel and genocide.

Mokhiber, an international human rights lawyer, had been with the UN since 1992 and worked previously as a human rights adviser in Afghanistan and the occupied Palestinian territories....

.... Al Jazeera: Why did you come to conclusion that the situation in Gaza amounts to a genocide?

Craig Mohkiber: Usually the most difficult part of proving genocide is intent because there has to be an intention to destroy in whole, or in part, a particular group. In this case, the intent by Israeli leaders has been so explicitly stated and publicly stated – by the prime minister, by the president, by senior cabinet ministers, by military leaders – that that is an easy case to make. It’s on the public record.

It’s important that we start using the language that the law sets out, just as you know, in recent times, every major international human rights organisation, Israeli human rights organisations, Palestinian human rights organisations, United Nations human rights mechanisms, independent mechanisms have found that the situation in Israel Palestine amounts to the crime of apartheid.

Al Jazeera: When we asked the secretary-general and his office about genocide, he won’t use that term. He says a previous secretary-general said that that is for courts to decide. Do you think that the secretary-general should start using the term ‘genocide’ when it comes to what we’re seeing in Gaza?

Mokhiber: If we can allege that we see war crimes, crimes against humanity, as we have often done, there’s no reason to exclude, where we see very strong evidence, the possibility of genocide being committed, and I think you’re going to be hearing that term more and more in connection with what we’re witnessing in Gaza.

But institutions, of course, have to go through the necessary steps before they can make that pronouncement. As of today, I am an independent citizen, not carrying the institution on my shoulders. And I feel quite confident as a human rights lawyer in saying that what I see unfolding in Gaza and beyond is genocide.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2...a-and-genocide

[Harry Lime]

The recent attacks by Azerbaijan (partially as a proxy for Turkey) on Armenia leading to the draining of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh... a lot of parallels with what is happening in Gaza, with the exception that the Armenians were not attacking Azerbaijan, at all. That is a straight up ethnic cleansing.

Why so concerned with the Israel conflict, but this other one from way back..... in September.... doesn't get as much as a sniff.

[WCW Nitro]

If Israel is only targetting Hamas, why have hundreds died in the West Bank where currently Israeli forces are either doing the killing or letting settlers do the killing and where there is no Hamas? But let's assume for a moment and believe the ridiculous notion that before every bomb Israel drops they make sure at least one Hamas member is there or there are "rockets". Since military service is compulsory in Israel, does that now make any gathering in Israel where people of a certain age are gathered a legitimate target and can be seen as soldiers being around civilians? Or if an Israeli soldier is being treated in a hospital, is that now a legit target? Once you open the Pandora's box of as long as soldiers are in a place it is a legit target, you open up a lot of places as being valid targets. To say nothing of if "rockets" can be stored in a school classroom , they probably aren't a huge threat.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Bagor

How do you feel the definition has been twisted?


https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2...a-and-genocide

https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...ddle-east/amp/

It is not a genocide, the displacements of people due to war and the death of civilians does not show intent. If Israel was committing genocide why would they be protecting citizens who are attempting to walk from the north to the south? Seems like a poor way to commit genocide. There are actual proper ways to criticize Israel without inappropriately citing it as a genocide. You using Al Jazaeera which then quotes an organization that is incredibly anti-Israel is also laughable. Here is an actual balanced take on the matter that you will arrogantly shrug off. You are incapable of having a balanced discussion on this because you are so full of it no one can change your world view. But I guess you know more than an actual leading professor on the subject. It still is not a genocide no matter how much you wanna scream it.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Beninho

It still is not a genocide no matter how much you wanna scream it.

Not to you it isn't given you've already demonstrated right from the get go stage 4 of the 10 stages of genocide and you're now flying along at stage 10.

Not screaming nothing. Just posting the opinion of a human rights lawyer with over 30 years experience.
But, my bad for triggering you.

[Fl4me5]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

If Israel is only targetting Hamas, why have hundreds died in the West Bank where currently Israeli forces are either doing the killing or letting settlers do the killing and where there is no Hamas? But let's assume for a moment and believe the ridiculous notion that before every bomb Israel drops they make sure at least one Hamas member is there or there are "rockets". Since military service is compulsory in Israel, does that now make any gathering in Israel where people of a certain age are gathered a legitimate target and can be seen as soldiers being around civilians? Or if an Israeli soldier is being treated in a hospital, is that now a legit target? Once you open the Pandora's box of as long as soldiers are in a place it is a legit target, you open up a lot of places as being valid targets. To say nothing of if "rockets" can be stored in a school classroom , they probably aren't a huge threat.

You might want to check your facts on that one.

Furthermore, soldiers =/= terrorists. Unless you truly believe Hamas are freedom fighters in which case you are a lost cause.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But that would be ridiculous...

Of course, it would. Just as ridiculous as Hamas hiding in and shooting from the Bow Tower. But that was the analogy used. So, without really looking into who has started being an a-hole, would bombing that sports complex be a reasonable response in that ridiculous scenario? That’s a fair question in this context.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Beninho

https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...ddle-east/amp/

It is not a genocide, the displacements of people due to war and the death of civilians does not show intent. If Israel was committing genocide why would they be protecting citizens who are attempting to walk from the north to the south? Seems like a poor way to commit genocide. There are actual proper ways to criticize Israel without inappropriately citing it as a genocide.

The author argues the semantics of the use of the term genocide but does clearly describe the conditions under which a genocide may be take place or be identified.

"The convention prohibits certain acts committed with a specific “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The forbidden acts themselves include killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” imposing measures to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring their children to another group. So in order to commit genocide, one must commit one of those specific acts, and do so with the special intent outlined above."

Clearly Israel's actions in forcing Palestinians to flee to two locations "for their safety" and then attacking those positions seems to be indicative of an act of possible genocide. The exact same behavior took place in Bosnia/Serbia. Seems using the author's own checklist there is an argument of such atrocities.

You using Al Jazaeera which then quotes an organization that is incredibly anti-Israel is also laughable. Here is an actual balanced take on the matter that you will arrogantly shrug off. You are incapable of having a balanced discussion on this because you are so full of it no one can change your world view. It still is not a genocide no matter how much you wanna scream it.

What part of the disclaimer at the beginning of the article did you miss?

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

BY MAXIM PENSKY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 10/17/23

It's an OPINION piece by Pensky who is very much invested in one side of this debate. Yet you say it is an actual balanced take?

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Not to you it isn't given you've already demonstrated right from the get go stage 4 of the 10 stages of genocide and you're now flying along at stage 10.

Not screaming nothing. Just posting the opinion of a human rights lawyer with over 30 years experience.
But, my bad for triggering you.

Of course you did not read the article, again you quoting the UN and Al Jazeera is very standard for you. Both as anti-Israel as it gets. I’d rather trust a leading professor on the topic, than a damn UN lawyer.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The author argues the semantics of the use of the term genocide but does clearly describe the conditions under which a genocide may be take place or be identified.

"The convention prohibits certain acts committed with a specific “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The forbidden acts themselves include killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” imposing measures to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring their children to another group. So in order to commit genocide, one must commit one of those specific acts, and do so with the special intent outlined above."

Clearly Israel's actions in forcing Palestinians to flee to two locations "for their safety" and then attacking those positions seems to be indicative of an act of possible genocide. The exact same behavior took place in Bosnia/Serbia. Seems using the author's own checklist there is an argument of such atrocities.



What part of the disclaimer at the beginning of the article did you miss?

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

BY MAXIM PENSKY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 10/17/23

It's an OPINION piece by Pensky who is very much invested in one side of this debate. Yet you say it is an actual balanced take?

Edit: I don’t argue with anti-semites like yourself Lanny, why is he invested? He is an academic? You think he is Jewish tho huh? Hilarious. Zero point with arguing with a terrorist sympathizer in Bagor and an anti semite in Lanny. See you guys at the Hamas, i mean Free Palestine protest. Maybe they are giving out free al-Jazeera subscriptions for both of you

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The recent attacks by Azerbaijan (partially as a proxy for Turkey) on Armenia leading to the draining of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh... a lot of parallels with what is happening in Gaza, with the exception that the Armenians were not attacking Azerbaijan, at all. That is a straight up ethnic cleansing.

Why so concerned with the Israel conflict, but this other one from way back..... in September.... doesn't get as much as a sniff.

Far fewer deaths, though I agree people should be paying attention to what's going on there. Particularly since Europe is happy to keep buying gas from a country currently engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Interestingly, Israel is also a strong supporter of Azerbaijan's dictatorship. About 40% of Israel's oil comes from Azerbaijan while about 70% of Azerbaijan's heavy weapon supply in recent years has come from Israel.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Beninho

I don’t argue with anti-semites like yourself Lanny, why is he invested? He is an academic? You think he is Jewish tho huh? Hilarious. Zero point with arguing with a terrorist sympathizer in Bagor and an anti semite in Lanny. See you guys at the Hamas, i mean Free Palestine protest. Maybe they are giving out free al-Jazeera subscriptions for both of you

Quoting this so this person's consistent behaviors are well documented and they can't ghost edit something that is an offense worthy of banning.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Quoting this so this person's consistent behaviors are well documented and they can't ghost edit something that is an offense worthy of banning.

I don’t care Lanny, you are an anti-semite and got a 3 day ban for telling people they should not like jews because of my posts. Kiss my ass, you should have been perma banned

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Beninho

I don’t care Lanny, you are an anti-semite and got a 3 day ban for telling people they should not like jews because of my posts. Kiss my ass

Didn’t you also get a timeout? For… basically exactly what you’re doing now?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Edit: I don’t argue with anti-semites like yourself Lanny, why is he invested? He is an academic? You think he is Jewish tho huh? Hilarious. Zero point with arguing with a terrorist sympathizer in Bagor and an anti semite in Lanny. See you guys at the Hamas, i mean Free Palestine protest. Maybe they are giving out free al-Jazeera subscriptions for both of you

Please elaborate on this.

[zunie75]

Originally Posted by Bagor

How do you feel the definition has been twisted?


https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2...a-and-genocide

I feel its twisted because sources being used seem to be opinions open to interpretation. isn't the simplest definition, the destruction of a particular race or group? I would argue that is not the Israeli agenda. I would argue that they are deliberately aiming to displace Palestinians. But I would also accept that by doing so, they are killing them indiscriminately.

But what ever you or other feel, I'm sure we can all agree, this thread has become very toxic. Mods should shut it down for a bit perhaps.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Beninho

I don’t care Lanny, you are an anti-semite and got a 3 day ban for telling people they should not like jews because of my posts. Kiss my ass

Never said such a thing. I spoke to your behaviors and called you out on them, pointing out the damage your attitude and arguments could have on the feelings of others on this debate and the sides people are going to take. I've defended innocent Jews and Palestinians alike. Hamas needs to be eradicated but the state of Israel needs to be held accountable for their actions as well. Both sides are right in some regards, but both sides are so wrong. That doesn't make me an antisemite, it makes me someone who is concerned for innocent human life.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But that would be ridiculous. Tsuut'ina have all the rights and freedoms you and I have, PLUS they have additional land on which we're not welcome. Additionally, we are going way out of our way to atone for the mistakes of our great great grandparents (honestly, it's above and beyond on our part).

If we boxed them into a crappy section of land, were stealing their homes today (not hundreds of years ago) and fencing them off from freedom I would expect them to lash out whenever and however they could. We don't treat first nations people as sub-human and we work hard to continually understand their issues, improve relations, understand their perspective and right past wrongs. Israelis have literally the opposite approach with Palestinians. They are the hugest a-holes ever to the Palestinians.

The only difference between what we did to the Tsuut'ina and what Israel are doing to Gaza is time and abject surrender, we did take all the good land, we did box them into a tiny crappy bit of land we didnt see any value in, we took away all of their rights, we stole their children, for most of Canada's history our natives had no rights to vote, to own property, we did everything and more Israel does, we even destroyed native culture and language, banned their religion.

The difference? we did it so brutally and completely that our natives surrendered utterly and so eventually From THE 1970'S OR SO we finally decided to be nice to them, this is Palestine's sadly inevitable future, and to be clear it is sad and also inevitable, in time they will give up and 50 or 100 years after that Israeli's will trust that surrender and start to treat Palestinians the way treat our natives, giving them rights and feeling a bit guilty but still keeping all of the wealth we stole from them, in a hundred years time when you attend a soccer game in Tel Aviv they may also repeat 'we give thanks to the Palestinian peoples who unseeded territory this game is played on'