Israel declares war on Hamas

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Southside403

Brave man
https://youtu.be/C2LUeAWlZOw?si=z2078pMn-EmQ8RGn

Indeed.
No doubt that will trigger and make the genocide defenders feel the need to defend their atrocities.

[Manhattanboy]

The views of a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada on the true perpetrators of genocide here:

https://flip.it/8cIvMO

“Hamas’s explicit and unapologetic goal is to eliminate Jews. The elimination of Jews is genocide. That is why Hamas murdered, raped, beheaded, kidnapped and tortured Jews on Oct. 7, 2023: to eliminate them, because they were Jews. It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide.

The end of the Second World War prevented Hitler from fully implementing his genocidal plan to eliminate Jews. And the world signed the Genocide Convention 75 years ago to make sure it never happened to anyone else. Now, we find ourselves in the perverse situation where a genocidal organization such as Hamas is able to escape legal scrutiny or sanction for committing genocidal acts, while the country that is the intended target of its genocidal intentions is being called upon by the International Court of Justice to defend itself from allegations of genocide.

This is an insult to what genocide means, an insult to the perception of the ability of international courts to retain their legitimacy and transcend global politics, and an insult to the memory of all of those on whose behalf the Genocide Convention was created.”

[Bagor]

Adds a credentials but conveniently omits that the opinion is a Jewish one. Such sneaky dishonesty.

Anyways, that's one weak argument.

Tldr: Israel should be exempt from charges of Genocide because they're Jewish and the Genocide act was set up after WWII to make sure the genocidal plan to eliminate Jews never happpe to anyone else.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Adds a credentials but conveniently omits that the opinion is a Jewish one.

Yup, right on time.

Dismiss her entire argument, along with her long list of credentials and experience as a leading Canadian jurist, because she is Jewish.

Incredible. But not unexpected.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Yup, right on time.

Dismiss her entire argument, along with her long list of credentials and experience as a leading Canadian jurist, because she is Jewish.

Incredible. But not unexpected.

Waa Waa.... Antisemitism card.

Her argument is that Israel should be exempt because it's Jewish.

I pointed that out but you of course try the antisemitism card.

[Manhattanboy]

Nm. Not engaging.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Yup, right on time.

Dismiss her entire argument, along with her long list of credentials and experience as a leading Canadian jurist, because she is Jewish.

Incredible. But not unexpected.

Is that a whole lot better than mocking the bravery of a healthcare worker in a warzone because he didn’t say what you wanted him to say?

[Bagor]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1743865744218358216

all in all he concludes that much like the violence against african-americans that followed slave revolts in the 19th century, the israeli vengeance against palestinians "won't be remembered fondly by anyone in the future". In fact he goes as far as saying that "when people think of israel in the past they thought of it as a refuge for the victims of the holocaust... Now they will think of it as the home of perpetrators of genocide. When they think of israel, they will think of burned buildings and dead babies. This is an image problem of a fundamental nature and from the point of view of israel it strips israel of its protection by charges of antisemitism against anyone who is critical of israel because to be critical of people who are carrying out genocide cannot be antisemitism, it cannot be considered immoral. Antisemitism is a despicable attitude but to oppose genocide by israel is not."

[_Q_]

I see this argument a lot from the pro-genocide crowd. Is Hamas' explicit goal really to kill all jews? If so, what makes you believe that's the case? Even if your argument is true, does that justify Israel's actions? Do you realize that Israel is currently killing Palestinian civilians indiscriminately and actually calling for the ethnic cleansing of an entire population?

[activeStick]

^ They will say that Israel is not killing Palestinian civilians indiscriminately, because the citizens are knowingly harbouring terrorists and so, are fair game. They will also say that officials coming out and saying their goal is to purge Gaza and actively promoting moving Palestinians to other countries and to never return to their homes is not ethnic cleansing (it'll be better for everyone!!).

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by activeStick

^ They will say that Israel is not killing Palestinian civilians indiscriminately, because the citizens are knowingly harbouring terrorists and so, are fair game. They will also say that officials coming out and saying their goal is to purge Gaza and actively promoting moving Palestinians to other countries and to never return to their homes is not ethnic cleansing (it'll be better for everyone!!).

It's such mind blowing cognitive dissonance.

There are literal videos out there of women and children waiving while flags and getting shot. There are videos of teenagers minding their own business getting gunned down. There are stories of civilians hiding in schools and hospitals being executed point blank. There are pictures of dead infants with multiple bullet wounds.

It's all pretty damning stuff. Anyone that believes that Israel is acting in a moral manner, give your head a shake. You're on the wrong side of history.

[Harry Lime]

I can hardly wait to see where this thread will go, now that it's the pro-genocide crowd vs. the pro-murder crowd.

[Red Slinger]

Good faith discussion in this thread is few and far between. It's mostly people taking a side and defending that side, usually by way of deflection and whataboutisms.

[Bagor]

"Says the guy that considers Palestinian civilians as the other side.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Good faith discussion in this thread is few and far between. It's mostly people taking a side and defending that side, usually by way of deflection and whataboutisms.

Yep, I have actively avoided it for a few weeks but figured I would give it a quick check. Discovered nothing has changed. I am done with this thread.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Bagor

"Says the guy that considers Palestinian civilians as the other side.

Exhibit A

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Exhibit A

I haven't been in here in forever.

Did he misrepresent you? Do you find the death toll of civilians unacceptable? If you do, does that mean you think Israel's tactics are not going far enough to protect civilians?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I haven't been in here in forever.

Did he misrepresent you? Do you find the death toll of civilians unacceptable? If you do, does that mean you think Israel's tactics are not going far enough to protect civilians?

Yes. You can search through the thread if you want.

But that's not really the point. Rather than addressing what I said with honesty he essentially says "I know you are but what am I". There's too much of that here as it drowns out those that want to participate in an honest conversation.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Yes. You can search through the thread if you want.

No I didn't.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

You are clearly not arguing in good faith. You want to paint one side as bad and the other as victims (as have others for both sides).

NO-ONE in this thread has tried to paint Hamas as victims yet you tried to imply they were.

That or you consider the civilians of Gaza to equate to Hamas. The one and same.

You were questioned on this for clarification but you disappeared.

But you just carry on with your self righteous lecturing about arguing in good faith.

[flylock shox]

A couple of comments re the above.

Former SCJ Abella's article is an interesting one less for what it says, and more for how it may demonstrate that even someone highly trained in legal analysis whose career basically involved looking at things dispassionately can have their judgment clouded by their apparent emotional/personal connection to this particular issue. Leaving aside her views on the merits of the genocide charge, this is a thin and poorly reasoned analysis. This bit in particular is nonsense: "It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide." It isn't a legal absurdity nor an absurdity of any other kind: a country can commit a genocide in response to a genocide.

Re the Bertrand tweet above, I think in the fullness of time the facts will come out about the IDF's actions on October 7th and they will likely show a significant proportion (by which I don't mean the majority) of the civilian casualties in Israel died as a result of the IDF's actions. I think this because the situation resolved so quickly - few reports of drawn out hostage situations or negotiations with terrorists occupying buildings, etc. The only way it could have ended so quickly to my mind would have been unfettered military force with reduced regard for civilian casualties. The reference to the Hannibal doctrine may be apt, but even if it wasn't strictly employed I have a hard time seeing how the situation could have ended so soon otherwise.

Hopefully inquiries and investigations eventually give us the full truth about this (and other major events in the conflict).