Middle East Conflict | Netanyahu orders strikes on Gaza (p1161)

Prestwich_Blue said:
Instead of the typical frothing at the mouth emotional reaction on this subject feel free to give the facts that prove me wrong. As I said, the birth rate in 2024, when the war was at its height, was still 28 per thousand from publicly available figures.

And to answer your last point, the term 'genocide' was coined after World War 2 which saw the wholesale murder of 6m Jews and others simply for who they were. The current situation in Gaza is a war, ironically against an enemy that clearly wants to repeat the events of 1939-1945.
Click to expand...
Lemkin was writing not after but during the War. By then it was estimated that nearly two million Jews had already died, but he didn't see genocide as just meaning extermination, and he wanted international law changing to deal with genocidal practices.

"Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation... It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves". He includes "the confiscation of property of nationals of an occupied area on the ground that they left the country" - which may not simply be a deprivation of property rights but (as by the Germans against Poles, Jews or Czechs) "to weaken the national entities". Israel has been depriving Arabs of their property since 1948. Lemkin also says genocide is the antithesis of the doctrine that war is directed against states and armed forces and not against populations. (That could apply to both October 7th and Gaza since.)

Thus the post-war legal definitions make genocide a crime without its needing a Holocaust to prove it.
 
Blue and true said:
But how many members of our armed forces, within living memory, have committed war crimes? Were innocent civilians indiscriminately killed in their thousands by British forces in Iraq? Afghanistan? Northern Ireland?
Click to expand...

Not by their thousands but the answer is yes. And I imagine if we were dealing with an actual war on the island of Great Britain against a hostile force then we'd certainly reach thousands.

Blue and true said:
The basic job of our armed forces is to defend, the clue is in the name; ministry of defence.
Click to expand...
It's a euphemism. The Ministry of Truth doesn't tell the truth either. Can you explain how flying halfway around the world and attacking Afghanistan could in any way be classified as a defensive role? It's not. Soldiers are and have always been a group of highly trained people whose primary role is to wield violence against others for the whims of the state. This isn't a moral judgement against them, it's a necessary job. But that IS their job.

Blue and true said:
And if we accept their job, and any job of a civilized army operating within legal boundaries, is to defend, then how do we reconcile killing children waiting for food with defence?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a civilised army operating within legal boundaries. Again, these are legal euphemisms designed to make war more palatable to people who would be outraged by such things, If you want to know how much the Geneva Convention is worth, look at how many states have breached it without punishment. It's a joke, a 20th century PR exercise. Nobody actually follows it as times get tougher.

Blue and true said:
It's lunacy to compare our armed forces with the IDF.
Click to expand...
Well yes because one of them is fighting a total war on their home soil with generations of atrocities committed and relentless propaganda, and the other invades random countries because the Americans tell them to.
 
dublinblue12 said:
That's not true. Israel cannot use nuclear or massive one-strike means because the world, including its strongest allies, would never accept that. Instead, the pattern shows a prolonged, systematic destruction of Palestinians through repeated bombings, siege, starvation, and infrastructure collapse, carried out incrementally to maintain political cover. That is how modern genocides often happen — drawn out, systematic, and under the cloak of security narratives — not through a single overnight act.
Click to expand...
You have no evidence to support this. You have no idea how the Americans would react, and considering that Israel has committed false flag attacks before and the Americans just went along with their story then I'd argue the scant evidence there is points more to my conclusion than yours.

But let's go back to the original premise of this argument, and it's that Israel couldn't do this because they're worried about international condemnation. Here's my question, on what planet are Israel acting like a nation who gives a single fuck about international condemnation?
 
Damocles said:
You have no evidence to support this. You have no idea how the Americans would react, and considering that Israel has committed false flag attacks before and the Americans just went along with their story then I'd argue the scant evidence there is points more to my conclusion than yours.

But let's go back to the original premise of this argument, and it's that Israel couldn't do this because they're worried about international condemnation. Here's my question, on what planet are Israel acting like a nation who gives a single fuck about international condemnation?
Click to expand...
It's a fair point, but it's like the accusation of ethnic cleansing - they are clearly talking about that as an option, but trying to paint a picture of regeneration and 'letting them back... Eventually'. As long as supporters tow the line and don't call it for what it is they will have the plausabile deniability and it will be too late and they will have got away with. The use of starvation of a weapon of war is the definition of genocide and they are already getting away with that because they have their aid camps that are designed to be ineffective . Dropping a nuke takes away the plausible deniability and no one could defend that.
 
From this week's Whitehouse shit show: two sentences that indicate what a sad world we're living in

"Now, people will say it's not a (Palestine) complete state, it's not a state. We don't care," Netanyahu said.

At the meeting, the Israeli PM also said he had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, reportedly a long-held goal of the US president.
 
I'm hearing now from Netanyahu that the solution in Gaza is through giving Palestinians the choice of a better future as non Palestinians in another country. The future of those who choose to remain in Gaza is by implication worse.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Oh look - Zionists want ........ errr....... a concentration camp !

www.theguardian.com

Israeli plan for forced transfer of Gaza’s population ‘a blueprint for crimes against humanity’

Military ordered to turn ruins of Rafah into ‘humanitarian city’ but experts call the plan an internment camp for all Palestinians in Gaza
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...


It's amazing. They're showing us what they're doing, and telling us what they're about to do, and if you call them out on it, we're the bad guys.

The people facilitating this need to be removed by any means necessary.
 
bluethrunthru said:
deny power, deny water, deny food - express a will to kill everyone - but its defence not genocide. I don't think they care any longer what the world sees them doing and thinks about them any more. No wonder Cypriots are are becoming unhappy with what is happening there

Click to expand...

The world is starting to see them in a brand new light. Despicable nation.
 
Damocles said:
You have no evidence to support this. You have no idea how the Americans would react, and considering that Israel has committed false flag attacks before and the Americans just went along with their story then I'd argue the scant evidence there is points more to my conclusion than yours.

But let's go back to the original premise of this argument, and it's that Israel couldn't do this because they're worried about international condemnation. Here's my question, on what planet are Israel acting like a nation who gives a single fuck about international condemnation?
Click to expand...
They can’t use a nuke as the land would be useless to them and at the end of the day that’s all this has been about, stealing more land.
 
Vic said:
Lemkin was writing not after but during the War. By then it was estimated that nearly two million Jews had already died, but he didn't see genocide as just meaning extermination, and he wanted international law changing to deal with genocidal practices.

"Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation... It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves". He includes "the confiscation of property of nationals of an occupied area on the ground that they left the country" - which may not simply be a deprivation of property rights but (as by the Germans against Poles, Jews or Czechs) "to weaken the national entities". Israel has been depriving Arabs of their property since 1948. Lemkin also says genocide is the antithesis of the doctrine that war is directed against states and armed forces and not against populations. (That could apply to both October 7th and Gaza since.)

Thus the post-war legal definitions make genocide a crime without its needing a Holocaust to prove it.
Click to expand...
A co- ordinated plan in 2025 to deprive the Palestinians of their homeland and dignity, aided and abetted by the USA we know there is a plan to control us if you can’t criticise Netanyahu and his government when Palestinians are being bombed and their homes bulldozed and sold as real estate.
The world is a dangerous place currently as we cannot criticise without be labelled anti-Semitic.
Most people deplore what is happening in Gaza we see people being killed everyday but the government still does nothing. There are no independent journalists allowed in Gaza the media is forbidden to witness what is taking place
bluethrunthru said:
The best form of defence is ....

news.sky.com

Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza

Speaking in a rare on-camera interview with Sky News, the soldier said the criteria of opening fire on civilians shifted depending on the commander.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Yes his story was on the news yesterday but his identity was hidden he’s afraid of being identified a brave man with a conscious.
 
BertM19 said:
Click to expand...


I don’t know where this poll will end up, as it seems to just be increasing every time it’s reported, but I have a feeling it’s one that will be used by historians when this conflict is discussed in 50 years.

The degree to which you have to be radicalised in order to think that babies and children dying in Gaza are not innocent is terrifying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top