He was 10, but in photographs from his last days in Gaza, he looks both small for his age and at the same time ancient. By the next day, Yazan was dead.
The Battle of Tel Hai, which lead to those protests, is a part of the Franco-Syrian war, and not even considered a part of the intercommunal conflict by many.
Ie not related to the conflict we’re talking about.
In the wake of the protests, sheikhs of 82 villages around the city and Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the population, issued a document protesting the demonstrations against the Jews.
The leaders of the local Arab community protested the Arab Nationalists, despite the growing Zionism.
You just can’t admit to Israel bearing any part of the blame. I show you history of zionists bombing hundreds of people dead and you think linking a small protest that was barely violent somehow makes the currently ongoing genocide alright?
That kind of willfull ignorance is what enabled the holocaust.
And now you’re proudly displaying it.
It turns my stomach, literally.
You don’t understand that I am not saying “Israel started it”. I’m mocking you for not realising how childish going “but mooooom, he started it” is.
trying to unsuccessfully prove that it were the Jews
You didn’t read the last line of my previous comment?
Here:
You don’t understand that I am not saying “Israel started it”. I’m mocking you for not realising how childish going “but mooooom, he started it” is.
That being said, while the origins of the conflict are clearly multifaceted, the Zionists seem to have a bit more of a… presence in the history books than Palestinian nationalists. The rhetoric of “divine right” versus “but we fucking live here already”.
It’s extremely naive to think that if Hamas were to say “okay, you win, here are the hostages” that this clearly purposeful ethnic cleansing would just stop and all the hostilities would seize and that Hamas somehow had a way to enforce a seize-fire in the first place. You were saying “unironically, yeah, it would”. No, it clearly wouldn’t as we’ve just demonstrated just how far back the conflict goes.
Which, to remind you, is at least 50 years before Hamas was even founded.
“How extremely one-sided many of the arguments are”
You mean like… people saying that no matter what Hamas has done, it doesn’t excuse Israel committing genocide, perpetuating war crimes, breaking basic human rights? Because, that’s not “one-sided”, because no matter what Hamas has done, **genocide is inexcusable. **
So do you think Israel is guilty of breaking international laws and conventions?
The ICJ confirmed that it does have jurisdiction to hear the case submitted by South Africa and issued six emergency orders to Israel, as follows:
Israel must take all possible measures to prevent acts as outlined in Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. This entails not killing members of a particular group (in this case, Palestinians), not causing physical or psychological harm to members of that group, not inflicting living conditions which are calculated to bring about the end of the existence of a people, and not carrying out actions designed to prevent births within that group of people.
Measure approved by a vote of 15-2.
Israel must ensure its military does not carry out any of the above actions.
“It’s not a genocide, it’s just that our defense minister is yelling about ‘the extermination of human animals’, we’re bombing indiscriminately, having dropped more bombs in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year, killed over 12,300 CHILDREN, keep prisoners naked in cages outside, but it’s definitely just defense that we are entitled to.”
(sources for the rhetoric and stats on bombs and dead children and abuse of prisoners)
That’s what most Israeli’s sound like. And then you think that people are “one-sided” when they don’t agree with your “NO NO NO NOT A GENOCIDE” delusions?
If there’s no genocide, why did the ICJ order Israel to “do everything in it’s power” to prevent one? Yes, there are still steps before the final verdict can be issued, but pretending you don’t know it is a genocide is downright disgusting.
Despite committing war crimes, it is still their right to defend against terrorists.
Yeah, but not if it involves committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
Do you understand that no-one purposefully perpetuating a genocide would admit to doing so, obviously?
Even if you compare it to other accepted genocides, this one does not fit.
You haven’t though, and that is the point.
So let’s do it together, shall we?
Let’s compare.
What is the definition of a genocide?
A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
“Killing”, “Serious bodily harm” “mental harm”
The death toll in #Gaza has surpassed 30,000 — a large majority women and children. Over 70,000 Palestinians have been injured. >12,300 children dead. 17,000 without parents.
Deploring that surgeons have had no choice but to carry out amputations on children without anaesthesia, he said that medical teams have added a new acronym to their vocabulary: “WCNSF” — wounded child, no surviving family. The psychological injuries they suffered have led children as young as five to say they “would prefer to die”, he recalled, adding that — although his organization’s staff are scared and beyond exhausted — they choose to continue working despite increasing risks.
check, check and check
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Orphaned perhaps not close enough? Why force separation though, when the’re no-one to separate them from? But don’t worry, we got the actual separation also covered:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba.
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds.
And I think you’ll accept that’s not a source biased in favour of Palestine, eh?
That’s probably not good enough though, as it’s not from this year, right, so it doesn’t count that some Israeli were calling for “kill them all” in 2016?
So while the ICJ has yet to give a verdict to the actual genocide bit, they have given a verdict that the genocidal rhetoric and actions are definitely happening and Israel must do everything to stop it. If it wasn’t happening, that’s not a verdict they would give.
To pretend that it’s not happening because there’s yet to be an official verdict from the ICJ doesn’t mean that we can’t tell if there’s a genocide going on. Come on.
Honestly, what would it take for you to admit that it’s a genocide? And not even that. You’re saying I’m “randomly throwing around” the word, as if there’s zero indication of a genocide? The sheer willfull ignorance, it’s staggering.
The Battle of Tel Hai, which lead to those protests, is a part of the Franco-Syrian war, and not even considered a part of the intercommunal conflict by many.
Ie not related to the conflict we’re talking about.
In the wake of the protests, sheikhs of 82 villages around the city and Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the population, issued a document protesting the demonstrations against the Jews.
The leaders of the local Arab community protested the Arab Nationalists, despite the growing Zionism.
You just can’t admit to Israel bearing any part of the blame. I show you history of zionists bombing hundreds of people dead and you think linking a small protest that was barely violent somehow makes the currently ongoing genocide alright?
That kind of willfull ignorance is what enabled the holocaust.
And now you’re proudly displaying it.
It turns my stomach, literally.
You don’t understand that I am not saying “Israel started it”. I’m mocking you for not realising how childish going “but mooooom, he started it” is.
Removed by mod
You didn’t read the last line of my previous comment? Here:
That being said, while the origins of the conflict are clearly multifaceted, the Zionists seem to have a bit more of a… presence in the history books than Palestinian nationalists. The rhetoric of “divine right” versus “but we fucking live here already”.
It’s extremely naive to think that if Hamas were to say “okay, you win, here are the hostages” that this clearly purposeful ethnic cleansing would just stop and all the hostilities would seize and that Hamas somehow had a way to enforce a seize-fire in the first place. You were saying “unironically, yeah, it would”. No, it clearly wouldn’t as we’ve just demonstrated just how far back the conflict goes.
Which, to remind you, is at least 50 years before Hamas was even founded.
“How extremely one-sided many of the arguments are”
You mean like… people saying that no matter what Hamas has done, it doesn’t excuse Israel committing genocide, perpetuating war crimes, breaking basic human rights? Because, that’s not “one-sided”, because no matter what Hamas has done, **genocide is inexcusable. **
So do you think Israel is guilty of breaking international laws and conventions?
Removed by mod
Yeah, I knew it, you’re just a holocaust-denier. Ooh wait, no, wrong genocide. Or… was it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_and_the_Nakba
They have issued a ruling, actually.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/gaza-icj-ruling-offers-hope-protection-civilians-enduring-apocalyptic
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/26/what-has-the-icj-ordered-israel-to-do-on-gaza-war-and-whats-next
“It’s not a genocide, it’s just that our defense minister is yelling about ‘the extermination of human animals’, we’re bombing indiscriminately, having dropped more bombs in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year, killed over 12,300 CHILDREN, keep prisoners naked in cages outside, but it’s definitely just defense that we are entitled to.”
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against
https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-palestine-confilct-bombing-gaza-strip-hamas-united-states-isis-2023-10?r=US&IR=T
(sources for the rhetoric and stats on bombs and dead children and abuse of prisoners)
That’s what most Israeli’s sound like. And then you think that people are “one-sided” when they don’t agree with your “NO NO NO NOT A GENOCIDE” delusions?
If there’s no genocide, why did the ICJ order Israel to “do everything in it’s power” to prevent one? Yes, there are still steps before the final verdict can be issued, but pretending you don’t know it is a genocide is downright disgusting.
Yeah, but not if it involves committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
Do you understand that no-one purposefully perpetuating a genocide would admit to doing so, obviously?
Removed by mod
You haven’t though, and that is the point.
So let’s do it together, shall we?
Let’s compare.
What is the definition of a genocide?
“Killing”, “Serious bodily harm” “mental harm”
The death toll in #Gaza has surpassed 30,000 — a large majority women and children. Over 70,000 Palestinians have been injured. >12,300 children dead. 17,000 without parents.
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15600.doc.htm
check, check and check
Well Israel is deliberately blocking aid and even attacking aid convoys: https://palestine.un.org/en/259747-food-convoy-waiting-move-northern-gaza-was-hit-israeli-naval-gunfire
So, yeah, check.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/2/15/he-was-nameless-orphaned-children-lose-family-identity-in-gaza
Orphaned perhaps not close enough? Why force separation though, when the’re no-one to separate them from? But don’t worry, we got the actual separation also covered:
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001655
Intent? Hmm? Let’s see what the going rhetoric is around Israel these days.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/
And I think you’ll accept that’s not a source biased in favour of Palestine, eh?
How about the people?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/israeli-demonstrator-kill-them-all-sign/
Rating: True
That’s probably not good enough though, as it’s not from this year, right, so it doesn’t count that some Israeli were calling for “kill them all” in 2016?
What about
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/israeli-rabbi-calls-for-genocide-of-all-palestinians-in-gaza
So while the ICJ has yet to give a verdict to the actual genocide bit, they have given a verdict that the genocidal rhetoric and actions are definitely happening and Israel must do everything to stop it. If it wasn’t happening, that’s not a verdict they would give.
To pretend that it’s not happening because there’s yet to be an official verdict from the ICJ doesn’t mean that we can’t tell if there’s a genocide going on. Come on.
Honestly, what would it take for you to admit that it’s a genocide? And not even that. You’re saying I’m “randomly throwing around” the word, as if there’s zero indication of a genocide? The sheer willfull ignorance, it’s staggering.