Israel vs Hamas (3 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Looks like the fight is on with Israeli soldiers and civilians amongst the dead already. Question becomes, how long before we get dragged into this?

Netanyahu says Israel is ‘at war’ after Hamas launches surprise attack, takes hostages | CNN

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the country was “at war” on Saturday, after Palestinian militants in Gaza fired a deadly barrage of rockets and sent gunmen into Israeli territory in a major escalation of the long running conflict between the two sides.

www.cnn.com

 

[MT15]

That doesn’t say what you say it does. Or rather what Snowden says it does. Why lie about it?

 

[coldseat]

Eh, there are a lot of things we can criticize, but the issue with the ICC isn't one of them. We aren't a part of and aren't subject to their authority. And the same for Israel. I don't agree with what Israel is doing, but I don't agree with validating anything the ICC is doing either.

We should have been part of the ICC. The US was largely responsible for its' creation and contributed a lot to its' initial laws, rules, regulations and operations. We had signed on to be part of it, but Clinton decided not to send it to the Senate and then Bush withdrew all together. Ultimately the people in power in this country didn't want to be constrained by rules we played a part in creating and didn't want to be accountable to any other authority but themselves.

 

[bird]

So

So what? We can do this all day.

 

[DaveXA]

We should have been part of the ICC. The US was largely responsible for its' creation and contributed a lot to its' initial laws, rules, regulations and operations. We had signed on to be part of it, but Clinton decided not to send it to the Senate and then Bush withdrew all together. Ultimately the people in power in this country didn't want to be constrained by rules we played a part in creating and didn't want to be accountable to any other authority but themselves.

Sure, I get all of that, but the fact remains that we're not a member and if you’re not a member, you aren't subject to its rules.

 

[Heathen]

Eh, there are a lot of things we can criticize, but the issue with the ICC isn't one of them.

Why not?

Do you disagree with the ICC's potential ruling against Netanyahu, or do you see it as an overstep of authority, or maybe another reason?

I think the tragedy in Gaza is a good example into why the court exists in the first place. You have a nation state - supported by the most powerful military in the world, committing genocide under the rule of Netanyahu. There is very little if zero chance that he will be prosecuted by his own nation. Similar to the situation with Putin.

Other primary instances were the examples of Yugoslavia and Rwandan genocides. Both were starkly different from the situation in Gaza at least in terms of how their legal systems reacted / how those situation unfolded, but the genocidal narrative and intent is undoubtedly similar.

I don't agree with what Israel is doing, but I don't agree with validating anything the ICC is doing either.

I guess I'm not sure what the ICC is doing other than what they've traditionally done.

 

[DaveXA]

Why not?

Do you disagree with the ICC's potential ruling against Netanyahu, or do you see it as an overstep of authority, or maybe another reason?

I don't necessarily disagree with their ruling, I just don't think it has any real consequence for Israel as they're not party to any agreements with the ICC that I'm aware. If you're not a member, then you aren't subject to their rulings.

I think the tragedy in Gaza is a good example into why the court exists in the first place. You have a nation state - supported by the most powerful military in the world, committing genocide under the rule of Netanyahu. There is very little if zero chance that he will be prosecuted by his own nation. Similar to the situation with Putin.

Sure, and the same issue with Russia. Putin ain't getting arrested. Neither is Bibi. They certainly should...but that's neither here or there.

Other primary instances were the examples of Yugoslavia and Rwandan genocides. Both were starkly different from the situation in Gaza at least in terms of how their legal systems reacted / how those situation unfolded, but the genocidal narrative and intent is undoubtedly similar.

What Israel is doing is clearly an overreaction but I'm hesitant to call it genocide at this point. Maybe history will judge it differently, but as terrible as it is, I don't think genocide is the appropriate term. But that's just semantics. I would say that Israel has committed war crimes and they need to be held accountable for attacks on civilians.

I guess I'm not sure what the ICC is doing other than what they've traditionally done.

I should have worded it differently, but it's less about what they're doing and whether what they're doing has any legitimate effect. I'm not seeing that with either the Russia or Israel situations.

 

[SaintForLife]

So what? We can do this all day.

You are the one who constantly has juvenile one word replies like So & And.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

We should have been part of the ICC. The US was largely responsible for its' creation and contributed a lot to its' initial laws, rules, regulations and operations. We had signed on to be part of it, but Clinton decided not to send it to the Senate and then Bush withdrew all together. Ultimately the people in power in this country didn't want to be constrained by rules we played a part in creating and didn't want to be accountable to any other authority but themselves.

Apparently, there are some constitutional issues that would bring our participation into question according to some.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

So while I support the peaceful protests going on, what's going on at Columbia is just wrong.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

...what's going on at Columbia is just wrong.

What happened at Columbia was criminal. That was just another example of these protesters doing more harm to their cause.

 

[bird]

You are the one who constantly has juvenile one word replies like So & And.

Nah. What is juvenile is your constant posting of claims that are at best possibly partially accurate and usually opinions by whackjobs like Glenn Greenwald.

 

[Heathen]

I don't necessarily disagree with their ruling, I just don't think it has any real consequence for Israel as they're not party to any agreements with the ICC that I'm aware. If you're not a member, then you aren't subject to their rulings.

Sure and that's understood, but it could certainly be yet another blow to their international and regional standing. It would likely exacerbate an increasingly precarious situation for Israel in which they face a faltering of diplomatic relations and more international isolation. Which of course, they deserve.

What Israel is doing is clearly an overreaction but I'm hesitant to call it genocide at this point. Maybe history will judge it differently, but as terrible as it is, I don't think genocide is the appropriate term. But that's just semantics. I would say that Israel has committed war crimes and they need to be held accountable for attacks on civilians.

I think it can certainly be argued for strongly, based on the definition of the term from the 1948 Genocide conventions in response to the horrors of WWII / The Holocaust - which to my understanding is:
"acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.."

I'm no legal scholar, but I think Israel's terrorism against the Palestinian people since last October can be reflected in such a way. Specifically around the 'intent to destroy a part of an ethnic/national group'.

At this point I do have my deep suspicions that Israel had knowledge of October 7th, and used it as a 'free pass' to do what they've done. No hard evidence on my side for that, admittedly, but look how horrifically they've treated Palestinians for the last 70 years and look at the ever shrinking map of Palestinian settlements as the years go by -- like water evaporating out of a dry pond...very telling.

 

[SaintForLife]

1. In public, Biden appears “tough” on Netanyahu, urging him not to “invade” Rafah and pressuring him to allow more “humanitarian aid” into Gaza.

2. But already the White House is preparing the ground to subvert its own messaging. It insists that Israel has offered an “extraordinarily generous” deal to Hamas – one that, Washington suggests, amounts to a ceasefire. It doesn’t. According to reports, the best Israel has offered is an undefined “period of sustained calm”. Even that promise can’t be trusted.

3. If Hamas accepts the “deal” and agrees to return some of the hostages, the bombing eases for a short while but the famine intensifies, justified by Israel’s determination for “total victory” against Hamas – something that is impossible to achieve. This will simply delay, for a matter of days or weeks, Israel’s move to step 5 below.

4. If, as seems more likely, Hamas rejects the “deal”, it will be painted as the intransigent party and blamed for seeking to continue the “war”. (Note: This was never a war. Only the West pretends either that you can be at war with a territory you’ve been occupying for decades, or that Hamas “started the war” with its October 7 attack when Israel has been blockading the enclave, creating despair and incremental malnutrition there, for 17 years.)

Last night US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken moved this script on by stating Hamas was “the only thing standing between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire… They have to decide and they have to decide quickly”.

5. The US will announce that Israel has devised a humanitarian plan that satisfies the conditions Biden laid down for an attack on Rafah to begin.

6. This will give the US, Europe and the region the pretext to stand back as Israel launches the long-awaited assault – an attack Biden has previously asserted would be a “red line”, leading to mass civilian casualties. All that will be forgotten.

7. As Middle East Eye reports, Israel is building a ring of checkpoints around Rafah. Netanyahu will suggest, falsely, that these guarantee its attack meets the conditions laid down in international humanitarian law. Women and children will be allowed out – if they can reach a checkpoint before Israel’s carpet bombing kills them along the way.

8. All men in Rafah, and any women and children who remain, will be treated as armed combatants. If they are not killed by the bombing or falling rubble, they will be either summarily executed or dragged off to Israel’s torture chambers. No one will mention that any Hamas fighters who were in Rafah were able to leave through the tunnels.

9. Rafah will be destroyed, leaving the entire strip in ruins, and the Israeli-induced famine will worsen. The West will throw up its hands, say Hamas brought this on Gaza, agonise over what to do, and press third countries – especially Arab countries – for a “humanitarian plan” that relocates the survivors out of Gaza.

10. The western media will continue describing Israel’s genocide in Gaza in purely humanitarian terms, as though this “disaster” was an act of God.

11. Under US pressure, the International Court of Justice, or World Court, will be in no hurry to issue a definitive ruling on whether South Africa’s case that Israel is committing a genocide – which it has already found “plausible” – is proved.

12. Whatever the World Court eventually decides, and it is almost impossible to imagine it won’t determine that Israel carried out a genocide, it will be too late. The western political and media class will have moved on, leaving it to the historians to decide what it all meant.

13. Meanwhile, Israel is already using the precedents it has created in Gaza, and its erosion of the long-established principles of international law, as the blueprint for the West Bank. Saying Hamas has not been completely routed in Gaza but is using this other Palestinian enclave as its base, Israel will gradually intensify the pressures on the West Bank with another blockade. Rinse and repeat.

That’s the likely plan. Our job is to do everything in our power to stop them making it a reality.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We should have been part of the ICC. The US was largely responsible for its' creation and contributed a lot to its' initial laws, rules, regulations and operations. We had signed on to be part of it, but Clinton decided not to send it to the Senate and then Bush withdrew all together. Ultimately the people in power in this country didn't want to be constrained by rules we played a part in creating and didn't want to be accountable to any other authority but themselves.

I agree completely. It was the ultimate "the rules are for thee, not for me" move by the US.

We championed it as necessary to prosecute war criminals and reassured other countries to trust that it wouldn't be able to be used abusively or corruptly...

...and then we said, "nah, we're not going to do that, because it will be used abusively and corruptly against us."

We did the exact opposite of what a genuine leader is supposed to do.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What Israel is doing is clearly an overreaction but I'm hesitant to call it genocide at this point. Maybe history will judge it differently, but as terrible as it is, I don't think genocide is the appropriate term.

Not saying you're wrong, just sharing some information and my perspective:

"According to Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:​

• 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
• [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

genocide

www.law.cornell.edu

As far as I know, except for the last two actions the Israeli government, military, and fascist settlers have been doing all those things to the Palestinians for a very long time. I think people mistakenly think genocide means an active attempt to kill everyone in a group.

Genocide is any action or inaction that is intended to kill any members of a group, just for being a member of that group. The number of people killed and how they are killed is not what determines if genocide is being committed or not.

Hamas has killed Israelis, just for being Israeli and/or Jewish. The Israeli government, Israeli military, and fascist Israeli settlers have intentionally killed Palestinians, just for being Palestinians. They are all guilty of genocide and I think it's absurdly depraved to try to rank any of them as worse than the others.

A person who intentionally killed one person is just as guilty of murder as a person who intentionally killed several people, no matter how they killed those people. No matter how much injustice, trauma and loss of loved ones the two of them suffered in their lives, it doesn't justify or minimize their guilt of having committed murder.

 

[MT15]

By that definition anyone who commits a single killing motivated by hate is committing genocide. I’m not sure it’s a great idea to broaden that - it absolutely dilutes the horror of actual genocide.

I’m not saying that isn’t how the UN is defining genocide, I am just saying I don’t think it’s wise to dilute the meaning of the word in that way.

 

[samiam5211]

The counter protestors at UCLA last night did more violence than any of the protests have caused since they started.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

At Brown, a Rare Agreement Between Administrators and Protesters​

Brown students took down their tents on campus after the university in Rhode Island agreed to discuss their demands for divestment from support for the Israeli military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/us/brown-divestment-deal.html