I’m not bringing up the causes , the reasons , the culpability, the past.
But on the basis of this incident alone , any country faced with the same threat would do the exact same thing as what Israel’s doing.
Hamas (and Hezbollah) have the same agenda , unsurprisingly , as Iran. That is the destruction of the State of Israel and to retake Jerusalem , not for the Palestinians , but to realize the Iranian version of Armageddon and see the return of the 12th Imam. In that sense, they are no different from the Evangelicals who want Jerusalem for the same reason.
This should be remembered by those who still have a problem making a distinction between Hamas and the cause of the Palestinians as a people.
3 Likes
You posted a video of a lawyer making a very bad argument, or at least one part of it was very bad. I responded to that. Everything else you’ve said is seperate.
There is a big difference between a group wanting to commit genocide and actually committing genocide. Morally the difference may seem insignificant but legally it is not. You cannot commit genocide without having the means to do so. Hamas do not have the means to commit genocide against Israel. As such Israel is not under an obligation to stop an attempted genocide by Hamas therefore the lawyer raising it as an argument for why Israel has to bomb Palestine is nonsense.
When she makes one nonsense argument it unfortunately makes me question whether anything she is saying should be taken seriously.
3 Likes
It’s precisely that obfuscation that I take umbrage with. The seizing of one particular point and using that to discredit the very valid points that she makes. I fail to see how an expert in international law offering push back to the narrative that is being created isn’t worthy simply because laymen don’t agree with it. So what then? Wait until they can acquire the material to make a dirty bomb? If they could they would so why make the distinction? I don’t discount what you’re saying but again, it’s a quibble about having the means to do so while the intention is very much there. Are people seriously waiting for the day when the means are available to them?
Arab nations aren’t taking in Palestinians. Why is that? One would assume they would but they’re not stupid. One would imagine that the diaspora once they leave and get into lands of veritable milk and honey that they would put aside the very things that they tried to get away from but they don’t, they seal themselves off in enclaves and still get caught up in the tribalism and bigotry of the Old World from which one has to draw the correlation that the ideology and intent of the civilian cannot be that far removed from Hamas in general. Anti Israel protests and celebration of what happened started breaking out even before Israel formulated a response, even before the fighting in Israel has ceased. How is that possible if these populations thousands of miles away, an extention of Palestinians around the world, didn’t have at least some reasoning in line with Hamas?
2 Likes
And it’s not far beyond the means of Hamas to do a biological/chemical warfare against Israel. Sure the iron dome can block 95% of the missile attacks , but it’s not 100%.
1 Like
On this , I don’t believe it’s wise to attribute intent of 2m Palestinians based on the activites of a vocal minority.
1 Like
Because she brought it up to say that Israel was under threat of genocide from Hamas/Palestine and that they were “obligated” to intervene. Her bringing that up as a reason for Israeli action is an attempt to shield Israeli actions from the extremely timid criticism raised by the BBC reporter. If I know she is lying about that aspect of the law - the one part of her response I can offer an educated response about - then why would I believe anything else she says? I don’t know about international law in regards to providing food and water, but I do know it in regards to what is and is not considered a genocide and she lied about it. An intentional lawyer would of course know this, so her lying about one thing that I know about makes me suspicious of the validity of the arguments she makes about the things I don’t.
So what then? Wait until they can acquire the material to make a dirty bomb? If they could they would so why make the distinction? I don’t discount what you’re saying but again, it’s a quibble about having the means to do so while the intention is very much there. Are people seriously waiting for the day when the means are available to them?
Again this is a different point. Hamas do not have these means. Genocide is a very tight legal term that cannot be attributed to intentions before actions are carried out. It can be a war crime, a crime against humanity etc… but it is not genocide. “If they could they would” is not the same as genocide or attempted genocide, much the same way as saying you are going to kill someone else is not attempted murder.
1 Like
So attempting to kill people in Gaza isn’t attempted genocide because the Palestinians do exist elsewhere ?
1 Like
I would normally agree but I think its substantially more than a vocal minority. More against than for, granted, but the percentage of celebrants and supporters is not on the order of magnitude less. Even some Arab commentators have been saying the same.
They are stuck in permanent refugee camps without citizenship rights in the host country and without passports to go anywhere else.
1 Like
The argument raised by the lawyer is that it is Hamas/Palestine committing genocide against Israel, just to be clear.
However no, it is possible to commit genocide against a group that exists elsewhere. Genocide can be localised to a geographic location. E.g. In Rwanda Hutu committed genocide against Tutsi - Tutsi also live in neighboring countries to Rwanda (I’m sure they live all over the world but I’m talking about significant numbers) but it was specifically Tutsi in Rwanda who were the victims of genocide. The fact other Tutsi lived in areas outside of the killing does not change that.
4 Likes
That makes it clear.
However moving away from the “attempted genocide” term that the lawyer used to attribute the actions of Hamas against Israelis , and rightfully so… Does that make the other points she’s made moot ?
I’m not saying it made them moot, I am saying that she was wrong to claim that Israel are obligated to intervene in Palestine under international law on genocide, so what else did she get wrong? I can’t make a judgement on that because I don’t know what the international laws are on providing food and water etc but I know it for genocide and she was wrong about it - in a way that I think was intentional - so that makes me doubt her on everything else too.
1 Like
I despair, really. So you’re not saying they’re moot but you doubt them as well. At what point does the obfuscation become deliberate and turn into deflection? I very specifically asked how about the higher moral obligation demanded on Western countries and of Israel, how this action would be/should be taken by them and more and we’re in an argument about genocide, intent or otherwise in an attempt to debunk someone who is pushing back against the narrative that has developed. I also mentioned the raw footage released and mentioned that the celebration of such violence came from within the Palestinian community both in Gaza and without. Then went on to say that the same viewpoint has been held even by Arab commentators. There was even an interview by an Arab journalist of someone in Hamas asking some very pointed and hard questions about what they thought would happen, clerics denouncing and questioning the outpouring of joy when they knew Israel would respond with a firestorm
But yeah, once again… crickets
1 Like
I’m amazed at the restraint Iran have shown. Iran haven’t invaded another country for hundreds of years. Yes, they have given proxy support to conflicts but nothing compared to America who have been constantly at war in multiple countries since 1776.
I find it astounding that people criticise Iran while the US are actively involved in providing military support to a genocide, right before our eyes
1 Like
This is the the worst take I’ve seen on this thread so far. Israel are preventing the civilian population from leaving, and slaughtering them. Preventing food, water, fuel, medical supplies. Blowing people to pieces and not allowing medication and pain relief. All with the support of EU, US and UK (both government and opposition). No one is doing anything meaningful to make them show any morality or restraint.
Where else in the world is anything close to this happening?
3 Likes
I made it very clear from the start that I was responding to one very narrow aspect of her response - that Israel was obligated to respond to Palestinian aggression in order to stop a genocide. The lawyer you posted gave this as an authority on international law. She was lying about Israeli obligations when she gave this response. I cannot say she lied about anything else therefore I cannot declare them moot - but I do have doubts and would like to see a second opinion on the other responses she gave.
I have not made any comment on morality - whether Western, Israeli or Palestinian.
I haven’t commented on any of the other sources you refer to (did you post them? I don’t see them) because they do not make legal arguments. I am specifically talking about the lawyer lying about international law on TV. It’s “crickets” on the other issues from me because I’m avoiding the moral argument to focus on the strict legal one being made on a broadcast to the world.
People deserve to know when they are being lied to. The lawyer is presented as an authority of international law but she is using that authority to lie about what the law says. I can’t tell the whole world about it because I do not have the platform but at the very least I can inform the rest of this forum that the argument that Israel is “obligated” (note, not morally but LEGALLY) to intervene in Palestine to avoid genocide is categorically false.
2 Likes
Having grown up in the shadow of collective guilt for Nazi war crimes, many German intellectuals seem almost to welcome an opportunity to atone for ancestral sins. The atonement, of course, will fall on the backs of Palestinian children.
1 Like
This is the Dean of Cornell Law School. I’m sure he’s biased and has no idea what he’s talking about.
1 Like