Israel v Hamas

[Spindle]

Everything your posting is about justifying Israel's actions, whether you realise it or not - you're literally demonstrating the point I made about tapping into insecurities about Islam to garner support for Israel. You are the case study.

I am concerned with the welfare of the side being slaughtered, starved and tortured - yes. To suggest my concern should be split equally when one side of this is very obviously bearing the overwhelming majority of the suffering is again, just silly.

Whatever insecurities exists amongst Israelis, however justified, does not make their conduct any more acceptable to me.

What is interesting is you recognise how a historically oppressed people might be 'a little aggressive', but you make absolutely none of the same concessions in discussing Hamas, whose evil you seem to think is just inherent.

Well done on pulling the attention away from the journos who commented on what Hamas did and how Gazans joined in and celebrated.

Well they're not f***ing laughing now are they.

 

[Spindle]

And I agree (really!).

But for the umpteenth time, what about the Palestinians killed, seriously injured, starved, humiliated, forced to flee and live in appalling makeshift shelters who had nothing to do with Hamas or Oct 7?

c.67,000 dead and only a few thousand being Hamas or Hamas affiliated. And that 67,000 is considered a conservative estimate. So at least 60,000 innocent people deliberately killed by the IDF. That is also genocide. How can it be anything else?

I will stop "bleating" about them when someone gives me a good reason to stop.

The reason is "they did it to themselves"

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It was just as it has been in Gaza. End of conversation. Bye.

Bye. Don't hurry back.

 

[Eagleman13]

It was genocide when we firebombed Dresden - thanks Bomber Harris.

It was genocide when they firebomed Coventry - thanks druggie Goering.

 

[beak]

Sowed the wind I believe was said but otherwise absolutely correct

I'm not old enough to actually remember, i'm pleased there is an old codger to get it right.

 

[ASCPFC]

It was genocide when we firebombed Dresden - thanks Bomber Harris.

Historians have proved categorically that casualty figures were grossly overstated for propaganda use. Not just historians from any particular "side" either. When people talk of hundreds of thousands dying in Dresden - they are actually still quoting Nazi propaganda. It became more of an emblem, almost a myth, rather than its reality. And probably shows how propaganda becomes accepted reality. There's a recent enough documentary which discusses it. And a couple of books.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Historians have proved categorically that casualty figures were grossly overstated for propaganda use. Not just historians from any particular "side" either. When people talk of hundreds of thousands dying in Dresden - they are actually still quoting Nazi propaganda. It became more of an emblem, almost a myth, rather than its reality. And probably shows how propaganda becomes accepted reality. There's a recent enough documentary which discusses it. And a couple of books.

It’s happening today in the USA!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So wars are now regarded as genocide?

Wars in which the Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified, is respected aren’t.

Israel are not respecting the Geneva Convention, in several ways, and are accused of genocide by the UN and hundreds of NGOs experienced in this field.

Yet you, and the other apologists, continue to insist they don’t have a case to answer.

 

[HKOwen]

And I agree (really!).

But for the umpteenth time, what about the Palestinians killed, seriously injured, starved, humiliated, forced to flee and live in appalling makeshift shelters who had nothing to do with Hamas or Oct 7?

c.67,000 dead and only a few thousand being Hamas or Hamas affiliated. And that 67,000 is considered a conservative estimate. So at least 60,000 innocent people deliberately killed by the IDF. That is also genocide. How can it be anything else?

I will stop "bleating" about them when someone gives me a good reason to stop.

Source of the numbers? One is too many but please stop quoting Hamas

 

[Penge Eagle]

Wars in which the Geneva Convention, which Israel ratified, is respected aren’t.

Israel are not respecting the Geneva Convention, in several ways, and are accused of genocide by the UN and hundreds of NGOs experienced in this field.

Yet you, and the other apologists, continue to insist they don’t have a case to answer.

Fake news. Israel has not violated several Geneva Conventions. It's irrelevant what politically motivated NGO's say and the UN is made up of multiple bodies. Only the ICJ's opinion matters and it has yet to rule. You're sounding like a Hamas apologist.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Fake news. Israel has not violated several Geneva Conventions. It's irrelevant what politically motivated NGO's say and the UN is made up of multiple bodies. Only the ICJ's opinion matters and it has yet to rule. You're sounding like a Hamas apologist.

Fake news? You sound like Trump, describing news as fake just because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Waiting for a formal verdict by the ICJ would take years! So suggesting that only their opinion matters is nonsense. It’s like proposing that a serial killer be allowed to roam free, continuing their killing unrestricted by others, until the Judge in their trial passes sentence.

I know you don’t respect my opinion, so maybe you might just have more time for Grok, the AI with a right wing bias. Even if AIs are only as good as their training and data sources they can access a lot more than any individual. This is just part of their summary, which seems pretty damning, factual and incontrovertible:-

“The Geneva Conventions (1949) are the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL), ratified by 196 states, including Israel in 1951. They establish rules to protect civilians, prisoners of war, and the wounded during armed conflicts and occupations. Israel is bound by all four Conventions, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs occupied territories and prohibits actions like transferring civilians into occupied land, collective punishment, and targeting civilians. Violations can constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories—occupied since 1967—have been scrutinized for decades. While Israel maintains it complies with IHL, arguing that territories like the West Bank were not sovereign before 1967 and that security needs justify measures, the overwhelming international consensus holds that Israel has breached the Conventions. This view is substantiated by rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), United Nations (UN) resolutions, reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW).”

So it’s Israel versus the overwhelming international consensus! Yet only a formal ICJ verdict matters? Maybe to you, and those others prepared to close their eyes to world opinion, but not to most. It has consequences that Israel will eventually come to regret.

 

[HKOwen]

Fake news. Israel has not violated several Geneva Conventions. It's irrelevant what politically motivated NGO's say and the UN is made up of multiple bodies. Only the ICJ's opinion matters and it has yet to rule. You're sounding like a Hamas apologist.

sounds like because he is

" Hundreds of NGOs" qualified to define a genocide, what absolute drivel

Your ICJ point is a pesky fact for the pro Hamas brigade

 

[ouzo]

I believe that its the definition of Genocide that is wrong and causes the problem. On the UN site they have the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Effectively they are saying that killing any one single individual could be considered as genocide, which is ridiculous. Any act against one of the prescribed groups is therefore considered genocide.

To my mind, genocide should be the act of trying to completely eliminate a group. In that context, I do not consider it to be genocide in Gaza. However, I do consider that there are war crimes that should be answered.

 

[HKOwen]

I believe that its the definition of Genocide that is wrong and causes the problem. On the UN site they have the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Effectively they are saying that killing any one single individual could be considered as genocide, which is ridiculous. Any act against one of the prescribed groups is therefore considered genocide.

To my mind, genocide should be the act of trying to completely eliminate a group. In that context, I do not consider it to be genocide in Gaza. However, I do consider that there are war crimes that should be answered.

That may well be the case , but the word genocide to the pro Hamas brigade is like catnip.

Worth noting Hamas' policy is genocide on all Israeli jews

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Fake news? You sound like Trump, describing news as fake just because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Waiting for a formal verdict by the ICJ would take years! So suggesting that only their opinion matters is nonsense. It’s like proposing that a serial killer be allowed to roam free, continuing their killing unrestricted by others, until the Judge in their trial passes sentence.

I know you don’t respect my opinion, so maybe you might just have more time for Grok, the AI with a right wing bias. Even if AIs are only as good as their training and data sources they can access a lot more than any individual. This is just part of their summary, which seems pretty damning, factual and incontrovertible:-

“The Geneva Conventions (1949) are the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL), ratified by 196 states, including Israel in 1951. They establish rules to protect civilians, prisoners of war, and the wounded during armed conflicts and occupations. Israel is bound by all four Conventions, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs occupied territories and prohibits actions like transferring civilians into occupied land, collective punishment, and targeting civilians. Violations can constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories—occupied since 1967—have been scrutinized for decades. While Israel maintains it complies with IHL, arguing that territories like the West Bank were not sovereign before 1967 and that security needs justify measures, the overwhelming international consensus holds that Israel has breached the Conventions. This view is substantiated by rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), United Nations (UN) resolutions, reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW).”

So it’s Israel versus the overwhelming international consensus! Yet only a formal ICJ verdict matters? Maybe to you, and those others prepared to close their eyes to world opinion, but not to most. It has consequences that Israel will eventually come to regret.

If a court decides something isn't that binding? It seems to be when you agree with the verdict since "they have all the facts".

 

[Penge Eagle]

I believe that its the definition of Genocide that is wrong and causes the problem. On the UN site they have the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Effectively they are saying that killing any one single individual could be considered as genocide, which is ridiculous. Any act against one of the prescribed groups is therefore considered genocide.

To my mind, genocide should be the act of trying to completely eliminate a group. In that context, I do not consider it to be genocide in Gaza. However, I do consider that there are war crimes that should be answered.

Agree, and it's not just about numbers either (as the anti-Israel lot keep banging on about) as the ICJ ruling comes down to intent which you state. Yes, defo war crimes on both sides.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Fake news? You sound like Trump, describing news as fake just because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Waiting for a formal verdict by the ICJ would take years! So suggesting that only their opinion matters is nonsense. It’s like proposing that a serial killer be allowed to roam free, continuing their killing unrestricted by others, until the Judge in their trial passes sentence.

I know you don’t respect my opinion, so maybe you might just have more time for Grok, the AI with a right wing bias. Even if AIs are only as good as their training and data sources they can access a lot more than any individual. This is just part of their summary, which seems pretty damning, factual and incontrovertible:-

“The Geneva Conventions (1949) are the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL), ratified by 196 states, including Israel in 1951. They establish rules to protect civilians, prisoners of war, and the wounded during armed conflicts and occupations. Israel is bound by all four Conventions, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs occupied territories and prohibits actions like transferring civilians into occupied land, collective punishment, and targeting civilians. Violations can constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories—occupied since 1967—have been scrutinized for decades. While Israel maintains it complies with IHL, arguing that territories like the West Bank were not sovereign before 1967 and that security needs justify measures, the overwhelming international consensus holds that Israel has breached the Conventions. This view is substantiated by rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), United Nations (UN) resolutions, reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW).”

So it’s Israel versus the overwhelming international consensus! Yet only a formal ICJ verdict matters? Maybe to you, and those others prepared to close their eyes to world opinion, but not to most. It has consequences that Israel will eventually come to regret.

"International consensus"? Legal judgements come from courts not opinion polls. It's pretty bad you think rights and justice should be decided by whoever shouts 'guilty' the loudest instead of actual law.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

"International consensus"? Legal judgements come from courts not opinion polls. It's pretty bad you think rights and justice should be decided by whoever shouts 'guilty' the loudest instead of actual law.

You suggested that it was only the view of the ICJ that matters.

That is very obviously untrue. There are many views that matter, Israel’s included. So though are all the highly respected international bodies, including the UN, who have expressed opinions.

We can argue about the precise technical meaning of words until the cows come home. That won’t stop opinions mattering, or save any lives.

It is the overwhelming opinion of many of the most prestigious organisations in the world that Israel has broken the Geneva Conventions. These are not opinion polls! We can discuss whether Hamas has done so separately. What they might have done doesn’t justify anyone else breaking them.

This matters! As much for the future reputation of Israel as anything else.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If a court decides something isn't that binding? It seems to be when you agree with the verdict since "they have all the facts".

A court will give the definitive legal ruling.

However the police won’t wait for that before they remand a suspect in custody.

Israel ignoring the views of those demanding they remand themselves will ultimately do them no good at all.

 

[Penge Eagle]

You suggested that it was only the view of the ICJ that matters.

That is very obviously untrue. There are many views that matter, Israel’s included. So though are all the highly respected international bodies, including the UN, who have expressed opinions.

We can argue about the precise technical meaning of words until the cows come home. That won’t stop opinions mattering, or save any lives.

It is the overwhelming opinion of many of the most prestigious organisations in the world that Israel has broken the Geneva Conventions. These are not opinion polls! We can discuss whether Hamas has done so separately. What they might have done doesn’t justify anyone else breaking them.

This matters! As much for the future reputation of Israel as anything else.

Whether you like it or not, the Geneva Conventions are only upheld through formal legal findings and the ICJ is the body to make those determinations. You obviously don't care about due process and want a mob to deliver justice. History tells us that never works well.