3 ms·

>I don't know how this point makes any logical sense to you, unless you're arguing in bad faith. Of course it makes sense. How can you argue that Israel is no

>I don't know how this point makes any logical sense to you, unless you're arguing in bad faith. Of course it makes sense. How can you argue that Israel is not going after Hamas if Israeli solders on the ground are battling Hamas and dying in those battles? That is literally going after Hamas. Why would they lose solders if their goal was total destruction? They could just nuke Gaza if that was their goal or simply continue to bomb it into smithereens. Why would they put their own soldiers in harm's way? >Jt's a genocide No, it is not. Lawyers for one side made an argument and lawyers for the other side made an argument but you are for some reason unable to engage with the substance of that argument >If you have any respect whatsoever for truth and reality, I urge you to watch or read the arguments presented before saying things like "you have to understand the facts". Yes, you have to understand facts. A very simple fact is that Israel left Gaza in 2005 and it's security worsened as a result it did not improve. Why? Because Hamas is an organization whose sole purpose is to destroy Israel and kill Israelis. That is why this war is going on right now, and you have to engage with this reality to have any hope of making any sense. https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-israel-attacks-again-and-again-until-its-destroyed/ https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-official-vows-to-re...

runarberg 3y ago
FWIW Israel did not denied the atrocities—nor any wrongdoings—at the trials. The only thing they have denied is the genocidal intent—specifically, the “special intent” required for the crime of genocide. Israels defense mostly revolves around lack of jurisdiction (which even the Brookings institution says is nonsense), that is the UN has no authority to rule over matters in Gaza, and that the atrocities committed by the IDF in GAZA—which they don’t deny—are justified (which they are demonstrably not). So basically the only real question for the court is whether Israel has the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. You probably don’t think so, but I, OP, the South African legal team, the Governments of Bangladesh, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, Brazil, Colombia, etc. and several human rights, NPO, and activist organizations all think that Israel does in fact intent to destroy Palestinians of Gaza as a group. But regardless of that, even if the court fails to prove that Israel has the intent to destroy Palestinians of Gaza as a group, then—as none of the atrocities are being denied—we are basically left with that there is some reasonable probability that these atrocities were committed by carelessness. As a human being, you must see that that is not OK, and not a defensible behavior.
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  "atrocities" is a loaded term. There is a war going on, war is brutal and in war civilians suffer and die, which is horrible and regrettable. But you can't look at this situation and treat it as if out of thin air, for no reason at all, Israel decided to just commit atrocities. No, what is happening is the following: Hamas is a 30,000 strong organization that has support of Iran which has as its main purpose and reason for existence, destruction of Israel and murder of Israelis. It has been firing thousands of rockets into Israel for 17 years and on October 7th they attacked, broke through border defenses and killed 1200 Israelis. And subsequently explicitly vowed to repeat this again and again. In this situation Israel simply has no choice but to fight this group to the death. That is the backdrop in which civilian deaths are happening. You cant just deny this backdrop or analyze the situation as if it doesn't exist. It's an actual war, a war between two parties. It's bizarre to say that in a war which involves two actors and which Israel did not start, that it bears 100% of responsiblity for civilian casualties. You can't ignore the fact that Hamas embeds itself in civilian population or that Hamas and Islamic Jihad fire rockets at Israel, a decent percentage of which misfire and subsequently fall on Palestinian civilians and injure or kill them. War is absolutely a horrible thing but you have to at least be willing to assign some of the responsibility for this war to Hamas, which actually started it on October 7th
  - runarberg 3y ago
    The only point I’ve made which you address here is that you object to me using the word atrocities and then go on justifying the conduct which I called atrocities. The rest is irrelevant to any point I’ve made so I’m gonna ignore it (at least here). Genocide is by agreement not justifiable. Article III of the Genocide convention makes it clear that genocide (a), incitement to commit genocide (c), attempt to commit genocide (d) and complicity in genocide (e) are all punishable crimes. The convention offers no exemption for these crimes, and therefor no justification. So if intent is found, any crimes committed against Israel prior to these atrocities (sorry, I don’t know a better word, so I’ll keep using it), then it is demonstrably false that the October 7th attacks were a justification for them. Because legally, they aren’t. If the court fails to find intent, then honestly you’ll just have to look at your humanity and see whether the same atrocities committed because of carelessness instead of intent, are then justifiable. Personally I think human lives are worth more.

runarberg 3y ago

FWIW Israel did not denied the atrocities—nor any wrongdoings—at the trials. The only thing they have denied is the genocidal intent—specifically, the “special intent” required for the crime of genocide. Israels defense mostly revolves around lack of jurisdiction (which even the Brookings institution says is nonsense), that is the UN has no authority to rule over matters in Gaza, and that the atrocities committed by the IDF in GAZA—which they don’t deny—are justified (which they are demonstrably not). So basically the only real question for the court is whether Israel has the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. You probably don’t think so, but I, OP, the South African legal team, the Governments of Bangladesh, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, Brazil, Colombia, etc. and several human rights, NPO, and activist organizations all think that Israel does in fact intent to destroy Palestinians of Gaza as a group. But regardless of that, even if the court fails to prove that Israel has the intent to destroy Palestinians of Gaza as a group, then—as none of the atrocities are being denied—we are basically left with that there is some reasonable probability that these atrocities were committed by carelessness. As a human being, you must see that that is not OK, and not a defensible behavior.

vasilipupkin 3y ago
"atrocities" is a loaded term. There is a war going on, war is brutal and in war civilians suffer and die, which is horrible and regrettable. But you can't look at this situation and treat it as if out of thin air, for no reason at all, Israel decided to just commit atrocities. No, what is happening is the following: Hamas is a 30,000 strong organization that has support of Iran which has as its main purpose and reason for existence, destruction of Israel and murder of Israelis. It has been firing thousands of rockets into Israel for 17 years and on October 7th they attacked, broke through border defenses and killed 1200 Israelis. And subsequently explicitly vowed to repeat this again and again. In this situation Israel simply has no choice but to fight this group to the death. That is the backdrop in which civilian deaths are happening. You cant just deny this backdrop or analyze the situation as if it doesn't exist. It's an actual war, a war between two parties. It's bizarre to say that in a war which involves two actors and which Israel did not start, that it bears 100% of responsiblity for civilian casualties. You can't ignore the fact that Hamas embeds itself in civilian population or that Hamas and Islamic Jihad fire rockets at Israel, a decent percentage of which misfire and subsequently fall on Palestinian civilians and injure or kill them. War is absolutely a horrible thing but you have to at least be willing to assign some of the responsibility for this war to Hamas, which actually started it on October 7th
- runarberg 3y ago
  The only point I’ve made which you address here is that you object to me using the word atrocities and then go on justifying the conduct which I called atrocities. The rest is irrelevant to any point I’ve made so I’m gonna ignore it (at least here). Genocide is by agreement not justifiable. Article III of the Genocide convention makes it clear that genocide (a), incitement to commit genocide (c), attempt to commit genocide (d) and complicity in genocide (e) are all punishable crimes. The convention offers no exemption for these crimes, and therefor no justification. So if intent is found, any crimes committed against Israel prior to these atrocities (sorry, I don’t know a better word, so I’ll keep using it), then it is demonstrably false that the October 7th attacks were a justification for them. Because legally, they aren’t. If the court fails to find intent, then honestly you’ll just have to look at your humanity and see whether the same atrocities committed because of carelessness instead of intent, are then justifiable. Personally I think human lives are worth more.