5 ms·

Please stay factual. That is not what the ICJ concluded and the ICC has not ruled anything either but has compromised itself with arrest warrants and questionab

Please stay factual. That is not what the ICJ concluded and the ICC has not ruled anything either but has compromised itself with arrest warrants and questionable panels. Not that the surveillance conducted by the Israeli government is anything that should be supported, but that is not relevant to the determination of the war being genocide or not. The war wasn't started by Israel and that should conclude investigations for Gaza at least.

runarberg 2y ago
I did stay factual. I made special care in writing “ICC prosecution recommendation” and “ICJ genocide case”. Both are factual, one being recommendation and the other being an ongoing case. Both have factual documents supporting the case, including allegations of conspiracy against the Israeli rulers. Who started what does not matter, being rulers of a country who is victims of terrorism does not make it impossible to conspire to commit genocide. In fact indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. My point here is that allegations against Israeli rulers to commit genocide is very plausible. So much so that an international consensus has pretty much formed around it, including among genocide experts, and legal scholars of the world highest courts.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  There is neither a ruling on genocide nor is there any form of consensus around it. > indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. Just to reiterate, Israel is not a colonial state, so that doesn't apply here. If Palestinians want their own state, they need to fix their relation to Israel, otherwise they will remain in a limbo. And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    You talked about being factual, but also claim: > And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed. This is factually untrue. All of Palestine (including East Jerusalem) is internationally recognized to be occupied territory. Occupiers have obligations under international law, this includes lifting the occupation, or according to the UN[1] > The overarching principle is that an occupant does not acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory and therefore any occupation must only be a temporary situation. Note that this is enlisted in the fourth Hague convention of 1907 which Israel is a party to. The occupation of Palestine is the longest occupation in the history of that agreement, beating the Turkeys occupation of Northern Cyprus by 7 years, and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara by 8, but also is this occupation characterized serial violations of other parts of the agreement, most notably a policy of settlements (violating the prohibition of transfers of civilian populations) and the apartheid wall (violating measures to ensure restoration of civilian life, seizure of property, among others; and ruled a violation of international law in 2003, and ordered to be dismantled). Unlike Israel, Palestine is under no such obligations as occupied peoples. International law does grant the Palestinian people the right to resistance (particularly to peaceful protests). Israel has consistently denied Palestinians any means of resisting peacefully, including protests, but most destructively, Palestinians have no political avenue for their resistance, leaving only armed, violent resistance. Israel’s own policy of not obeying international law has indeed ensured this reality. Whether or not Israel is a colonial power is up for debate, but the debate is only about semantics. There is no doubt Israel is an occupying power. In my view, occupation is merely very concise legal term we apply to a subset of colonial conduct. Occupation is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for colonialism, but does grant international law the possibility to punish for some colonial behavior. In my books, 57 years of occupation counts as colonialism, and using resistance against said occupation to justify genocide is very similar to the rhetoric of 19th century colonial powers. 1: https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ohchr_syria_-_belligerent_occupation_-_legal_note_en.pdf https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention, but it is customary law, so that doesn't really matter. I should have been more precise, I meant Palestinians in Gaza, which isn't occupied. Or at least it wasn't until the attacks. Chances are that it will be again. They do have the right to resist just as Israel did upon its founding. But the attacks in October are certainly not covered by international law. Israel doesn't justify genocide, because genocide is not what is happening. Neither legally nor otherwise. The resistance is of course used to justify security interests, but those don't qualify for genocide either. Still, all that doesn't matter. They need to fix their relation to Israel, accept its existence. That can open the way for their own state and there are few alternatives.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        > Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention Sorry, I meant the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 which adopted the Hague Conference of 1907. Israel signed and ratified the Geneva conventions (I - IV) in 1951 and Part I of the Hague convention in 1962. The relevant part is in article 42 of the Hague convention (Part IV; which Israel didn’t sign) > Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. > The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. and in article 2 of the fourth Geneva convention (Which Israel did sign and ratify in 1951): > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Note that the fourth Geneva convention expands both the definition and the obligation of occupation from the Hague convention of 1907. Look, I’m not doing primary research here, I’m simply following the sources cited in the secondary source which I provided you. I’m not an international humanitarian law expert, and I presume neither are you. There is pretty much a consensus among both experts and international organizations (including the UN) that Israel is in violation of agreements they have signed onto. You may deny the occupation of Gaza and justify Israel’s violation on those grounds (just as you deny the Gaza Genocide) but you are simply (and quite obviously) wrong on those ground. Legal experts have made the case pretty clear that all of Palestine, including Gaza and East Jerusalem have been under constant Israeli occupation since 1967. And have since continually neglected their obligations as an occupying power.

runarberg 2y ago

I did stay factual. I made special care in writing “ICC prosecution recommendation” and “ICJ genocide case”. Both are factual, one being recommendation and the other being an ongoing case. Both have factual documents supporting the case, including allegations of conspiracy against the Israeli rulers. Who started what does not matter, being rulers of a country who is victims of terrorism does not make it impossible to conspire to commit genocide. In fact indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. My point here is that allegations against Israeli rulers to commit genocide is very plausible. So much so that an international consensus has pretty much formed around it, including among genocide experts, and legal scholars of the world highest courts.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
There is neither a ruling on genocide nor is there any form of consensus around it. > indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. Just to reiterate, Israel is not a colonial state, so that doesn't apply here. If Palestinians want their own state, they need to fix their relation to Israel, otherwise they will remain in a limbo. And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed.
- runarberg 2y ago
  You talked about being factual, but also claim: > And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed. This is factually untrue. All of Palestine (including East Jerusalem) is internationally recognized to be occupied territory. Occupiers have obligations under international law, this includes lifting the occupation, or according to the UN[1] > The overarching principle is that an occupant does not acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory and therefore any occupation must only be a temporary situation. Note that this is enlisted in the fourth Hague convention of 1907 which Israel is a party to. The occupation of Palestine is the longest occupation in the history of that agreement, beating the Turkeys occupation of Northern Cyprus by 7 years, and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara by 8, but also is this occupation characterized serial violations of other parts of the agreement, most notably a policy of settlements (violating the prohibition of transfers of civilian populations) and the apartheid wall (violating measures to ensure restoration of civilian life, seizure of property, among others; and ruled a violation of international law in 2003, and ordered to be dismantled). Unlike Israel, Palestine is under no such obligations as occupied peoples. International law does grant the Palestinian people the right to resistance (particularly to peaceful protests). Israel has consistently denied Palestinians any means of resisting peacefully, including protests, but most destructively, Palestinians have no political avenue for their resistance, leaving only armed, violent resistance. Israel’s own policy of not obeying international law has indeed ensured this reality. Whether or not Israel is a colonial power is up for debate, but the debate is only about semantics. There is no doubt Israel is an occupying power. In my view, occupation is merely very concise legal term we apply to a subset of colonial conduct. Occupation is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for colonialism, but does grant international law the possibility to punish for some colonial behavior. In my books, 57 years of occupation counts as colonialism, and using resistance against said occupation to justify genocide is very similar to the rhetoric of 19th century colonial powers. 1: https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ohchr_syria_-_belligerent_occupation_-_legal_note_en.pdf https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention, but it is customary law, so that doesn't really matter. I should have been more precise, I meant Palestinians in Gaza, which isn't occupied. Or at least it wasn't until the attacks. Chances are that it will be again. They do have the right to resist just as Israel did upon its founding. But the attacks in October are certainly not covered by international law. Israel doesn't justify genocide, because genocide is not what is happening. Neither legally nor otherwise. The resistance is of course used to justify security interests, but those don't qualify for genocide either. Still, all that doesn't matter. They need to fix their relation to Israel, accept its existence. That can open the way for their own state and there are few alternatives.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      > Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention Sorry, I meant the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 which adopted the Hague Conference of 1907. Israel signed and ratified the Geneva conventions (I - IV) in 1951 and Part I of the Hague convention in 1962. The relevant part is in article 42 of the Hague convention (Part IV; which Israel didn’t sign) > Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. > The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. and in article 2 of the fourth Geneva convention (Which Israel did sign and ratify in 1951): > The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Note that the fourth Geneva convention expands both the definition and the obligation of occupation from the Hague convention of 1907. Look, I’m not doing primary research here, I’m simply following the sources cited in the secondary source which I provided you. I’m not an international humanitarian law expert, and I presume neither are you. There is pretty much a consensus among both experts and international organizations (including the UN) that Israel is in violation of agreements they have signed onto. You may deny the occupation of Gaza and justify Israel’s violation on those grounds (just as you deny the Gaza Genocide) but you are simply (and quite obviously) wrong on those ground. Legal experts have made the case pretty clear that all of Palestine, including Gaza and East Jerusalem have been under constant Israeli occupation since 1967. And have since continually neglected their obligations as an occupying power.