4 ms·

I disagree that there is a consensus about genocide at all. These are very selective experts and their argument is for the most part ridiculous, with few except

I disagree that there is a consensus about genocide at all. These are very selective experts and their argument is for the most part ridiculous, with few exceptions. It is those whose work lead to many resolutions against Israel which highlights their lacking perspective If these people claim to champion the Palestinian cause, the people in Gaza are in peril even more. And no, Gaza was left to its own devices in 2005. With devastating results because there was nobody that had the ability and will to form a state. The Saudi crown prince calls it a genocide too while openly stating that this is due to populism. He has an excuse, which one have these special international lawyers you refer to? What do you suppose will be the future for Palestinians now? They fare worse than before the attacks, what perspective do they have? Again, calling it a genocide is counter factual, regardless of your law degree. The cases in the ICJ didn't even call for a ceasefire, because they knew Israel has the right to defend itself. And recent events have show that it is necessary. If champions of the Palestinians cause cannot come up with more than accusations against Israel, Palestinians don't have a lot to look forward to.

runarberg 2y ago
That is what you believe. But you must be aware of the minority opinion you hold, and how it counters opinion of experts, international humanitarian organizations, several governments, and a Saudi Prince. When the rest of the world talks about genocide, the Gaza genocide fits the definition. The denial of the Gaza occupation is an even more extreme opinion of yours. Very few non-partisans, and even a diminishing number of Israeli institutions, deny that Gaza has been under continuous Israeli occupation since 1967. I’m not gonna try to convince you that you are wrong (you obviously are) but I just hope that you are aware of how fringe of an opinion you have here. Instead I’m gonna do something different. And give you that the occupation was lifted in 2005 (and ignore that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Palestine; and the Israel still illegally occupies the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon). Now that constitutes almost 40 years of illegal occupation, over a land and people who many of which are still refugees from an ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948. In 2005 the occupation ended, and was replaced by a seemingly colonial system where Israel controls 6 out of 7 border crossings fully (and the remaining one partially via Egypt), the population registry, the sea and the airspace, power and telecommunications infrastructure, maintains a no-go bufferzone inside the Palestinian territory where they regularly break up protests with live ammunition, where they regularly conduct air-strikes and military campaigns, etc. Surely you must realize the obligations of the occupier (sorry, blockader) here. That it isn’t just on the Palestinians to form a government and negotiate the end of the blockade, but primarily on Israel (as the party doing the blockade) to end it. In international law this blockade is (correctly) called a manifestation of an ongoing occupation, and Israel has obligations as the occupier, obligations which they have neglected. But even if we give you that, the occupation ended in 2005, you must see that is not in the spirit of the law to replace the occupation with a different form of oppression, just so you can neglect your obligation. That is not how any legal framework works. You can’t just go around the law in this way. EDIT: I also want to talk a little about your believe that just because the ICJ didn’t order a ceasefire in their initial preliminary ruling, that somehow it is ludicrous to entertain the plausibility of genocide after that. That is not the point of a preliminary ruling. The court also ordered Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, to let in aid, etc. which Israel promptly violated. In April a second preliminary ruling ordered Israel to not invade Rafah, which was also almost immediately ignored by Israel. If you take the court at their word that Palestinians’ in Gaza’s rights to be protected from Genocide is at risk, and the following steps are needed to protect that right, and then Israel ignores and repeatedly violates those steps, surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers, quite possibly a conspiracy to commit one even.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  The point was that the Saudi Prince more or less admitted he said it because of political opportunism in the realities of his rule. He still tries to normalize relations with Israel as much as possible. You try to throw stuff together on the topic of occupation, but anyway... What certainly is wrong though is your framing of an ethnic cleansing campaign in 48. That is just nonsense. At the time Jews were suppressed by Arab nationalism. The mufti of Jerusalem became a puppet of Hitler and was kind of convinced about the idea of a holocaust in the middle east. Of course some people had to move after Israel won its war for independence, that is nothing new in war. Even more Jews were driven from surrounding countries, the majority of todays Israelis. That issue is part of the reality of nations forming or not and a reality Palestinians need to accept. Some are ready for that, parties like Hamas are not. A blockade isn't an occupation at all, again, words do have meaning. Security interests are relevant. Israel can prove that building a wall did save lives. There is evidence of that. Further blockades are entirely legal, but do not form any form of occupation. That Israel has military capabilities is of no relevance. Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance. You should strive to have the correct opinion, although I would certainly say that "Israel commits genocide" is a fringe opinion, but maybe our circles diverge. Calling it opinion from my perspective already gives it some more benefit of the doubt. Again the question, what do you see in the future? Intifada 5.0? You believe it will end in a different result than we now see in Gaza. By the way, some people confirm the propaganda kids are subjected in schools there. The kids are innocent, other that could know better not so much... > surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers I do not, such insinuation would be quite unusual and would be entirely irrelevant de jure. I can play that game too. I believe you don't give a rats ass about Palestinians, you just want to throw more of them into the meat grinder. Maybe we should leave ascribing intend to anyone and stick to reality, shall we?
  - runarberg 2y ago
    > Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance. It is. That is the crux of the matter. Genocide deniers aren’t just a minority, but a shrinking minority, and more importantly, a shrinking minority at odds with the consensus among experts and international organizations who’s purpose it is to form opinion on these matters. Here is a document that matters. A UN commissioned special committee, tasked with investigating human rights violation against Palestinians[1]. It concludes (para. 69): > The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide and adds (para. 70): > The multiple violations of international law by Israel in its war on Gaza; its apartheid system of injustice in the occupied West Bank, within the broader context of its decades-long occupation-cum-annexation of Palestinian and Syrian Golan territories; and its ongoing defiance of binding Security Council resolutions and orders of the International Court of Justice, gravely weaken the international rules-based system. This report was published last September by a special committee with a mandate to do so after a General Assembly resolution way back in 1968. It was not written by victims of genocide, but by mandated observers who have been illegally denied entry to follow their mandate. Why did Israel deny them entry, and break International law doing so? A good plausible theory here is that Israeli rulers are intent on committing a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and are attempting to hide their violations in the hopes they will escape justice. 1: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a79363-report-special-committee-investigate-israeli-practices-affecting https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a79363-r...

runarberg 2y ago

That is what you believe. But you must be aware of the minority opinion you hold, and how it counters opinion of experts, international humanitarian organizations, several governments, and a Saudi Prince. When the rest of the world talks about genocide, the Gaza genocide fits the definition. The denial of the Gaza occupation is an even more extreme opinion of yours. Very few non-partisans, and even a diminishing number of Israeli institutions, deny that Gaza has been under continuous Israeli occupation since 1967. I’m not gonna try to convince you that you are wrong (you obviously are) but I just hope that you are aware of how fringe of an opinion you have here. Instead I’m gonna do something different. And give you that the occupation was lifted in 2005 (and ignore that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Palestine; and the Israel still illegally occupies the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon). Now that constitutes almost 40 years of illegal occupation, over a land and people who many of which are still refugees from an ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948. In 2005 the occupation ended, and was replaced by a seemingly colonial system where Israel controls 6 out of 7 border crossings fully (and the remaining one partially via Egypt), the population registry, the sea and the airspace, power and telecommunications infrastructure, maintains a no-go bufferzone inside the Palestinian territory where they regularly break up protests with live ammunition, where they regularly conduct air-strikes and military campaigns, etc. Surely you must realize the obligations of the occupier (sorry, blockader) here. That it isn’t just on the Palestinians to form a government and negotiate the end of the blockade, but primarily on Israel (as the party doing the blockade) to end it. In international law this blockade is (correctly) called a manifestation of an ongoing occupation, and Israel has obligations as the occupier, obligations which they have neglected. But even if we give you that, the occupation ended in 2005, you must see that is not in the spirit of the law to replace the occupation with a different form of oppression, just so you can neglect your obligation. That is not how any legal framework works. You can’t just go around the law in this way. EDIT: I also want to talk a little about your believe that just because the ICJ didn’t order a ceasefire in their initial preliminary ruling, that somehow it is ludicrous to entertain the plausibility of genocide after that. That is not the point of a preliminary ruling. The court also ordered Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, to let in aid, etc. which Israel promptly violated. In April a second preliminary ruling ordered Israel to not invade Rafah, which was also almost immediately ignored by Israel. If you take the court at their word that Palestinians’ in Gaza’s rights to be protected from Genocide is at risk, and the following steps are needed to protect that right, and then Israel ignores and repeatedly violates those steps, surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers, quite possibly a conspiracy to commit one even.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
The point was that the Saudi Prince more or less admitted he said it because of political opportunism in the realities of his rule. He still tries to normalize relations with Israel as much as possible. You try to throw stuff together on the topic of occupation, but anyway... What certainly is wrong though is your framing of an ethnic cleansing campaign in 48. That is just nonsense. At the time Jews were suppressed by Arab nationalism. The mufti of Jerusalem became a puppet of Hitler and was kind of convinced about the idea of a holocaust in the middle east. Of course some people had to move after Israel won its war for independence, that is nothing new in war. Even more Jews were driven from surrounding countries, the majority of todays Israelis. That issue is part of the reality of nations forming or not and a reality Palestinians need to accept. Some are ready for that, parties like Hamas are not. A blockade isn't an occupation at all, again, words do have meaning. Security interests are relevant. Israel can prove that building a wall did save lives. There is evidence of that. Further blockades are entirely legal, but do not form any form of occupation. That Israel has military capabilities is of no relevance. Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance. You should strive to have the correct opinion, although I would certainly say that "Israel commits genocide" is a fringe opinion, but maybe our circles diverge. Calling it opinion from my perspective already gives it some more benefit of the doubt. Again the question, what do you see in the future? Intifada 5.0? You believe it will end in a different result than we now see in Gaza. By the way, some people confirm the propaganda kids are subjected in schools there. The kids are innocent, other that could know better not so much... > surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers I do not, such insinuation would be quite unusual and would be entirely irrelevant de jure. I can play that game too. I believe you don't give a rats ass about Palestinians, you just want to throw more of them into the meat grinder. Maybe we should leave ascribing intend to anyone and stick to reality, shall we?
- runarberg 2y ago
  > Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance. It is. That is the crux of the matter. Genocide deniers aren’t just a minority, but a shrinking minority, and more importantly, a shrinking minority at odds with the consensus among experts and international organizations who’s purpose it is to form opinion on these matters. Here is a document that matters. A UN commissioned special committee, tasked with investigating human rights violation against Palestinians[1]. It concludes (para. 69): > The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide and adds (para. 70): > The multiple violations of international law by Israel in its war on Gaza; its apartheid system of injustice in the occupied West Bank, within the broader context of its decades-long occupation-cum-annexation of Palestinian and Syrian Golan territories; and its ongoing defiance of binding Security Council resolutions and orders of the International Court of Justice, gravely weaken the international rules-based system. This report was published last September by a special committee with a mandate to do so after a General Assembly resolution way back in 1968. It was not written by victims of genocide, but by mandated observers who have been illegally denied entry to follow their mandate. Why did Israel deny them entry, and break International law doing so? A good plausible theory here is that Israeli rulers are intent on committing a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and are attempting to hide their violations in the hopes they will escape justice. 1: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a79363-report-special-committee-investigate-israeli-practices-affecting https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a79363-r...