Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack III

[Chadwiko]

HirdsTheWord is right.

I say that as a Jewish guy who wants to see Bibi and a whole heap of the top IDF generals tried in the Hague, and a free and independent Palestinian state established.

But 'proving' genocide is enormously difficult. Much 'easier' to just charge them with easily provable and more 'standard' war-crimes.

That said, I doubt they'll ever see the inside of a court-room, let alone a jail cell. They'll either be taken out in an airstrike, or at the end of the conflict they'll go into hiding forever.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

HirdsTheWord is right.

I saw that as a Jewish guy who wants to see Bibi and a whole heap of the top IDF generals tried in the Hague, and a free and independent Palestinian state established.

But 'proving' genocide is enormously difficult. Much 'easier' to just charge them with easily provable and more 'standard' war-crimes.

That said, I doubt they'll ever see the inside of a court-room, let alone a jail cell. They'll either be taken out in an airstrike, or at the end of the conflict they'll go into hiding forever.

Player 1 - "it will be hard to prove genocide as a matter of law"

Player 2 - "YoU ZioNiSt SuppORtiNG ScuM!!"

 

[Saint]

Saying those things on a footy forum is one thing. Genocide isn't some wish washy statement. it is a crime, like anything else it needs to be proven by law. Proving it in a court of law is another - that's why i think it's incredibly hard to prove intent.

You say they deliberate targeted medical and civilian' infrastructure. OK how do you know it was deliberate and intentional in line with the genocide convention?

Saying its genocide, and proving its genocide, are two incredibly different things - that's all I'm suggesting. Thats why i find it highly unlikely a genocide charge will be laid. Not saying it's impossible though. Israel should be investigated to a high level for their actions.

How do you prove genocide? Have absolutely no idea but imagine it would be incredibly hard. The last proven genocide (i think) was the Rohingya genocide in 2017? There is nothing greyer than the law of war.

The Myanmar Genocide hasn't been decided either. It was first brought by the Gambia nearly 4 years ago, they were joined by 7 other countries (including UK, France, Denmark, Canada and Germany). I'm increasingly convinced that some western nations decide what is and isn't genocide based on the race of both the victims and the perpetrators. It was very easily overlooked when committed by European nations. But once it happened in Europe, all of a sudden it was worthy of international laws. Which are only ever applied outside of Europe.

The secondary problem is not just having enough proof, the problem is that by the time it gets through an international court, it's too late.

The Genocide convention wouldn't have prevented the holocaust or Rwanda and certainly hasn't in Myanmar or Sudan.

 

[Not Important]

after hearing weeks of testimony, the international court of justice has found it is “plausible” (read reasonable and likely to be true) that israel has committed acts that violate the genocide convention. the court went on to say israel “with immediate effect” must stop committing acts prohibited by the convention. israel has not abided by the icj finding. not that that should surprise anyone, as the state of israel is a rogue state and a law unto itself.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Saying those things on a footy forum is one thing.

Yes well done, we are on a forum, here I was thinking we were fronting the ICJ.

Genocide isn't some wish washy statement. it is a crime, like anything else it needs to be proven by law. Proving it in a court of law is another - that's why i think it's incredibly hard to prove intent.

Uh huh. Proving anything in a court of law can be difficult. Why do you think intent in particular is difficult? When there are plenty of openly genocidal statements from people in positions of power in Israel, as well as the troops on the ground committing the acts, how can you claim the genocide is only accidental?

You say they deliberate targeted medical and civilian' infrastructure. OK how do you know it was deliberate and intentional in line with the genocide convention?

That's the easy part - much of it documented by Israeli soldiers themselves. When the IDF perform controlled demolitions on water infrastructure for example - can't be anything but intentional. Can have no motivation but to inflict conditions designed to make life impossible.

Saying its genocide, and proving its genocide, are two incredibly different things - that's all I'm suggesting. Thats why i find it highly unlikely a genocide charge will be laid. Not saying it's impossible though. Israel should be investigated to a high level for their actions.

Uh huh.

How do you prove genocide? Have absolutely no idea but imagine it would be incredibly hard. The last proven genocide (i think) was the Rohingya genocide in 2017? There is nothing greyer than the law of war.

So you're just happy to obfuscate? You're not actually saying anything everyone doesn't already know?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

HirdsTheWord is right.

I say that as a Jewish guy who wants to see Bibi and a whole heap of the top IDF generals tried in the Hague, and a free and independent Palestinian state established.

But 'proving' genocide is enormously difficult. Much 'easier' to just charge them with easily provable and more 'standard' war-crimes.

That said, I doubt they'll ever see the inside of a court-room, let alone a jail cell. They'll either be taken out in an airstrike, or at the end of the conflict they'll go into hiding forever.

Of course it's hard, of course there'll be no real repercussions, but trying to stifle any discussion of it does not help anything or anyone but Israel.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

dont think that is technically correct as a matter of definition.

Ethnic cleansing is not a war crime and refers to the expulsion of people from an area.

errrr what?

 

[Festerz]

 

[Jello_B]

Saying those things on a footy forum is one thing. Genocide isn't some wish washy statement. it is a crime, like anything else it needs to be proven by law. Proving it in a court of law is another - that's why i think it's incredibly hard to prove intent.

You say they deliberate targeted medical and civilian' infrastructure. OK how do you know it was deliberate and intentional in line with the genocide convention?

Saying its genocide, and proving its genocide, are two incredibly different things - that's all I'm suggesting. Thats why i find it highly unlikely a genocide charge will be laid. Not saying it's impossible though. Israel should be investigated to a high level for their actions.

How do you prove genocide? Have absolutely no idea but imagine it would be incredibly hard. The last proven genocide (i think) was the Rohingya genocide in 2017? There is nothing greyer than the law of war.

If they cannot prove this as genocide they may as well just delete the term. Can’t be much more genocidy than this don’t ya think?
Analogous to you selecting the weapon, you say you are going to kill them, you are then on video killing them, and then you say you killed them, but we dont actually know if you intentionally did it so it’s not murder then. At some point reasonable judgment must be applied otherwise as I said just remove the term.

 

[ferball]

Bolt likening ny’u to Churchill. Can’t work out if that’s praise or critique.

Had to laugh him glossing over thousands of civilian Palestinian death and destruction, but a sliver of compassion for the ‘poor Palestinian’ who was the only death from irans missiles.

Harden up Andrew, Palestinian = terrorist, potentia terrorist or producer of terrorist offspring.? Right?

And peace without justice? That’s not neccesarily peace.

Well Churchill has been (accurately) described as a genocidal builder of concentration camps so maybe Bolt finally got something right.

 

[Sphynx]

Well Churchill has been (accurately) described as a genocidal builder of concentration camps so maybe Bolt finally got something right.

Well that’s certainly an interesting rewrite of history.

 

[sr36]

after hearing weeks of testimony, the international court of justice has found it is “plausible” (read reasonable and likely to be true) that israel has committed acts that violate the genocide convention. the court went on to say israel “with immediate effect” must stop committing acts prohibited by the convention. israel has not abided by the icj finding. not that that should surprise anyone, as the state of israel is a rogue state and a law unto itself.

Plausible doesn't mean likely to be true. It means believable. The wording of these things are very intentional. They shouldn't be read with altered meanings.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Yes well done, we are on a forum, here I was thinking we were fronting the ICJ.



Uh huh. Proving anything in a court of law can be difficult. Why do you think intent in particular is difficult? When there are plenty of openly genocidal statements from people in positions of power in Israel, as well as the troops on the ground committing the acts, how can you claim the genocide is only accidental?



That's the easy part - much of it documented by Israeli soldiers themselves. When the IDF perform controlled demolitions on water infrastructure for example - can't be anything but intentional. Can have no motivation but to inflict conditions designed to make life impossible.



Uh huh.



So you're just happy to obfuscate? You're not actually saying anything everyone doesn't already know?

i say it's hard to prove, you agree it's hard to prove

cheers i guess?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

errrr what?

View attachment 2148822

not sure what you googled, but ethnic cleansing is not a technical war crime like genocide is.

genocide is war crime defined under the Genocide convention 1948. Ethnic Cleaning is just a term, it's not a defined war crime.

this will help explain it for you.

Ethnic cleansing isn’t a crime. Should it be?

The term ethnic cleansing is often used, but what does it actually mean, and can it help prevent atrocities and hold perpetrators accountable?

www.thenewhumanitarian.org

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The Myanmar Genocide hasn't been decided either. It was first brought by the Gambia nearly 4 years ago, they were joined by 7 other countries (including UK, France, Denmark, Canada and Germany). I'm increasingly convinced that some western nations decide what is and isn't genocide based on the race of both the victims and the perpetrators. It was very easily overlooked when committed by European nations. But once it happened in Europe, all of a sudden it was worthy of international laws. Which are only ever applied outside of Europe.

The secondary problem is not just having enough proof, the problem is that by the time it gets through an international court, it's too late.

The Genocide convention wouldn't have prevented the holocaust or Rwanda and certainly hasn't in Myanmar or Sudan.

Yep, that's all true.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Of course it's hard, of course there'll be no real repercussions, but trying to stifle any discussion of it does not help anything or anyone but Israel.

no one is stifling anything, you are stifling yourself.

all i said was a genocide would be hard to prove, and then you are going off on some rant about why would it be hard to prove, than subsequently you agree it would be hard to prove

like what point are you trying to make here? you are going round in circles headbutting your own arse rofl.

Saint detailed pretty well in post 3528; above why it would be. Pin that for yourself and your done i think.

 

[Not Important]

Plausible doesn't mean likely to be true. It means believable. The wording of these things are very intentional. They shouldn't be read with altered meanings.

wrong. plausible define.

cambridge dictionary

“means seeming likely to be true, or able to be believed”

collins dictionary

“means likely to be true or valid”

oxford dictionary

“means reasonable and likely to be true”

 

[Suspense]

no one is stifling anything, you are stifling yourself.

all i said was a genocide would be hard to prove, and then you are going off on some rant about why would it be hard to prove, than subsequently you agree it would be hard to prove

like what point are you trying to make here? you are going round in circles headbutting your own arse rofl.

Saint detailed pretty well in post 3528; above why it would be. Pin that for yourself and your done i think.

It's just hyperbole - accusing Israel of war crimes or human rights violations (for which there is plenty of evidence) doesn't have the same effect of accusations of genocide (the 'crime of crimes') - particularly when there are a number of other countries also committing war crimes and HRVs.

The accusation of genocide is also required to draw the comparison to the holocaust and portray Israel as the evil actor of the ME.

 

[Saint]

It's just hyperbole - accusing Israel of war crimes or human rights violations (for which there is plenty of evidence) doesn't have the same effect of accusations of genocide (the 'crime of crimes') - particularly when there are a number of other countries also committing war crimes and HRVs.

The accusation of genocide is also required to draw the comparison to the holocaust and portray Israel as the evil actor of the ME.

In the end, even if they're convicted of it, and Netanyahu and Gollant go to prison, Israel will still be pursuing ethnic cleansing, because they rarely suffer any consequences.

Not many countries conquer and occupy as much territory repeatedly for loss of civilian life or any other punishment.

Until the western world (EU and US) sanction them for what they've done, they'll keep doing it, war crimes or not.

 

[ferball]

Well that’s certainly an interesting rewrite of history.

Its actual history.

Churchill was responsible for the famines in the British colonies of India during ww2. Millions died and the quotes attributed to him indicate he couldn't have cared less what happened to them. he actively denied them access to the food they'd grown.

He was also PM of the UK after ww2, re-elected in 1951, and led the government that detained Kenyans in concentration camps during the Mau-Mau uprising. One of the people detained and tortured in those camps was Barak Obama's grandfather.

 

[Chadwiko]

Its actual history.

Churchill was responsible for the famines in the British colonies of India during ww2. Millions died and the quotes attributed to him indicate he couldn't have cared less what happened to them. he actively denied them access to the food they'd grown.

He was also PM of the UK after ww2, re-elected in 1951, and led the government that detained Kenyans in concentration camps during the Mau-Mau uprising. One of the people detained and tortured in those camps was Barak Obama's grandfather.

Churchill was a colonial piece of shit. And everything you said is accurate.

But he still doesn't belong in the same grouping of despots and tyrants like Netanyahu.

 

[QuietB]

So Bibi is going to send a generation of Australians to invade Turkey all over again?

 

[ferball]

So of the mass atrocities listed here:

Definitions: Types of Mass Atrocities - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Learn more about the serious, violent crimes that do not fall under the specific definition of genocide.

www.ushmm.org

the only one people are quibbling about is genocide?

So we can all agree the crimes against humanity, mass atrocities. mass killing and ethnic cleansing are undisputable and the dispute about whether all these things together actually constitute genocide should be handled by the ICJ?

Yeah?

Good.

 

[QuietB]

It is 100% genocide. It is not even up for debate.

 

[ferball]

Churchill was a colonial piece of shit. And everything you said is accurate.

But he still doesn't belong in the same grouping of despots and tyrants like Netanyahu.

True, on balance he was probably alot worse.