How many of the thousands of children Israel has killed in Palestine were members of Hamas? How is it Hamas’ fault that those children were killed by Israel?
You could argue , that it wasn’t a terrorist attack on Israel that started this. Since Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza, you could argue they declared war, they invaded. A response to a country invading is very different from a response to a terrorist attack
So did Palestinians. Doesn’t make it okay to to go into someone else’s home, destroy everything, and tell them they can end the destruction of their home any time they want.
Hamas had proposed a three-phase deal, each lasting 45 days, that would also see the gradual release of hostages held in the enclave in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israel – including those serving life sentences
Lmao, that’s what you mean? Yeah, let’s withdraw all of our military forces already working to rescue the hostages immediately, and instead trust a literal terror cell (which had already ran across the border and executed thousands of unarmed civilians) to kindly release them after 5 months. Oh, and by the way we’re going to send them their convicted murderers and terrorists too lol.
remind me where the death toll stands for either side, please
Remind me which side went across the other side’s border for the exclusive purpose of point-blank executing thousands of women and children, please
"Working to rescue the hostage immediately" is certainly a nice way to gussy up "attempting a genocide”
Let’s take a quick count:
Times when Israel military invaded Gaza: 1
Times when Gaza took hundreds of Israel civilians hostage: 1
What a weird coincidence. When the terror cell that you elected to lead your country invades another country to murder and kidnap thousands of women and children as hostages, you get invaded. (Insert shocked Pikachu meme)
you when you learn that you can not like hamas or israel's government, and also that an act of terror doesn't justify a genocide: 🤯
you when you learn that invading a country to rescue hostages by definition does not meet the meaning of genocide, but running across the border of a country to slaughter thousands of women and children on account of their nationality does: 🤯
it's what the idf did after crossing the border that makes it a genocide
Feel free to link an objective, unbiased source showing that the IDF has engaged in the killing of members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group — and, that the respective act was committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group.
That is, after all, the definition of genocide.
running across the border of a country to slaughter thousands of women and children on account of their nationality does
the systematic demolition of hospitals, universities and other critical infrastructure fits that description
as do a whole bunch of other things—if you haven't noticed it by now you're either not paying attention, or you're being willfully ignorant—but let's start with the controlled demolition of Israa University
are you going to take the easy way out and pretend that "oh well the censured him so it must not be the real aim", or are you going to acknowledge that throwing a subordinate under the bus for actions more or less consistent with the general tone of the invasion so far has long been the preferred tactic of regimes committing war crimes and come up with some other fun excuse?
See above. By definition, it literally does lol.
oh no somebody read the definition off wikipedia but didn't click on the hyperlinked part of it clarifying the bit they didn't understand
the death toll, while a tragedy, doesn't meet the bar necessary
you think killing one person in a hate crime is a genocide because it's technically "a part"?
systematic demolition of hospitals, universities and other critical infrastructure
Oh, you mean the hospitals that were occupied by Hamas? Hate to break it to you bro, but you lose your international protection as a hospital once you also become a military barracks lol.
let's start with the controlled demolition of Israa University
Oh, the empty university? Yeah, no death there. People also exist without universities. Looks like it’s not meeting the definition of genocide. Try again.
are you going to take the easy way out and pretend that "oh well the censured him so it must not be the real aim"
Nope. It’s just not genocide, lol.
the death toll, while a tragedy, doesn't meet the bar necessary
Mhm. The intent to destroy Israel does.
you think killing one person in a hate crime is a genocide because it's technically "a part"?
Nope, but killing a thousand people expressly for the stated aim of eliminating that people’s country is.
The fact that you could only come up with the demolition of an empty university as an example of IDF genocide is pretty telling lmfao.
Oh, you mean the hospitals that were occupied by Hamas?
If you've been paying attention, everything the IDF destroys is "occupied by Hamas". No evidence to this effect ever shows up post-destruction, but useful idiots parrot the talking points all the same.
Oh, the empty university? Yeah, no death there.
Tell me you didn't read your own definition of genocide without telling me you didn't read your own definition of genocide.
The point is to destroy the infrastructure necessary to live in the area so that people are forced to move out. The thing that fits the definition you quoted but apparently didn't read.
If you want deaths, remind me again what the current casualty figures are for each side?
The intent to destroy Israel does.
Nope, but killing a thousand people expressly for the stated aim of eliminating that people’s country is.
Again, very clearly not a genocide by the definition you provided. Was 9/11 an act of genocide?
The fact that you could only come up with the demolition of an empty university as an example of IDF genocide is pretty telling lmfao.
As I very clearly stated, there are plenty of examples. Examples you'd have to be willfully blind to miss. It's just that it's very obvious to me you're going to provide "hamas was there" as an excuse for any committed warcrime. The controlled demolition of infrastructure with absolutely no reason for it seems to me like the clearest anecdote to me.
As evidenced by the fact you can't provide any reason they did it.
Lmfao, you mean like the video of Hamas taking hostages into a hospital?
wow so the best the IDF could manage is a 30 second video of less than 10 people taken 5 weeks before the raid?
where one of the supposed hostages is literally on a stretcher missing a leg?
i wonder why that person might have needed to go to the hospital
Universities aren’t necessary to live in any given area.
Neither are primary schools, but people aren't going to live somewhere without one. Which is the point.
We're failing at the first hurdle here. I show you a clear and blatant destruction of infrastructure for no valid reason, and the best you can muster is "it's not that important"?
Yes. Lmfao read the definition of genocide before spewing nonsense rhetoricals.
okay so you just don't know what genocide is? like you don't understand the difference between genocide and an act of terror? even when you've literally cited a definition that pretty clearly separates them?
For reference, the source you've provided is from 2 years before future rulings clarified "in whole or in part". You can read all about the future rulings from the page you took the definition from. Your source even reiterates that nobody's been referring to it as a genocide.
There's no point in continuing this if you don't even know what you're arguing about.
spewing nonsense rhetoricals
quoting this again because it's very fun
asking you a question that you understood and that i expected you to answer isn't a "nonsense rhetorical"
twisting yourself in knots to try and reframe what i'm saying to make it look worse would actually be an example of nonsense rhetoric though
Again, hate to break it to you bro, but when you start taking hostages into a hospital — it doesn’t really matter how many you take. You lose your international protection.
Neither are primary schools, but people aren't going to live somewhere without one.
The vast majority of American towns exist without collegiate education in them. Try again.
I show you a clear and blatant destruction of infrastructure for no valid reason, and the best you can muster is "it's not that important"?
Because genocide has a specific definition that the destruction of an empty university building cannot meet, regardless of the reason for its destruction.
even when you've literally cited a definition that pretty clearly separates them?
“it allows large-scale acts of terrorism to be viewed in their proper light—as crimes against humanity or as genocide—when the requisite elements are present. Indeed, all of the elements for these crimes are satisfied in the September 11 attacks.”
You really don’t read, do you? Yes. They are separate things, and terrorism can be genocide when the requisite elements are satisfied.
2 years before future rulings clarified "in whole or in part"
Neat. Hamas has expressly stated that they want to eliminate the whole of Israel. There’s your intent for genocide.
asking you a question that you understood and that i expected you to answer isn't a "nonsense rhetorical"
You pretty clearly already had your answer in mind and did not want the actual information — as demonstrated by your headstrong rejection of the literal definition of genocide, lol — which is the definition of a rhetorical question.
You’re really not too good at understanding the meaning of words, are you? Lmfao.
it doesn’t really matter how many you take. You lose your international protection.
2 hostages in building 5 weeks before raid = carte blanche, in your mind? yeah, no
also very polite of you to ignore the whole part about one of them very blatantly needing medical attention, and very nice of you to quote me as if it were 10 hostages and not 2
then again i suppose that if you didn't just decide to ignore information that was staring you in the face the whole time, we wouldn't be having this discussion, hey?
The vast majority of American towns exist without collegiate education in them. Try again.
the point is that literally the only scenario in which it makes sense for the idf to blow up that university is if they're attempting to destroy infrastructure. i don't know how you're not seeing that?
if you want wide-spread numbers, go look at the stats for those. they're obviously out there and you obviously know that. i just know that if i quote any of them then mysteriously hamas command posts will suddenly appear in the rubble of each one.
Because genocide has a specific definition
another comedy quote
You really don’t read, do you?
maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension, because i was pretty obviously referring to the un definition you've been citing until now
not the jstor article that was made irrelevant by a later ruling clarifying what they'd misinterpreted
There’s your intent for genocide.
do you have to set reminders on your phone to remember to breathe?
we're not talking about intent—we're talking about the meaning of "whole or in part".
both intent and "whole or in part" have to be satisfied for "genocide" to be applicable.
"whole or in part" is not satisfied.
therefore, not applicable.
You pretty clearly already had your answer in mind and did not want the actual information
i suppose we can add "mind reading" to the list of things you aren't very good at.
no, i wanted your response, because be it yes or no, it would clarify your position. and apparently said position is one you're entirely unable to back up, because what you've cited so far is:
a source that disagrees with you
a source that is rendered invalid by additional information in the first source
Yeah, you seem to be missing the whole “being taken hostage in a hospital” part. You lose your international protection. Sorry bro, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe don’t take hostages — weird concept, I know.
the point is that literally the only scenario in which it makes sense for the idf to blow up that university is if they're attempting to destroy infrastructure. i don't know how you're not seeing that?
Because it doesn’t matter. Blowing up an empty university building cannot be genocide. Your logic would mean genocide occurs if a small bush is blown up, so long as they wanted to destroy infrastructure. That’s not even remotely the definition of genocide.
Because genocide has a specific definition
another comedy quote
Imagine thinking genocide, expressly defined by the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, doesn’t have a specific meaning lmfao.
maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension, because i was pretty obviously referring to the un definition you've been citing until now not the jstor article that was made irrelevant by a later ruling clarifying what they'd misinterpreted
Weird, looks like the academic article I cited also cites the UN definition of genocide — which, by the way, you just said is “comedy” (weird take my guy).
Hamas has expressly stated that they want to eliminate the whole of Israel.
"whole or in part" is not satisfied.
That’s some mental gymnastics if I’ve ever seen it.
because what you've cited so far is: a source that disagrees with you
“Indeed, all of the elements for these crimes are satisfied in the September 11 attacks.” Pretty sure that’s my position sweetie.
a source that is rendered invalid by additional information in the first source
Hm, looks like both the first source and the “additional information” have the same definition of genocide.
Thanks for the laughs here I guess. It’s always a good time to find some thinly disguised Hamas simp trying to apply international law, lol.
Yeah, you seem to be missing the whole “being taken hostage in a hospital” part
you seem to be missing the whole "missing a leg" part
Your logic would mean genocide occurs if a small bush is blown up
your logic would support this if the group doing it wanted to destroy, in whole or in part, whoever the bush belonged to, and saw this as a necessary step to achieve their goal.
maybe try reading the stuff I wrote about how it's not just the univeristy, yeah?
Imagine thinking genocide, expressly defined by the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, doesn’t have a specific meaning lmfao.
very cute
i think we both know that the comedy element here comes from your repeated failure to use your own specific definition, while complaining at me that words have specific definitions
Weird, looks like the academic article I cited also cites the UN definition of genocide
you know the bit about dates that i keep bringing up? that bit? the bit about how the article is rendered null and void by a later ruling which your other source mentions? you know that? maybe re-read some of it
which, by the way, you just said is “comedy” (weird take my guy).
you seem to be missing the whole "missing a leg" part
Damn — maybe stop blowing the legs off your foreign national hostages (or, better yet, stop taking hostages altogether).
maybe try reading the stuff I wrote about how it's not just the univeristy, yeah?
Oh you’re finally abandoning your university argument? I’m glad you could finally see the lack of logic. If you want to provide an objective, unbiased source for something else, go ahead. You haven’t.
your repeated failure to use your own specific definition
See a few threads above. It’s cited right there.
the bit about how the article is rendered null and void by a later ruling which your other source mentions?
You heard it here first folks, the international definition of genocide set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is now null and void. Genius argument.
the act itself wasn't intended to destroy, in whole or in part, israel
Slaughtering thousands of women and children on account of their nationality isn’t intended to partly destroy that nationality? Weird argument my guy.
the source that disagrees with you is the wikipedia article you pulled the un definition
Oh geez, you think that’s from Wikipedia? No wonder you’re so lost lol.
the source that's rendered irrelevant is "the jstor article that was made irrelevant by a later ruling clarifying what they'd misinterpreted" i even clarified for you and you still tripped over your shoelaces 😞
Given how you thought the literal definition of genocide was from Wikipedia, it looks like you’re, ironically, the one that has been using some incorrect definition of genocide. I mean, feel free to cite something that supports what you’re talking about — I’d love to see what you think trumps the international Office on Genocide Prevention, lmfao. I wouldn’t be surprised in the Hamas internet system is being unreliable for you lol.
your entire position was built on a misunderstanding of the word
Guy thought the definition of genocide was from Wikipedia.
Damn — maybe stop blowing the legs off your foreign national hostages (or, better yet, stop taking hostages altogether).
so confirm, your best is "two hostages that needed medical attention were receiving medical attention 5 weeks before the attack", thereby granting israel a free pass to do whatever they wanted?
Oh you’re finally abandoning your university argument?
no? have you managed to come up with an explanation for a controlled demolition of a university that isn't genocide?
You heard it here first folks, the international definition of genocide set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is now null and void. Genius argument.
either it's a miracle you've survived to whatever age you have, or you're now...intentionally muddling up your own sources?
yes i was very clearly referring to the un definition of genocide as out of date
i said "the jstor article that was made irrelevant" because i was referring to the other thing you were citing
isn’t intended to partly destroy that nationality?
yaaay we've hit argument bedrock and you've started going round in circles
as we've already established, "in whole or in part" is a more specific term than "literally any sized part", or killing one person would be a genocide
Oh geez, you think that’s from Wikipedia? No wonder you’re so lost lol.
we're really running into the problem of you not being able to read full paragraphs over-and-over, aren't we?
Guy thought the definition of genocide was from Wikipedia.
lmao
i guess when you don't have an argument, the best you can do is intentionally misconstrue what the other person is saying, huh?
also, please provide an explanation of how your interpretation doesn't make hamas destroying an israeli bush genocide if hamas thinks that will bring about the end of israel
It’s true that far right Israeli settlers need to stop killing families to take their land. But Hamas has little presence in the West Bank and the issues are not fundamentally linked. Progress needs to be made to stop the settlement of the West Bank (pressure on bibi and sanctions on settlers) and on the need to stop attacks from Hamas on Israeli civilians + the release of hostages. But progress on one of these fronts does not need to be linked to the other.
What they won’t acknowledge is that holding those hostages is basically the last bargaining chip keeping Israel from just bombing all of Gaza into rubble. What’s left of it after all the bombing until now, that is.
This isn’t about those stupid fucking terrorists, it’s about stopping the other bunch of fucking terrorists who killed 20,000+ innocents from massacring more people, or destroying their homes and infrastructure leading to a slow lingering death from starvation and exposure just so that they can kill people and pretend it isn’t their fault.
I mean, the only reason Israel is in Gaza is because those terrorists were elected by Gaza and then ran into Israel to murder thousands of unarmed men, women, and children — so, I’d say it’s definitely about those terrorists lol.
Saying they were elected, while not a lie, is just a little bit disingenuous. Sure, they were elected... in 2007 with the understanding the their governance would be fairly different than it ended up going. An election has not been held since. That's 16 years ago. People who are dying now weren't even alive to vote then.
The US shifted from a veto to abstaining, which is as close as the US is likely going to get to voting against Israel. That’s actually a huge shift, as soft as it might seem.
Leaning too heavily into Israel and siding with genocide.
Leaning too heavily against, and being accused of being pro-Hamas.
Worse, if Biden withdraws all aid to Israel and then Israel is hit with another terrorist attack, manufactured or not, that’s the end of Biden.
Within the electorate resides Jewish Americans who still largely support Israel by the polling, and the progressives and Palestinian Americans (a fat smaller voting bloc).
Best Biden is going to manage in toeing the line is singling out Netanyahu (who himself is unpopular in Israel) instead of Israel itself and actions like this.
The risk obviously being that if Biden loses this election, the guy who wouldn’t just indirectly but likely directly commit genocide against Palestinians would come in and you certainly wouldn’t hear the words, “indiscriminate bombing” from Trump’s facial sphincter…
if Biden withdraws all aid to Israel and then Israel is hit with another terrorist attack, manufactured or not, that’s the end of Biden.
Crazy that it’s somehow Biden’s fault if they get attacked again. Imagine if Netanyahu lost his power because someone else his the US with a terror attack.
I mean, okay, technically you’re not wrong; but it would affect his performance in what all involved seem to expect will be a closely contested election… So it could (and likely would) literally be the end of the Biden Administration.
We’d need the texts of all the different resolutions the SC has attempted on this issue to say what changed where at whose request, but the article makes it look this is closer to a rerun of resolutions the US vetoed weeks ago
The UN Security Council has called for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, after the US did not veto the measure in a shift from its previous position
The UN Security Council on Monday passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and “the urgent need to expand the flow” of aid into Gaza.
Add comment