Where did I say that Israel needs to wipe out any particular population? I said they need to deal with Hezbollah, which is a genocidal terror army, and then deal with the Iranian regime, which is a genocidal Islamist government regime. Putting off a two state solution until the Palestinians can agree to stop trying to murder Jews isn’t advocating for genocide. That’s a ridiculous statement you made.
Israel isn’t done yet. Hezbollah is almost done, but there is still the head of the octopus: the Iranian regime. As long as they are in power and are working towards nukes, Israel will not be able to live in peace.
A two state solution is a long term goal. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was the first test of a 2SS and look how that turned out. The Palestinian people have a role to play in this too, by making a commitment to pursue peaceful coexistence. Otherwise we will go through all this again in another 15 years.
The entire area is a giant terrorist base. There are 500km of tunnels underneath Gaza used to transport weapons and conduct terror attacks. Hamas was integrated into the civilian infrastructure.
The impact on civilians is devastating but this is the only way to end the cycle of violence. Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.
US operations have killed a lot of civilians. But there is no theater of war quite like Gaza, which is what makes the numbers that much more impressive.
They’re not. The statement is nothing more than a face-saving move to avoid looking weak to other Middle East countries. They don’t want to retaliate because they know it will end with the destruction of their nuclear dreams, so they’re using the ceasefire as an excuse.
You can’t cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here’s a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739
Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it’s a vague term and international laws of war don’t exist?
Gaza isn’t a country, it’s a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.
Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.
They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It’s one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn’t respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.
Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same “international law” that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.
‘Strike’ is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.
Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don’t support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn’t, Israel’s enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.
One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>
No, it literally means nothing other than, “We, the ICJ, can hear this case.”
That’s because we’re discussing the definition of proportionality outside the broader context of the laws of warfare. It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law. So no, it doesn’t just license a group like Hamas to do what they did on the grounds that it helped them achieve their goals.
LOL, it is not the position of most of the world that Hamas is a resistance movement. It is only the position of radical Islamists and Western leftist anarchists.
They are an organization that formed for the purpose of committing genocide and they have been responsible for the barbaric murder of thousands of civilians. They are as terrorist as you can get.
By the way, there is mounting evidence that support among Gazans for peaceful coexistence with Israel is much higher than previously thought. Evidence, for example, that Hamas has been fudging the numbers on their surveys that show otherwise, recent surveys that show much more positive results, and with the death of Sinwar and damage to Hamas, Gazans are starting to speak out against them. If that is indeed true, it destroys the whole “resistance” and “decolonization” narrative since they wouldn’t actually represent the people for whom they claim to be resisting.
Newsflash: lots of these “experts” hate Israel. Same reason why they seem single-mindedly focused on such a tiny country with all the other atrocities and human rights abuses happening around the world. Did you know that just yesterday the Turkish military was bombing the Kurds?
And no, the ICJ did not rule that it is plausible Israel is committing genocide. This is a popular misconception. The former head of the ICJ clarified the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
“Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
In other words, the court basically said the case can move forward. That’s it.
Unfortunately, there is no unbiased information about Israel. Even the so-called experts are biased. Israel is arguably the most divisive country on the planet (which seems odd for such a tiny country of only 9 million citizens) and anybody writing about it does so because they have strong opinions about it.
Most people are painfully ignorant about Israel and soak up the propaganda they see on TikTok.
An accusation of genocide is a pretty serious accusation and the onus is on people who make the accusation to prove the case. You don’t get to call it genocide just because you hate Israel.
First of all, he’s not my president. I’m not Israeli.
Second, comments made by certain people in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic terror attack aren’t proof of genocidal intent. He has clarified his position since then.
Also, have you ever wondered why South Africa of all countries brought the case to the ICJ? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that they entertained Hamas leaders as visiting dignitaries a month before they submitted the case?
Says international law. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality#:~:text=The principle of proportionality prohibits,and direct military advantage anticipated”.
Hamas wants to make a deal if they can get what they want out of it. That’s the whole reason they took hostages. Terrorists who take hostages shouldn’t get what they want.
And again, Gaza is not a genocide.
That’s not what the principle of proportionality means. It has nothing to do with the death toll on each side. It’s a principle that’s applied to each individual strike and requires armed forces to ensure that any civilian deaths are proportional to the military objectives of the strike. Hamas and Hebollah are terrorist organizations that don’t respect the laws of war, so that’s a pretty big point in favor of Israel.
Second, many military experts have agreed that, given the conditions in which Israel is fighting this war, the civilian-to-combatant ratio in Gaza is among the lowest in the history of urban warfare. You’ve seen what Israel is capable of over the past year - it’s patently obvious that the death toll could have been much, much higher.
Third, the moral judgment of rightness or wrongness in a conflict isn’t determined by the death toll on each side. The winners of a war will typically suffer fewer casualties than the losers because that’s a big part of how winners in war are determined. The fact that very few US civilians died in WWII compared to German civilians doesn’t make the US the bad guys in that war.
There is one side in this conflict that is openly genocidal: the Iranian regime. They have literally admitted their goal is to destroy Israel. They have a doomsday clock in Tehran counting down to the death of Israel in the year 2040. And they are willing to sacrifice every single Palestinian life to make that happen.
Does it really feel like that’s where the region is headed? Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas? Don’t you think Israel could eliminate all 2 million Gazans in a few hours if they wanted to? Step back from the propaganda and think critically for a minute.
If you think there are a lot of Palestinians who want revenge, that’s all the more reason to postpone the recognition of a Palestinian state. Part of the problem with the two state solution is that it rests on a faulty assumption: that statehood is a goal of the Palestinian people. The past 75 years of history shows that to be false. If they wanted a state, they would have one. The goal of the Palestinian people (or to be fair, the Palestinian leadership) has always been the destruction of Israel. That’s what has always defined Palestinian nationalism. So pushing the 2SS is pushing a solution on the Israelis and Palestinians that the latter never wanted, and now the former don’t really want either.
The only real solution is one that will take time and involves several important developments: