Israel-Gaza war

[Silent Hunter]

My initial impression is that, since Israel isn't known for using incendiary devices, the missile strike set off something like a gas cannister and triggered a major fire that way.

Which is really something that should have been thought about before authorising a strike like that.

I suspect it has been 'thought about' and the response is that it's proportionate in each and every case.

Any real consideration for Palestinian civilians died on October 7.

[MyLifeIsYours]

Dr Phil

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7H4ZuftIqW/

My opinion of him has increased markedly.

Hillary Clinton

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Ht24wNk50/

Great message.

No message or sympathy for the 35,800 Palestinians who have been slaughter by the Israelies. They all want to talk about the hostages but never give a damn about all the poor children and mothers where their homes have been demolished and are witnessing a famine crisis due to the actions of the Israeli government blocking the aid.

More reasons to hate the fraud Dr Phil and that sociopath Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Old Man Willow]

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

This isn't being a "i slipped my finger" moment anymore for Israël. This is the same pattern over & over again for the last 8 months.

A simple "this strike never should've been launched" doesn't cut it.

Also, it was not the worth the risk, might as well throw a nuke and say it was worth the risk because it surely would've killed Hamas terrorists / members within Gaza, at least it's how you would respond if you were consistent and how you would defend at the very least the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

When USA did operations in Iraq, Iran, Syria Afghanistan in the recent past etc... they were careful not to cause civilian casualties. ... That's the difference.

Israel is even more careful, it's just that civilian casualties are less avoidable because Gaza is so dense.

[Agafin]

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

This isn't being a "i slipped my finger" moment anymore for Israël. This is the same pattern over & over again for the last 8 months.

A simple "this strike never should've been launched" doesn't cut it.

Also, it was not the worth the risk, might as well throw a nuke and say it was worth the risk because it surely would've killed Hamas terrorists / members within Gaza, at least it's how you would respond if you were consistent and how you would defend at the very least the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

When USA did operations in Iraq, Iran, Syria Afghanistan in the recent past etc... they were careful not to cause civilian casualties. ... That's the difference.

Israel is even more careful, it's just that civilian casualties are less avoidable because Gaza is so dense.

And also because Hamas deliberately hides amongst civilians.

[Red Velvet]

Dr Phil

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7H4ZuftIqW/

My opinion of him has increased markedly.

Hillary Clinton

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Ht24wNk50/

Great message.

No message or sympathy for the 35,800 Palestinians who have been slaughter by the Israelies. They all want to talk about the hostages but never give a damn about all the poor children and mothers where their homes have been demolished and are witnessing a famine crisis due to the actions of the Israeli government blocking the aid.

More reasons to hate the fraud Dr Phil and that sociopath Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She’s the worst possible political figure in USA, god bless the American people for saying no to her.

As much as it’s hard to admit, the American people made the correct (or at least the less incorrect, I mean) in both 2016 and 2020. Trump was a positive surprise in comparison to Hillary and Biden was also positive surprise in comparison to Trump.

Whoever wins in 2024 it will have been the best decision possible because I trust the American electorate by now. There’s an alternative timeline where Hillary is president today (2017-2024) and the world is under a nuclear armageddon with all these conflicts.

[CumbrianLefty]

If there is one thing that last night's horrors do *not* demonstrate, it is "being careful". I genuinely make this plea to Israel's remaining uncritical apologists - please get your heads out of your wotsits.

[Ancestral Republican]

Wow.

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1795108612777415143

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Dr Phil

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7H4ZuftIqW/

My opinion of him has increased markedly.

Hillary Clinton

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Ht24wNk50/

Great message.

No message or sympathy for the 35,800 Palestinians who have been slaughter by the Israelies. They all want to talk about the hostages but never give a damn about all the poor children and mothers where their homes have been demolished and are witnessing a famine crisis due to the actions of the Israeli government blocking the aid.

More reasons to hate the fraud Dr Phil and that sociopath Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Give us our people back. Again, there is no force on Earth that will stop this war without our people being returned. Do with that what you will.

[Silent Hunter]

Wow.

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1795108612777415143

The suggestion is that no warning was sent before launching the strike.

[Ancestral Republican]

Wow.

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1795108612777415143

The suggestion is that no warning was sent before launching the strike.

A Bibi mea culpa is most unusual. He may sense this could backfire on him spectacularly particularly since Biden had already identified this as being a "red line" - I'm guessing there is a heated US State Department dialogue occurring at the moment.

[KaiserDave]

I’m paraphrasing from SWE, but Israel clearly has no idea what it’s doing and doesn’t know how to “destroy Hamas” so they should stop dropping bombs on anyone where they think Hamas is. Anything less is a war crime.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Wow.

https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1795108612777415143

Should tell you quite a bit that...

Netanyahu is admitting a mistake

and that numerous users on this forum are literally defending this or saying that civilian casualties are just part of the job or that they are even more careful usually than the USA.

Some users are completely lost.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Dr Phil

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7H4ZuftIqW/

My opinion of him has increased markedly.

Hillary Clinton

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Ht24wNk50/

Great message.

No message or sympathy for the 35,800 Palestinians who have been slaughter by the Israelies. They all want to talk about the hostages but never give a damn about all the poor children and mothers where their homes have been demolished and are witnessing a famine crisis due to the actions of the Israeli government blocking the aid.

More reasons to hate the fraud Dr Phil and that sociopath Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She’s the worst possible political figure in USA, god bless the American people for saying no to her.

As much as it’s hard to admit, the American people made the correct (or at least the less incorrect, I mean) in both 2016 and 2020. Trump was a positive surprise in comparison to Hillary and Biden was also positive surprise in comparison to Trump.

Whoever wins in 2024 it will have been the best decision possible because I trust the American electorate by now. There’s an alternative timeline where Hillary is president today (2017-2024) and the world is under a nuclear armageddon with all these conflicts.

All i'll say about this...

Everytime you start to feel a little sorry for her, she reminds you that all Trump voters were right on at least one thing...

not her.

No regrets.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

Well your side is definitely in the majority, just the position of nations alone show that the world by far supports South Africas case.



compared to



including most human rights majority organizations that rightfully classify this is a genocide.

This is a genocide, and it isn't even close. It's textbook genocide.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

Well your side is definitely in the majority, just the position of nations alone show that the world by far supports South Africas case.



compared to



including most human rights majority organizations that rightfully classify this is a genocide.

This is a genocide, and it isn't even close. It's textbook genocide.

 I mean this in the nicest way possible, but with all due respect, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about.  We can discuss the actual definition of genocide another time, but you’re factually wrong about this.  Words have meaning.  I’ll also note that most of the countries on the “opposed” side have far better human rights records than most of those “in support” side.

[KaiserDave]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

[Horus]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with!  I think they’ve definitely committed some pretty serious war crimes and there does need to be accountability for that (as well as the ongoing crimes against humanity in the West Bank).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

[Horus]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

I actually wasn't referring to you, you have been pretty consistent here. A good number of folks, both on and off this forum, haven't.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

I actually wasn't referring to you, you have been pretty consistent here. A good number of folks, both on and off this forum, haven't.

Fair enough, can’t really argue with that sadly.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 

(a) Killing members of the group; 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[afleitch]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.