A Political Thread pt. 2

[Leonormous Boozer]

That's not my understanding. Dolus Specialis is the highly specialised intent needed to prove genocide in an international court. The rest outside of that falls under war crimes, for the most part.

Again, I find it interesting that the Isreali's are always the ones labeled genocidal when only one spurious case from SA has been brought against it (that I'll happily bet you £1000, under current info, they will never in a million years get convicted for) but Hamas nah, they are freedom fighters man.

Yeah, the test for direct intent is knowledge of its consequences and the desire to cause that harm, it's not based on motivation (nothing in law is) and mostly based on outcome.

Put it this way: If I wanted to disperse a crowd and decided to achieve this by throwing a live grenade into the middle of the crowd, even though my motivation wasn't to kill anyone, the intent to do so was there through the action of throwing a grenade. It's the same with starving a population.

A historic comparison would be the famine, it's widely regarded as a genocide outside of British historians. The motivation to continue to export food from a starving population was to maintain the landholding structure and economic relationship between Ireland and Britain at the time, the action was so deliberate and the consequences so obvious that the intent to kill the population was obvious.

From Wiki:

For an act to be classified as genocide (under the Genocide Convention), it is essential to demonstrate that the perpetrators had a deliberate and specific aim (dolus specialis) to physically destroy the group based on its real or perceived nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion.

Starving* a nation of is blatantly an act with the aim to kill based on nationality.

*and I'd also strongly argue bombing the **** out of it is too but can at least somewhat see your logic here even though I think it requires a lot of mental gymnastics especially when considering the lack of a threat Hamas pose to Israel when they don't completely ignore intelligence tip offs.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

If you want genocide to mean war crimes now then fine, well actually its not fine as words have meanings. Yes things are going to be up for debate but I don't know how you can look at the clear genocides in WW2, Rwanda, Burma, South east Asia and the like and then look at the war in the Middle East and come to the conclusion they are the same thing. Its actually mental imho.

no one is saying they are the same thing, just that the people who define genocide have a much broader definition than the incredibly narrow definition that you are using.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

no one is saying they are the same thing, just that the people who define genocide have a much broader definition than the incredibly narrow definition that you are using.

Even with WE's definition, if Israel were to completely starve the population of Gaza, they'd reach the threshold.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Even with WE's definition, if Israel were to completely starve the population of Gaza, they'd reach the threshold.

idk, if they do it with the pretext of shits and giggles they'd slide.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Even with WE's definition, if Israel were to completely starve the population of Gaza, they'd reach the threshold.

How many people have died of starvation in Gaza?

 

[Welsh Exile]

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

why use wikipedia when you can use the actual document. The Israeli actions the past year fit into part c of article II.

It says this just above

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:

 

[Welsh Exile]

no one is saying they are the same thing, just that the people who define genocide have a much broader definition than the incredibly narrow definition that you are using.

No, I like words to mean what they are. We have war crimes and crimes against humanity meaning one thing and genocide to mean another. Lumping them all together is not useful

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

How many people have died of starvation in Gaza?

A Political Thread pt. 2

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c80r2y47rz4t At what point is Israel just the war monger?

www.therugbyforum.com

This was the root of the current intent argument.

It says this just above

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:

Again, you're confusing intent and motivation. Israel's motivation might be to kill Hamas but the intent of their actions are to destroy all of the above.

 

[Welsh Exile]

A Political Thread pt. 2

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c80r2y47rz4t At what point is Israel just the war monger?

www.therugbyforum.com

This was the root of the current intent argument.



Again, you're confusing intent and motivation. Israel's motivation might be to kill Hamas but the intent of their actions are to destroy all of the above.

And what is your proof of this? Where's the evidence?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

And what is your proof of this? Where's the evidence?

Bombing Gaza on a scale that has never been witnessed before.

Or following Netanyahu's threat of causing a famine, causing a famine.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Bombing Gaza on a scale that has never been witnessed before.

Or following Netanyahu's threat of causing a famine, causing a famine.

And how many people have died of starvation?

Gaza is a pretty small place and is governed by people who put military infrastructure in schools and hospitals. The fighting has been going on for over a year and what, at best 30 thousand people have died. Weird, no?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

And how many people have died of starvation?

Very few but it takes awhile, Netanyahu only just made that threat. Are you happy for him to proceed?

Gaza is a pretty small place and is governed by people who put military infrastructure in schools and hospitals. The fighting has been going on for over a year and what, at best 30 thousand people have died. Weird, no?

I mean its 40,000+ with 10,000+ missing (only retrieved corpses are being counted as dead) with a generous estimation of a 50/50 hamas/civilian strike rate. The death of 25,000+ of some of the most vulnerable and oppressed civilians on earth isn't proportionate collateral to 7 October or the risk posed by Hamas. It's also a constantly escalating situation.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Very few but it takes awhile, Netanyahu only just made that threat. Are you happy for him to proceed?

I mean it's 40,000+ with 10,000+ missing (only retrieved corpses are being counted as dead) with a generous estimation of a 50/50 hamas/civilian strike rate. The death of 25,000+ of some of the most vulnerable and oppressed civilians on earth isn't proportionate collateral to 7 October or the risk posed by Hamas. It's also a constantly escalating situation.

No obviously not, that's why o asked how many as I'm much more concerned with actions

As I say I will wait until some more solid numbers come out but even taking your numbers Gaza had a population of what,over 2 million? How many Jews do you think would be alive if the roles were reversed? That's right, they would've been wiped out 70 years ago if the roles were reversed.

Out of interest, what do you think a proportional response would've been? As I said in here if we're talking like for like then Isreal would've gone into Gaza and thrown babies in ovens, rgang raped women and executed over 1000 people and taken over 200 hostages. Proportionality in military terms does not mean they killed 1000 so we have to kill 1000. War has never, and will never, work like that.

 

[McTallshort]

How many Jews do you think would be alive if the roles were reversed? That's right, they would've been wiped out 70 years ago if the roles were reversed.

That's subjective and absolutely no excuse for what Israel are doing.

 

[Welsh Exile]

That's subjective and absolutely no excuse for what Israel are doing.

I never said it was. I mentioned it to clearly highlight the genocidal difference between them.

I don't think it's subjective either. I think it's as true a statement as you'll find about an alternative reality. Obviously unprovable but seeing as Hamas gleefully posted their actions on October 7th and said they'd do it again and again it's not a massive leap. That is now and I was talking 70 years ago but again, seeing as Isreal was attacked pretty much 1 day after its inception I think it's safe to say they never would've lasted if the roles were reversed. **** me it never would've got off its feet in the first place.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

No obviously not, that's why o asked how many as I'm much more concerned with actions

It seemed to me more that you misread/misunderstood/were frustrated by Gavin's post and then, whether intentionally or not, argued in bad faith rather than admitting it. If you were concerned with actions, you wouldn't have engaged Gavin's post like you did because it concerned potential plans rather than actions.

As I say I will wait until some more solid numbers come out but even taking your numbers Gaza had a population of what,over 2 million?

They're Reuters numbers not mine.

What has the population of Gaza got to do with it? You said earlier that Hamas commited an act of genocide when killing 1200 but are denying it's genocide when it's 20,000+ civilians.

How many Jews do you think would be alive if the roles were reversed? That's right, they would've been wiped out 70 years ago if the roles were reversed.

The roles aren't reversed because of the Nakba, 75 years ago. Hamas are a product of Israel so its an irrelevant question and its policies and actions in the time period since.

Out of interest, what do you think a proportional response would've been? As I said in here if we're talking like for like then Isreal would've gone into Gaza and thrown babies in ovens, rgang raped women and executed over 1000 people and taken over 200 hostages.

I think Israel should have defended themselves on 7 October rather than ignoring multiple intelligence warnings. They go on about their right to do so enough.

At an absolute minimum Israel have been acting disproportionately since early May when they didn't engage in a ceasefire that would have got them their hostages back. In reality, far before that.

I fail to see what military objective Palestinian civilians are dying under bombfire for. This was evident within about 72 hours of 7 October when it was clear that Hamas had taken the hostages into their tunnels and that civilian life can't be leveraged over Hamas nor can they be bombed out of existance.

Proportionality in military terms does not mean they killed 1000 so we have to kill 1000. War has never, and will never, work like that.

I won't use terms that I don't know the meaning of so no need to explain.

 

[Welsh Exile]

It seemed to me more that you misread/misunderstood/were frustrated by Gavin's post and then, whether intentionally or not, argued in bad faith rather than admitting it. If you were concerned with actions, you wouldn't have engaged Gavin's post like you did because it concerned potential plans rather than actions.

They're Reuters numbers not mine.

What has the population of Gaza got to do with it? You said earlier that Hamas commited an act of genocide when killing 1200 but are denying it's genocide when it's 20,000+ civilians.

The roles aren't reversed because of the Nakba, 75 years ago. Hamas are a product of Israel so its an irrelevant question and its policies and actions in the time period since.

I think Israel should have defended themselves on 7 October rather than ignoring multiple intelligence warnings. They go on about their right to do so enough.

At an absolute minimum Israel have been acting disproportionately since early May when they didn't engage in a ceasefire that would have got them their hostages back. In reality, far before that.

I fail to see what military objective Palestinian civilians are dying under bombfire for. This was evident within about 72 hours of 7 October when it was clear that Hamas had taken the hostages into their tunnels and that civilian life can't be leveraged over Hamas nor can they be bombed out of existance.



I won't use terms that I don't know the meaning of so no need to explain.

Concerned with potential plans? As I've said, I will wait and see if said plans come to fruition rather than forming an opinion on something that might not happen. If it does then sure, not good. A war crime.

You're right it's not numbers, it's intent. I mentioned it as you rightly keep mentioning there is a power imbalance here from a technological point of view and in over a year Isreal has left the vast majority of civilian population in a tiny area where they're used a human shields, alive.

What happened before the Nakba?

What does "defending itself" look like? Can you elaborate?

Edit: apologies I misread your post. You didn't engage with the question and instead again shifted blame onto Isreal for October 7th no less. It was their fault for letting it happen. Just say what you really think, Isreal doesn't have a right to defend itself.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Concerned with potential plans? As I've said, I will wait and see if said plans come to fruition rather than forming an opinion on something that might not happen. If it does then sure, not good.

Continuing with the bad faith argument after being called out on it is certainly a response.

The root of our discussion, and essentially the only part I've engaged with* was this post where you displayed an incorrect understanding of the meaning of intent and was directly responding to the plans you claim not to be concerned with. In case you've lost track.

A Political Thread pt. 2

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c80r2y47rz4t At what point is Israel just the war monger?

www.therugbyforum.com

*aside from the tangental semantics of whether killing x amount of civilians without a clear achievable objective reaches the genocide threshold.

 

[McTallshort]

I never said it was. I mentioned it to clearly highlight the genocidal difference between them.

I don't think it's subjective either. I think it's as true a statement as you'll find about an alternative reality. Obviously unprovable but seeing as Hamas gleefully posted their actions on October 7th and said they'd do it again and again it's not a massive leap. That is now and I was talking 70 years ago but again, seeing as Isreal was attacked pretty much 1 day after its inception I think it's safe to say they never would've lasted if the roles were reversed. **** me it never would've got off its feet in the first place.

Would Hamas exist without Israel's treatment of the Palestinians? No. Israel empowered Hamas in the same way the British state empowered the PIRA.

Yes Israel has been attacked from day 1 but since then they have become Allies of both Jordan and Egypt and are on good diplomatic terms with the Saudis. The October attacks were a failure of Israeli intelligence and their response has been because of that and to try and prop up a populist government

 

[Welsh Exile]

Would Hamas exist without Israel's treatment of the Palestinians? No. Israel empowered Hamas in the same way the British state empowered the PIRA.

Yes Israel has been attacked from day 1 but since then they have become Allies of both Jordan and Egypt and are on good diplomatic terms with the Saudis. The October attacks were a failure of Israeli intelligence and their response has been because of that and to try and prop up a populist government

See, this is where I come all of this from, a militant atheist point of view and I really think one of the many things that makes this conflict unique is the specific problem that jihadism brings. I can see why people compare to the IRA or SA but they really are nothing alike.

I think some form of them would've existed yes, seeing as some form of them has existed since the state was formed and has been fundamentally opposed to its right to exist still to this day. As you rightly point out, Isreal was attacked by Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria/Iraq (I think) in 48 and most of them again in 67 and are on good-ish terms with some of them now. This supports my overall argument, though, no? Historically, and even today (though Netenyahu is pretty much as bad as it gets) Isreal don't want to see Arabs or Muslims and their countries wiped out, they're happy to build relationships with parties that no longer say their sole aim to eradicate them. Seems fair enough.

I don't think their response has been to cover up their defensive failures per se but more Netenyahu seeing an opportunity to stay out of prison, but that's by the by.