World News

32391 readers

681 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

555

I miss bread, says girl, as Gaza food crisis mounts (www.bbc.com)

submitted 9 months ago by CollisionResistance to c/[email protected]

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

but legally it only needs to satisfy ONE of these conditions, ...

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

No; reread that. It must satisfy TWO conditions, any of the lettered items as well as an an intent to destroy in whole or in part, which Israel has not exhibited. According to their statements, they want to destroy Hamas, not Palestinians. Israel has a sophisticated intelligence network in order to select targets and even built AI to select legal targets faster than humans can, which would be an odd thing to do if they simply wanted to destroy Palestinians and weren't trying to follow international law. Israel's tolerance for collateral damage has clearly gone up, but that does not a genocide make.

If you think this might be true, please review again the systemic denial of foreign aid to the citizens. What possible motivation could a country have to deny women and children food and medicine? There is none other than a hope to destroy that people.

Israel is letting aid through, just not as much as the belligerent nation attacking them would like. If you want to know why, here's an article about it;

long lines because they have to inspect what goes into Gaza to deny Hamas tools of war
many "dual-use" shipments are rejected because they could be weaponized
many shipments are blocked by Israeli protesters
and many aid organizations have given up because of the risks associated with delivering shipments in a war zone.

Israel wants to pacify the ones who are attacking them. They want safety. If Israel wanted to destroy Palestinians and didn't care about international law, I suspect they could have turned the entirety of Gaza to glass in a day. If they wanted to starve Gazans out it's odd that they are letting an average of 100 trucks a day through instead of zero.

Ultimately critics of Israel believe they are responsible for keeping supply lines open to a hostile and belligerent nation while at war with them, a nation they are blockading and attacking but not occupying. I have a hard time thinking of examples of any other nation that has been put into this situation.

[–] pennomi 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It’s about plausible deniability, and it seems to be working for them. They can’t overtly destroy the whole nation because they’d be shunned from global trade.

Intent is very tricky to prove, so yes, Israel will get away with it, and it will very likely be ruled “not a genocide”, legally. After all, they are being abetted by the US. Turns out that the only thing that really matters in international law is being allied with the big players.

But arguing the “legal” definition is a sad excuse for a distraction anyway. What matters is that the death and starvation of many thousands of children continues, and Israel shows no signs of stopping.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It’s about plausible deniability, and it seems to be working for them. They can’t overtly destroy the whole nation because they’d be shunned from global trade.

They have proven themselves quite resilient even when opposed by the rest of the world and their neighbors. I suspect what is keeping them from destroying the entire nation is ethical restraint, and the memory of what led to the creation of Israel in the first place, the genocide they themselves experienced, the sort these laws were created to prevent.

But arguing the “legal” definition is a sad excuse for a distraction anyway. What matters is that the death and starvation of many thousands of children continues, and Israel shows no signs of stopping.

Okay, if we're talking common usage of the term and not legal definition, genocide is destroying an ethnic group. The ethnic group in question here is Arab, and Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, 21% of Israel's population is Arab. They are in no risk of destruction, nor are they making any meaningful attempt to eradicate this group within or without their own borders. No one is putting Arabs on trains to extermination camps. The only way to make genocide even arguable is because national groups are included in the legal definition.

By all means, take issue with death and starvation. I agree that it is terrible. What I take issue with is holding Israel to a different standard than other nations and blaming them for defending themselves by inappropriately calling it a genocide.