Israeli-Palestinian conflict (146 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

Not neccesserily.

Even if we agree you still have to show explicit intent in actions. Number of deaths in of itself is not a prof, unless we are talking demonstrably large numbers I don't think will ever happen in this conflict.

What's demonstrably large? And where do you get that from?

That still doesn’t make the Naqba a genocide. Again, forcible expulsion is not a genocide. Ethnic cleansing may not have a legal definition, but that still doesn’t make it genocide. Nor are a smattering of isolated massacres perpetrated by both sides during a war enough evidence to claim genocide.

Why? because you said so? Also isolated? The israelis systematically massacred enough people to drive away permanently half the indigenous population in 48. They even brag about it to this day. By definition of intl law that is genocide.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Post Ironic]

What's demonstrably large? And where do you get that from?



Why? because you said so? Also isolated? The israelis systematically massacred enough people to drive away permanently half the indigenous population in 48. They even brag about it to this day. By definition of intl law that is genocide.

Prove that they systematically massacred a large part of the Palestinian population in ‘48. Because I call bullshit. The “in part” from the above definition doesn’t mean what you think it does. In part doesn’t mean killing 0.1% of the population group. C’mon.

There were a dozen or so massacres of civilians in the ‘48 war. And none were anywhere near big enough for the totality to be called genocide.

 

[Seven]

Why is it so important that is genocide?

There are other crimes too.

One of my professors was a judge at the ICC. She always said you have to take into account that gathering evidence is very hard and that you are always been two opposing sides. So genocide will usually be far too hard to prove.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Prove that they systematically massacred a large part of the Palestinian population in ‘48. Because I call bullshit. The “in part” from the above definition doesn’t mean what you think it does. In part doesn’t mean killing 0.1% of the population group. C’mon.

There were a dozen or so massacres of civilians in the ‘48 war. And none were anywhere near big enough for the totality to be called genocide.

Are we going to use intl law definition? If so, there's no such thing as big enough in the definition. If the killing resulted in the destruction of the ethnic group(partly, the partly here is 50%) and its erasure ( they can never go back) it is genocide per the definition.

Now if we gonna ball park it, then there's no sense in discussing.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Why is it so important that is genocide?

There are other crimes too.

One of my professors was a judge at the ICC. She always said you have to take into account that gathering evidence is very hard and that you are always been two opposing sides. So genocide will usually be far too hard to prove.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

You are right, i called it ethnic cleansing too up until last week when i found out there's no legal framework for that. It seems that is just PR euphemism for genocide.

 

[Post Ironic]

Are we going to use intl law definition? If so, there's no such thing as big enough in the definition. If the killing resulted in the destruction of the ethnic group(partly, the partly here is 50%) and its erasure ( they can never go back) it is genocide per the definition.

Now if we gonna ball park it, then there's no sense in discussing.

There isn't a point. We disagree. What we consider the threshold for genocide is different. The 1948 expulsion of Palestinians is not a genocide at all in my books. It did not destroy an ethnic group, nor did it erase them. It moved them. And forcible expulsion/population displacement is nowhere in that definition of genocide. If they had wiped out 10% of the population while doing this? You’d have a genocide. But they didn’t, not even close. The displaced group has kept its language, religion, culture, etc. Were there war crimes committed? Absolutely. Doesn’t make it genocide.

 

[Tomice]

What's demonstrably large? And where do you get that from?

Demonstrebly large.

Over 300k civilians in Syria in a single decade is demonstrably large.
Over 300k civilians in Yemen in a single decade is demonstrably large.

Around 50k including militants in over 70 years is not.

The entire israeli-arab conflict is rated 49th By amount of casualties in any conflict since 1950.
On both sides. And it's the longest lasting one.

How's that in prespective?

Why? because you said so? Also isolated? The israelis systematically massacred enough people to drive away permanently half the indigenous population in 48. They even brag about it to this day. By definition of intl law that is genocide.

Israeli didnt systematically massacred. And it wasn't the sole reason for the flight of Palestinians in 48'.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right, i called it ethnic cleansing too up until last week when i found out there's no legal framework for that. It seems that is just PR euphemism for genocide.

So let's just use a different well defined term that so happens help to shape a false narrative.

 

[Seven]

Demonstrebly large.

Over 300k civilians in Syria in a single decade is demonstrably large.
Over 300k civilians in Yemen in a single decade is demonstrably large.

Around 50k including militants in over 70 years is not.




Israeli didnt systematically massacred. And it wasn't the sole reason for the flight of Palestinians in 48'.

- - - Updated - - -



So let's just use a different well defined term that so happens help to shape a false narrative.

It's a term you can't use lightly that's for sure.

I think maybe we should refrain from heavy legal terms and assess all of this from a moral point of view.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

 

[Post Ironic]

It's a term you can't use lightly that's for sure.

I think maybe we should refrain from heavy legal terms and assess all of this from a moral point of view.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk

And by any measure current Israeli actions are morally bankrupt. I understand why they are happening, and that some sort of response to Hamas is necessary, but it doesn’t justify this or make it morally good. And personally, with states like Saudi looking to normalize relations and growing more western (however slow that is happening), I have to imagine to the best course of action for Israel, in the long run, would be to ramp up pressure on the Palestinians and Arab world by presenting another 2008 Olmert style offer.

 

[Ronn]

 

[ALC]

don’t see two state solution being considered a possibility by any one there

Looks like an all out war, “may the victor take the spoils” kind

 

[Seven]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...-star-of-david-until-countries-condemn-hamas/

This guy is the perfect PR man for Hamas.

 

[Stevie]

 

[Oggy]

This people are so obviously Hamas…

On a more serious note, this is what they’re doing for decades and then act surprised when they face resistance.

 

[abstract]

 

[zizinho]

I think they should bomb it. What's safe is safe

 

[Fab Fragment]

These kids might became the future resistance fighters against oppression. Must be eradicated.

 

[DAiDEViL]

On a more serious note, this is what they’re doing for decades and then act surprised when they face resistance.

Who are you talking about here? Easy to get things mixed up.

 

[Oggy]

Who are you talking about here? Easy to get things mixed up.

About Israel ofcourse.

Still can’t believe that anyone sane can defend what they’re doing.

 

[Seven]

About Israel ofcourse.

Still can’t believe that anyone sane can defend what they’re doing.

This is a PR disaster for Israel.

Support is dwindling fast.