I miss bread, says girl, as Gaza food crisis mounts
I miss bread, says girl, as Gaza food crisis mounts
Footage shows desperation as crowds rush to aid deliveries.
You're viewing a single thread.
In hindsight it probably wasn't a good idea to bite the hand that feeds. Hamas evidently doesn't give a shit about the condition of their civilians as they could end this immediately any time they want by releasing the hostages and surrendering. Critics here expect Israel to care about Gazans more than their own elected government does, which continues to exploit them for their value as human shields, martyrs, and sympathetic children to be paraded before the press instead of keeping them safe. Yet they still somehow still enjoy popular support. It's incredible.
Sigh just go get a life. Nobody wants to read your genocidal apologia. And Israel isn't the hand that feeds you piece of shit they're the cause of this whole mess.
- Not genocide, no matter how much you repeat the mantra.
- Clearly Gaza is dependent on Israel for basic necessities, they provoked war with them anyway.
Over 1% of the TOTAL civilian population in Gaza has been killed, with no end in sight. In what twisted worldview is that not genocide?
That commenter apparently went to the turkish school of genocide denial... "if that were a genocide, how come there are still greeks a d armenians around?"
Genocide is a claim of intent, has nothing to do with body count. Israel does not intend to destroy Palestinians. They intend to destroy Hamas and choose legal targets to that effect. Call it atrocious, call it terrible, all it unacceptable, call it all manner of things you don't like, but to call it genocide is simply wrong.
Clearly Gaza is dependent on Israel for basic necessities, they provoked war with them anyway.
Uh yes, that's how occupation works. As an occupying power Israel has an obligation to supply Gazans with food, water and other necessities, even during an insurgency.
Gaza was blockaded, not occupied. Hamas had internal autonomy, Israel just controlled what could get in. It's an important distinction with a lot of legal implications. The west bank is occupied. Gaza is not.
Hope that paycheck you’re getting keeps you comfortable in Tel Aviv. The world will not forget.
What an odd thing to assume, why, is Hamas paying you? Is being a shill the only reason one might disagree?
Odd is defending the deaths of 30,000 people because of socially constructed religions, borders, races and laws. But I have empathy and don’t have an Antisocial Personality Disorder.
People organize themselves according to those things. Even if you think the organization of societies and nations and cultures and religions are arbitrary, said groups still have a right to collective self-defense, to reprisal, to safety, to disincentivize further attacks by responding to violence with violence, to make the next potential attacker think twice about pulling another Oct 7. I support Israel deposing Hamas and achieving meaningful safety by whatever legal means they deem nessicary. They were the victims of a great injustice and I have sympathy and empathy for them. I have significantly less empathy for the nation who orchestrated the slaughter and intentionally provoked this response while hiding behind their own nation's children, using the inevitable tragedy to vilify Israel for defending themselves, parading the innocents they caused to suffer before the cameras. If anything this is a self-inflicted wound caused by Palestinian support of Hamas, militarization and indoctrination of youth, and popular intifada. Endless belligerence provoking predictable responses.
Now you're diagnosing me with a mental disorder for disagreeing with you? If you believe the only reason one might disagree with you is because they are a shill, have a mental disorder, or are fundamentally indecent or evil, you are in serious need of some introspection.
That’s a lot of words to say you’re a Zionist and an apologist for ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
Uh... The UN and every other NGO worth its salt considers Gaza occupied.
If that terrible definition sticks, expect it to be actually occupied with an IDF presence once this is over like the West Bank is.
Like many here, I'm on the side of civilians - of any ethnicity.
The overwhelming majority of civilians in Gaza did not elect Hamas (happened before half of them were born) and it feels disingenuous to call them an elected government.
Nevertheless yes, I expect everyone in this conflict to care about these civilians a lot more than most of the combatants do. Expecting people to act humanely isn't unreasonable.
It's not at all "incredible" that we are against the starvation of children.
My oh my that is a biased youtuber. Blatantly saying no one could possibly disagree and be a, "decent person," that Israel defending itself is, "evil winning," makes it clear.
They "stole" the land while simultaneously buying it legally, but somehow it doesn't count because it's just, "a piece of paper"? Okay. That's how land purchasing works, and it's not theft.
It took a while to find sources, the interview of the man "laughing at atrocities" was talking about the Tantura massacre, which was terrible. One can certainly find many examples of atrocious behavior and war crimes in this long conflict. Neither Israel nor Palestine has clean hands. I've seen accounts of equally egregious or worse behavior by the Arab League, but that's indirectly relevant in today's conflict at best. Those atrocities happened in a conflict generations ago.
In this most recent chapter of the war, Gaza's once-elected government, Hamas, was clearly the antagonist. Oct 7th was the direct cause of all this. If you have the stomach for it, you should see what they did. (warning: NSFL, cruelty, violence, death.) It put Tantura to shame, and it isn't an atrocity of the past, it is of the present, one that needs to be addressed. Unlike grievances from generations ago, the belligerents remain a threat and further attacks need to be prevented.
Israel deserves safety and binding their hands before that can be achieved, before Hamas is deposed, before the hostages are returned, is akin to holding them down so they can't respond to an antagonist punching them. That's not something a good person would do in my opinion. It sucks that there's a cost to civilians but that's always the case when one's government starts a war and loses. I want this war to end, but not until Israel has achieved meaningful safety goals. Otherwise, this constant violence and belligerence will just continue, and it will be blindly fired rockets, suicide bombings, and Oct 7th's indefinitely.
I don't find this rando cheering for the downfall of America and Israel to be compelling, if anything it's evidence of the media bubble you inhabit.
So, not a decent person.
It's possible to disagree in good faith without going ad hominem. You should try it. I can both disagree that this is a genocide and be a decent person.
It's disheartening how effectively Hamas and their allies has convinced the left that they are the good guys and Israel must be stopped before they are defeated. Iran made a good investment.
Interesting that you dishonestly and conveniently disregarded the expert opinion of Raz Segal; an Israeli historian residing in the United States who is Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Endowed Professor in the Study of Modern Genocide at Stockton University, where he also directs the Master of Arts in Holocaust and Genocide Studies program. Who vehemently describes what is happening as a genocide.
I'm sure you're aware many similarly credentialed historians disagree with Raz Segal about that.
But yet you failed to list them. I have another Holocaust researcher that condemns Israel’s actions.
Nobody cares about you or what you think. Go whither in disgrace.
And yet, you cared enough to reply and virtue signal.
You should look up the Paradox of Tolerance. We don’t tolerate genocidal apologists here.
I am doing no such thing, I am pointing out that this is not a genocide as defined by international law. You should look up the legal definition of genocide, because you clearly don't understand what it means.
Oh you wanna go there? Yeah let’s go over this in excruciating detail. From your link:
Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:
... 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 situation in Gaza hits the majority of these conditions, but legally it only needs to satisfy ONE of these conditions, and even if it targets only a PART of the population.
Let’s review:
Item A: Killing people in Gaza is a given. As I mentioned before, over 1% of the civilian population is now dead, with no end in sight. What’s worse is that even by Israel’s estimates, the majority of deaths are civilians including women and children, not combatants.
Item B: I think mental and bodily harm are given here, considering they are being killed. But let’s focus on the displacement of the population, and how over 70% of all civilian housing is now destroyed leaving people with nowhere to live. I would think this easily satisfies the condition for systematic mental harm - destroying the homes and livelihoods of the people.
Item C: Israel is deliberately inflicting conditions of famine and sickness on the civilian population by denying relief efforts from entering the country. Not only that, but they are restricting water, electricity, internet, food, medicine, and all other necessities of life. According to WHO, 1 in 6 children there are acutely malnourished.
Items D/E: To my knowledge there has been no systemic anti-birth measures or forceful displacement of children. Just death instead.
“But Aha!” One might say, “Genocide is a matter of intent, not actions!” Israel can kill all the Palestinians it wants as long as they claim it’s only targeting legal targets! 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.
So yes, Israel will claim to have different motivations but their actions are clear as day.
It’s clear that several of the conditions are met for the international definition of genocide (remember, only ONE condition is required). Whether the nations in charge decide to enforce it or not is an entirely different story. The United States seems like it is unwilling to act.
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.
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.
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.