DarthJon @ DarthJon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

199

Joined

10 mo. ago

That's the definition of a genocide. The evidence has to support the conclusion that Israel has demonstrated intent to destroy the Palestinian people, and the evidence clearly doesn't show that. Here are a few key data points:

1. Even if we take the estimated death toll at face value, every military expert who has looked at the numbers has concluded that the civilian-to-combatant ratio is among the lowest (and possibly THE lowest) in the history of urban warfare. This suggests that the IDF has actually done a very good job of minimizing civilian casualties.
2. Even if we take the estimated death toll at face value, it represents maybe 1-2% of the entire Palestinian population. If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the death toll to be much higher.
3. The pace of civilian death slowed dramatically over the course of the war in Gaza as the IDF moved into different phases of the war. If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the pace of civilian death to remain constant and not diminish over time.

You don't have a grasp of the history. You make it sound like the Palestinians were actively working towards peace and only became radicalized 30 years ago, which is simply untrue. The Palestinians have been radicalized since Arafat became Chairman of the PLO in the 1960's. The PLO carried out their first terror attack years before the 1967 war, before Israel even came to occupy Gaza and the WB. The 1948 war was literally a war of annihilation carried out by several Arab countries (and thankfully they lost).

Even Arafat's supporters blame him for walking away from the negotiating table at Camp David. Peace was in sight and he rejected it. Abbas was offered almost everything in 2008 and again they rejected it. Do you know why? Because they have never been interested in peaceful coexistence with Israel. Never. They have rejected every partition plan and every peace deal because nothing less than all of it is acceptable to them.

Have you not been following the news on this? There is an actual definition of genocide in international law. "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. "

South Africa will not be able to make their case, which is probably why they asked for an extension on the date to provide evidence. No rational person can conclude from the facts that Israel has demonstrated the intent to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part.

You do realize this conflict predates the settlements, don't you? By about 50 years. The settlements certainly don't help the situation, but they are nowhere near a significant root cause of the conflict.

I joined 11 days ago to engage in discussions about a topic that is of concern to me. I can see that I will have to lower my expectations.

Do you know how many civilians died in WWII protecting the world from the Nazis and Imperial Japan?

And no, Israel is not committing a genocide. Claiming "40,000 dead civilians" doesn't define a genocide. Besides, a large proportion of those "civilians" were actually Hamas fighters.

It's frightening how many people just soak up terrorist propaganda. What are you going to bring up next? The alleged hospital bombing? The fake famine? The so-called "Flour Massacre?"

I'm getting that sense...

What land are you referring to?

LOL "attacked the UN"

The video opens with the claim that police visited her because of her social media posts that were critical of Israel.

When you finally get to the point where she lets the officers speak, they reveal that they are there on complaints of "unwanted messages to specific lawyers," to which she responds, "Nobody told me not to message them."

So clearly the issue was that she was sending problematic messages directly to people, and those messages were concerning enough to warrant a visit from the police. They would not waste their time showing up at someone's house like this unless there was sufficient cause to open an investigation.

Typical. "This person doesn't agree with my opinion so we can't have a conversation."

The ICJ has not ruled on the genocide accusation. Which, by the way, was brought by a country with a strong anti-Israel bias a month after entertaining Hamas leaders as visiting diplomats. And to pre-empt your response, no the ICJ did not say that genocide is plausible. The former head of the ICJ clarified herself that what they actually ruled was that it is plausible that Palestinian rights to be protected from genocide have been engaged, which is a fancy way of saying that the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Did you know that children are the largest victim population in literally every major war in history? Do you know how many children died in WWII? If you don't want children to die in war, don't start wars.

What war did they instigate?

The only people "supporting genocide" are, ironically, the supposed peace activists who are screaming for intifada and cheering for Hamas and Hezbollah on our streets and college campuses.

Invasions? Do you mean when they retaliated against Gaza AFTER BEING INVADED on Oct 7? Or do you mean retaliating against Hezbollah, AFTER A YEAR OF HEZBOLLAH ROCKETS BEING FIRED INTO ISRAEL? Do you think that Israel should just sit back and let themselves be slowly destroyed attack by attack?

Attacked the UN? WTF are you even talking about?

And yes, every single war has been started by Israel's enemies.

1. Israel is not committing genocide. Calling it a genocide is extremely disrespectful to people who have, you know, actually suffered genocides.
2. I haven't met a single Jew ever in my life that thinks, "Israel is perfect and everything they do is right and every single government policy is right." Perhaps you remember the large protests that were taking place before Oct 7 regarding judicial reform. "Standing with Israel" simply means "supporting Israel's right to defend itself against genocidal enemies," or perhaps more simply, "supporting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." It means in a war between a liberal democratic country (however imperfect) and genocidal Jew-hating terrorists, taking the side of the former rather than the latter.

The reason why anti-Zionist Jews exist now is the same reason they existed before Israel was created. Because they live in privilege and safety, assimilated into left-wing circles, and they don't want to risk losing that. Anybody who proposes a single secular state is either naive, completely ignorant of history and the broader geopolitical context of the conflict, or just doesn't give a crap about Jewish well-being. Because Israel's enemies have made it very, very clear that they aren't interested in peaceful coexistence with Jews. Their objective is to destroy Israel, along with as many Jewish lives as possible, and return the land to its rightful place in the Muslim empire.

I would bet lots of money her posts didn't simply "criticize Israel"

I don't disagree it's a waste of police resources. But that's not the point. The point is the misleading propaganda that creates the false impression that the government is monitoring your social media posts and showing up at your house because you post something negative about Israel.

Right because the following two things are the same:

1. A radical Islamist regime that has openly expressed genocidal intent towards the Jewish state, and Jews worldwide, and sponsors Islamist terrorists around the world, and has destabilized the entire Middle East and destroyed countries; and
2. The world's only Jewish state with a total population of 9 million people that just wants to be left alone to live in peace but has been forced to fight for its survival since literally the day it declared independence.

It's pretty clear from what they're saying that it was her comments targeting people that were the problem, not posts about Israel. She doesn't even deny it, she's just pissed off they complained to the police that she was harassing them.

They didn't warn her over her social media posts on Israel. They warned her over her messages targeting specific people, who complained to the police about harassment. Important difference.