The majority on the earth represented within a group.
They are all bad and israel is good, right?
babble on.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
S Africa Makes Case: Israel Committing Genocide
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
They are all bad and israel is good, right?
babble on.
It's about like calling someone the 'N" word based on their skin color........... underlying hatred (bigotry).
I don't think we necessarily will, because the trial is not about whether Israel has unnecessarily killed civilians per se; it is a charge of genocidal intent. A country could unnecessarily kill many civilians and still not meet the criteria for a legal verdict that it did so with genocidal intent. This means that even if Israel is acquitted by the ICJ of the current charges—and as I said in post #9, there are reasons to believe that the ICJ has a Western bias and that a ruling against Israel in this trial would be surprising—that won't say anything about whether Israel has unnecessarily killed civilians, even if the killing is deemed not to have had "genocidal intent."
Would you be okay with South Africa's case if it also accused the US of war crimes in Yemen? I don't think either issue (i.e., the US' actions in Yemen over the last decade and Israel's actions in Gaza following October 7) has any bearing on the validity of the other.
Since a country can't realistically litigate in the ICJ against multiple countries simultaneously, I don't see South Africa's case as problematic for focusing on a single country (Israel). This focus doesn't necessarily imply approval of any given country's actions.
Whether the UN is corrupt is a controversial and debatable question in itself, but I think this case makes a lot of sense in the context of South African history, and it can't be reduced to a "politically partisan nonsensical situation." Such a description would seem to me a major oversimplification. Israel, along with the US and the UK (among others), either supported or didn't stand against apartheid in South Africa. Couple that with the historical (and current, in some cases) exploitation and disruption of Africa by some Western countries, which are largely allied with Israel, and the case makes far more sense than an initial evaluation thereof might indicate.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
It totally is. It is hating anybody who disagrees with you.
I think killing 20,000 out of a million is a massacre not a genocide. From the beginning the word genocide is wrongly employed. Therefore S. Africa has no standing to conclude genocidal intent. It can judge whether a massacre is intended, but a genocide has not happened.
What you are saying is that the ICJ can only make the situation worse, since to you it cannot convict properly nor acquit properly. You won't regard its results as just. It doesn't change that only Israel, out of all the countries with much worse records, is accused.
Speaking to that specific example I'm not sure that I'm getting your point: I'd be happy if the USA were charged in such a court and convicted and barred by international law from entering into further confrontations. I know that there would be a lot of pain here as a result, but it would be better in the long run. We could shrink our military, pull back. We might escape Rome's ancient troubles (of soldiers and generals eventually replacing the government). If Egypt were committed to provide soldiers around the world for unknown future engagements over the next century would you want to get out of those commitments? I think you would, too.
Putting that aside I will try to understand what you mean. I did not know that only one country could be charged at a time, but I see it as problematic if, as you say, the ICJ favors the West. Under that condition the ICJ gains prestige if it convicts, since Israel represents the West. I don't like all of these wheels within wheels.
What you are saying is that the ICJ can only make the situation worse, since to you it cannot convict properly nor acquit properly. You won't regard its results as just. It doesn't change that only Israel, out of all the countries with much worse records, is accused.
Speaking to that specific example I'm not sure that I'm getting your point: I'd be happy if the USA were charged in such a court and convicted and barred by international law from entering into further confrontations. I know that there would be a lot of pain here as a result, but it would be better in the long run. We could shrink our military, pull back. We might escape Rome's ancient troubles (of soldiers and generals eventually replacing the government). If Egypt were committed to provide soldiers around the world for unknown future engagements over the next century would you want to get out of those commitments? I think you would, too.
Putting that aside I will try to understand what you mean. I did not know that only one country could be charged at a time, but I see it as problematic if, as you say, the ICJ favors the West. Under that condition the ICJ gains prestige if it convicts, since Israel represents the West. I don't like all of these wheels within wheels.
I am sorry for not knowing the history to which you refer in South Africa or in what way the USA, relative to other nations, did not stand against apartheid in South Africa. Were we the last to stand against it? I don't know the history, but I'm hastily looking around on the internet. We imposed some kind of sanctions on South Africa's apartheid government in 1986. Reagan (considered now to be very corrupt relative to other presidents) was thought to be a very good man while he was in office, and he didn't withdraw his embassy and didn't end our trade with South Africa. Keep in mind that USA had its own segregation right up until 1964, so even our action in 1986 was somewhat ironic and probably felt (though I wouldn't be alive for ten years) hypocritical. Only 22 years had passed.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Whether or not something counts as genocide isn't determined purely by the overall number killed, and neither is South Africa's case made purely of them pointing to that number. For reference, here is the treaty outlining the general definition of genocide used in international criminal courts:
I don't think the bombings alone constitute genocide, but I think a strong case can be made that Israel's specific targeting of hospitals, homes, refugee camps, and their continued ethnic cleansing of the West Bank constitute explicit genocide. It is, at the absolute very least, ethnic cleansing.
Ironically enough, during the hearing, Israel claimed that Hamas were guilty of genocide, which - if we're judging whether or not something counts as genocide purely by numbers - is a massive self-report for Israel.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The problem is the Hamas does not fight like soldiers, but uses innocent civilians as human shields. There is nothing abnormal about soldiers fighting killing each other. That is the game of war. However, civilians are usually spared and not used as shields.
Soldiers wear uniforms to identify themselves being on which side of the competition. Hamas should be condemned for using human shields and not fighting as identifiable soldiers. Spies in war, are not identifiable soldiers. The rules say you can execute spies, since they cheat and that is what happens. Soldiers in uniform, on the other hand, need to be treated with dignity as prisoners of war since they play by the rules. The human shield is not just a violation of civilian rules, but also enters the spy rules; is it fake or real?
In WWII, the allies would air drop leaflets for the civilians to abandon a city in advance, before bombing. This gave time for people to leave, or choose to stay, before the siege. The well identifiable soldiers stayed in uniform and dug in. The problem is the Hamas mafia is not allowing the civilians to leave or else they become the enemy; threatened and/or shot as spies.
Hamas keep using the human shields. This is not being condemned as crimes of war. It is being spun by the Left and not framed properly based on the rules of war. The Left only knows lies and scams and can better relate to those who would use human shields and scape goats; white is evil.
How about we address the use of human shields and how civilians are not being given the opportunity to seek shelter due to the actions of the Hamas mafia. The rules of war and spies are clear. We need to help the civilian human shields escape the war.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
America still supported the apartheid government until the 1980's because the Apartheid government were anti-communist and the liberation groups were heavily influenced by communism. So it is partially Cold War interests. (Which is why Russia supported the liberation movements). Nixon and Kessinger wanted to maintain close relations with the Apartheid government. Reagan evaded international sanctions against the Apartheid government and vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which would impose sanction on South Africa.
Also, from the beginning of Apartheid, the USA avoided criticism of South Africa because they had similar laws to Jim Crow.
Most of the accusations against Israel come through Hamas, but even if the trial uncovers this I now know that the ICJ is going to be accused of bias in favor of western countries. Therefore it is unlikely end end to subject no matter what it decides.
Is a hospital a building which is used exclusively for healing, or is it a building used for healing and for directing military operations and storage of weapons? Is it still a hospital? I am not going to uphold that. Putting an ER onto an aircraft carrier doesn't make it a hospital ship.
Certainly the trial will allow for evidence to be brought forward, since, in this rare case the UN has taken great care to make sure and record every thing Hamas reports about Israel while supporting an uprising in Gaza both with storage of weapons training of new soldiers through its UNRAR racism schools. I cannot wait to see demonstrated in court just how cruel and foolish the UN is in spite of its golden words about itself. The trial may reveal it if the court is allowed. I hope it uncovers how so many missiles and guns have gotten into Gaza and with which UN official's authority and assistance. Wasn't it the UN that was supposed to be keeping an eye on things? Looks like somebody was and is two faced to me.
I see, so we have a trial to determine whether Israel has intended to kill some of the people of Gaza and to call that a genocide under subsections IIA and IIB. Meanwhile everybody else already has an established intent to wipe out the Israelis, and for that we need no trial. Essentially we are credulous that Israel could under so much pressure not become psychotic, so we're going to accuse them of being psychotic.
Israel is not defending its existence.
That is the excuse they use to wreak vengeance
against all of Palestinians...guilty, innocent, old,
infants....they all must die or flee their land.
Note also that Israel value's its own existence,
but not Palestine. Vile hypocrites they are.
The oppressed underdog always uses unconventional warfare.
It's neither right nor wrong....just what happens. Ameristanian
revolutionaries back in the day violated warfare norms.
You can decry their methods. But you should also predict
that when Israel treats Palestinians with deadly brutality,
what you call "terrorism" will result.
Let's also note that Israel doesn't "fight fair". They use
torture, group punishment, indefinite jailing without
charges or trials, assassinations, & over-whelming
military superiority financed by its obedient sugar
daddy, the USA
You complain about 1,200 Jews killed, & a couple
hundred kidnapped. But you're OK with Israel
killing 24,000 Palestinians, at least half children.
And now Israel plans to evict all Palestinians.
You think war is a "game".
And you want the rules to favor your side,
while disadvantaging the other. It doesn't
work that way.
Israel uses the "human shield" claim to justify
rampant killing of any civilians without a care
for whom they kill or maim.
Goes both ways.
If it happens to rule against Israel, advocates that the charges should be dismissed are likely to continue to claim the charge is unfair or hypocritical, given that most Israelis are content if not supportive of the IDF's actions in this war.
I have already been told in this thread that the ICJ shows favoritism towards western countries. You're talking about a hypothetical situation.
In other threads on the conflict many other users have dismissed the high number of UN resolutions against Israel to be due to antisemitism, and there is a very popular current in Israeli apologia that Israel is consistently unfairly singled out regarding human rights abuses. I'm doubtful that this current would vanish if the court did find Israel guilty or take any sort of provisional action.
A high number of failed UN resolutions, yes. Only some of them were allowed by the USA, because the UN kept making lots of them based upon accusations by UNRAR the institution that teaches children suicide bombing. Its not Israel that gets falsely treated as an angel but the UN that does.
The UN is corrupt as a can be. When it was caught involved in human trafficking it created a "Convention Against Corruption" such that if you try now to find out the old corrupt schemes all that comes up for pages and pages of searches is the UN's convention. To find anything you have to search academic journals, but its there. I wouldn't leave a child alone in the UN. I wouldn't lend the UN fifty cents or even let it know that I had fifty cents.
I don't know which organization you are referring to, could you clarify?
UNRWA. I misspelled the acronym.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Yes, and more recently to things like this:
"According to the Framework for Cooperation signed by the U.S. State Department and UNRWA on July 14, continued U.S. financing will require UNRWA to implement various reforms, including combating incitement and antisemitism in its educational curriculum, requiring the neutrality of its staff, and ensuring UNRWA facilities are not used by terrorist organizations and its staff are not affiliated with them. The framework—along with recently introduced bipartisan legislation—follow numerous reports on the problematic nature of UNRWA’s education system."
The UN is an organization which answers to nobody, and it is populated mostly by representatives from non-representative governments. In other words it is mostly not in favor of the human rights that it announces. Its a two faced organization, saying one thing here and another there. Its an example of how bad it would be if the entire world were actually run by the nations. Its an experiment that didn't work out, not some monument to justice.
As bad as the UN is, it's not the one committing
genocide in Gaza currently. Nor having spent
70+ years killing & stealing from Palestinians
& Arabs in the name of a wicked god.
So it has the higher moral ground relative
to Israel & USA.
Last edited: