Israelis are actively rooting for the destruction of Palestinians as are you, so that makes you and Israelis extremely dangerous and culturally backwards. Not surprising that you left any rational faculty a long time ago in this thread that everything you say has idiotic consequences.

Israelis are actively rooting for the destruction of Palestinians as are you, so that makes you and Israelis extremely dangerous and culturally backwards. Not surprising that you left any rational faculty a long time ago in this thread that everything you say has idiotic consequences. — Benkei

I don't want the Palestinians destroyed anymore than I would have wanted the Germans or Japanese destroyed in WW2. They eventually came to their senses and the war ended. I hope the Palestinians come to their senses, reject their stone age beliefs about women and LGBTQ, and reject Hamas. Then the war can stop and we can have some peace.

, this is straightforward bias (and flirting with ad hominem):

— "Israelis commit these-and-those humanitarian offenses"

— "calling Palestinians misogynists and homophobes is just you saying we're better than them"

Both exemplify humanitarian violations.
The latter issues are much the same for, say, Brunei, whatever middle African places, ...

Heartwarming to see the genocidal, settler-colonial state of Israel becoming a pariah the longer their murders continue. Watching the flimsy excuses crumble is also encouraging.

Too bad for their racist apologists.

Palestinian supporters and human rights activists around the world are quite understandably frustrated and even angry about so many nations’ political inertia and apparent apathy towards the Palestinian non-combatants’ worst nightmare.

However, I find that much of the mainstream news-media I consume daily, even the otherwise progressive outlets, are largely replacing daily Gazan deaths and suffering with relatively trivial domestic news, especially as leading stories. Sadly, that's what most of those news outlets’ subscribers or regular patrons likely want [not that it necessarily morally justifies it].

Without doubt, growing Western indifference towards the mass starvation and slaughter of helpless Palestinian civilians will only further inflame long-held Middle Eastern anger towards us. Some countries’ actual provision, mostly by the U.S., of highly effective weapons used in Israel’s onslaught will likely turn that anger into lasting hatred that's always seeking eye-for-an-eye redress.

Meanwhile, with each news report of the daily Palestinian death toll from unrelenting Israeli bombardment, I feel a slightly greater desensitization and resignation. I’ve noticed this disturbing effect with basically all major protracted conflicts internationally, including present Ukraine, ever since I began regularly consuming news products in 1988. And I don’t think I’m alone in feeling this nor that it’s willfully callous.

It has long seemed to me as a news consumer that the value of a life abroad is typically perceived according to the abundance of protracted conditions under which it suffers, especially during wartime, and that this effect can be exacerbated when there's also racial contrast. Therefore, when that life is lost, even violently, it typically receives lesser coverage.

, news coverage around here (or at least what I've seen) gradually changed from the initial attack, to the hostage situation and invasion, to the humanitarian crisis, plus various demonstrations/protests and violence (either side). Still covered regularly. There hasn't been much on the broader conflict though, I guess that's not so much news as it is history. Both the Hamas top and Netanyahu seem to agree on violence and not peace, so it's not looking good.

So you're fine with them being destroyed if they don't change their beliefs. As also demonstrated by your continued support for war crimes. What the Palestinians think is irrelevant. It doesn't mean they have any less right to security and safety. The fact you think they do is frankly disgusting. Either human rights are universal and they apply to everybody or they're not and then they are no justification to treat Palestinians differently if they don't hold them in the same regard as you.

The fact you thought your reply improves your position is further evidence you've stopped thinking where it concerns this subject. It's rife with inconsistencies and fallacies.

I've had my share of insane toxicity again so will be ignoring this thread as I value my mental health more than discussing this.

Either human rights are universal and they apply to everybody or they're not and then they are no justification to treat Palestinians differently if they don't hold them in the same regard as you. — Benkei

People lose rights when they go down certain roads. From the UN "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." That sounds good, but what if you get convicted of a crime? There goes your right to liberty. What if a rapist goes after a woman who gets to the gun in her purse in time? There goes his right to life. People make stupid choices and lose their rights all the time. The Germans did it, the Japanese did it, and the Palestinians did it when they threw in their lot with Hamas.

Compared to what we did to Germany and Japan, which was totally justified, the Israeli's have been incredibly merciful and respectful of civilian lives.

On the Gaza tragedy and the US election…

I have a theory that Trump’s criminally inept handling of the Covid pandemic in the USA cost him enough swing voters to lose the 2020 election.

I have a fear that if Israel keeps up its offensive, the Muslim nations surrounding it will start a ‘holy war’ against Israel.
Then as a side effect of the resulting massive bloodshed, Biden will look extremely culpable in the matter, and lose many swing voters (and thus the White House) to Trump.

This is Biden’s big test. There’s still time, but he’s waffling.
How long does it take to grow a spine? — 0 thru 9

https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-senator-chuck-schumers-speech-israeli-elections-are-the-only-way/

At least some high-ranking politician is showing some courage.
Thank you Chuck Schumer.
That it comes from person who is Jewish and pro-Israel gives the words extra weight, I think.

I doubt Joe Biden will support this statement, primarily because he’s supporting the arsenal of Israel.
I’d love to be wrong, and see Biden show some backbone.

You rarely see war profiteers in action because they are clever rats in the darkness.
They’ll sell any weapon to anyone anytime for any reason.
But you can smell them, or at least smell the smoke from the burning cities and bodies they helped destroy.
It’s always ‘self-defense’, isn’t it? Just supplying a need, just business… so we can rest easy and let the market handle the details.

guilt by association fallacy. The erroneous comparisons with WW2 have already been extensively dealt with in this thread. That you persist in them is entirely wrong but also uninteresting.

@BitconnectCarlos, @RogueAI, ..., I think it goes both ways.
Radicals (anyone really) grabbing land at gunpoint should be jailed.
Caveat emptor, selling land should be approved accordingly.
Until then it's an untrustworthy pseudo-legal system. Al Capone style.

It’s a comment on the how the suffering of the Palestinian people can be alleviated and who of the two sides in this conflict can deliver this. — Punshhh

Sure, but it looks more reasonable to expect that the stronger party imposes its conditions on the weaker party than the other way around. So if it was only matter of strength then Hamas is expected to wave white flags, not Israel.

The comment in bold below seems to be a claim that a Hamas surrender would deliver this. Are you sure about that?

Better in what sense? For whom?

The suffering of Palestinians. — Punshhh

How do you assess what we can be sure about, here? There were proposals for a cease-fire from Hamas, which Netanyahu rejected. So the problem seems more about negotiation conditions than trust. In this case the least one can say is that the more favourable Hamas’s negotiation conditions for a cease-fire are to Netanyahu, the less incentives or pretexts Netanyahu has to continue bombing and sieging Gaza. This in turn would reduce the suffering of the Gazans. Anyways, at this point, since Netanyahu likely wants to eradicate Hamas from Gaza once for all, Hamas can propose negotiation conditions which are favourable ONLY to Gazans and not to Hamas. This shows that Hamas doesn’t care about the Gazans’ suffering in humanitarian terms, as you seem to do. But if Hamas doesn’t, why should Israel?

If Hamas had surrendered prior to committing the 8/10 massacre, then this would have spared the Gazans the current brutal retaliation. Any time Hamas surrenders in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. If Hamas doesn’t surrender but it returns the hostages in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would still spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. So if the purpose is to spare Gazans Israelis’ brutal retaliation or further brutal retaliation, then not committing the 8/10 massacre, surrendering, returning hostages would be (or have been) all available options to Hamas. Wouldn’t they?

What is happening now is something more than a brutal retaliation for 07/10. It is the deliberate starvation of a captive population. A genocide. — Punshhh

You can keep calling it “genocide”, but you have no sentence from an authoritative tribunal that supports such an accusation. And legally speaking, it is really hard to prove the genocidal intent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent). Understandably so in the case of Israel, since Israel keeps framing its beef with Hamas in terms of security concerns triggered by actual terrorist attacks and Hamas is a terrorist group that pervasively governs Gaza.
Talking in terms of numbers (https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/02/04/hamas-combat-battalions-down-70/), Israel claims to have eliminated 17 out 24 Hamas battalions at the beginning of February (1 battalion is more than 1000 combatants, but to simplify let’s put 1000), so we are roughly talking about 17000 combatants. If the number of casualties was roughly 27000 at the beginning of February (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/3/israels-war-on-gaza-list-of-key-events-day-120), that means roughly 10000 were civilians. So the ratio between combatant/civilian casualties is roughly less than 1 (this is also relevant to assess proportionality). If the ratio keeps stable, we should expect that the eradication of 24000 Hamas combatants would roughly cost 14100 civilians which is roughly 0.7% of roughly 2 million Gazans. Even if we assume that all 27000 killed by Israel were civilians, we would still be talking about 1.3% of the Gazans. If assume that current 31K casualties were all civilians, we would reach 1.55% of the Gazans. On the other side if we are talking about the Palestinians in the occupied territories (roughly 5 million) , we would get roughly 0.5%. And if we are talking about all Palestinians under Israeli rule (so including also the Palestinians living in Israel in the computation, another 2 million, roughly) we would get less than 0.4%.
The Armenian genocide under the Ottoman rule (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-armenian-genocide-1915-16-overview) was at least roughly 660000 of civilian casualties over a population that was roughly 1.5 million Armenians, so roughly at least 44% of the Armenian population. To conclude, I’m not sure you even have credible numbers to call it a genocide.
(Of course, feel free to correct my math, if I’m wrong).

Either human rights are universal and they apply to everybody or they're not — Benkei

The problem is that even if one believes that human rights are universal and they apply to everybody, the capacity to enforce the respect of such human rights is very limited and its legitimacy even contestable. So any state no matter how committed to human rights it claims to be will makes efforts to ensure that human rights are primarily respected for its own citizens, not at their expense.

The erroneous comparisons with WW2 have already been extensively dealt with in this thread. — Benkei

What posts are you referring to? Can you link some post dealing with these erroneous comparisons ?

While the several genocide apologists continue their useful work for Likud on this thread, I once again remind the rational and humane participants — or at least those with some decency — of how the world, including the US, isn’t buying their bullshit.

New Polling Shows How Much Global Support Israel Has Lost

Net favorability—the percentage of people viewing Israel positively after subtracting the percentage viewing it negatively—dropped globally by an average of 18.5 percentage points between September and December, decreasing in 42 out of the 43 countries polled.

Half of US adults say Israel has gone too far in war in Gaza, AP-NORC poll shows

Must be that super-powerful Palestinian lobby. Definitely not the simple arithmetic and imagery. Too bad they trust their own eyes and not Israeli propaganda.

Anyway, I look forward to more world war II comparisons and justifications for collective punishment for the foreseeable future…

Maybe that depends on where and what you are looking for. As far as I’m concerned, the Middle East, Europe, the Pacific, Africa, South America are contended/contendable spheres of influence for 3 major hegemonic powers: Russia, China and the US. Controlling these areas means controlling their economic/security input and output and whatever transits through them.

Yes, to a degree, although I consider Russia a waning power, which is punching above it’s weight these days. The new president of Argentina recently pulled back from BRICS. Which may have something to do with trying to tie his currency to the dollar. I expect Mexico to form greater alliance with the U.S.
However China has been making economic alliances with South America for a while. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-influence-latin-america-argentina-brazil-venezuela-security-energy-bri
So there will be a tension there, I expect South America to pull in behind the U.S. though when climate change turmoil increases.

The Middle-East is important for commodities like oil and gas, and for international routes (commerce of goods, oil/gas supply, internet supply). Besides that region is source and exporter of Islamic Jihadism, that can spill over in other areas of interest (like Africa and Europe). That’s not all: as a hot area the middle east nurtures the international contest in military supply (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/11/fear-of-china-russia-and-iran-is-driving-weapons-sales-report) and as failed governance area criminal business thrives (https://www.arabnews.com/node/1944661). All that sounds particularly worrisome if WMDs are involved (https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/why-a-wmd-free-zone-in-the-middle-east-is-more-needed-than-ever/)
So there are several reasons why the Middle East can very much be subject to hegemonic interest and struggle, and wars in Middle East can get more news attention than the war in Ukraine (not only in the West).

Yes, I agree on these points, however the Middle East is like a cauldron around which the hegemonic powers stand and takes turn to stir from time to time. There are a number of risk factors in that region, such as crime, Jihadism, oil price, WMD, money laundering. But there is also the risk of more and more failed states and the hegemonic powers don’t want to get drawn in to much. So I don’t think it plays a pivotal role in geopolitics, more a distraction. Although I have long thought that it would be most advantageous for Russia to seek to control the area, but they have failed in the past and don’t seem to mesh culturally with the Arabs.

Russia and China as competitors of the US (the former primarily in East Europe, the latter primarily in the Pacific) are interested in getting the US overstretched: inducing the US to divide attention and energies in multiple conflicts like in Ukraine, in Israel, in the Red Sea perfectly serves that purpose.

Yes, however this would only play out if China enters into conflict with Taiwan. Which I doubt they would want to do.

The geopolitical link between what happens in Israel and the hegemonic conflict between super powers is candidly stated by involved parties:

Yes, like the way Netanyahu encouraged Hamas in order to give him the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Palestine. But China doesn’t operate like that. She spreads Maoist ideology and colonises in a less violent way.

Russia and China do not need to get more directly/openly involved in the conflict in the middle east: indeed, they may just want to maximise the military/economic/reputational costs for the US to their benefit while minimising the costs for them, and for that it could be enough to abstain from helping to fix the middle east crisis or contribute to keep it alive (e.g. by helping Iran and other forms of triangulations).

Yes, this goes back to my cauldron analogy.

As long as the West is eroding its power of deterrence against a more assertive Rest, the question remains: how can the West, the US, Israel deter without escalating? And that’s not all, when the tide of historical circumstances will favour the Rest, we should also expect that the Rest will come back at the West

Yes, an important question, however there is only one one military force anywhere near capable of taking on the U.S., China and as I have suggested, China is really not interested in a conflict with the U.S. under any circumstances.

Even if Russia is weakening, that’s maybe true also for the West. Europe in particular is weakening economically

The weakening of Russia is in a whole other dimension compared to Europe and China. Russia is destroying her fighting age men as cannon fodder, has destroyed her lucrative trade in gas and oil with Europe. Is now under the strictest economic sanctions and is sinking into a deep dark authoritarianism reminiscent of the dark days of the Soviet Union. By contrast Europe is feeling the effects of having those fuel supplies suddenly cut off, but will soon bounce back and as I said will now rearm after 70yrs of relying on U.S. and U.K. guarantees of security.

And the possibility of a European decline is ominously looming

Myths around the economic malaise, or decline in Europe are overblown. (Here in the U.K. this has been used as an argument for Brexit for internal political reasons). It’s true there has been a slow down in growth due to the economic pressures of globalisation along with all affluent countries. But the opportunities for economic growth in the E.U. are large with the expansion including Eastern European countries, not to mention Ukraine, offering the opportunity to bring their economies up to speed with western standards. Also once the economic woes of southern European countries is remedied the E.U. will become quite the superpower.

Even the hegemonic power of the US is strained by national challenges and the pressure from international competitors. Besides, if the US wants Russia to be bogged down in the war in Ukraine

You fail to see the significance of this. Currently Russia is dangerous for the whole Eurasia continent and particularly for Europe. Her becoming bogged down in Ukraine will weaken her for a generation while Europe rearms. This neuters the only serious threat to global stability at the moment. The last time this happened in WW2, a deranged tyrant spilled out across Europe. This time it won’t happen, Putin is now powerless and a pariah on the international stage.

Notice also that if China manages to establish a strategic alliance with Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, amongst the major oil suppliers (with the possibility of widening the strategic alliance of oil/gas exporters over Nigeria, Kuwait, Algeria, etc. maybe through the BRICS), this could be a non-negligible threat for the West

Yes, this is a looming threat. Although it is an enterprise which will be controlled solely by China and will result in all these other states becoming controlled in a malignant way by Chinese authoritarianism, (to sell their souls). China knows that she will win the economic war in the long run and will not be distracted by wars in the meantime.

A part from the fact that the Chinese economy has run into some serious troubles (https://time.com/6835935/china-debt-housing-bubble/, https://www.vox.com/world-politics/24091759/china-economic-growth-plan-xi-jinping-crisis), if you want a deeper risk analysis for hotter conflicts involving China you can find lots of interesting readings on the internet, like this one:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/04/china-war-military-taiwan-us-asia-xi-escalation-crisis/

Interesting and something to watch.

There is another dimension to this which I predict will become the primary driving force in geopolitics over the next generation. Climate change, as I said at the beginning of our conversation I see the world retreating into 3 fortresses, when climate change hits, the U.S., Europe and China with the rest of the world descending into failed states.

Interestingly an important resource for Europe in this outcome would be to have the Ukraine grain production within Europe. Something which I expect will become pivotal in preventing Russia becoming powerful again in a world ravaged by climate change.

You can keep calling it “genocide”, but you have no sentence from an authoritative tribunal that supports such an accusation — neomac

For that to happen someone has to bring a case. The process of gathering evidence, making arguments, hearings, and all the rest of it takes ages. And that doesn't stop people reading the law, looking at the facts, and applying the law to the facts themselves, and coming to a reasoned opinion.

You can keep calling it “genocide”, but you have no sentence from an authoritative tribunal that supports such an accusation. And legally speaking, it is really hard to prove the genocidal intent.

The genocide is the deliberate starvation of approximately 500,000 Palestinian citizens in the north of Gaza. The establishing of genocidal intent sufficient for the ICJ will be for specialist investigators to establish.

I once again remind the rational and humane participants — or at least those with some decency — Mikie

You're precious, Mikie.

however the Middle East is like a cauldron around which the hegemonic powers stand and takes turn to stir from time to time. There are a number of risk factors in that region, such as crime, Jihadism, oil price, WMD, money laundering. But there is also the risk of more and more failed states and the hegemonic powers don’t want to get drawn in to much. So I don’t think it plays a pivotal role in geopolitics, more a distraction. Although I have long thought that it would be most advantageous for Russia to seek to control the area, but they have failed in the past and don’t seem to mesh culturally with the Arabs. — Punshhh

I don’t know what you take to be “pivotal” in geopolitics. It is claimed by many analysts that, among the major geopolitical competitors of the US hegemony, the main challenger is China. Therefore both the conflict in Ukraine and in the Middle-East can be seen as “distraction” from the main challenger. Even under this assumption, the issue is that for Russia the conflict in Ukraine is not a distraction, and both China and Russia can add up their efforts to keep “distracting” the US. Besides one can’t ignore that the US geopolitical efforts can be hijacked by subnational groups, like the pro-Israel lobby in the US. That’s why the conflict in the Middle East isn’t much of a distraction that the US can easily pool out from any time at its convenience.
See the case of Afghanistan, it was claimed the withdrawal was necessary to husband all available means to contain China, remaining with be a distraction. Whether the result in Afghanistan was protracted civil war or the fall of its freely elected government, the outcome would have not significantly impacted the US national interest. But also this argument looks questionable not only wrt China (https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/24/afghanistan-withdrawal-biden-trump-china-india-asia-pivot-us-military-geopolitics-pullout-drawdown/), but also wrt Russia (https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-now-the-afghanistan-ukraine-nexus/).
As far as I’m concerned, a narrow-minded distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction” can mislead us into discounting or underestimating the role played by circumstances in guiding or misguiding geopolitical efforts.

Russia and China as competitors of the US (the former primarily in East Europe, the latter primarily in the Pacific) are interested in getting the US overstretched: inducing the US to divide attention and energies in multiple conflicts like in Ukraine, in Israel, in the Red Sea perfectly serves that purpose.

Yes, however this would only play out if China enters into conflict with Taiwan. Which I doubt they would want to do. — Punshhh

But China doesn’t operate like that. She spreads Maoist ideology and colonises in a less violent way. — Punshhh

Yes, an important question, however there is only one one military force any where near capable of taking on the U.S., China and as I have suggested, China is really not interested in a conflict with the U.S. under any circumstances. — Punshhh

Still the Chinese military build-up, posturing and meddling in other conflicts is understandably taken to signal the US should prepare for the worse anyways. And we should not forget that there are also preventive wars.
Anyways, maybe the US under Trump would not be interested in a conflict with China either:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/china-says-trump-could-abandon-taiwan-if-he-wins-us-election-1.2028732
https://tass.com/world/1755693

The weakening of Russia is in a whole other dimension compared to Europe and China. Russia is destroying her fighting age men as cannon fodder, has destroyed her lucrative trade in gas and oil with Europe. Is now under the strictest economic sanctions and is sinking into a deep dark authoritarianism reminiscent of the dark days of the Soviet Union. By contrast Europe is feeling the effects of having those fuel supplies suddenly cut off, but will soon bounce back and as I said will now rearm after 70yrs of relying on U.S. and U.K. guarantees of security. — Punshhh

You sound pretty confident, I don’t know what evidences you have to support your claims. For example 10 years seem enough time for Russia to restore its pre-war capacity for another push (https://kyivindependent.com/reznikov-russia-could-take-up-to-10-years-to-restore-its-military-after-losses-in-ukraine/) or threaten NATO (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/16/7446764/, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/14/russia-military-war-nato-estonia-intelligence/). And Russia’s war economy (aided by its hidden network of opportunistic supporters) still looks pretty resilient. Meanwhile Europeans face other uncertainties about re-arming and defence (https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/21/europe-military-trump-nato-eu-autonomy/, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/02/26/war-in-ukraine-not-all-european-countries-view-russia-as-top-threat_6560936_4.html, https://www.politico.eu/article/what-another-trump-presidency-would-mean-for-nato/).

Myths around the economic malaise, or decline in Europe are overblown. (Here in the U.K. this has been used as an argument for Brexit for internal political reasons). It’s true there has been a slow down in growth due to the economic pressures of globalisation along with all affluent countries. But the opportunities for economic growth in the E.U. are large with the expansion including Eastern European countries, not to mention Ukraine, offering the opportunity to bring their economies up to speed with western standards. Also once the economic woes of southern European countries is remedied the E.U. will become quite the superpower. — Punshhh

Again, you sound pretty confident, I don’t know what evidences you have to support your claims. Even if we give for granted “opportunities for economic growth”, given our recent experience of financial crisis, pandemics, wars, and the crisis of the Western world order under the pressure of a more assertive Rest, I would not rely too much on optimistic forecasts. In other words, I seriously doubt that uncertainties and hostile superpowers (which we might soon include the US under Trump) are the best environment for European economic growth or ambition to superpower status.

You fail to see the significance of this. Currently Russia is dangerous for the whole Eurasia continent and particularly for Europe. Her becoming bogged down in Ukraine will weaken her for a generation while Europe rearms. This neuters the only serious threat to global stability at the moment. The last time this happened in WW2, a deranged tyrant spilled out across Europe. This time it won’t happen, Putin is now powerless and a pariah on the international stage. — Punshhh

To keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine, the West still needs to adequately and promptly support Ukraine as long as needed. Yet the support from the West had dramatically declined after the last Ukrainian offensive until it collapsed (https://www.csis.org/analysis/impact-ending-military-aid-ukraine-gradual-decline-then-collapse).

Yes, this is a looming threat. Although it is an enterprise which will be controlled solely by China and will result in all these other states becoming controlled in a malignant way by Chinese authoritarianism, (to sell their souls). China knows that she will win the economic war in the long run and will not be distracted by wars in the meantime. — Punshhh

Economic growth is possible if input, output, shipping are secured, free, and sustainable from and to China. But we are seeing a resurgence of global security concerns, Western protectionism, national demographic decline that may compromise the Chinese economic growth.

The genocide is the deliberate starvation of approximately 500,000 Palestinian citizens in the north of Gaza. — Punshhh

What are your evidences that Israel is responsible for that?
Notice that international law doesn’t prohibit sieges and blockades as long as they are meant to achieve military goals [1]. On the other side, Israel claims to do the necessary to aid the Gazan civilians, and accuses Hamas for depriving Palestinians of food and drugs. This is to say that one needs a tighter and independent investigation into such allegations since they often come from interested parties and therefore may not be the most reliable source.

[1]
Sieges that cause starvation
The prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit siege warfare as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This is stated in the military manuals of France and New Zealand. Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War explains that the prohibition of starvation “clearly implies that the city’s inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege”. Alternatively, the besieging party must allow the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies, in accordance with Rule 55. States denounced the use of siege warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was also condemned by international organizations.

Blockades and embargoes that cause starvation
Likewise, the prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit the imposition of a naval blockade as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This principle is set forth in the San Remo Manual on Naval Warfare and in several military manuals which further specify that if the civilian population is inadequately provided for, the blockading party must provide for free passage of humanitarian relief supplies.Blockades and embargoes of cities and regions have been condemned by the United Nations and other international organizations, for example, with respect to the conflicts in Afghanistan and the territories occupied by Israel. Embargoes imposed by the United Nations itself must also comply with this rule.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule53

You can keep calling it “genocide”, but you have no sentence from an authoritative tribunal that supports such an accusation — neomac


For that to happen someone has to bring a case. The process of gathering evidence, making arguments, hearings, and all the rest of it takes ages. And that doesn't stop people reading the law, looking at the facts, and applying the law to the facts themselves, and coming to a reasoned opinion. — bert1

Sure, I get it. But there is also a moral hazard in this, since people can form their opinions without adequate legal competence and investigation, reason why it takes ages for an authoritative tribunal to come to a legally compelling conclusion. And even if one wants to look at the facts and the laws, I still have my doubts: it’s harder to argue for a genocidal intent if there are plausible security concerns in the way (due to the Hamas terrorist approach and pervasive infiltration of the Gaza society) and the numbers of actual non-combatant casualties don’t seem large enough yet (see the Armenian genocide by comparison).

deleted.

I saw half of your comment. Probably good you deleted it, but I'd like to say: ignoring the hyperbolic language, I think you merely let yourself say you true feelings. And for that, I hi-five you.

Drone footage raises questions about Israeli justification for deadly strike on Gaza journalists

No worries— they still had the best intentions. That’s all that matters.

After double-checking the list of alleged genocides on wikipedia (I don't know how many of them are "legally" proven to be genocides) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides
I'm less sure the quantitative criterium which I suggested (the proportion of civilian deaths wrt the ruled ethnic group) is as relevant as the motivational factor. Actually the quantitative criterium is not even considered: The United Nations Genocide 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: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"
Yet it sounds implausible that a quantitative condition (e.g. for the death toll) and cumulative condition (among the listed acts) are strictly applied, since in this case even killing one person would amount to a genocide, if intent is proven. So I guess those conditions are present (to prove intent) but treated with greater discretion by the jury/judges. Yet maybe the Israelis can play around international laws by smartly exploiting legal ambiguities to their advantage. In this case this is a problem of international laws.

And Israel has let in plenty of aid. Netanyahu claims a 1:1 civilian to terrorist death ratio. — BitconnectCarlos

Plenty? Prior to the war it was about 500 trucks that brought supplies daily into Gaza, which made the case manageable. It's not 500 trucks daily.

(March 7th,2024) 21 Palestinians in Gaza, including at least 17 children, have died of malnutrition and dehydration, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The true death toll due to starvation is feared to be much higher as many Palestinians, particularly in northern Gaza, face famine and are almost entirely cut off from the limited humanitarian aid entering Gaza through the southern Rafah crossing.

I think you are the perfect example of how many see this. It's a war where after the shock of Oct 7th the extremist right wing administration saw their opportunity to achieve their delusional goals of ethnic cleansing, and people will go with their delusional agenda and defend their actions... because they want to support Israel after a traumatic terrorist attack. Bibi doesn't have a political solution, he doesn't care. It's just about erasing Gaza and the people off the map in a fashion that would go "unnoticed".

To show how deliberate this is, a report from Oxfam.

(Oxfam, March 17th) Israeli authorities have rejected a warehouse full of international aid including oxygen, incubators and Oxfam water and sanitation gear all of which is now stockpiled at Al Arish just 40 km away from the border of 2.3 million desperate Palestinians in Gaza.

The aid originates from many humanitarian organisations around the world and has been rejected over weeks and months as a result of an unpredictable and chaotic regime of approval, scanning and inspection, ultimately controlled by Israeli authorities. The reasons for rejection are not clear, says Oxfam.

In a new report today, Oxfam said this rejected aid was just one example of an overall humanitarian response that Israel has made so dangerous and dysfunctional as to be impossible for aid agencies to work at the speed and scale necessary to save lives, despite best efforts.

Oxfam says that Israel’s government ultimately bears accountability for the breakdown of the international response to the crisis in Gaza. It is failing in its legal responsibilities to the people whose land it occupies and breaking one of the key provisions demanded by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – to boost humanitarian aid in light of the risk of genocide in Gaza.

Oxfam believes that people living in Gaza will suffer mass death from disease and starvation far beyond the current 31,000 Palestinian war casualties unless Israel takes immediate steps to end its violations.

“The ICJ order should have shocked Israeli leaders to change course, but since then conditions in Gaza have actually worsened,” said Oxfam Middle East and North Africa Director, Sally Abi Khalil. “The fact that other governments have not challenged Israel hard enough, but instead turned to less effective methods like airdrops and maritime corridors is a huge red flag, signalling that Israel continues to deny the full potential of better ways to deliver more aid”.

“Israeli authorities are not only failing to facilitate the international aid effort but are actively hindering it. We believe that Israel is failing to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide,” Abi Khalil said.

Oxfam’s report “Inflicting Unprecedented Suffering and Destruction” identifies seven crucial ways that Israel is actively preventing the delivery of international aid into Gaza and punishing all Palestinians living in Gaza by deliberately depriving them of life and safety.

The report says that Israeli authorities:
- Only allow aid in via two crossings into Gaza – at Rafah and KarmAbu Salem/Kerem Shalom – despite having total control to open more, thereby creating avoidable choke points for aid and trade.

- Are leading a dysfunctional and undersized inspection system that keeps aid snarled up, subjected to onerous, repetitive and unpredictable bureaucratic procedures that are contributing to trucks being stranded in giant queues for 20 days on average.

- Are routinely and arbitrarily rejecting items of aid as having “dual (military) use”, banning vital fuel and generators entirely along with other items vital for a meaningful humanitarian response such as protective gear and communications kit. Much rejected aid must go through a complex “pre-approval” system or end up being held in limbo at the Al Arish warehouse in Egypt.

- Have cracked down on humanitarian missions, largely sealing off northern Gaza, and restricting international humanitarian workers’ access not only into Gaza, but Israel and the West Bank including East Jerusalem too.

Israel has allowed 15,413 trucks into Gaza during the past 157 days of war. Oxfam says the population of Gaza needed five times more than that just to meet their minimum needs. In February, Israel allowed 2,874 trucks in – a 44% reduction from the month before.

Let's put for the denialists these numbers into perspective. Prior to the war there was 500 trucks entering Gaza with food and supplies which was already quite perilous. That would be in 157 days 78 500 trucks into Gaza. That's one fifth.

But of course this means nothing, Oxfam is a front to Hamas or whatever, so perhaps here is a guy that @BitconnectCarlos and others might believe is not taking it's talking points from Hamas or is an anti-semite. Hopefully they'll listen to what the US secretary of state says, before trolling that there's "plenty of aid getting in".

rael has allowed 15,413 trucks into Gaza during the past 157 days of war. Oxfam says the population of Gaza needed five times more than that just to meet their minimum needs. In February, Israel allowed 2,874 trucks in – a 44% reduction from the month before.

Let's put for the denialists these numbers into perspective. Prior to the war there was 500 trucks entering Gaza with food and supplies which was already quite perilous[/i]. That would be in 157 days 78 500 trucks into Gaza. That's one fifth.

Most of those trucks are going to southern Gaza. In the north mass starvation is already well under way.

Most of those trucks are going to southern Gaza. In the north mass starvation is already well under way. — Punshhh

And we naturally don't have coverage of the events there. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 95 journalists have now been killed in Gaza. To put that to context, about 17 or so have been killed in Ukraine in two years, 28 in all according to CPJ between 1992-2024.

I think that Bibi will in the end achieve to get Israel into similar international position what Apartheid South Africa was.

Yet it sounds implausible that a quantitative condition (e.g. for the death toll) and cumulative condition (among the listed acts) are strictly applied, since in this case even killing one person would amount to a genocide, if intent is proven. So I guess those conditions are present (to prove intent) but treated with greater discretion by the jury/judges. Yet maybe the Israelis can play around international laws by smartly exploiting legal ambiguities to their advantage. In this case this is a problem of international laws.

Yes, I was aware of these definitions. I have thought about the case of one person’s death at length. In the end, I concluded that it’s not the deaths that are pertinent, but rather the harm and intent to harm a national, ethnic, or racial group.
I agree international law needs tightening. However I think the parameters are sufficient currently for the judges to reach a finding.