Wouldn’t genocide be an effort to kill all Palestinans everywhere, like the millions in other Arab states?
You know, instead of focusing on the elected government of Gaza (who still has 57%+ support amongst Gazan civilians), who targeted 1200+ civilians intentionally in one of the worst terroist attacks of recent memory?
Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
in whole or in part. Not that you care, just for anybody wondering what the Geneva convention says. Though people should not base their morality on law, even UN law.
Which is why Hamas who is intentionally co-locating (and the target of the attacks) in what would otherwise be protected targets is a war crime.
If Hamas was not using civilian shields and being aided by the majority of Gaza residents who support them, then absolutely it would be a war crime.
It’s just that unlike many armchair legal scholars here, I’m aware that the intended terrorist targets make this a nonsense legal argument. Again, without Hamas there you’d be correct.
The convention isn’t written in a vacuum. And misusing and diminishing the term genocide a bad idea.
The genocide of Palestinians by Israel has been going on way longer than Hamas has existed.
I am no armchair legal scholar, I 've already argued against placing too much value on legality. It is you on the other hand who tries to minimize the severity of Israel’s wrongdoings by arguing pseudo-legalistic semantics.
If the 1948 convention never existed, Israel’s actions would be just as reprehensible.
Even if that was true, this is a bad faith argument anyhow: it’s entirely possible to focus on the atrocities being committed by both sides. Rivermonster simply seems to enjoy regurgitating Israeli propaganda.
Except that still males them the official and elected government. It’s weird that you want to ignore the facts. That you decide they’re illegitimate just bc it doesn’t fit your narrative is what’s wrong.
They still have majority support amongst residents. If there were an election today, they’d dominate. Who do you think would win? The PLA, Fatah, and West Bank can’t get rid of them fast enough. They want Hamas in there, too.
That’s true, the elected government of Gaza is a horrible fascist state and they are just as bad as the monsters who are gunning down civilians in that region. However that doesn’t mean the people of Gaza aren’t worth saving and don’t have value. I just don’t understand why, when we’re talking about a relatively small strip of land, the Palestinians can’t have their own self-governed state, free from interference by Israel. Or is that just too much to ask for in this world.
Wouldn’t genocide be an effort to kill all Palestinans everywhere, like the millions in other Arab states?
You know, instead of focusing on the elected government of Gaza (who still has 57%+ support amongst Gazan civilians), who targeted 1200+ civilians intentionally in one of the worst terroist attacks of recent memory?
in whole or in part. Not that you care, just for anybody wondering what the Geneva convention says. Though people should not base their morality on law, even UN law.
Which is why Hamas who is intentionally co-locating (and the target of the attacks) in what would otherwise be protected targets is a war crime.
If Hamas was not using civilian shields and being aided by the majority of Gaza residents who support them, then absolutely it would be a war crime.
It’s just that unlike many armchair legal scholars here, I’m aware that the intended terrorist targets make this a nonsense legal argument. Again, without Hamas there you’d be correct.
The convention isn’t written in a vacuum. And misusing and diminishing the term genocide a bad idea.
The genocide of Palestinians by Israel has been going on way longer than Hamas has existed.
I am no armchair legal scholar, I 've already argued against placing too much value on legality. It is you on the other hand who tries to minimize the severity of Israel’s wrongdoings by arguing pseudo-legalistic semantics.
If the 1948 convention never existed, Israel’s actions would be just as reprehensible.
“It’s not genocide, but if it is they deserve it”
Fucking disgusting Nazi logic.
In case anyone is on the fence about this issue and doesn’t realize this is easily disproven misinformation, there hasn’t been an election for the president or legislature in Palestine since 2006.. Hamas has maintained a stranglehold on the region for seventeen years by discontinuing elections.
Even if that was true, this is a bad faith argument anyhow: it’s entirely possible to focus on the atrocities being committed by both sides. Rivermonster simply seems to enjoy regurgitating Israeli propaganda.
Except that still males them the official and elected government. It’s weird that you want to ignore the facts. That you decide they’re illegitimate just bc it doesn’t fit your narrative is what’s wrong.
They still have majority support amongst residents. If there were an election today, they’d dominate. Who do you think would win? The PLA, Fatah, and West Bank can’t get rid of them fast enough. They want Hamas in there, too.
That’s true, the elected government of Gaza is a horrible fascist state and they are just as bad as the monsters who are gunning down civilians in that region. However that doesn’t mean the people of Gaza aren’t worth saving and don’t have value. I just don’t understand why, when we’re talking about a relatively small strip of land, the Palestinians can’t have their own self-governed state, free from interference by Israel. Or is that just too much to ask for in this world.