Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Challenge away Blanch.

Just showing you how silly your last post was by giving your own medicine back to you.

Pretty silly eh?

Are you saying that just because some academics consider it genocide, that is it, case proven?

Seriously?

And some academics tell us that the evidence available proves the case that the world is/isn't (delete as appropriate) warming.

Of course, "innocent until proven guilty" stands. I'd agree that the ICJ finding the South African case (now joined by many other States) "plausible" still offers no direct indication that Israel is guilty of Genocide.

As for your statement that there isn't sufficient evidence available publicly to find Israel guilty, you're either a lawyer/journalist or you're chancing your arm. You addendum of them being considered therefore "innocent" is superfluous. So I suspect you're not a lawyer.

Most if not all the evidence provided by South Africa was publicly available at the time. Of course, there would have been a lot more evidence had Israel not banned international journalists from entering Gaza.

However, on the basis of that evidence, the ICJ found the case plausible. But more importantly, the ICJ listed provisional measures that Israel had to implement to prevent Genocide.

Furthermore, this was repeated a few months later when it was clear that Israel had implemented none of the measures it was ordered to.

Bear in mind, during this time, more and more Palestinians were being killed each day, more and more medical facilities were degraded or destroyed and more and more humanitarian aid was denied entry to Gaza.

Israel continued and even escalated the actions defined in the genocide convention and did so until the recent ceasefire agreement.

When the case comes before the ICJ again, the evidence folder will be a lot larger than before. But consider this - only yesterday Netanyahu confirmed that the plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza will go ahead - i.e. ethnic cleansing. A clear indicator of Genocide. However, over 500 pieces of evidence have been gathered since Oct 7th clearing showing direct quotes from Israelis as regards the intent to commit genocide.

If I was a betting man, I'd put a huge wad of cash on a guilty verdict.

I don't know now, how you conclude there isn't sufficient evidence out there to bring a case? There's a lot of pieces of evidence, plenty of academical and even state statements that say there is.

"As set forth in the Genocide Convention of 1948,” the report reads, “the crime of genocide requires that a perpetrator kill, seriously harm, or inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of a group, in whole or in part, with the intent to destroy the group as such.” The report continues: “after reviewing the facts established by independent human rights monitors, journalists, and United Nations agencies, we conclude that Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate the Genocide Convention.” 

Just something I picked of the net from Boston institute study. I'd say by looking at that definition that there would certainly be a strong chance that there's a case to answer. I'm not saying they're guilty, but definitely I think they should be prosecuted and let the evidence tell the tale. As its not up to you or me one way or the other, why would you be against them having to legally answer for their actions in Gaza?

Israel still progressing the "from the river to the sea" mantra and grabbing land.

Haaretz

Lebanon: The IDF completed its withdrawal from most of southern Lebanon on Monday night, leaving some forces at five points in Lebanese territory near the border, a move coordinated with the U.S. however, while additional significant forces are positioned on the Israeli side of the border. Lebanon will consider any remaining Israeli presence on its lands an occupation and has the right to use all means to ensure an Israeli withdrawal, a spokesperson for the Lebanese presidency said.

Syria: Satellite images revealed Israeli troop deployments along the Syrian border, showing that the IDF has established at least seven new outposts, from Syrian Mount Hermon in the northern part of the demilitarized zone to Tel Kudna in the southern section, near the Israel-Syria-Jordan border triangle.

Did Blanch get back and reply??

It's always funny when someone tries to being up ariel bombing in WWII as an excuse for indiscriminate murder in modern times. It only shows that either A. the haven't the first clue what they're talking about or B. they are being wholly disingenuous.

Even during the war there was a lot of discussion about the validity of the allied bombing campaign, especially from Bomber Command's POV who simply went out to destroy entire villages, towns and cities full of people without any real consideration for what could be called a military target. Conventional wisdom conveniently sided on the idea that bomb aiming tech wasn't advanced enough to allow precision bombing, so they just dropped their loads in the centre of town instead and essentially hoped for the best. If thousands of women and children were burned to death then so be it...and that was the pattern for the war. As the war went on and German morale wasn't "broken" as some claimed was the campaign's raison d'être, numerous heads began to try and distance themselves from the campaign altogether. One of whom was the PM, Winston Churchill, who said "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."

Churchill knew that after the war there would be trials for conduct during it and feared that there might be a chance that he could be in the dock for Britain's handling of her war effort too or, at least, have some very uncomfortable questions to answer if a solid legal defence had the wherewithal to ask them. Arthur Harris began to get antsy, too, as he began to fear that he was getting set up as a fall guy if such an inevitability came to pass.

After the war Churchill certainly made efforts to distance himself from both Harris and the bombing campaign, which under newly drawn up conventions meant that such a campaign would be subject to legalities if one was to occur again. Violations such as spoliation, which characterised much of Bomber Command's efforts would see the perpetrators prosecuted and the indiscriminate dropping of ordnance was considered to be against current conventions so that such blatant disregard for human life could never be repeated.

Trying to equate what happened in WWII with regards to the bombing of German and Japanese cities to a genocide is ludicrous and anyone trying to do that is only seeking to, somehow, excuse Israel's utterly abhorrent conduct during the last 16 months where they have engaged in wanton spoliation of civilian infrastructure, deliberate murder of innocents, siege starvation, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing all of which are war crimes as recognised by the international community.

And Israel would consider it such if it was being perpetrated on their soil.

He comes across as a complete whackjob in the book as well..

It is an interesting point, studies after WW11 showed that the economy in London compared to other parts of the UK during the blitz had less crime, greater GDP growth, higher production stats. It showed that the opposite effect through being bombed was observed. Post WW11 analysis also showed that the allied bombing of Germany had a similar result and that the Germans resolve were raised, the indiscriminate bombing of Germany is believed to have prolonged the war, not shortened it.

Both the ICC and ICJ cases do seem to touch a nerve with those positively inclined toward Israel.

But they also seem to matter to the US and Israel themselves - the US has sanctioned members of the ICC and Israel certainly sent a delegation of Lawyers to The Hague to fight the genocide case.

If neither the ICC or ICJ matter, why would they have bothered doing anything?

I'm sure if the ICJ find Israel guilty of Genocide, we'll see exactly how much it matters. And if the two alleged Israeli War Criminals are arrested and prosecuted in The Hague, again, I'd say it'd be the top news item for a good while.

Perhaps that's the nerve that is touched - having invested so much time defending/justifying all Israel has done, the embarrassment of guilty verdicts would presumably be mortifying.

The best form of defence is attack…

It's you mostly that has said there isn't sufficient evidence. I think that going on a any description of genocide I have read there is sufficient evidence. Again your judging, and that's not in you remit any more than mine. But I think that there are enough of interested organisations out there that will push for it on Netanyahu after this is over.

I've seen plenty so you must have missed them. I'm not misrepresenting anything.

So, seeing as you've stated it, what are these "certain legal defences" that are available to Israel?

Seems Israel does actually have a robust defence mechanism as regards the ICC.

Any Israeli Citizen cooperating will be banged up for five years. And on the basis of my previous post, their treatment could be very unpleasant during that time…

Israeli very much looking like a Dictatorship.

• The Knesset advanced a bill that bans Israeli citizens, authorities, and public bodies from "cooperating with the International Criminal Court in The Hague" and proposes a penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone "providing services to the ICC or offering resources," unless they prove they were unaware that the action was for the court's activities.
• Tamar Meggido, an expert in international law, told Haaretz that "the definitions in this dangerous bill are so broad that even someone sharing on social media a photo or video of a soldier documenting themselves committing what appears to be a war crime could face imprisonment." Meggido added that any journalist publishing an investigation that suggests a war crime was committed by IDF forces would also be at risk of imprisonment if the bill is passed.

Whataboutery isn't much of a defence. But for the sake of argument, let's say the fate of the Palestinians is expulsion. There's no shortage of other Arabic and Islamic states they should be able to go to - around 99.5% of the MENA region for example.

How about the Jews of Israel? Where are all the other Jewish states that Israelis could flee to if the Left ever got their wish of "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free?"