-
It was war. Soldiers sometimes do terrible things. Some Russian soldiers in Ukraine are just as bad. But they're the official army of a sovereign state, so they can't be described as terrorists. Hamas started out as terrorists but they've been the de facto government of Gaza for years, so their fighters qualify as soldiers. People label them as terrorists for political reasons, not because it's correct.
-
If you go by the definition of terrorism being the actions of a sub state entity, and that October 7th was an act of war by a state against another state by soldiers representing Palestine.
Easier to sell the idea of wiping terrorists off the map, and aim to put yourself on the correct side of the 'war on terror' which could be argued is also not strictly a war by definition.
-
That BBC report today reads and feels very Abu Ghraib/ Guantanamo bay, hope it leads to some policy shift in how they deal with civilians
-
https://youtu.be/mArZ60k9EEo?si=0V_v9uzGU67CA1mg
Thought this segment on novara was good yesterday but still be honest, I haven't done any due diligence on the reporter being interviewed
-
Along with historically nobody wanting Jewish people in their country so it being a convenient place to put them, the second coming needs the Jews to be back in Israel so that good Christians can be raptured and everyone else smited. So Zionism in that respect is super antisemitic. So then conveniently the US makes anti-zionism be seen as anti-semetic.
There's something crazy like over 10M people registered to the Amercian Christian Zionist society (or whatever it's called) and fewer than 10M people in Israel altogether.
-
sometimes folks don’t seem to realise the meaning of what they’re saying
Oh please. Of course I realise the meaning.
You clearly don’t because otherwise you’d see the myriad contradictions in the points you’ve been trying to make, including but not limited to points expounded on a decade ago: https://www.unescwa.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pdf/palestine-occupation-fourth-geneva-convention-facts-figures-english.pdf
It’s unclear what legal ruling you’re referring to, but literally the whole idea behind a legal ruling is that it be binding. If you disagree with a ruling, you can argue through the proper channels, and any other disagreement is moot.
-
Did you make a point with your word salad? I can't find one.
Ok let me rephrase it for you. In response to:
Hamas (…) they're an army with a military strategy. That strategy is the controlling factor in current events. It dictates what the Israeli military does. It has to be the logical starting point for how we think about all aspects of the problem, from starving children to a future solution.
It doesn’t matter what Hamas does or doesn’t do, it doesn’t give Israel an exception to break with its obligations under international law. Disproportionate harm to civilians, collective punishment, indiscriminate attacks, wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure, forced displacement of peoples, the list of forbidden miseries goes on and on. Israel unilaterally agreed to avoid ever doing anything from that list, no exceptions, but their ongoing decisions since Oct 23 have given many people cause to believe that they are doing at least some of them, which Israel itself agreed would be illegal.
-
Afaik, the prisoners at Guatanano Bay are there because the USA regards them as unlawful enemy combatants, not because they are terrorists.
Which itself is an unfortunate legal theory leveraged purely to justify black sites, indefinite detention without representation or right of appeal, and effectively outlawing people post 9/11. Sadly it wasn’t challenged strongly enough at the time to do away with the ridiculous notion.
-
Why do you keep replying to my posts
The hope to convince you or other readers that Israel has agency and its choices are its own. It’s just choosing to inflict catastrophic suffering on exponentially more people than those who had anything to do with Oct 23, and those choices will ultimately harm Israel more profoundly. Don’t worry, with the lack of any meaningful discussion I’ve now become bored of it.
-
the prisoners at Guatanano Bay are there because the USA regards them as unlawful enemy combatants, not because they are terrorists.
They had to invent that term because they labeled Al Q terrorism as a war. Which implied that captured Al Q were soldiers, not terrorists, and therefore entitled to the rights of POWs! That's the kind of farce you get when you mangle the meaning of words. They wouldn't let the prisoners be POWs and they wouldn't let them be terrorists because that would require trying them in an American court, which the public wouldn't accept because they think the US legal process is a luxury which terrorists don't deserve. So they had to make up a new term and keep their prisoners in Gitmo where neither US nor international law applies. All because Bush wanted to declare war on fear, by which he meant Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and anyone else with a shemagh and a Kalashnikov.
-
Tweet from Norman Finkelstein:
UN Special Representative Pramila Patten states in her report that her mission viewed fully 5,000 photographs and 50 hours of footage of the October 7 attack supplied to her by the Israeli government and available in open sources. This digital evidence, from every conceivable angle and by every conceivable electronic device (bodycams, dashcams, individual cellphones, CCTV, and traffic surveillance cameras) DIDN'T YIELD ONE SINGLE IMAGE OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE. The report also states that it COULDN'T LOCATE ANY FORENSIC EVIDENCE of sexual violence. The report also states that it was UNABLE TO MEET A SINGLE SURVIVOR of sexual violence on October 7. What does Patten then conclude? "There are reasonable grounds to believe that multiple incidents of rape, including gang rape, occurred." Isn't it time for UN Secretary-General Guterres to appoint a Special Representative to investigate Pramila Patten?
https://x.com/normfinkelstein/status/1767578915340460112
Can we finally stop uncritically parroting mostly pro-Israeli Western outlets with their BS now? Or at the very least, back up any such claims with credible sources? I mean if the UN couldn't find an iota of proof in 5,000 images and 50 hours of footage, then I think it's fair to put to bed yet another Israeli lie or gross exaggeration (of which their are too many to count) - at the very least until something to substantiate it actually surfaces.
Spreading such propaganda detracts our attention from the real focus and subject of criticism. Clue: The terrorist entity that has been systematically ethnically cleansing, illegally settling and more pertinently - beheading babies and raping since 1947.
-
I’d wait for the publishing of an investigatory report, if it happens.
I’m unsure why the UN and Patten feels the need to preempt with this statement.
-
Yeah I've read parts of the report (linked below) and some of those same articles you mentioned. I'm sure transgressions took place - we've seen evidence to indicate as such, but the nature of these accounts is pretty unbelievable and has all the tell-tale signs of fabricated lies. This is especially the case when you consider the socio-cultural-religious conditions of Gaza and even Hamas; yes they're capable of carrying out an atrocity, but in the manner described by those "witnesses"? Highly unlikely.
And again, the fact that despite all the visual evidence amassed and studied that nothing was found is pretty telling. I appreciate it's hard to prove these claims, but the data/sample size here is pretty large.
-
This is especially the case when you consider the socio-cultural-religious conditions of Gaza and even Hamas; yes they're capable of carrying out an atrocity, but in the manner described by those "witnesses"? Highly unlikely.
I get where you are coming from but surely this is just wishful thinking?
Pretty much every culture, nation (Israel included) and religion have had historic and recent instances of committing atrocities, including rape, killing civilians, beheadings, massacres, ethnic cleansing.
It seems likely to me, that in a situation where the military objective was to cause the biggest shock and impact by killing as many civilians as possible, that if they were raping and torturing, they would kill them after and burn the evidence.
Maybe it would have caused more terror if they had left a trail of mutilated, raped survivors? Even if they had, it might be seen as fake propaganda regardless.
nick_h.
Sumo
elswick
Acliff
branwen
stevo_com
aggi
greentricky
Avidfan
Leshaches
lynx
infmz
miro_o-
Post a reply
About
Israel / Palestine
Posted by
@skydancer
Oh please. Of course I realise the meaning. That's why I typed it. You seem to be under the impression that a legal ruling cannot be disagreed with.