You're viewing a single thread.
It would be genocide if they were targeting a particular ethnic group. And please remind me why it's more important to spend UN session time trying to decide whether it it genocide and not, idk, actually taking actions to stopping the war?
They are targeting Palestinians, a particular ethnic group. That's why they are executing unarmed civilians, too bad they got caught when they "felt threatened" by murdering shirtless fleeing Israeli hostages the soldiers thought were Palestinians.
"Gaza beachfront property" is already being carved up.
21% of Israel's population is Arab, but I don't see them being rounded up for the gas chambers.
Neither are they attacking the eastern chunk of Palestine, which in ethnically identical.
This is a war between nations.
So no gas chambers = no Palestinian genocide? That's one hell of a leap.
Also West Bank Palestinians are being displaced and attacked by "settlers". That's another war crime.
They have tried to stop the war... With Ceasefire votes... That even the US no longer vetoes..
... Russia and China vetoed. Blame them:
Reuters - "Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire"
AP - "Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza"
The next best thing is that UN committees can investigate and identify genocide without it necessarily being vetoed. Once the UN and especially ICJ identify such genocide, that adds global pressure; such global pressure leads to supporters of Israel to reconsider holding Israel's hands; hence why the US in an unprecedented move has stepped further away from Israel than it has for decades. People don't understand just how closely-linked Israel and US have been. I never would've thought a sitting US President would say a bad word about Israel/Bibi without fear of major backlash. We're certainly at an inflection point — and it's about fucking time.
Edit: Also, let's not all pretend we're human rights lawyers who can definitively define what is and what isn't genocide. If the ICJ took the case up and thought there was merit in the case, then one should probably hold their tongue; after all, according to the ICC:
First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: 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; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Note: National; note religious; note "whole OR in part" On the flip-side, then we'd have to say Hamas wasn't carrying out an attempt of genocide with October 7th, since they killed Palestinian Muslims among the Jewish population.
It's kind of a moot point. At this point Israel has committed something around 20 October 7ths in the number of civilian deaths they've incurred in Gaza. With an estimated 80:20 civilian-combatant death ratio according to US figures, that's well-above average. Forgetting the fact that more aid workers have died in this war than any previous one in decades... This is a travesty. So the question remains: If we're all pro-civilian and anti-terrorist... Even if Israel didn't do anything in Gaza and just enhanced its border protections, then what are the odds when looking at it from a quantifiable standpoint Hamas would be able to commit another 20 (and counting) October 7ths? (forgetting the fact that even before October 7th the IDF committed the vast-majority of civilian casualties for decades).
Russia and China never vetoed a ceasefire only an American bill that endorsed israel committing collective punishment.
That's equivocation.
Reuters - "Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire"
AP - "Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza"
What kind of shady shit are you pulling to try to side-step the fact that this was, by definition, a ceasefire? Yes, China and Russia vetoed a ceasefire.
Also let's not pretend Russia and China are acting out of humanitarian interest.
(Also, choosing between no ceasefire and Israel committing collective punishment, or a ceasefire and israel committing collective punishment — welp, I'd surmise the latter is better.)
No, the US resolution was distinctly bullshit and did not call for an immediate ceasefire. The previous resolutions that the US vetoed did. Let's not pretend the US proposed this version of a resolution out of humanitarian interest.
"Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza"
Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S.-sponsored United Nations resolution supporting “an immediate and sustained cease-fire” in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza
???
It's a misleading headline, whether deliberate or not. Read the context of the resolution. It was a highly conditional ceasefire proposal that would require Gaza to give up all hostages while Israel would be permitted to continue controlling the region. Not immediate and clearly untenable for Palestinians. The US submitted the proposal knowing it would not pass just so they can act like they're trying to negotiate peace, only being shot down by the usual bad guys. It's a propaganda tactic and it's clearly working.
I acknowledge your point and agree there is contradiction in AP and Reuters' headline. On the other hand release of hostages is kind of a given to accept a sustained ceasefire. Hamas must come to the table in some capacity. After all, it isn't really even the hostages that are preventing Israel from bombing Gaza into oblivion. And it isn't the hostages that is spurring public outcry, but rather the death of Palestinian civilians already occurring. So anything that advances the protections of those civilians should be paramount, and that includes hostages.
Regardless it's a moot point, for a ceasefire resolution did pass days later:
The text demanded “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”. It also demanded the release of hostages but did not make a truce dependent on them being freed, as Washington had previously demanded.
Not sure I agree with that personally, nor that China and Russia are some sort of concerned humanitarian forces in the region, but alas.
I agree with much of what you're saying, as well. With Israel holding all the cards, I just find it worrying that Gaza would be forced to give up its one and only leverage. We've already seen that Israel does not care if hostages are involved when attacking a location. It's hard to imagine how much more aggressive they will be when the risk of Israeli collateral damage is removed from the equation.