Israeli Politician admits 12,000 Palestinians have died so far but... they're mostly terrorists!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Netanyahu? Who you wanted to go?

"Crusades", as in plural?

Did you forget Lebanon?

Most of the world wants him to go along with his zionist government and of course Hamas military, perhaps let a new PLO rise up in it's place.

a reply to: quintessentone

What about Lebanon, or rather, Hezbollah?

"Most of the World"?

Bold statement.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

What about Lebanon, or rather, Hezbollah?

"Most of the World"?

Bold statement.

What about Amalek?

a reply to: quintessentone

I don't know. I'm not a religious scholar.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

I don't know. I'm not a religious scholar.

I just provided the definition to you again -you don't have to be a scholar. What does 'divinely mandated genocide' mean to you?

In the context of the Gaza conflict of 2023 Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Israelis were "committed to completely eliminating this evil (of Hamas) from the world", he then added: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember",[41] referencing 1 Samuel 15:3 in the Hebrew Bible.[a] Noah Lanard of Mother Jones describes these verses as among the most violent in the Bible and that they have a long history of being used by the Israeli far-right to justify killing Palestinians.[42] Amalek was "the foe that God ordered the ancient Israelites to genocide",[43] and scholars have described the verse as an instance of 'divinely mandated genocide'.[44]

originally posted by: Daughter2v2
From your post genocide includes actions intended to cause great bodily harm or lead to the destruction of a group.

It appears that is exactly what Israel is doing.

Their actions are directed at HAMAS, not "Palestinians'.
They are collateral damage and the fault of HAMAS, not Israel.
No INTENT to cause harm to "Palestinians" exists for Israel.
But it sure does with Hamas. They love it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Context seems to be Hamas.

Probably best understood by religious scholars who themselves seem to be divided on the issue.

So, I don't have any particular opinion.

"Most of the World"?

Like who?

originally posted by: quintessentone
That anti-semitic card is so convenient to throw around, do you have it in your back pocket?

Only when it fits. And with your little UN buddy it fits.
I posted ARTICLE II. It is clear what the criteria is for 'genocide'.
And it is clear that Israels self defense doesn't meet that criteria.

Netanyahu and his government have to go along with Hamas and all humanity needs to step up in solidarity to end this conflict for good with peace agreements not endless violence.

No, Netanyahu and his government do NOT have to go along with Hamas. Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of the Jews that live there. Hamas has said they will not stop, ever. Israel most certainly does not have to curl up and die ... though it's clear by your statement that is what you would prefer.

a reply to: Daughter2v2

Source?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Context seems to be Hamas.

Probably best understood by religious scholars who themselves seem to be divided on the issue.

So, I don't have any particular opinion.

"Most of the World"?

Like who?

From their actions thus far does it really seem to be all about Hamas?

a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty much, yes.

originally posted by: quintessentone
It may end up being up to the Arab nations to decide that if he continues on his special brand of crusades.

What 'crusades'? SELF DEFENSE of Israel is not a 'crusade'. It's self defense.

a reply to: FlyersFan

That UN human rights lawyer knows more about International Law that anyone else alive, so her criteria is what the ICC will be using if and when they haul ALL the war criminals to trial.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty much, yes.

Pretty much, no.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
It may end up being up to the Arab nations to decide that if he continues on his special brand of crusades.

What 'crusades'? SELF DEFENSE of Israel is not a 'crusade'. It's self defense.

When Netanyahu starts quoting violent Bible scripture it's not about self-defense it's about Amalek.

originally posted by: quintessentone
That UN human rights lawyer knows more about International Law that anyone else alive, ...

Says you. That human rights lawyer is with the UN so is obviously biased and, as ARTICLE II shows, wrong.

originally posted by: quintessentone
When Netanyahu starts quoting violent Bible scripture it's not about self-defense it's about Amalek.

No. He's quoting about how in the past they were attacked by evil and fought back and the same thing is happening now with Hamas. HAMAS has promised to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. It's all about self defense. And no, Israel doesn't have to curl up and die, even though the anti-semites want them to.

Anti-Semitism is a strange brain infection.
Absolutely makes no sense.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
When Netanyahu starts quoting violent Bible scripture it's not about self-defense it's about Amalek.

No. He's quoting about how in the past they were attacked by evil and fought back and the same thing is happening now with Hamas. HAMAS has promised to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. It's all about self defense. And no, Israel doesn't have to curl up and die, even though the anti-semites want them to.

Anti-Semitism is a strange brain infection.
Absolutely makes no sense.

Israel doesn't have to curl up and die they need to negotiate a fair and equitable peace and land agreement, but they refuse, so there they remain in never-ending conflict.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
That UN human rights lawyer knows more about International Law that anyone else alive, ...

Says you. That human rights lawyer is with the UN so is obviously biased and, as ARTICLE II shows, wrong.

She has devoted most of her career to analyzing International Law, so I'll go with her analysis.

a reply to: quintessentone

"That UN human rights lawyer knows more about International Law that anyone else alive...."

Another *very* Bold Statement!