Escalation in Palestine debunked by an Iraqi

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


And it shouldn't have.

But that is irrelevant to this thread.

reply to post by CherubBaby


If communications from within Gaza have been cut, why are we getting live webcams and reports like this?

reply to post by Chadwickus


That is a good question. I can't give you a definitive on it. But I will take a few common sense stabs at it till I find out.
Pretty hard to cut international news cameras. Would you agree with that statement in a general sense? Would you agree people have cell phones that have cameras and have computers where some straggling news source at the civilian level is gonna get out at times. You agree with that? Well regardless, If someone tells me they are watching the news from a country where its being filmed by a news camera and in the same conversation they say communications have been cut. Then in my mind they are talking about personal cell phone and or home dsl or connection outages that are like those for personal use. I don't travel in town with a camera crew so if there were a communication blackout, I probably will be in the dark while camera crews and newsmen/women would film and report it. Does that sound as possible and insinuating it's a lie.

Maybe I am a bit of a bleeding heart when they are slaughtering people and children like pigs. I do know one thing as ex military and a father of three military men. If my family and friends or other countrymen in surrounding areas were being murdered and blown to pieces at as children from birth to puberty ages in front of my eyes and people called me a liar for saying whatever I felt inside from the sickness sadness of criminals murderous behavior. I don't know how I might feel but, kill a member of my family by accident while looking for a cartoon character created to go to war in the first place. May god have mercy on my soul and we can take it to the next level. These are horrific deaths and I am not a lie detector but I read people pretty well.. thx

reply to post by Trustfund

I can't stand Israel but what is one Iraqis words supposed to prove or hold any meaning?

That is a good question. I guess to some it means nothing. You know like if a person calls 911 and says the house is burning down, it usually means nothing.

reply to post by charles1952

3.) It's clear, under any rational meaning of the term, that the Jews are not committing genocide. Your agreement with the "concept" that they are committing genocide is evidence of your lack of objectivity and throws the whole OP into question.

Sorry but the Zionist are committing genocide in Gaza. Genocide was redefined after WW2.

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Genocide

reply to post by buster2010

Thank you for your link, it allowed me to learn more about the term. But you can see, I hope, that the definition you supply needs some clarification. Indeed, the article you linked to provides that clarification. But first consider a Klansman lynching a black. He killed a member of the group, he had the intent to destroy part of the group, so it's genocide, right? Wrong. And that's where the supplied explanation comes in.

The key questions your source adresses are the meaning of "intent to destroy" and "in part." Without understanding those terms, the definition from the article is very misleading. Here's how "intent to destroy" is explained:

Intent to destroy

In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was still the majority opinion.

In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide.

The evidence that Israel is intending this doesn't exist. In fact, their precision air strikes on military targets indicate that they are not intending to destroy Palestinians.

The other phrase to look at is "in part." The references that are available indicate that Israel has killed fewer than 10,000 Palestinians in the last 24 years. israelipalestinian.procon.org... The current population in the disputed territories is about 3 1/2 - 4 million. If they have killed a part, it is a very small part, indeed.

In part

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole."

The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

A more thorough reading of the article from which the definition came shows that genocide is not being committed by the Israelis.

I just want to keep this simple and easy for those who have only an average working knowledge of the English language and are not lawyers writing "Definitions" or "brief in chiefs" for appellate hearings and reviews before various magistrates and venues.

I don't need a man or woman in a robe with a Cornell or Harvard degree in law , of any type or a master, an angel to appear in a dream as I sleep to know that mass murder is mass murder. How you salt your food, or take 1 lump or 2 with cream is heartless and foul in my opinion. I know what murder looks like.

Murder and genocide may have different Webster definitions but they are both criminal acts against human beings and are filthy and foul transgressions against life..

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by charles1952

 

3.) It's clear, under any rational meaning of the term, that the Jews are not committing genocide. Your agreement with the "concept" that they are committing genocide is evidence of your lack of objectivity and throws the whole OP into question.

Sorry but the Zionist are committing genocide in Gaza. Genocide was redefined after WW2.

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Genocide

And? Where is the genocide of Palestinians?
West bank and Gaza are among the fastest growing populations in the world. There never was an independent Palestinian state and yet in "genocide" conditions they got autonomy (which they never had) and there is a chance to get independent state.
Birth rate of Palestinians is among the highest in the world.
Children are not transferred anywhere.
As for (a) and (b) , you can claim that Palestinians are commiting genocide using the same vague terms of Israelis because killing, mental and bodily harm are there, all right.

reply to post by CherubBaby

So how many Palestinians and Israeli were mass murdered according to you in the more then half century of a conflict?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


How many? I guess that is all dependent on what you think are tolerable numbers to kill.
Let me ask you a simple one. If your brother or mother and father and blown into hamburger meat. You cant tell brains from eyeballs and they are burned and half cooked from the explosion. How many more is too many in your opinion?

Is this like fishing with a permit and you need to "Catch " your limit before death is horrific ?

PS Israel created Hamas to further the conflict. Just like the rotten criminals in my Government who allow The CIA to mercenary the conflict for more money at the price of human life. This is a good example of what Israel is teaching their people.

Persecuting? Does that include "Rock Throwing?"

For anyone interested I will be posting Part 2 of this article within the hour. Want to thank everyone that participated and thanks again..