| Topic: | Reply | |
| Posted by: | Michael Ixer | |
| Date/Time: | 11/07/25 12:09:00 |
Genocide has, I understand, a very specific legal definition which I think includes an intent to erase a population? Personally, I'll leave that to the lawyers. There are, however, Geneva conventions which cover things like targeting of civilian infrastructure, and the disproportionate killing and maiming of civilians as collateral damage,etc. (I don't think comparisons with, for example WWII, are relevant as these may be UN conventions agreed after that time, perhaps derived from atrocities in that and subsequent wars?) Obviously, terrorist groups don't play by any rules or conventions - perhaps why they're defined as terrorists? They may have a genocidal intent - in Hamas's case the stated aim of erasure of Israel and its Jewish population may be within the definition. However, given the disproportionate military might between Israel and Hama, and the strength of allies supporting Israel, that aim seems an unrealistic one? It would seem the only ally Hamas have - assure from other terrorist groups in Gaza and the Lebanon - is Iran, who might assist in that aim. I can see that as a reason to avoid Iran having nuclear weapons, although there's a debate whether military action versus negotiations is the better pathway; is there a risk of alienating the sizeable Iranian opposition to their current religious government by bombing civilians? (I understand the use action did attempt to minimise civilian casualties?) I can't see any of Israel's other neighbours wanting to enter into armed conflicts with Israel: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, etc would seem to have too much to lose? There is a danger those states may need to contend with populations upset by the large number of Palestinian deaths in Gaza but, being cynical, the authoritarian nature of many of those states might assist with containing that? It seems the only westerners with access to Gaza recently are UN and other agencies such as MSF because, as we're continuously told by organisations such as the BBC, journalists from US, UK, EU, etc aren't given access. Is it correct to say the spokespeople from those organisations are anti-Israel or are they personally affected by witnessing the killing and maiming of children, lack of medical, food, fuel, water etc aid, and destroyed infrastructure such as hospitals? Their reports seem to be consistent whether interview in Gaza or outside which surely minimises accusations of coercion by terrorists within Gaza? I'm not sure arguing about whether it's the responsibility is Hamas's, Israel's, or if the UN is biased, is of much help to children suffering in the conflict who must surely be innocent having had no place in determining Gaza's future or past rulers? If Israel, or perhaps more accurately the IDF, are now the effective occupiers of Gaza do international agreements mean they are now responsible for rectifying the humanitarian situation created by the conflict? Note the question marks! I've posed these as questions: I don't claim to have answers, some facts are tricky to ascertain and some points may not reflect my views, but I can see why others might support them. (I'll take any personal attacks as an inability to state a rational and coherent argument, and an indication of ignorance …) |