|
|
Post by RedRum on Nov 17, 2024 12:25:37 GMT
Our esteemed PM and Foreign Secretary have both recently said that what is happening in Gaza is not a genocide. Both men it appears are Human Rights lawyers and much more learned than I.
Genocide Convention.
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means 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.
a) this is obvious but there are other indicators which point to the killing being deliberate. Hind Rajab was in a car and talking to the Red Crescent when the IDF opened fire killing her and then went on to kill the people in the ambulance that came to rescue her. Doctors in Gaza have testified that children are being shot in the head on a daily basis and have also testified to incidents where people lying on the ground, injured after a rocket attack are shot by Israeli drones. Journalists, doctors, aid workers and UN staff have been target and killed.
b) 1.7b people are said to have been displaced in Gaza when told to leave their homes by the IDF and have then been attacked whilst passing through 'safe' zones and in 'safe' areas, 55,000 people have suffered amputations in Gaza since Oct. 7th, leaving a mental health timebomb ticking.
c) there has been a siege in Gaza since and before Oct. 7th with all the necessities of life have been either stopped or reduced to a minimal level, schools, places of worship, civilian structures and aid compounds have either been destroyed or so severely damaged that they cannot serve their purpose.
d) hospital destroyed, starvation both contribute to the inability of women to give birth.
e) 1.7m people moved with little or no notice and what notice there is is 'move we are going to bomb here' or forced evacuation.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
c) "Israel has the right to defend itself" is incitement for Israel to 'do it's worst'.
e) complicity includes arming a country, giving it the ability to commit genocide.
Starmer, Lammy and the conservatives before them are all guilty of complicity in genocide.
But then I am not a Human rights Lawyer so what do I know.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Nov 17, 2024 13:33:35 GMT
There's certainly a case to answer but IMHO none of those above amount to proof. But the disproportionate killing of civilians is and has been a clear war crime
|
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Nov 17, 2024 14:30:43 GMT
There's certainly a case to answer but IMHO none of those above amount to proof. But the disproportionate killing of civilians is and has been a clear war crime So the genocide convention means nothing? until proof of just one of the conditions is provided. Proof is a fickle thing, we can believe it only exists when a court deems it son or we can look at the numbers of people forcibly moved and then attacked to see the 'proof'. My point is that the ICJ has stated 'that a plausible genocide is happening in Gaza' and that all signatories should do all in their power to stop 'the plausible' genocide, which our leaders, in our name, are not doing. It does not matter if a genocide is proven or not, it matters that it might be, that is the law. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Nov 18, 2024 13:01:48 GMT
It's, without doubt, ethnic cleansing.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Nov 18, 2024 14:32:39 GMT
It's a thing with the Genocide Convention, it was not just set up to punish those that commit a genocide but primarily to stop a genocide from happening.
That brings in questions for all those countries supplying arms and giving political support to Israel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Nov 23, 2024 18:45:09 GMT
Genocide Convention. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: [...] I have shortened the quote from contributor "RedRum's" post to what I believe is the relevant text. Please note the words "with intent". In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'. Israel has been constantly falsely-accused of "genocide" since well before the current hostilities. The accusation is false and amounts to "lawfare". Oh, and in answer to the question forming this thread (assuming it refers to the war in Gaza against the Palestinian Arab Hamas barbarians): No, it is not. Robert, Nov 24, 2024 at 1:45am
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Nov 23, 2024 18:58:17 GMT
Area bombing, eviction of civilians, physical and mental harm to civilians.
Both Hamas and Likud have committed war crimes, not least, the sickening attack of the seven of October last year by Hamas, but why did it take the IDF seven hours to respond?
|
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Nov 24, 2024 13:45:03 GMT
Genocide Convention. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: [...] I have shortened the quote from contributor "RedRum's" post to what I believe is the relevant text. Please note the words "with intent". In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'. Israel has been constantly falsely-accused of "genocide" since well before the current hostilities. The accusation is false and amounts to "lawfare". Oh, and in answer to the question forming this thread (assuming it refers to the war in Gaza against the Palestinian Arab Hamas barbarians): No, it is not. "In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. You cannot give a warning to hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate and then attack them as they attempt to evacuate. "Reports first emerged on Friday evening of a strike on a convoy of vehicles heading towards southern Gaza. These vehicles were carrying civilians, who were fleeing northern Gaza after the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) issued an evacuation order." A number of Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, have publicly stated that Israel will impose a 'total' blockade on Gaza, this is intent, that in itself is genocidal. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Nov 24, 2024 14:59:04 GMT
Genocide Convention. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: [...] I have shortened the quote from contributor "RedRum's" post to what I believe is the relevant text. Please note the words "with intent". In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'. Israel has been constantly falsely-accused of "genocide" since well before the current hostilities. The accusation is false and amounts to "lawfare". Oh, and in answer to the question forming this thread (assuming it refers to the war in Gaza against the Palestinian Arab Hamas barbarians): No, it is not. "There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'." Shooting children in the head is not accidental it is intentional. More press personnel have been killed in Gaza than in the 2nd world war and the Vietnam war combined, this is not accidental it is intentional. Shooting people carrying white flags s not accidental it is intentional. Shooting people that are lying on the ground, injured is not accidental it is intentional. What exactly would you consider 'intent'? |
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Nov 24, 2024 20:01:01 GMT
I have shortened the quote from contributor "RedRum's" post to what I believe is the relevant text. Please note the words "with intent". In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'. Israel has been constantly falsely-accused of "genocide" since well before the current hostilities. The accusation is false and amounts to "lawfare". Oh, and in answer to the question forming this thread (assuming it refers to the war in Gaza against the Palestinian Arab Hamas barbarians): No, it is not. "In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. You cannot give a warning to hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate and then attack them as they attempt to evacuate. "Reports first emerged on Friday evening of a strike on a convoy of vehicles heading towards southern Gaza. These vehicles were carrying civilians, who were fleeing northern Gaza after the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) issued an evacuation order." A number of Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, have publicly stated that Israel will impose a 'total' blockade on Gaza, this is intent, that in itself is genocidal. Contributor "RedRum" wrote: "You cannot give a warning to hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate and then attack them as they attempt to evacuate.": If the report were accurate - Israel is entitled to attack if for example: combatants hitch a ride, or if combatants use the vehicles to make combatant-communications, or if the combatants use the vehicles to transport military equipment or military supplies. We don't know the reasoning for such incidents; neither me, nor the contributor. Robert, Nov 25, 2024 at 3:01am |
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Nov 24, 2024 20:02:12 GMT
I have shortened the quote from contributor "RedRum's" post to what I believe is the relevant text. Please note the words "with intent". In the circumstances of Israel's war of defence and deterrence against Hamas in Gaza, the requirement of 'intent" for any charge of Genocide, is incompatible with Israel's constant warnings to civilians to move while military action is carried out. There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'. Israel has been constantly falsely-accused of "genocide" since well before the current hostilities. The accusation is false and amounts to "lawfare". Oh, and in answer to the question forming this thread (assuming it refers to the war in Gaza against the Palestinian Arab Hamas barbarians): No, it is not. "There is also zero evidence of any such 'intent'." Shooting children in the head is not accidental it is intentional. More press personnel have been killed in Gaza than in the 2nd world war and the Vietnam war combined, this is not accidental it is intentional. Shooting people carrying white flags s not accidental it is intentional. Shooting people that are lying on the ground, injured is not accidental it is intentional. What exactly would you consider 'intent'? No details, no objective-sources; zero evidence. Edit: I see I did not answer contributor "RedRum's" question: "What exactly would you consider 'intent'?": The concept in law (law of England and Wales) of "intention" is part of the "Mens Rea" which in turn is part of what is required to prove crime (unless the crime is one of strict liability where "Mens Rea" is not required). "Intent" and "Mens Rea" are discussed here: www.lawteacher.net/lectures/criminal-law/committing-an-offence/mens-rea/Israel's warnings to civilians to vacate the immediate combat zone are inconsistent with any "intention". Robert, Nov 25, 2024 at 3:02am |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Nov 25, 2024 0:35:16 GMT
Oh the irony
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Nov 25, 2024 0:36:27 GMT
Has anyone seen Robert and IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari in the same room? Just asking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Nov 25, 2024 6:52:47 GMT
Has anyone seen Robert and IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari in the same room? Just asking. I have no connections with Israel. Robert, Nov 25, 2024 at 1:52pm |
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Nov 25, 2024 7:33:23 GMT
Contributor "RedRum" wrote: "You cannot give a warning to hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate and then attack them as they attempt to evacuate.": If the report were accurate - Israel is entitled to attack if for example: combatants hitch a ride, or if combatants use the vehicles to make combatant-communications, or if the combatants use the vehicles to transport military equipment or military supplies. We don't know the reasoning for such incidents; neither me, nor the contributor. Yes, this is the excuse that Israel has made since the beginning of the assault on Gaza. "Hamas is hiding amongst the civilians." There is video evidence of IDF forces using Palestinian civilians as human shields but no video evidence of Hamas using civilians as human shields. Were is the evidence that there was a vast command centre under the Al Shifa hospital? there is none. |
|
