Human rights group says Israel ‘brazenly, continuously and with total impunity … unleashed hell’ on strip’s 2.3m population
  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    602·
    22 days ago

    I mean, maybe, just maybe, a year-long violent retalitation for a single event on a single day might just be overkill and run afoul of the idea of “self defense.”

    This isn’t even an eye for an eye.

    This is like Israel lost an eye so they bombed a fucking schoolbus of children in response… every day… for a year.

    Seriously, it’s been clearly a sociopathic genocide since easily the end of the first month of the campaign against Gaza. We’ve had 13 more months since then, I think it’s pretty fucking clear.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        20·
        22 days ago

        Oh yeah.

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/04/16/quotable-netanyahu-says-israel-benefitted-from-911/

        The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

        “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

        • chingadera@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          22 days ago

          How are there not riots everywhere when a statement like this happens? Are we that desensitized, do we really collectively give this little of a shit?

          How far up our asses do we have to be before we realize we’re being fucked?

          Arm yourselves.

          • nonailsleft@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            22 days ago

            There were a lot of people that benefited from 9/11. Why should anyone riot because Bibi said it?

  • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    31·
    22 days ago

    The main allegations in the report are:

    • The unprecedented scale and magnitude of the military offensive, which has caused death and destruction at a speed and level unmatched in any other 21st-century conflict;
    • Intent to destroy, after considering and discounting arguments such as Israeli recklessness and callous disregard for civilian life in the pursuit of Hamas;
    • Killing and causing serious bodily or mental harm in repeated direct attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, or deliberately indiscriminate attacks; and
    • Inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, such as destroying medical infrastructure, the obstruction of aid, and repeated use of arbitrary and sweeping “evacuation orders” for 90% of the population to unsuitable areas.
      • chingadera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        22 days ago

        Idk why you’re downvoted.

        When someone replies on my comments, I get a notification.

        When I get a notification that I have an error, I will either:

        A) correct myself for me, and any potential readers

        B) talk through it and likely revert back to A

        What’s going on here bud? Are you starting your own New York Times?

    • nogooduser@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      22 days ago

      I think that in this context it means that they acknowledge that they are not the ones who decide whether it is or isn’t genocide but in their opinion it does meet the necessary criteria.

      • chingadera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        62·
        22 days ago

        Deciding that facts are facts is not up to anyone. It’s an agreement we all take part in when we converse.

        Genocide is very very clearly defined, and this offensive is very very clearly documented. This is not opinion. This is not going to wait for myself, you, or OP, or any of our feelings.

        This is genocide. That’s it. The fact that we are still talking about this in this way is insane. We’re a year deep into …

        I’m gonna let the kids at home fill in the blanks.

        Spoiler, it’s textbook genocide.

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          6·
          22 days ago

          But the standards for an organisation like Amnesty International saying a state is committing genocide are much higher than a random person on the internet.

          To make a claim like that, they have to have specific evidence satisfying the actual definitions in international law, which is what this whole report is about. It’s all well and good for you to go “well it’s obvious to me”, but that doesn’t meet the standards of evidence for a reputable NGO like them to make a statement like that.

          They agree with your stance, so I’m not sure I understand why your response to them - explicitly - saying “this is genocide” is to chew them out for it.

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      22 days ago

      It means they believe the evidence they have is sufficient to show that it is genocide when considered together.

      What’s confusing you here?