kenway

Okay, well the ICJ court case is on Thursday. If you're confident in that one-liner then perhaps you should offer your legal services on behalf of your country.

Possibly true, but Stage Yellow would spit Israel out no differently. I've already said many times that there's no such thing as family, and that if you love family more than you do strangers you've made a fundamental ontological mistake. Israel is an ethno-state defined by the "fear of death / love of family" animalistic complex that has no place in stage yellow or anything equivalent to that or anything above that. An ethno-state (such as a Jewish state) is fundamentally incompatible with an advanced civilisation, which is precisely why Israel has a shelf life.

The name of every person slaughtered in Gaza by Israeli bombings.

Agreed. Maybe true in a general sense, but that's not an accurate reflection of the variables in this instance. Prior to the advent of political zionism, ordinary civilians in the region lived in relative harmony irrespective of whether they were Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians. It was only really in the 1920s and theoretical zionism started to get real that the problems began. Ze'ev Jabotinsky writing in the Ha'aretz Daily in 1923:- ".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never' lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights." This hardcore quasifascist Zionist mindset would go on to define Israel, from its genesis right through to the current (wow-didn't-see-this-coming) genocide. Most people aren't born into this world hating Jews nor hating Palestinians. if you happen to be within the sphere of influence of the general area, then sure, there is a conversation to be had about the opinions you hold relative to "where you're standing". The problem is that many people's opinions on Israel/Palestine come from a position of neutrality. And generally, seen through that neutral lens, it becomes obvious that Israel is not just a little bit mischievous, but actually very very very fucking evil.

I'm sorry for the Israelis that have been killed as a consequence of this conflict, but it needs to be seen within proper context.

Miko Peled, son of Israeli General Mattityahu Peled, speaking about the Israeli Army - October 1, 2012.

Zionists disguised as Arabs blowing up buildings. Hmmmm.... this could catch on.

I don't know - I'll have to check my "Zionist Supremacy for Dummies" handbook and find out what the current rate of exchange is.

"My suffering is not the same as your suffering."

@Lila9 1 Israeli = 1 Palestinian Correct?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule129#:~:text=into occupied territory.-,Rule 129.,imperative military reasons so demand. Rule 129. The Act of Displacement Note: This chapter addresses forced displacement of civilians for reasons related to an armed conflict, whether within or outside the bounds of national territory. It thus covers the treatment of both internally displaced persons and persons who have crossed an international border (refugees). The only exception to this is Rule 130, which covers both forcible and non-forcible transfer of populations into occupied territory. Rule 129. A. Parties to an international armed conflict may not deport or forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, in whole or in part, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. B. Parties to a non-international armed conflict may not order the displacement of the civilian population, in whole or in part, for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Practice Volume II, Chapter 38, Section A. Summary State practice establishes these rules as norms of customary international law applicable in international (A) and non-international (B) armed conflicts respectively. International armed conflicts The prohibition of the deportation or transfer of civilians goes back to the Lieber Code, which provides that “private citizens are no longer … carried off to distant parts”.[1] Under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), “deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory” constitutes a war crime.[2] The prohibition of the transfer or deportation of civilians is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[3] In addition, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, it is a grave breach of these instruments to deport or transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.[4] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the deportation or transfer [by the Occupying Power] of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[5] Numerous military manuals specify the prohibition of unlawful deportation or transfer of civilians in occupied territory.[6] It is an offence under the legislation of many States to carry out such deportations or transfers.[7] There is case-law relating to the Second World War supporting the prohibition.[8] It is also supported by official statements and by many resolutions adopted by international organizations and international conferences, including condemnations of alleged cases of deportation and transfer.[9] The Supreme Court of Israel has stated on several occasions, however, that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was not meant to apply to the deportation of selected individuals for reasons of public order and security,[10] or that Article 49 did not form part of customary international law and that therefore deportation orders against individual citizens did not contravene the domestic law of Israel.[11] Non-international armed conflicts The prohibition of displacing the civilian population in non-international armed conflicts is set forth in Additional Protocol II.[12] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand,” constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts.[13] This rule is contained in other instruments pertaining also to non-international armed conflicts.[14] It should also be noted that, under the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and of the International Criminal Court, deportation or transfer of the civilian population constitutes a crime against humanity.[15] The rule prohibiting the forcible displacement of the civilian population is also specified in a number of military manuals which are applicable in or have been applied in non-international armed conflicts.[16] The legislation of many States makes it an offence to violate this rule.[17] The prohibition is also supported by official statements and reported practice in the context of non-international armed conflicts.[18] In a resolution on basic principles for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts, adopted in 1970, the UN General Assembly affirmed that “civilian populations, or individual members thereof, should not be the object of … forcible transfers”.[19] In a resolution on the protection of women and children in emergency and armed conflict, adopted in 1974, the UN General Assembly declared that “forcible eviction, committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories, shall be considered criminal”.[20] The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned instances of forced displacement in international armed conflicts but also in non-international armed conflicts, for example, in the context of the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi and Sudan.[21] The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent adopted two resolutions stressing the prohibition of forced displacement of the civilian population.[22] The ICRC has called on parties to both international and non-international armed conflicts to respect this rule.[23] Evacuation of the civilian population In both international and non-international armed conflicts, State practice establishes an exception to the prohibition of displacement in cases where the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons (such as clearing a combat zone) require the evacuation for as long as the conditions warranting it exist. This exception is contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol II.[24] The possibility of evacuation is also provided for in numerous military manuals.[25] It is contained in the legislation of many States.[26] The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement prohibit the “arbitrary” displacement of persons, which is defined as including displacement in situations of armed conflict, “unless the security of civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”.[27] The exception of “imperative military reasons” can never cover cases of removal of the civilian population in order to persecute it.[28] The Fourth Geneva Convention further specifies that evacuations may not involve displacement outside the bounds of the occupied territory “except where for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement”.[29] With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II specifies that evacuations may never involve displacement outside the national territory.[30] Prevention of displacement State practice also underlines the duty of parties to a conflict to prevent displacement caused by their own acts, at least those acts which are prohibited in and of themselves (e.g., terrorizing the civilian population or carrying out indiscriminate attacks). As stated in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: All authorities and international actors shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, in all circumstances, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement of persons.[31] Ethnic cleansing “Ethnic cleansing” aims to change the demographic composition of a territory. In addition to displacement of the civilian population of a territory, this can be achieved through other acts which are prohibited in and of themselves such as attacks against civilians (see Rule 1), murder (see Rule 89) and rape and other forms of sexual violence (see Rule 93). These acts are prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict and have been widely condemned. [1] - Lieber Code, Article 23 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 20). [2] - IMT Charter (Nuremberg), Article 6(b) (ibid., § 1). [3] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, first paragraph (ibid., § 3). [4] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147 (ibid., § 4); Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 9). [5] - ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 18). [6] - See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 39–40), Australia (ibid., §§ 41–42), Canada (ibid., § 43), Colombia (ibid., § 44), Croatia (ibid., § 45), Ecuador (ibid., § 46), France (ibid., §§ 47–49), Germany (ibid., § 50), Hungary (ibid., § 51), Italy (ibid., § 52), Netherlands (ibid., § 53), New Zealand (ibid., § 54), Nigeria (ibid., § 55), Philippines (ibid., § 56), South Africa (ibid., § 57), Spain (ibid., § 58), Sweden (ibid., § 59), Switzerland (ibid., § 60), United Kingdom (ibid., § 61) and United States (ibid., §§ 62–64). [7] - See, e.g., the legislation (ibid., §§ 65–156). [8] - See, e.g., China, War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defence, Takashi Sakai case (ibid., § 159); France, General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Roechling case (ibid., § 157); Israel, District Court of Jerusalem, Eichmann case (ibid., § 161); Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Zimmermann case (ibid., § 166); Poland, Supreme National Tribunal at Poznan, Greiser case (ibid., § 157); United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krauch (I.G. Farben Trial) case, Krupp case, Milch case, List (Hostages Trial) case (ibid., § 157) and Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) case (ibid., § 157). [9] - See, e.g., the statements of Switzerland (ibid., § 186) and United States (ibid., § 188–190); UN General Assembly, Res. 2675 (XXV) (ibid., § 204), Res. 3318 (XXIX) (ibid., § 205), Res. 36/147 D, 37/88 D, 38/79 E, 39/95 E and 40/161 E (ibid., § 206), Res. 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D, 39/95 D and 40/161 D (ibid., § 207); League of Arab States, Council, Res. 4430 (ibid., § 223), Res. 5169 (ibid., § 224) and Res. 5324 (ibid., § 225); 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. I (ibid., § 226). [10] - See, e.g., Israel, High Court, Abu-Awad case (ibid., § 162) and Affo and Others case (ibid., § 165). [11] - See, e.g., Israel, High Court, Kawasme and Others case (ibid., § 163) and Nazal and Others case (ibid., § 164); see also Yoram Dinstein, “The Israeli Supreme Court and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: Deportations”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 23, 1993, pp. 1–26. [12] - Additional Protocol II, Article 17 (adopted by consensus) (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 10). [13] - ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(e)(viii) (ibid., § 19). [14] - See, e.g., Agreement on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 2.3 (ibid., § 28); Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Philippines, Part IV, Article 3(7) (ibid., § 35). [15] - ICTY Statute, Article 5(d) (ibid., § 31); ICTR Statute, Article 3(d) (ibid., § 32); ICC Statute, Article 7(1)(d) (ibid., § 16). [16] - See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia (ibid., §§ 41–42), Canada (ibid., § 43), Colombia (ibid., § 44), Croatia (ibid., § 45), Ecuador (ibid., § 46), France (ibid., § 49), Germany (ibid., § 50), Hungary (ibid., § 51), Italy (ibid., § 52), Netherlands (ibid., § 53), New Zealand (ibid., § 54), Philippines (ibid., § 56), South Africa (ibid., § 57) and Spain (ibid., § 58). [17] - See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 66), Australia (ibid., §§ 67 and 69), Azerbaijan (ibid., § 70), Belarus (ibid., § 73), Belgium (ibid., § 74), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 75), Cambodia (ibid., § 79), Canada (ibid., § 81), Colombia (ibid., §§ 83–84), Congo (ibid., § 86), Croatia (ibid., § 89), El Salvador (ibid., § 93), Estonia (ibid., § 95), Ethiopia (ibid., § 96), Finland (ibid., § 97), Georgia (ibid., § 99), Germany (ibid., § 100), Kazakhstan (ibid., § 108), Latvia (ibid., § 110), Republic of Moldova (ibid., § 120), Netherlands (ibid., § 121), New Zealand (ibid., § 123), Nicaragua (ibid., § 125), Niger (ibid., § 127), Paraguay (ibid., § 131), Poland (ibid., § 133), Portugal (ibid., § 134), Russian Federation (ibid., § 136), Slovenia (ibid., § 140), Spain (ibid., § 141), Tajikistan (ibid., § 143), Ukraine (ibid., § 146), United Kingdom (ibid., § 148), Uzbekistan (ibid., § 152) and Yugoslavia (ibid., § 154); see also the legislation of Bulgaria (ibid., § 77), Czech Republic (ibid., § 92), Hungary (ibid., § 101), Romania (ibid., § 135) and Slovakia (ibid., § 139), the application of which is not excluded in time of non-international armed conflict, and the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 65), Burundi (ibid., § 78), El Salvador (ibid., § 93), Jordan (ibid., § 107), Nicaragua (ibid., § 126) and Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 144). [18] - See, e.g., the statements of Afghanistan (ibid., § 168), Botswana (ibid., § 169) Japan (ibid., § 175), Netherlands (ibid., §§ 177–178), New Zealand (ibid., § 180), Nigeria (ibid., § 181), Russian Federation (ibid., § 183), Spain (ibid., § 185), United Kingdom (ibid., § 187) and United States (ibid., § 190), and the reported practice of Jordan (ibid., § 176) and United States (ibid., § 191). [19] - UN General Assembly, Res. 2675 (XXV) (adopted by 109 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions) (ibid., § 204). [20] - UN General Assembly, Res. 3318 (XXIX) (adopted by 110 votes in favour, none against and 14 abstentions) (ibid., § 205). [21] - See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 193) and Res. 819 (ibid., § 194); UN Security Council, Statement by the President (ibid., § 201); UN General Assembly, Res. 55/116 (ibid., § 212); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/77 (ibid., § 212) and Res. 1996/73 (ibid., § 213). [22] - 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Res. II (ibid., § 228) and Res. IV (ibid., § 229). [23] - See, e.g., ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law (ibid., § 237) and Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola (ibid., § 240). [24] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, second paragraph (ibid., § 245); Additional Protocol II, Article 17(1) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 246). [25] - See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 250–251), Cameroon (ibid., § 253), Canada (ibid., § 254), Croatia (ibid., § 255), Dominican Republic (ibid., § 256), France (ibid., § 257), Germany (ibid., § 258), Hungary (ibid., § 259), Israel (ibid., § 260), Italy (ibid., § 261), Kenya (ibid., § 262), Netherlands (ibid., § 264), New Zealand (ibid., § 265), Philippines (ibid., § 266), Spain (ibid., § 267), Sweden (ibid., § 268), Switzerland (ibid., § 269), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 270–271) and United States (ibid., §§ 272–274). [26] - See, e.g., the legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 275), Australia (ibid., § 276), Azerbaijan (ibid., § 277), Canada (ibid., § 278), Congo (ibid., § 279), Cuba (ibid., § 280), Ireland (ibid., § 281), Netherlands (ibid., § 282), New Zealand (ibid., § 283), Norway (ibid., § 284), Rwanda (ibid., § 286) and United Kingdom (ibid., § 288); see also the draft legislation of Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 287). [27] - Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Principle 6(2) (ibid., § 248). [28] - See, e.g., Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 45, fourth paragraph (ibid., § 2). [29] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49. [30] - Additional Protocol II, Article 17(2) (adopted by consensus). [31] - Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Principle 5 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 34).

No-one is suggesting they had people in them. The demolitions are seen within the context of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian residents, to be replaced by Israeli Jewish residents. As with the bulldozer razings in the West Bank. I do know that, but thanks for the sanctimonious strawman. See first response. This is just an idea you've had relative to your xenophobia concerning Palestinians. It's not based on reality nor objectivity. 1.9 million Palestinians are currently displaced without homes. That's not by accident.

8th January 2024 “Bolivia acknowledges South Africa's historic step in defending the Palestinian people, urging international support in light of the UN report documenting over 21,000 deaths since October 7, 2023, mostly children & women, revealing Israel’s inhumane actions.”

Thankyou for replying. I appreciate your perspective if that is what your truth is.

A question for the pro-Israelis in this thread. If the situation was reversed and it was you who were the ones stuck in Gaza, with 30,000+ of your people killed so far, 12000 of whom were children, your homes are being destroyed, your people humiliated, you are stuck in the desert in tents, not knowing whether to go north or south, and with no place left to go.... ... would you want people to speak out, passionately, in order to save you? ... or would you want people to simply shrug their shoulders and be indifferent about it? Think hard on this.

January 8th - more orchestrated demolitions in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israeli MKs continue to talk on how and when Israeli Jewish settlers will start to move in.

Good point and so true. It's not just about incrimination either. Due to the media blackout, it's very hard to get a visual picture of what is actually taking place. These little media clips give a brief glimpse not just into the actions taking place, but also a much needed overview of how the Gaza landscape currently looks. We have statistics of the number dead, injured and misplaced, and there are thousands of images and videos of dead civilians and children that cannot be posted here. But actual internal journalism and reportage from Gaza is as barebone as the desolation itself. Anthony Blinken has said that "Palestinians must not be pressured into leaving Gaza, and must be allowed to return to their homes once conditions allow." The question is though: Are there actually any homes left? My fear is that the end result is going to look like something akin to Hiroshima. With 1.9 million Palestinians currently homeless, stuck somewhere between the north and the south in makeshift tents (none of which is being reported), my guess is that there are no homes left for them to return to. Making it an effective 2nd Nakba.

@zazen Crazy for sure, but frankly it's also practically Nazism at this point. I find it interesting that in another thread on this forum, there is a lively conversation being had about "understanding the Nazi mindset", and very few of the participants are here on this thread. It seems that people are very good at discussing Nazism 80 years after the fact - but not so good at discussing it as it unfolds in realtime. Even in this thread, there are pro-Israelis that don't even seem to realise that they have slowly turned into actual Nazis. Words used such as savages, animals, swamps, trivialising European protests on the basis that they have large Arab populations, and the trivialisation even of an Israeli, that just happens to have Iranian roots, and therefore isn't someone to be taken seriously. This, ironically, is what happens with ethno-states. Eventually everyone is so far removed from "the others" that it soon becomes an echo chamber of casual racism that anyone from a normal multicultural society would be sickened by. To add ethnic cleansing and genocide into the mix is the natural end result. It's terrifying. If Israel is allowed to continue in its current far right ethno-state form, it is basically signalling to the world that it is only restricted by the mechanics of practicality, not by any degree of morality.

One more. 1.9 million Palestinians are now homeless. No-one is allowed to leave.

This was from Friday.

Same event. Different camera angle.

This is from Khan Younis in Southern Gaza. As you can see they are ramping up operations, presumably in case they are ordered to ceasefire following the ICJ hearing. Entire villages and neighbourhoods are now being manually detonated. After all, why go house by house when you can go neighbourhood by neighbourhood? It is clearly obvious for the world to see that Palestinian lives don't matter at all.

With precision weapons like these I wonder where these dead civilians are coming from?! Latest death count as reported by Euro-Med Humans Rights monitor:- 30,676 killed. 28,201 civilians. 6,103 women. and 12,040 children. Note that Israel has managed to successfully kill more children than it has women. At this point it should be assumed that the IDF is trying to break King Herod's record.