16/10/2024 — The Canadian government has designated Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, an international network that supports and advocates for
While both the Canadian and U.S. designation emphasize financing of terrorism, there is no indication that fundraising constitutes a significant part of Samidoun’s work.
Other than a “donate now” tab on the organization’s website, the content is overwhelmingly concerned with coverage of Palestinian prisoners’ issues, political protests against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and profiles of prominent Palestinian and Arab resistance leaders.
Just shows how biased these people are and how meaningless their “terrorist” labels actually are.
It’s terrifying how the government can just declare something to be a terrorist organization with no proof at all. Just ‘they raise, uh, money. For… uh… terrorism?’
Except the article itself is pointing out that there is no real evidence of the terrorism funding point. The Canadian government just said they are without backing it up.
So where’s the proof? If the Canadian government is going to make this kind of claim, they should cite their evidence. You don’t expect a guilty verdict without seeing the reasoning behind it.
Expressing your viewpoint on a conflict is not grounds to be deemed a terrorist in Canada. Here is the actual process.
Specifically:
The process of listing begins with criminal and/or security intelligence reports on an entity disclosing the reasonable grounds to believe that the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or the entity has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with, an entity involved in a terrorist activity.
And none of what you provided is actually saying they funded a terrorist organization.
We have actual allies exterminating entire ethnic groups, and we are supporting them. They are literally executing children at point blank range and burning them alive. How are they not labeled as terrorists and these are?
I guess because they aren’t bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.
Edit: It’s totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it’s a start, however small.
I guess should have said “mostly suspended” - but wow, that’s quite a glaring loophole.
In particular, there’s no reporting requirements - so it’s not even possible to tell how much of what got moved under the loophole, so we don’t know if it was just a $60 drop in the bucket or if say the vast majority of arms exports are moving via the loophole now.
Shit like this is why the leaders in Arab communities are refusing to even meet with Trudeau. It’s become abundantly clear that a lot of progressives in our Parliament are only progressives when it’s politically convenient to be.
That might be a tad harsh - I’m sure that now progressive lawmakers have been made aware of the loophole by the news article that they are working on laws to fix it (previously they may have assumed that companies would just act in good faith in doing the right thing here, or failing that, that the US wouldn’t send arms over to a country found to have plausibly committed genocide).
Alas, that process is quite slow, so I am currently putting my hopes on the lawsuit mentioned in your article. Hopefully the courts will decide to apply the brakes until a legislative fix can be made.
I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt personally. The only political leader who has actually said anything substantitive regarding Israel’s actions was Singh. If you’re a political figure and you can’t even publicly condemn another countries war crimes and say that we won’t stand for it, then to me you’re complicit.
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.>
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling.
Citation needed.
They only ruled that … the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk,
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that “we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?” I wouldn’t normally associate “Geneva violations” language with “court has jurisdiction” verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel’s interpretation of “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant” “false claims” was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel.
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn’t done what it did last year, that doesn’t absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights… Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it’s strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
“Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law>
Yes, that is true. But no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians. It’s impossible. International law only requires that they take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide, nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law
Yes, that is true.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide,
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.>
I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law. I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war>
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.” But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.
Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn’t a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.
No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.
Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don’t see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn’t because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It’s just more often military targets and not civilian ones.
Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.
Yes, people burned to death. That happens in war. You might recall that Israeli civilians were deliberately burned to death on Oct 7, 2023, which is how this war started.
And the second link is not proof of anything, other than that people were found dead with their hands bound. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the IDF executed those people.
And the second link is not proof of anything, other than that people were found dead with their hands bound. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the IDF executed those people.
Yes, and why is there a lack of proof? Is it a coincidence that Israel has deliberately targeted journalists, threatened them, and harassed them? If only they were still alive to help us understand why a huge number of bound Palestinians were executed all while they are being invaded by a country known to commit huge human rights violations.
Did you even read that article? It nitpicks over specific stories but doesn’t dispute claims about civilians burned alive.
You’re clearly a lost cause. You have no critical thinking ability whatsoever, you just keep spitting back propaganda. Story after story, accusation after accusation, has been debunked as propaganda. The hospital bombing. The Flour Massacre. The famine. The children with sniper bullets in their skulls. All of it bullshit.
In another story that spread a few weeks ago, United Hatzalah President Eli Beer told of a baby that was placed in an oven and burned to death. Beer made the remarks at a donors conference in the United States. The British newspaper The Daily Mail changed it from “baby” to “babies."
But this story also is not true. Ten-month-old Mila Cohen was murdered in the massacre, along with the baby still in the womb of her mother who died after her mother was shot on the way to hospital. The police have no evidence showing that other babies were killed. A source at United Hatzalah said a volunteer mistakenly interpreted a case at the Shura base and passed the inaccuracy on to Beer.
So this one was untrue.
The report above was later quoted on social media, often referenced as “dozens of beheaded babies,” though sometimes it was “burnt babies” or “hanged babies.” For example, the Foreign Ministry published an account by Col. Golan Vach from the Home Front Command, who said that in one house he found the bodies of eight burnt babies.
This one the story changed from burned to hanged. Which one was it?
There is no evidence that children from several families were murdered together, rendering inaccurate Netanyahu’s remark to U.S. President Joe Biden that Hamas terrorists “took dozens of children, tied them up, burned them and executed them.”
This one was incorrect as well.
Some of the incorrect descriptions were made by Zaka personnel; one repeatedly talked about 20 bound and burned bodies of children at a kibbutz.
Oh and another one.
So let me ask this question. If there are multiple incorrect stories by an organization known to lie and create false truths to justify their atrocities. Why would I believe any of them? On top of that, why would that excuse what they’ve been doing for the past year?
Exterminating? They haven’t even killed 3% of the population in gaza, let alone the whole Palestinian population which is much larger. The birth rate of Gaza puts that at close to a net 0 population change for the period.
Use words correctly and people will believe you more. Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, but it is not Exterminating anything right now.
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.
The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.
An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that “Israel’s genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole” as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention.>
That is not what they ruled. In this video the former head of the ICJ clarifies the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
“Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
And I really don’t care what biased groups say about Israel. Did you know that back in 2014, the last time there was major armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, critics were accusing Israel of committing genocide then…when the death toll was a whopping 2500 people? All they’re doing is diluting the meaning of the term so much that it carries no weight anymore.
You’re casual dismissal of what’s happening in Palestine right now is pretty disgusting given how much evidence there is of it. It doesn’t put you in a positive light at all.
How about you actually address the points brought up instead of being pedantic and insulting others? You’ve been doing nothing but dismissing actual talking points that prove how wrong you are.
Dude. Indiscriminate murder of, and depraved indifference to the survival of, civilians is a bad look no matter what word you use for it. It’s pretty clear at this point that the current government of Israel would like to see all Palestinians dead, and is willing to act on that desire whenever they think they can get away with it. That’s what makes it (attempted) genocide. The fact that they’re currently not attacking the West Bank and not making sure they get 100% kill count in Gaza is not the point and has more to do with plausible deniability than anything.
You’re acting like you’ve never heard of war before. This kind of killing has happened thousands of times, from the current war to the war in Afghanistan, to the Korean war, to the world wars and beyond. They all involved the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
You may not like war, but both sides actively want to kill each other in this situation.
So your excuse is, “War crimes committed in the past in other places like Afghanistan and Korea were not called ‘genocide’ or properly prosecuted, so we should ignore these ones too and not call a spade a spade?” That’s . . . pretty sad. Some of us would actually like the international community to learn from mistakes made in other conflicts.
Many military experts have commented that Israel has done a very effective job at minimizing civilian casualties. If if were truly indiscriminate, the death toll would be much, much higher.
And you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that “the current government of Israel would like to see all Palestinians dead., and is willing to act on that desire whenever they think they can get away with it.” This is an ignorant statement with no basis in reality. If this were true, all Palestinians would be dead. It should be very obvious to you that Israel has the ability to do far more damage than they have done.
Many military experts have commented that Israel has done a very effective job at minimizing civilian casualties. If if were truly indiscriminate, the death toll would be much, much higher.
According to research in The Lancet, the number of total deaths is at ~186000. That’s everyone including those who died of preventable causes, e.g. hunger or prevetable disease, e.g. direct and indirect deaths.
Based on calculations of the demographic of the dead and the living (e.g. how much does the general population differ from the dead? Are there more dead men of fighting age than in the genral population, etc…), it appears that whilst Israel may target Hamas fighters, it takes next to no effort to avoid civilian casualties in the process. For example, the IDF often targets homes of suspected Hamas fighters, taking out entire families.
So I don’t know which “military experts” think Israel is doing a good job on this, because the ones I’m seeing seem to agree on the opposite.
We actually have no idea how many women and children have been killed because the numbers aren’t accurate. But again, the numbers killed don’t define whether the killing was indiscriminate or not. Even accepting the Hamas numbers, experts have concluded that the civilian-to-combatant ratio is among the lowest in the history of urban warfare. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/18/israels-war-against-hamas-posts-lower-civilian-to-/. Plus, as you well know because you see the headlines, the IDF regularly instructs civilians to move from one area to another to avoid the fighting.
The Lancet article was not research, it was an opinion letter. And it was bullshit. They’re just estimating the number of indirect deaths that could occur some time in the future from all sorts of things that could be connected to the war. By the same token, we could estimate the death toll from the Hamas attack on 10/7 as much higher because of the deaths that will result in the future from stress, mental illness, PTSD, etc.
Could Israel have done a better job avoiding civilian casualties? Probably. But that also means they would have passed up on taking out key targets to bring the war to an end. What you also don’t know is how often decisions are made behind the scenes to NOT carry out a strike because it crosses the threshold of proportionality. You only see the strikes that were carried out.
accused it of being a fundraiser for the Popular Front
Which has been designated a terrorist organization for decades.
It’s not necessary “that fundraising constitutes a significant part” here, just that some did happen and some money did flow, to provide a legitimate reason for the brakes to get applied.
Also, the article tries to draw a false equivalence here,
the HESEG Foundation, a Canadian organization with charitable tax status, awards cash scholarships to former Israel Defence Force (IDF) soldiers.
But awarding scholarships to even former soldiers is totally different from directly funding armed forces. There’s no accusation being made that the HESEG Foundation directly sends money to the IDF, which would be necessary to prove actual equivalence.
Somehow, I also don’t think that the HESEG Foundation encouraged chants of “death to Canada”. Now, the word death can mean many things, especially if used as a metaphor, and protection of free speech is rightfully very strong, so that alone wouldn’t be a cause for the above (unless maybe there was reason to believe that this was a call for or would be followed by physical harm to people in Canada). However, that sort of thing also doesn’t really feel like the way to win over the hearts and minds of Canadians.
Just shows how biased these people are and how meaningless their “terrorist” labels actually are.
It’s terrifying how the government can just declare something to be a terrorist organization with no proof at all. Just ‘they raise, uh, money. For… uh… terrorism?’
Except the article itself is pointing out that there is no real evidence of the terrorism funding point. The Canadian government just said they are without backing it up.
Yeah to be clear, I’m saying they’re just claiming that. Like I said, no proof, just ‘seriously we claim this, trust us.’
It’s ridiculous.
deleted by creator
Yes, they’re biased against terrorists.
Samidoun is very closely linked to PFLP, which is a terrorist organization. They literally invented the airline hijacking.
So where’s the proof? If the Canadian government is going to make this kind of claim, they should cite their evidence. You don’t expect a guilty verdict without seeing the reasoning behind it.
deleted by creator
Expressing your viewpoint on a conflict is not grounds to be deemed a terrorist in Canada. Here is the actual process.
Specifically:
And none of what you provided is actually saying they funded a terrorist organization.
They were literally caught on video chanting “death to Canada”
I’m not sure what else is really necessary at that point.
That’s not why Canada listed them as a terrorist organization.
We have actual allies exterminating entire ethnic groups, and we are supporting them. They are literally executing children at point blank range and burning them alive. How are they not labeled as terrorists and these are?
I guess because they aren’t bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.
And it wouldn’t be quite accurate to say that Canada didn’t do anything about this. There was suspension of arms sales after all, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joly-suspensions-analysis-1.7320990
Edit: It’s totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it’s a start, however small.
Except that’s not actually the case.
I guess should have said “mostly suspended” - but wow, that’s quite a glaring loophole.
In particular, there’s no reporting requirements - so it’s not even possible to tell how much of what got moved under the loophole, so we don’t know if it was just a $60 drop in the bucket or if say the vast majority of arms exports are moving via the loophole now.
Shit like this is why the leaders in Arab communities are refusing to even meet with Trudeau. It’s become abundantly clear that a lot of progressives in our Parliament are only progressives when it’s politically convenient to be.
That might be a tad harsh - I’m sure that now progressive lawmakers have been made aware of the loophole by the news article that they are working on laws to fix it (previously they may have assumed that companies would just act in good faith in doing the right thing here, or failing that, that the US wouldn’t send arms over to a country found to have plausibly committed genocide).
Alas, that process is quite slow, so I am currently putting my hopes on the lawsuit mentioned in your article. Hopefully the courts will decide to apply the brakes until a legislative fix can be made.
I hope I’m not being too optimistic here.
I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt personally. The only political leader who has actually said anything substantitive regarding Israel’s actions was Singh. If you’re a political figure and you can’t even publicly condemn another countries war crimes and say that we won’t stand for it, then to me you’re complicit.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
Citation needed.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that “we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?” I wouldn’t normally associate “Geneva violations” language with “court has jurisdiction” verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel’s interpretation of “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant” “false claims” was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
I mean, true in the sense that it sounded like there was almost a grand peace deal that would have made the Palestine Authority and Israel both happy, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/ until Hamas ruined it with their terrorist attack.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law. E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-military-human-shields.html
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn’t done what it did last year, that doesn’t absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights… Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it’s strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
On this, I think we’re in complete agreement.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
When I see the headlines from articles like https://time.com/7016741/israel-protests-netanyahu-six-hostages-deaths/ - yes, I can easily believe that.
Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn’t a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.
No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.
This isn’t even close to ethnic cleansing.
Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don’t see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn’t because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It’s just more often military targets and not civilian ones.
Are you serious?
Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.
deleted by creator
Assuming you’re referring to Israel, they are literally not doing any of this.
The fact that you knew exactly who I was talking about is proof that they most likely are.
And there is proof.
And the executing part as well.
Yes, people burned to death. That happens in war. You might recall that Israeli civilians were deliberately burned to death on Oct 7, 2023, which is how this war started.
And the second link is not proof of anything, other than that people were found dead with their hands bound. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the IDF executed those people.
That was proven to be false.
Yes, and why is there a lack of proof? Is it a coincidence that Israel has deliberately targeted journalists, threatened them, and harassed them? If only they were still alive to help us understand why a huge number of bound Palestinians were executed all while they are being invaded by a country known to commit huge human rights violations.
Did you even read that article? It nitpicks over specific stories but doesn’t dispute claims about civilians burned alive.
You’re clearly a lost cause. You have no critical thinking ability whatsoever, you just keep spitting back propaganda. Story after story, accusation after accusation, has been debunked as propaganda. The hospital bombing. The Flour Massacre. The famine. The children with sniper bullets in their skulls. All of it bullshit.
So this one was untrue.
This one the story changed from burned to hanged. Which one was it?
This one was incorrect as well.
Oh and another one.
So let me ask this question. If there are multiple incorrect stories by an organization known to lie and create false truths to justify their atrocities. Why would I believe any of them? On top of that, why would that excuse what they’ve been doing for the past year?
Exterminating? They haven’t even killed 3% of the population in gaza, let alone the whole Palestinian population which is much larger. The birth rate of Gaza puts that at close to a net 0 population change for the period.
Use words correctly and people will believe you more. Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, but it is not Exterminating anything right now.
Others: AP News, Time, Reuters, Vox, CBC
That is not what they ruled. In this video the former head of the ICJ clarifies the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
And I really don’t care what biased groups say about Israel. Did you know that back in 2014, the last time there was major armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, critics were accusing Israel of committing genocide then…when the death toll was a whopping 2500 people? All they’re doing is diluting the meaning of the term so much that it carries no weight anymore.
Genocide and extermination are not the same thing.
Use the correct words is all I’m saying.
You’re casual dismissal of what’s happening in Palestine right now is pretty disgusting given how much evidence there is of it. It doesn’t put you in a positive light at all.
It’s your, not you’re.
You idiots can’t even use the correct words or spell properly, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
How about you actually address the points brought up instead of being pedantic and insulting others? You’ve been doing nothing but dismissing actual talking points that prove how wrong you are.
You’re being pedantic about the destruction of a culture and people.
Dude, I mean this as harshly as possible: fuck you.
I’m being pedantic because words matter. Use the correct ones and it won’t be a problem.
Stop hitting me
actually I’m not just hitting you I’m slapping you be precise in your wording
Dude. Indiscriminate murder of, and depraved indifference to the survival of, civilians is a bad look no matter what word you use for it. It’s pretty clear at this point that the current government of Israel would like to see all Palestinians dead, and is willing to act on that desire whenever they think they can get away with it. That’s what makes it (attempted) genocide. The fact that they’re currently not attacking the West Bank and not making sure they get 100% kill count in Gaza is not the point and has more to do with plausible deniability than anything.
Dude. Use the right word.
You’re acting like you’ve never heard of war before. This kind of killing has happened thousands of times, from the current war to the war in Afghanistan, to the Korean war, to the world wars and beyond. They all involved the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
You may not like war, but both sides actively want to kill each other in this situation.
So your excuse is, “War crimes committed in the past in other places like Afghanistan and Korea were not called ‘genocide’ or properly prosecuted, so we should ignore these ones too and not call a spade a spade?” That’s . . . pretty sad. Some of us would actually like the international community to learn from mistakes made in other conflicts.
Learn from mistakes, ah, sure. We’ll prevent all wars entirely any day now.
Meanwhile Russia has invaded Ukraine, China is eyeing up Taiwan, and there are about a dozen other deadly conflicts going on around the world.
We can dream all we want about a peaceful world, but that’s not the way things work in reality. Humans are very good at hating each other.
Stop throwing around baseless accusations.
Many military experts have commented that Israel has done a very effective job at minimizing civilian casualties. If if were truly indiscriminate, the death toll would be much, much higher.
And you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that “the current government of Israel would like to see all Palestinians dead., and is willing to act on that desire whenever they think they can get away with it.” This is an ignorant statement with no basis in reality. If this were true, all Palestinians would be dead. It should be very obvious to you that Israel has the ability to do far more damage than they have done.
The IDF has killed more women and children in the past year than any other conflict in the past two decades: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict
According to research in The Lancet, the number of total deaths is at ~186000. That’s everyone including those who died of preventable causes, e.g. hunger or prevetable disease, e.g. direct and indirect deaths.
According to professor Michael Spagat, the estimated percentage of civilians is around 80% (https://aoav.org.uk/2024/netanyahu-got-it-wrong-before-the-us-congress-idfs-clean-performance-in-gaza-is-a-lie/). Even conservative estimates put it at at least 61%, which is the worst for any modern conflict since WW2.
Based on calculations of the demographic of the dead and the living (e.g. how much does the general population differ from the dead? Are there more dead men of fighting age than in the genral population, etc…), it appears that whilst Israel may target Hamas fighters, it takes next to no effort to avoid civilian casualties in the process. For example, the IDF often targets homes of suspected Hamas fighters, taking out entire families.
So I don’t know which “military experts” think Israel is doing a good job on this, because the ones I’m seeing seem to agree on the opposite.
We actually have no idea how many women and children have been killed because the numbers aren’t accurate. But again, the numbers killed don’t define whether the killing was indiscriminate or not. Even accepting the Hamas numbers, experts have concluded that the civilian-to-combatant ratio is among the lowest in the history of urban warfare. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/18/israels-war-against-hamas-posts-lower-civilian-to-/. Plus, as you well know because you see the headlines, the IDF regularly instructs civilians to move from one area to another to avoid the fighting.
The Lancet article was not research, it was an opinion letter. And it was bullshit. They’re just estimating the number of indirect deaths that could occur some time in the future from all sorts of things that could be connected to the war. By the same token, we could estimate the death toll from the Hamas attack on 10/7 as much higher because of the deaths that will result in the future from stress, mental illness, PTSD, etc.
Could Israel have done a better job avoiding civilian casualties? Probably. But that also means they would have passed up on taking out key targets to bring the war to an end. What you also don’t know is how often decisions are made behind the scenes to NOT carry out a strike because it crosses the threshold of proportionality. You only see the strikes that were carried out.
Hitler did nothing wrong because we still have Roma, disabled people, socialists, and Jews.
I never said anything about it not being wrong. I said the word exterminate is being used incorrectly.
Well, the financial aspect,
Which has been designated a terrorist organization for decades.
It’s not necessary “that fundraising constitutes a significant part” here, just that some did happen and some money did flow, to provide a legitimate reason for the brakes to get applied.
Also, the article tries to draw a false equivalence here,
But awarding scholarships to even former soldiers is totally different from directly funding armed forces. There’s no accusation being made that the HESEG Foundation directly sends money to the IDF, which would be necessary to prove actual equivalence.
Somehow, I also don’t think that the HESEG Foundation encouraged chants of “death to Canada”. Now, the word death can mean many things, especially if used as a metaphor, and protection of free speech is rightfully very strong, so that alone wouldn’t be a cause for the above (unless maybe there was reason to believe that this was a call for or would be followed by physical harm to people in Canada). However, that sort of thing also doesn’t really feel like the way to win over the hearts and minds of Canadians.