Of course not, but are you (or the UN committee) demonstrating that Israel has gone outside these bounds from military necessity to outright deliberate destruction of Palestinians as an identity or ethnic group?
In fact why did the war in Gaza end? Because of political pressure? Sanctions? Military intervention?
Or, because Israel felt it achieved its military goals and Gaza was sufficiently subdued as not being able to offer further resistance.
Now let’s go back to “in part”. No where during the holocaust did Hitler state his intentions were only to “in part” destroy Jews, Roma and other undesirables. He allocated a tiny percentage of slaves to serve as sterilized cattle but otherwise complete obliteration.
That blurb was added not to say “you only need to destroy such and such percent” to be termed a genocided but to say “even if your intent was genocide but you only got some of them, it’s still genocide”. It leaves no room for argumentation based on numbers.
It wasn’t a wholesale endorsement that any war where civilians are targeted equates to genocide.
The bombing campaigns against civilians were not incidental, they were as deliberate as Israel’s actions in Gaza. I.e as the civilian portion of a state is complicit in the actions of its military and party to it.
What official statements from the Israeli government or policy that states their intent is to get rid of all Palestinians?
I’ve established that the UN is a political organization. Again, we don’t get a commission established to determine genocide unless it’s Israel or some African country people pretend to care about for 5 minutes. The UN is filled with regular folks like you or me. A lot of those regular folks are people like Hasan.
s.
- population decline showing a sustained policy of obliteration
- deliberate policy of extermination either through declaration or internal documents
- wholesale removal of the Palestinians from their land through state military force
That’s your interpretation of the legal definition or whoever happens to have a political axe to grind.
As an example, notice how any push back or critique of Hamas, Hesbollah, Islam, Hasan, Tankies etc is met by “but what about the Genocide!!!?”
You think Hasan who has gone on record saying it’s ok that Crimea was snatched by Russia and thinks China should invade Taiwan despite the political wishes of the Taiwanese people cares about actual legal definitions of genocide?
You think
@Loose who has made statements that Assad had to do what he had to do in Syria cares about the legal definition of genocide? It’s a political tool/slogan nothing more.
Just like “apartheid” and “ethno-nationalist” is used against Israel when we got “Turkey” and “Saudi-Arabia” existing
please. I’m an adult. You think I have the same legal rights in Japan as ethnic Japanese. Get out of here.
