Please stay factual. That is not what the ICJ concluded and the ICC has not ruled anything either but has compromised itself with arrest warrants and questionable panels. Not that the surveillance conducted by the Israeli government is anything that should be supported, but that is not relevant to the determination of the war being genocide or not.
The war wasn't started by Israel and that should conclude investigations for Gaza at least.
I did stay factual. I made special care in writing “ICC prosecution recommendation” and “ICJ genocide case”. Both are factual, one being recommendation and the other being an ongoing case. Both have factual documents supporting the case, including allegations of conspiracy against the Israeli rulers.
Who started what does not matter, being rulers of a country who is victims of terrorism does not make it impossible to conspire to commit genocide. In fact indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries.
My point here is that allegations against Israeli rulers to commit genocide is very plausible. So much so that an international consensus has pretty much formed around it, including among genocide experts, and legal scholars of the world highest courts.
There is neither a ruling on genocide nor is there any form of consensus around it.
> indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries.
Just to reiterate, Israel is not a colonial state, so that doesn't apply here.
If Palestinians want their own state, they need to fix their relation to Israel, otherwise they will remain in a limbo. And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed.
> And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed.
This is factually untrue. All of Palestine (including East Jerusalem) is internationally recognized to be occupied territory. Occupiers have obligations under international law, this includes lifting the occupation, or according to the UN[1]
> The overarching principle is that an occupant does not acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory and therefore any occupation must only be a temporary situation.
Note that this is enlisted in the fourth Hague convention of 1907 which Israel is a party to. The occupation of Palestine is the longest occupation in the history of that agreement, beating the Turkeys occupation of Northern Cyprus by 7 years, and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara by 8, but also is this occupation characterized serial violations of other parts of the agreement, most notably a policy of settlements (violating the prohibition of transfers of civilian populations) and the apartheid wall (violating measures to ensure restoration of civilian life, seizure of property, among others; and ruled a violation of international law in 2003, and ordered to be dismantled).
Unlike Israel, Palestine is under no such obligations as occupied peoples. International law does grant the Palestinian people the right to resistance (particularly to peaceful protests). Israel has consistently denied Palestinians any means of resisting peacefully, including protests, but most destructively, Palestinians have no political avenue for their resistance, leaving only armed, violent resistance. Israel’s own policy of not obeying international law has indeed ensured this reality.
Whether or not Israel is a colonial power is up for debate, but the debate is only about semantics. There is no doubt Israel is an occupying power. In my view, occupation is merely very concise legal term we apply to a subset of colonial conduct. Occupation is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for colonialism, but does grant international law the possibility to punish for some colonial behavior. In my books, 57 years of occupation counts as colonialism, and using resistance against said occupation to justify genocide is very similar to the rhetoric of 19th century colonial powers.
Israel is not party to the 4th Hague convention, but it is customary law, so that doesn't really matter. I should have been more precise, I meant Palestinians in Gaza, which isn't occupied. Or at least it wasn't until the attacks. Chances are that it will be again.
They do have the right to resist just as Israel did upon its founding. But the attacks in October are certainly not covered by international law. Israel doesn't justify genocide, because genocide is not what is happening. Neither legally nor otherwise. The resistance is of course used to justify security interests, but those don't qualify for genocide either.
Still, all that doesn't matter. They need to fix their relation to Israel, accept its existence. That can open the way for their own state and there are few alternatives.
Sorry, I meant the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 which adopted the Hague Conference of 1907.
Israel signed and ratified the Geneva conventions (I - IV) in 1951 and Part I of the Hague convention in 1962. The relevant part is in article 42 of the Hague convention (Part IV; which Israel didn’t sign)
> Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
> The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
and in article 2 of the fourth Geneva convention (Which Israel did sign and ratify in 1951):
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Note that the fourth Geneva convention expands both the definition and the obligation of occupation from the Hague convention of 1907.
Look, I’m not doing primary research here, I’m simply following the sources cited in the secondary source which I provided you. I’m not an international humanitarian law expert, and I presume neither are you. There is pretty much a consensus among both experts and international organizations (including the UN) that Israel is in violation of agreements they have signed onto. You may deny the occupation of Gaza and justify Israel’s violation on those grounds (just as you deny the Gaza Genocide) but you are simply (and quite obviously) wrong on those ground. Legal experts have made the case pretty clear that all of Palestine, including Gaza and East Jerusalem have been under constant Israeli occupation since 1967. And have since continually neglected their obligations as an occupying power.
I disagree that there is a consensus about genocide at all. These are very selective experts and their argument is for the most part ridiculous, with few exceptions. It is those whose work lead to many resolutions against Israel which highlights their lacking perspective
If these people claim to champion the Palestinian cause, the people in Gaza are in peril even more.
And no, Gaza was left to its own devices in 2005. With devastating results because there was nobody that had the ability and will to form a state.
The Saudi crown prince calls it a genocide too while openly stating that this is due to populism. He has an excuse, which one have these special international lawyers you refer to?
What do you suppose will be the future for Palestinians now? They fare worse than before the attacks, what perspective do they have?
Again, calling it a genocide is counter factual, regardless of your law degree.
The cases in the ICJ didn't even call for a ceasefire, because they knew Israel has the right to defend itself. And recent events have show that it is necessary.
If champions of the Palestinians cause cannot come up with more than accusations against Israel, Palestinians don't have a lot to look forward to.
That is what you believe. But you must be aware of the minority opinion you hold, and how it counters opinion of experts, international humanitarian organizations, several governments, and a Saudi Prince. When the rest of the world talks about genocide, the Gaza genocide fits the definition.
The denial of the Gaza occupation is an even more extreme opinion of yours. Very few non-partisans, and even a diminishing number of Israeli institutions, deny that Gaza has been under continuous Israeli occupation since 1967. I’m not gonna try to convince you that you are wrong (you obviously are) but I just hope that you are aware of how fringe of an opinion you have here.
Instead I’m gonna do something different. And give you that the occupation was lifted in 2005 (and ignore that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Palestine; and the Israel still illegally occupies the Golan Heights from Syria and Lebanon). Now that constitutes almost 40 years of illegal occupation, over a land and people who many of which are still refugees from an ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.
In 2005 the occupation ended, and was replaced by a seemingly colonial system where Israel controls 6 out of 7 border crossings fully (and the remaining one partially via Egypt), the population registry, the sea and the airspace, power and telecommunications infrastructure, maintains a no-go bufferzone inside the Palestinian territory where they regularly break up protests with live ammunition, where they regularly conduct air-strikes and military campaigns, etc. Surely you must realize the obligations of the occupier (sorry, blockader) here. That it isn’t just on the Palestinians to form a government and negotiate the end of the blockade, but primarily on Israel (as the party doing the blockade) to end it.
In international law this blockade is (correctly) called a manifestation of an ongoing occupation, and Israel has obligations as the occupier, obligations which they have neglected. But even if we give you that, the occupation ended in 2005, you must see that is not in the spirit of the law to replace the occupation with a different form of oppression, just so you can neglect your obligation. That is not how any legal framework works. You can’t just go around the law in this way.
EDIT: I also want to talk a little about your believe that just because the ICJ didn’t order a ceasefire in their initial preliminary ruling, that somehow it is ludicrous to entertain the plausibility of genocide after that. That is not the point of a preliminary ruling. The court also ordered Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, to let in aid, etc. which Israel promptly violated. In April a second preliminary ruling ordered Israel to not invade Rafah, which was also almost immediately ignored by Israel. If you take the court at their word that Palestinians’ in Gaza’s rights to be protected from Genocide is at risk, and the following steps are needed to protect that right, and then Israel ignores and repeatedly violates those steps, surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers, quite possibly a conspiracy to commit one even.
The point was that the Saudi Prince more or less admitted he said it because of political opportunism in the realities of his rule. He still tries to normalize relations with Israel as much as possible.
You try to throw stuff together on the topic of occupation, but anyway...
What certainly is wrong though is your framing of an ethnic cleansing campaign in 48. That is just nonsense. At the time Jews were suppressed by Arab nationalism. The mufti of Jerusalem became a puppet of Hitler and was kind of convinced about the idea of a holocaust in the middle east. Of course some people had to move after Israel won its war for independence, that is nothing new in war. Even more Jews were driven from surrounding countries, the majority of todays Israelis. That issue is part of the reality of nations forming or not and a reality Palestinians need to accept. Some are ready for that, parties like Hamas are not.
A blockade isn't an occupation at all, again, words do have meaning. Security interests are relevant. Israel can prove that building a wall did save lives. There is evidence of that. Further blockades are entirely legal, but do not form any form of occupation. That Israel has military capabilities is of no relevance.
Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance. You should strive to have the correct opinion, although I would certainly say that "Israel commits genocide" is a fringe opinion, but maybe our circles diverge. Calling it opinion from my perspective already gives it some more benefit of the doubt.
Again the question, what do you see in the future? Intifada 5.0? You believe it will end in a different result than we now see in Gaza. By the way, some people confirm the propaganda kids are subjected in schools there. The kids are innocent, other that could know better not so much...
> surely you must at least suspect there might be a genocidal intent among some of Israel’s rulers
I do not, such insinuation would be quite unusual and would be entirely irrelevant de jure. I can play that game too. I believe you don't give a rats ass about Palestinians, you just want to throw more of them into the meat grinder. Maybe we should leave ascribing intend to anyone and stick to reality, shall we?
In an attempt to stay on topic, I’m splitting the thread here to answer your question:
> Again the question, what do you see in the future?
What I see in the future is the followup to Palestinians finally be given a voice at the international stage (a process started before oct. 7 2023; but escalated dramatically since). This gives Palestinians a new avenue of resistance, namely international politics. I see them being very successful here, as sympathy is very high, and unlikely to shrink, given the genocide. On the flip side this will come at the cost of Israel who will see their influenced diminished at the same time. Serial violations of international law will come up to them, and I honestly don’t see Israel even being a member of the UN in 2 years time. This will be the focus of Palestinian resistance, not armed resistance (even though armed resistance will probably not vanish).
Historically, when anti-colonial resistance is given a political avenue for their fight, almost 100% they take it, and are much more successful then with previous tactics of terrorism (though, far too often, it takes terrorism to get that political avenue in the first place).
After Israel falls out of line with the international community I can only see two scenarios, either it persists as a fascist dictatorship for a couple of decades before succumbing to a popular uprising (including armed resistance from Palestinians) or it goes the way of Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa, and drops its ethno-nationalist policies in favor of a single democracy for all it’s peoples, which includes Palestinians in the currently occupied territories. The second scenario is far more likely, and a much happier ending for everybody involved. Either way there is not much hope for the Jewish state of Israel. Going back to the ancestor comment when I jumped into this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42109905): Ethno-states are not a good idea.
> Whether my opinion is a minority position or not is not of relevance.
It is. That is the crux of the matter. Genocide deniers aren’t just a minority, but a shrinking minority, and more importantly, a shrinking minority at odds with the consensus among experts and international organizations who’s purpose it is to form opinion on these matters.
Here is a document that matters. A UN commissioned special committee, tasked with investigating human rights violation against Palestinians[1]. It concludes (para. 69):
> The developments in this report lead the Special Committee to conclude that the policies and practices of Israel during the reporting period are consistent with the characteristics of genocide
and adds (para. 70):
> The multiple violations of international law by Israel in its war on Gaza; its apartheid system of injustice in the occupied West Bank, within the broader context of its decades-long occupation-cum-annexation of Palestinian and Syrian Golan territories; and its ongoing defiance of binding Security Council resolutions and orders of the International Court of Justice, gravely weaken the international rules-based system.
This report was published last September by a special committee with a mandate to do so after a General Assembly resolution way back in 1968. It was not written by victims of genocide, but by mandated observers who have been illegally denied entry to follow their mandate. Why did Israel deny them entry, and break International law doing so? A good plausible theory here is that Israeli rulers are intent on committing a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and are attempting to hide their violations in the hopes they will escape justice.
Your other comments just confirms to me that you seem to have more problems with Israel than with the plight of Palestinians. This is a line of thinking that only increases the conflict.
Your outlook isn't realistic. That the UN has many resolutions against Israel is a danger to the credibility of the UN, not to Israel in the context how international law is enforced. The UN resolutions against Israel are political opportunism that undermines institutions like the UN and in some cases is the usual international political calculus. It is often against the US hegemony instead of against Israel.
We disagree about what the future will likely look like. I think your position is part to the problem Palestinians do face and they may have to stay in a limbo for a longer time.
Something could be done against the radicalization of young people in Gaza. Something more than confirming their beliefs with conspiracies about Israel.
In most cases where people have problems with Jews there is an underlying problem with some form of inferiority complex. Be that as it may, it is of no relevance to me.
Here is what I believe to happen if nobody has some productive new perspectives. Gaza will be occupied again until maybe Israel decides to withdraw at some point. Israeli will live their "normal" lives, while Palestinians have to content themselves with Islamic Fundamentalism. But there is little political capital for another withdrawal in the foreseeable future. Other surrounding countries will normalize relation or already have done so because as the Saudi Prince just demonstrated, some words are enough for some groups placate their aggression against Israel.
Some rhetoric of international help organizations directed against Israel in a sharp manner, because they too see little hope in any improvements in the middle east because the current situation is even more dire for them than before. But ultimately Israel can only do so much to help here, because the real genocidal intend lies with the radical political representation of Palestinians.
I don't see where you believe the improvements for their situation would manifest and I believe even Iran will be more careful to undermine Israel. Their political battles will be elsewhere and Palestinians were also just a tool for them. Just don't be disappointed later.
The war wasn't started by Israel and that should conclude investigations for Gaza at least.