Comment by johnnyworker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnyworker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date

No, why would you have to? As I said:

> Everyone is responsible for what they do

There is no giant blob called "war" and you now weigh the responsibility of one of two "sides" for that blob. That is precisely my point. The crimes of Hamas do not take one iota away from the crimes of Israel, and vice versa. They each commit them against innocents.

Our opinion as "judges" or "referees" is not so relevant as what we are directly or indirectly responsible for, and what we aren't. Hamas has nothing to do with me, the US and Israel use me, so I need to speak out in clear terms or be responsible.

It's not a complex situation where both sides are kinda bad and we just can't figure out who gets the blame and who gets to get away scot-free. Israel is committing genocide. Hamas is a terrorist organization, that didn't change, and people who support it should be cut off. The same with the right-wing extremists in the Israeli government and those supporting the genocide committed by them. It's just a principle, applied to all comers without respecting the person. As it should be.

> Israel is committing genocide.

You state these things like they are objective facts that have been proven.

I suspect that most of the pro-israel side would be against israel comitting genocide (of course there are probably some extremists out there, but one hopes they are a small minority). The difference of opinion is not about whether genocide is wrong, but whether that is what Israel is doing.

And hey, with the recent south africa case at the icj, we might get lots of international law experts weighing in, so it might all become more clear.

[flagged]

Genocide is already defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

There is a big difference between saying genocide is wrong, and saying that anyone dying during a war is wrong. Of course every death is a tragedy, but my expectation is that israel (like any country) follows international law. I don't expect them to be absolute pacifists.

Replace "dying" by "murdered". Einstein called killing under the cloak of war murder anyway, and that wasn't even talking about bombing one of the most densely populated areas with over 1M minors in it. If you need more arguments to stand up, you will never stand up. The White Rose also talked about cloaking cowardice under the cloak of wisdom. It's not a tragedy, it's a crime, it has perpetrators and supporters who are mighty insolent and hoping to get away with it.

There is a certain philosophical sense that all war is murder. But international law does have definitions for these terms, and murder can be both a war crime or a crime against humanity depending on the circumstance. However there are requirements to meet. Someone being killed during a war does not neccesarily mean its murder. It could be, but it depends on the circumstances. Even if it is not murder, it might be a different war crime, but it would also depend on the circumstances. It is also possible for the death to be totally legal under international law.

This is not that different than ordinary laws in normal civil society. Sometimes a death is murder. Sometimes it is a lesser charge like manslaughter. Other times it isn't a crime at all (for example if the person was killed in self-defense). What type of crime it is depends on the facts at hand.

Similarly, carpet bombing a densely populated area would be an obvious war crime. However, targeted bombing (which is what israel claims to be doing), maybe - maybe not. It depends on things like how good the targeting is, what is the expected collateral damage, what is the expected military benefit.

Justice happens when everyone is held to the same standard of whatever the law is at the time the offense was comitted and evidence is used to demonstrate that the perpetrator's actions met the elements of the crime. Yes, those types of requirements are hard sometimes, but that is what separates justice from vengence.

> However, targeted bombing (which is what israel claims to be doing)

That claim does not hold water.

https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17317722618482647...

And in the same thread here, an Israeli tells me that unfortunately there is no other way than reduce Gaza to rubble. But it's also laser-precise targetting killings.

Enough.

Pretending it couldn't be known was disproven by those who called it out, any further playing for time I will not take part in. Let's examine the evidence when people are on fucking trial where they belong.

[flagged]

> What is that "pro-Israel" side?

I just mean random people on the internet siding with the state of israel.

> One of the five acts constituting genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention is "imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group".

Yes i agree that is part of the definition.

While i find a lot of the statements you mentioned concerning, for it to be genocide i would think they would have to come from people participating in the conflict or those who command them (since intent is required for genocide). I don't think statements by people not in charge of Israeli war planning count for much when trying to establish the intent behind the israeli war machine.

The amalek statement of course came from someone in command. The actual statement is at https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netan... . I agree its concerning, but i'm not sure in context it is really a smoking gun. It seems like it could be interpreted as meaning remember the existential threat hamas poses. There have been other statements by people in charge saying that the enemy is hamas not palestine.

> what more do you want?

Generally the bar would be proof that the intent of the military operation is to destroy the ethnic group. Showing intent is difficult, but that is generally what the crime of genocide requires.

To quote wikipedia:

>"The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent

I'm sorry, but that's like looking for direct orders by Hitler before you can be really sure there's a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com