Go read this UNHCR report. All the evidence is just circular references to other bodies who reference each other. The most damning thing they could pin on Israel was that "Israel admits 83% of the casualties are civilians". That idea was because Israel could name 17% of the casualties in Hamas registers as members of the organization. But assuming that every other casualty is a civilian is quite a stretch. For one thing, Israel doesn't know the name of every militant it kills while he's aiming an RPG at them. For another, there are many other militant organizations in the strip, notably the Islamic Jihad. For a third, typically 75% - 90% of the casualties of war are civilians by the UN's own numbers.
And they are interpreted in the fashion most damning to Israel, whereas much worse on-the-record quotes from other bodies, notably those bodies which have demonstrated intent to destroy Israel, are interpreted more favourably.
When you control the food and water supply for two million people, and turn that off for months until they are starved and malnourished -- then your words indicating this is deliberate, given it could only be deliberate anyway, are interpreted differently, yes.
When you're imprisoned inside a walled high-security island and your greatest military capability is to kill 100s of people outside of it, your words indicating a desire to eradicate one of the most militarised, highly-financed and capable states in the world -- do carry a different significance.
One group has the capability to entirely destroy the other, is actively engaged in that pursuit, and its most senior political figures have indicated their intent to do so.
Another group has almost no military capabilities, insofar as they exist, they are presently engaged in a fight for their survival -- and otherwise, their entire civilian population is presently being decimated with their children being mass starved, and a very large percentage of their entire population dead or injured.
If you think words are to be interpted absent this context, then I cannot imagine you're very sincere in this.
> When you control the food and water supply for two million people, and turn that off for months until they are starved and malnourished -- then your words indicating this is deliberate, given it could only be deliberate anyway, are interpreted differently, yes.
You confuse "control" with "provide". Israel provides the Gaza strip with food, water, electricity. This is because UNRWA removed all need for the Gazans to develop their own self sufficiency.
The water and electricity were cut off to pressure the governing body to return the babies that they kidnapped. Return the Gazans decide the want the services back, they are invited to return the hostages. That has been the stance since day one.
> When you're imprisoned inside a walled high-security island and your greatest military capability is to kill 100s of people outside of it, your words indicating a desire to eradicate one of the most militarised, highly-financed and capable states in the world -- do carry a different significance.
Yes, exactly. The Gazans publicly declare their intent to genocide.
> One group has the capability to entirely destroy the other, is actively engaged in that pursuit, and its most senior political figures have indicated their intent to do so.
Exactly. The Muslims have not only the capacity to destroy the Jewish state, they are engaged in a multi-front effort to do so. Hamas is one of those fronts. The media is another one.
> Another group has almost no military capabilities, insofar as they exist, they are presently engaged in a fight for their survival -- and otherwise, their entire civilian population is presently being decimated with their children being mass starved, and a very large percentage of their entire population dead or injured.
You are inverting the victim-perpetrator perception by trying to suggest the this conflict is Israel vs Gazans, whereas it is clear that the conflict is Muslim vs Jews. You need only to listen to Israel's enemies to understand that. Why those bodies are under no media nor UN scrutiny is very suspicious.
If you doubt it, then tell me why Hezbollah attacked Israel the day after Hamas? Why are the Houthis involved? Why did Iran bomb us?
> If you think words are to be interpted absent this context, then I cannot imagine you're very sincere in this.
I actually imagine that you are sincere in your concern, and now that I've demonstrated that the charges against Israel are inverted you may reconsider your position.
> When you control the food and water supply for two million people, and turn that off for months until they are starved and malnourished
Show me the evidence. You can find Arabic speaking influencers eating out in Gaza on social media. You can find security camera images of full supermarkets. The facts on the ground don’t match the narrative.
Far from withholding food, most of the food coming into Gaza now is via the Israel government, which is doing an end run around Hamas to get food to the people. Because Hamas, not the IDF, was shooting up aid trucks and taking all the food, both for their own use and to sell at inflated prices.
Hamas via MENA media companies is pushing the narrative of a famine because controlling the food supply is a primary means of extracting money from the population to further the war. Get Americans and Europeans to donate to starving Gazans, to fill the coffers of Hamas.
in seeking to make a point of hypocrisy and bias - that diverts from the original point instead of refuting it, thus it has no merit. 'xyz is also doing bad things' just gives us n+1 of xyz, but says nothing about xyz.
> Go read this UNHCR report. All the evidence is just circular references to other bodies who reference each other...
You think Navi Pillay, who was the President on the Rwanda Tribunal (for genocide), is less competent than you & would sign off on mere "circular references"?
> For one thing, Israel doesn't know the name of every militant it kills
Does it at least know who it is raping?
The commission has previously found Israel to be guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including extermination, torture, rape, sexual violence and other inhumane acts, inhuman treatment, forcible transfer, persecution based on gender and starvation as a method of warfare.
> You think Navi Pillay, who was the President on the Rwanda Tribunal (for genocide), is less competent than you & would sign off on mere "circular references"?
No, I do not think that Navi Pillay is less competent than me. I do however see that she signed off on circular references. Her competence has little to do with her motivations.
> Does it at least know who it is raping?
Yes. The single incident of rape - a group of soldiers ramming a broomstick up the ass of a captured terrorist who had murdered people - was done by known soldiers and they are being prosecuted. And we know the identity of the man who was raped.
This is not about israel incidentally hitting civilians. It's about the deliberate policy of mass starvation, withholding of water, withholding of medical supplies (incubators, pain killers, the lot), and the placing of the only "allowed" aid-distribution centres (4 out of a previous 400) in the middle of active war zones -- so that to recieve any aid at all, you have to go through active fire.
This has nothing to do with israel's actions against Hamas.
There's a very large list of actions that can only be targeted against the civilian population, and have aimed-at and realised a genocide.
Sending food wherever, leads to it being captured by Hamas / local militias (for lack of a better word) so you have to distribute where you can protect it.
But of course where you have soldiers is where you'll take fire.
Maybe she cared about your own people, you wouldn't engage in places where humanitarian aid was being distributed
I'd invite you to watch the interview, all of this is addressed. The israeli placement of 4 aid distribution centres (out of the required and initial 400) has nothing to do with hamas.
