Wednesday, February 18, 2009

why Israel's genocidal conduct is illegal- and also not genocide

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, its obvious to you that killing nearly 1,400 people is not in any way moral, legal or justified. Beneath the multiple layers of international law little is clear. Some guy has managed to navigate the murky waters of that discipline and pulled from them a nice, well argued explanation of why the Israeli case for "self defence" is a sack of horse shit.

"Israel's recent actions constitute, under Article 147 of the Fourth [Geneva] Convention, as well as Article 85 of Protocol I and Article 8 of the Rome Statute, grave breaches of international law which entail individual criminal responsibility."

Reza Nasri: Weapons-grade badass.


Addition:

I added the last four words of the title after reading this article, which explains why Israel's conduct is not technically genocide. It is still monstrous and the architects and main perpetrators of the many atrocities committed in Gaza over the years should still be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Noam Chomsky has a lot more to say on the issue and I strongly recommend listening to this talk and the following Q&A to anyone who wishes to see through the mountains and mountains of propaganda, misdirection and media blathering. The transcript is available here.

Noam rules.


Addition:

Thanks to Merrick for this link to John Pilger's take on the latest Israeli atrocities.

John rules too.

7 comments:

  1. Just read John Pilger's piece on Gaza:

    "Hamas is never described as a government, let alone democratic. Neither is its proposal of a ten-year truce as a historic recognition of the “reality” of Israel and support for a two-state solution with just one condition: that the Israelis obey international law and end their illegal occupation beyond the 1967 borders. As every annual vote in the UN General Assembly demonstrates, 99 per cent of humanity concurs."

    ReplyDelete
  2. John rules.

    A shame about his presenting style, I find his videos almost unwatchable because of it and it affects his written work, which I can't help but subconsciously verbalise in his own tone. I imagine that, when you've born witness to as many atrocites as John, it must be necessary to suppress your emotions when recounting them to others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. and some of Hamas' intentions and actions might just contravene the Geneva Convention you dozy twat.

    get with it

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/hamas-palestine-israel-human-rights

    they're fascist cunts, stop apologising for them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://amnesty.no/web.nsf/e5722b7d3d39bdeac12570bc004e3c33/73b6833d97d1dd02c1257559003be0fe?OpenDocument

    ReplyDelete
  5. Right, right. I'm an apologist for Hamas and you're . . . what? Entitled to your drive-by abuse because you are queen of human rights activism and moral evangelising at which university? Clearly not anywhere with a political science department, judging from your inappropriate branding of Hamas as "fascists".

    Suck my balls, fuckface. Fuck off back to whichever school of bigotry endowed you with your muscular liberal philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. George Costas III05 March, 2009 23:59

    never been near a poli-sci dept

    so howbout I drop the fascist bit?

    but they surely are cunts. horrible nasty big ones.

    you pseudo-intellectual jew-hating small-knobbed bad speller, you.

    I'll be back to pop a cap in yo' rich white boy ass soon an' proper.

    word - as u may say

    hope u got that job btw

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting. I seem to have missed the anouncement about this being a global Day for Bizarre, Irrational Comments.

    If you can point to where I apologise for Hamas's human rights abuses then I will rightly apologise. Except you can't, can you. Because I haven't. All I have done is point out that they were democratically elected and that their election manifesto dropped references to the destruction of Israel. And I don't "hate" Jews. Again, you have no evidence to suggest I do so you are erecting a straw man to rail against. I have no idea why you feel the need to hurl such epithets. I may use childish language but I feel that I still manage to make a point. What's yours? Do you have an argument to make here? Can you even construct an argument? It doesn't seem so.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.