More video and eyewitness info on Al Jazeera so far

Also reported on Common Dreams and Middle East Eye.

I haven’t found any reports of any independent investigations yet, hopefully they are underway

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Israel != Jews. Lots of Jews are calling out Israel for, to all outward appearances, committing genocide. One of Israelis own judges on the recent IJC hearing with South Africa concurred with South Africa on two points IIRC. Not to mention that Israel failed to make their case completely. So there’s that.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I don’t mind it being pointed out. It’s especially damning because of that. You would think that they had learned better. But as is often the problem with humankind. We don’t ever really learn. We just retaliate when given the chance.

          When I say Israel that means government. When I say Israeli people. That means Israeli people. Like when people say America. Typically means American government. When they say American people. That typically means the American people. Is that clear? Hopefully that clears it up.

          And to be 1000% clear. It is the Israeli government, specifically likud In the knesset that are the problem. Plenty of the Israeli people are aghast at their own government’s actions.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          It doesn’t matter that they agree with me. The panel as a whole decided that it was likely genocide was taking place. It’s just especially damning when those from the home team have to reluctantly concur on a number of points.

          • DdCno1@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            It did not decide that it was likely. The wording is very specific and deliberate: The preliminary ruling states that “at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention”. Notice how careful the wording is: “At least some”, “alleged”, “appear to be capable of falling within” - this kind of wording is being used to express a great deal of uncertainty.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Because there’s physical evidence. It’s one thing when it’s a conspiracy theory about a world government. It’s something else entirely when the IDF repeatedly kills unarmed people in the open with nothing else going on. It’s another thing entirely when they’re forcing Gazans to eat grass because they won’t allow them actual food.

      It’s another thing entirely when it’s the government of Israel being protested and not some nebulous concept of Judaism.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          It isn’t blanket denials from the IDF when Reuters breaks it down with hard evidence, satellite photography, and eyewitness accounts from western Journalists.

          You can try to discredit the accounts all you want but I’ve been in a war zone. I know what it’s supposed to look like and this ain’t it.

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              A neutral news outlet like Reuters generally won’t apply characterisations like “genocide” themselves - they’ll report on the ICJ ruling.

              In the meantime, we can apply the UN definition the ICJ uses, or the dictionary definition for ourselves. That makes things very clear.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Raz Segal, the program director of genocide studies at Stockton University, concretely says it is a “textbook case of genocide.” Segal believes that Israeli forces are completing three genocidal acts, including, “killing, causing serious bodily harm, and measures calculated to bring about the destruction of the group.” He points to the mass levels of destruction and total siege of basic necessities—like water, food, fuel, and medical supplies—as evidence. Source

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Why not just take the Israeli leadership at their word and compare their actions to either the UN or dictionary definition of genocide? It’s pretty straightforward.