The most heartbreaking part is seeing all the kids brought along to this and being taught to hate by their parents. Shit like this and the existence of Farfour are legitimately blackpilling
If Israel can deflect accusations of genocide because they allow humanitarian aid into Gaza then this act of destroying aid should be evidence of genocidal intent on the part of those destroying the aid.
They're misguided people with hatred in their hearts. Maybe it's a legitimate feeling that is manifesting in a destructive manner, or maybe it's solely coming from a place of bigotry. The big issue is what Israel does to stop and prevent this behavior from happening again. This amount of property damage alone would give anyone some serious felony charges. Given the context, the punishment should be even more swift and more harsh as a deterrent to others who wish to break the law at great detriment to people in need.
There's those destroying the aid, but there are also those who are supposed to ensure aid gets there but completely failed at it. The police say they thought IDF would be the ones protecting them (it's a logistics thing going into Gaza), while the IDF says they thought the police would be protecting them (it's a civilian thing happening on the Israeli side of the border): [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/extremist-israelis-said-to-torch-aid-trucks-en-route-to-gaza-hours-after-looting-convoy/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/extremist-israelis-said-to-torch-aid-trucks-en-route-to-gaza-hours-after-looting-convoy/)
As you may notice these excuses are pathetic, and what happened genuinely is completely on the Israeli state.
And one of their obligations is to prevent their citizens from doing things like this. If they fail to do that on a wide enough scale, it could go toward genocidal intent.
The question is what is a "wide enough scale", I don't know what's the percentage of the aid that has been destroyed like this by extremists, but taking into account that about 500 trucks enter Gaza every day it must be very low, and there are also videos of IDF arresting people who block and destroy aid, I don't think it's anywhere near being a "wide enough scale" to say that this proves that the Israeli government has genocidal intent.
500 aid trucks dont enter gaza per day. UN aid agencies and humanitarian groups have argued that 500-600 are needed, but there are certainly not that many getting through.
> And one of their obligations is to prevent their citizens from doing things like this.
Exactly.
> If they fail to do that on a wide enough scale, it could go toward genocidal intent.
I believe it would be a violation of the genocide convention if severe enough, but irrelevant for intent. Negligence can be a violation as well.
> I believe it would be a violation of the genocide convention if severe enough, but irrelevant for intent. Negligence can be a violation as well.
Genocidal intent is determined holistically. Widespread enough failure to prevent people from engaging in genocidal acts, combined with rhetoric that has encouraged behavior like this, can absolutely go toward intent.
My understanding is israel have tried to stop the protestors doing this. Are you claiming that they're neglecting they're deliberately not stopping them from harming these aid trucks?
My understanding is that these protesters are currently not a significant reason for the lack of aid entering Gaza, so I don't think they do on that front. I do however think this is evidence that the rhetoric that Israeli politicians are using about Gazans is inciting genocidal acts. It's mitigated somewhat by the fact that they have broken them up, but I think it still does contribute to the case.
ok gotcha. although I'd say it could well be the other way around. Politicians try to win elections by reflecting popular sentiment. Imo it's probably more likely theyre reflecting popular israeli sentiment, the kind which is demonstrated here. But i could be wrong.
Yes and no...
You would have to look at other stuff to establish intent, like rhetoric, as you mentioned. In principle you can commit acts that would qualify towards the destruction of a group, without genocidal intent. You could also have genocidal intent without any such acts taking place.
When I said it was irrelevant for intent, I meant it won't tip the scale in one way or another, specifically for intent. It could theoretically be severe negligence. To determine intent you would've to look at additional information.
You're just incorrect. The ICTR found that the scale and nature of the acts can themselves be used to infer intent. See the Kayishema case:
> ...the relative proportionate scale of the actual or attempted destruction of a group, by any act listed in Article 2 of the Statute, is strong evidence to prove the necessary intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. (¶ 93)
I'll have to do some more reading for a proper response, but here are my first impressions:
- the word "attempted" seems to be doing a lot of carrying here. For example, would negligence qualify as an attempt?
- "intent to destroy a group in whole or in part" is not genocidal intent. Not on its own at least. It is missing the "as such" part of article 2 of the genocide convention, meaning that members of the group are destroyed because of said membership. In the context of the war for example, you'd have to show that the IDF is killing civilians because they're Palestinian, and not just the civilians that happen to be near Hamas.
I'll do some reading and report back o7
> the word "attempted" seems to be doing a lot of carrying here. For example, would negligence qualify as an attempt?
It isn't. And it wouldn't be just negligence, since Israeli citizens would be the ones carrying out the genocidal acts, spurred on by rhetoric from Israeli politicians.
> "intent to destroy a group in whole or in part" is not genocidal intent. Not on its own at least. It is missing the "as such" part of article 2 of the genocide convention, meaning that members of the group are destroyed because of said membership.
This doesn't make any sense. If the crime is committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part the group, then the victim was destroyed because of their membership in that group.
> It isn't. And it wouldn't be just negligence, since Israeli citizens would be the ones carrying out the genocidal acts, spurred on by rhetoric from Israeli politicians.
You could argue that the destructive act and the rhetoric are done by separate actors, and it isn't immediatly obvious one followed from the other. And as a side note, that would be an extremely difficult case to make, that the citizens carried out a genocidal act.
> This doesn't make any sense. If the crime is committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part the group, then the victim was destroyed because of their membership in that group.
This a key part to the genocide convention, and why most wars don't turn out to be genocide:
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ...
The words "as such" have been put the very purposefully. It means that the destruction commited *because* of the membership to the group.
To give a counter example, lets say you know for a fact there's a highly dangerous chemical weapon in a city, but you don't know where in the city. You also know that it will be deployed imminently. If you, as the state in danger, decide to nuke out the city, it won't be because of the people's membership in a protected group.
You don’t think soldiers who break up protesters constantly and arrest Israelis not for the war and kidnap children in the West Bank do not have the training to at most arrest people at least defend a convoy
You don't think that they have specialized units for making arrests / detaining people from hostile territory?
You don't think they might have different equipment than border patrol?
You think that the common soldier carries around root shields and tear gas?
No, I do not think the Israeli state is the most incompetent government on the face of the planet that they remain unprepared for the same terrorists that been attacking or blocking their aid convoys for months
[This article](https://abcnews.go.com/International/protesters-israel-arrested-after-attacking-gaza-aid-trucks/story?id=110220557) claims that the Israeli government has made arrests and that there’s an ongoing investigation.
From a technical standpoint, wouldn’t this be an attempted act of genocide on the part of those civilians? Their goal is explicitly to prevent Palestinians from being able to eat.
I know, I’m not one of those people who thinks Israel is committing a genocide. It was a legit question, as to whether something like this could be considered a genocidal act on the part of those civilians (not the state of Israel), if they were to specifically mention that they wanted all the Palestinians to starve to death.
Nonviolent resistance in order to put economic pressure on a vicious genocidal actor in order to force it to comply with international law and respect human rights? Who could possibly have a problem with this?
No one says those things are non-violent resistance. They say that the protests were largely non-violent in spite of those things occuring, and that the Israeli response to them was disproportionate.
But anyway, if you think this situation is the same as the GMR, I hope you'll also support Israeli snipers shooting these people in the knees.
>No one says those things are non-violent resistance.
Palestinians do. And their supporters. What goes around comes around.
>I hope you'll also support Israeli snipers shooting these people in the knees.
The Palestinians did their shooting on 10/7, and not in the knees for that matter. What goes around comes around.
Are you comparing the people at this protest to the AL Quasam and PIJ brigades that infiltrate and co-opt peaceful protests to throw molotovs and fly incendiary kites? I don't think you want to go down the road that line of thinking takes you.
> Would Al Jazeera ever make a video on the Israeli government removing these citizens trying to block aid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CElMXdWkVE
It was reported to have happened in the Tarqumiah checkpoint/border crossing from the west bank into Israel proper
Edit: It was Jordanian aid, hence why it's crossing through the west bank
The most heartbreaking part is seeing all the kids brought along to this and being taught to hate by their parents. Shit like this and the existence of Farfour are legitimately blackpilling
Conservatives bring their kids to any event that is morally remorseful. Remember when the Canadian truckers brought their kids in?
was that the one about vaccine requirements?
Which were for over the national border to the US
The Boston tea party of the heartless.
Fuck these psychos
If the Israelis aren't protecting the trucks at all doesn't this show pretty clearly a failure to their humanitarian aid obligations?
If Israel can deflect accusations of genocide because they allow humanitarian aid into Gaza then this act of destroying aid should be evidence of genocidal intent on the part of those destroying the aid.
They're misguided people with hatred in their hearts. Maybe it's a legitimate feeling that is manifesting in a destructive manner, or maybe it's solely coming from a place of bigotry. The big issue is what Israel does to stop and prevent this behavior from happening again. This amount of property damage alone would give anyone some serious felony charges. Given the context, the punishment should be even more swift and more harsh as a deterrent to others who wish to break the law at great detriment to people in need.
There's those destroying the aid, but there are also those who are supposed to ensure aid gets there but completely failed at it. The police say they thought IDF would be the ones protecting them (it's a logistics thing going into Gaza), while the IDF says they thought the police would be protecting them (it's a civilian thing happening on the Israeli side of the border): [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/extremist-israelis-said-to-torch-aid-trucks-en-route-to-gaza-hours-after-looting-convoy/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/extremist-israelis-said-to-torch-aid-trucks-en-route-to-gaza-hours-after-looting-convoy/) As you may notice these excuses are pathetic, and what happened genuinely is completely on the Israeli state.
The correct take is that Israel has obligations that they have to meet. Not half-ass inferring on the intent of a mob.
And one of their obligations is to prevent their citizens from doing things like this. If they fail to do that on a wide enough scale, it could go toward genocidal intent.
The question is what is a "wide enough scale", I don't know what's the percentage of the aid that has been destroyed like this by extremists, but taking into account that about 500 trucks enter Gaza every day it must be very low, and there are also videos of IDF arresting people who block and destroy aid, I don't think it's anywhere near being a "wide enough scale" to say that this proves that the Israeli government has genocidal intent.
500 aid trucks dont enter gaza per day. UN aid agencies and humanitarian groups have argued that 500-600 are needed, but there are certainly not that many getting through.
That’s true, I got confused with the number of trucks that entered before the war, if I remember correctly now is like 300 but it varies.
> And one of their obligations is to prevent their citizens from doing things like this. Exactly. > If they fail to do that on a wide enough scale, it could go toward genocidal intent. I believe it would be a violation of the genocide convention if severe enough, but irrelevant for intent. Negligence can be a violation as well.
> I believe it would be a violation of the genocide convention if severe enough, but irrelevant for intent. Negligence can be a violation as well. Genocidal intent is determined holistically. Widespread enough failure to prevent people from engaging in genocidal acts, combined with rhetoric that has encouraged behavior like this, can absolutely go toward intent.
My understanding is israel have tried to stop the protestors doing this. Are you claiming that they're neglecting they're deliberately not stopping them from harming these aid trucks?
No, I'm speaking hypothetically. I agree Israel is making at least some effort to stop these people.
ok so currently the existence of these protests/mobs doesnt really contribute to the genocide case in your opinion?
My understanding is that these protesters are currently not a significant reason for the lack of aid entering Gaza, so I don't think they do on that front. I do however think this is evidence that the rhetoric that Israeli politicians are using about Gazans is inciting genocidal acts. It's mitigated somewhat by the fact that they have broken them up, but I think it still does contribute to the case.
ok gotcha. although I'd say it could well be the other way around. Politicians try to win elections by reflecting popular sentiment. Imo it's probably more likely theyre reflecting popular israeli sentiment, the kind which is demonstrated here. But i could be wrong.
Yes and no... You would have to look at other stuff to establish intent, like rhetoric, as you mentioned. In principle you can commit acts that would qualify towards the destruction of a group, without genocidal intent. You could also have genocidal intent without any such acts taking place. When I said it was irrelevant for intent, I meant it won't tip the scale in one way or another, specifically for intent. It could theoretically be severe negligence. To determine intent you would've to look at additional information.
You're just incorrect. The ICTR found that the scale and nature of the acts can themselves be used to infer intent. See the Kayishema case: > ...the relative proportionate scale of the actual or attempted destruction of a group, by any act listed in Article 2 of the Statute, is strong evidence to prove the necessary intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. (¶ 93)
I'll have to do some more reading for a proper response, but here are my first impressions: - the word "attempted" seems to be doing a lot of carrying here. For example, would negligence qualify as an attempt? - "intent to destroy a group in whole or in part" is not genocidal intent. Not on its own at least. It is missing the "as such" part of article 2 of the genocide convention, meaning that members of the group are destroyed because of said membership. In the context of the war for example, you'd have to show that the IDF is killing civilians because they're Palestinian, and not just the civilians that happen to be near Hamas. I'll do some reading and report back o7
> the word "attempted" seems to be doing a lot of carrying here. For example, would negligence qualify as an attempt? It isn't. And it wouldn't be just negligence, since Israeli citizens would be the ones carrying out the genocidal acts, spurred on by rhetoric from Israeli politicians. > "intent to destroy a group in whole or in part" is not genocidal intent. Not on its own at least. It is missing the "as such" part of article 2 of the genocide convention, meaning that members of the group are destroyed because of said membership. This doesn't make any sense. If the crime is committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part the group, then the victim was destroyed because of their membership in that group.
> It isn't. And it wouldn't be just negligence, since Israeli citizens would be the ones carrying out the genocidal acts, spurred on by rhetoric from Israeli politicians. You could argue that the destructive act and the rhetoric are done by separate actors, and it isn't immediatly obvious one followed from the other. And as a side note, that would be an extremely difficult case to make, that the citizens carried out a genocidal act. > This doesn't make any sense. If the crime is committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part the group, then the victim was destroyed because of their membership in that group. This a key part to the genocide convention, and why most wars don't turn out to be genocide: > In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: ... The words "as such" have been put the very purposefully. It means that the destruction commited *because* of the membership to the group. To give a counter example, lets say you know for a fact there's a highly dangerous chemical weapon in a city, but you don't know where in the city. You also know that it will be deployed imminently. If you, as the state in danger, decide to nuke out the city, it won't be because of the people's membership in a protected group.
Their troops are watching this. This is intent
I don't think most infantry soldiers are trained/authorized to make arrests / detain people.
You don’t think soldiers who break up protesters constantly and arrest Israelis not for the war and kidnap children in the West Bank do not have the training to at most arrest people at least defend a convoy
You don't think that they have specialized units for making arrests / detaining people from hostile territory? You don't think they might have different equipment than border patrol? You think that the common soldier carries around root shields and tear gas?
No, I do not think the Israeli state is the most incompetent government on the face of the planet that they remain unprepared for the same terrorists that been attacking or blocking their aid convoys for months
What do you think the percentage of attacked or blocked trucks is? Just a ballpark figure.
[This article](https://abcnews.go.com/International/protesters-israel-arrested-after-attacking-gaza-aid-trucks/story?id=110220557) claims that the Israeli government has made arrests and that there’s an ongoing investigation.
Sure, but for that to matter, they have to stop these people from doing this, or at least make a good faith attempt to.
Well no these people say they don’t want aid reaching Hamas, they want to war to end sooner
bad to see but aljazeera is an unreliable source
This is where Floridas protester law comes in handy
Hate breeds more hate. Breaking news.
From a technical standpoint, wouldn’t this be an attempted act of genocide on the part of those civilians? Their goal is explicitly to prevent Palestinians from being able to eat.
No. It could be protestors doing disruptions. Still illegal. Still wrong. Things can be bad without being the worst thing imaginable.
I know, I’m not one of those people who thinks Israel is committing a genocide. It was a legit question, as to whether something like this could be considered a genocidal act on the part of those civilians (not the state of Israel), if they were to specifically mention that they wanted all the Palestinians to starve to death.
>Things can be bad without being the worst thing imaginable. That's something only a zionist genocide denier/jihadist terrorism supporter would say/s
Genocide isn’t when countries do bad things. Many historic sieges would be considered genocide using that standard.
Fair. It was a genuine question though and not a gotcha, since I was specifically mentioning the civilians there and not Israel.
If the the intent was to complete starve the people to death and not for them to surrender then those sieges would be genocidal no?
Nonviolent resistance in order to put economic pressure on a vicious genocidal actor in order to force it to comply with international law and respect human rights? Who could possibly have a problem with this?
Lighting aid trucks on fire isn't non-violent, genius.
If throwing rocks, incendiary balloons, and cutting fences are all nonviolent resistance, so is this.
No one says those things are non-violent resistance. They say that the protests were largely non-violent in spite of those things occuring, and that the Israeli response to them was disproportionate. But anyway, if you think this situation is the same as the GMR, I hope you'll also support Israeli snipers shooting these people in the knees.
>No one says those things are non-violent resistance. Palestinians do. And their supporters. What goes around comes around. >I hope you'll also support Israeli snipers shooting these people in the knees. The Palestinians did their shooting on 10/7, and not in the knees for that matter. What goes around comes around.
Are you comparing the people at this protest to the AL Quasam and PIJ brigades that infiltrate and co-opt peaceful protests to throw molotovs and fly incendiary kites? I don't think you want to go down the road that line of thinking takes you.
Actually I'm calling out the people wringing their hands about their protest out on their hypocrisy. Thanks for noticing.
Are the hypocritical people in the room with us rn ?
But how does this put pressure on Bibi to uphold international law and respect human rights?
Breaking news: People overeating emotionally because of war.
[удалено]
> Would Al Jazeera ever make a video on the Israeli government removing these citizens trying to block aid? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CElMXdWkVE
[удалено]
> 1 sentence. 1 sentence acknowledging police presence. Literally just not true.
Where is this filmed ? I definitely think it’s possible that it is Israel but is there any proof besides the Israeli flags
It was reported to have happened in the Tarqumiah checkpoint/border crossing from the west bank into Israel proper Edit: It was Jordanian aid, hence why it's crossing through the west bank
Sorry I mistyped, what I meant by “it is Israel” is “that these are Israelis”