Palestinian officials are accusing Israeli forces of carrying out “execution-style” killings in Gaza after the discovery of a mass grave containing at least 30 decomposing bodies. Some of the victims were blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs with zip ties. The bodies were found on the grounds of a school in Beit Lahia. Al Jazeera spoke to one man who helped discover the bodies.
Palestinian man: “Inside the schoolyard, we were shocked to find the dead bodies. Those are Palestinian civilians, blindfolded and handcuffed at the back. The dead bodies were kept inside black plastic bags.”
The discovery of the mass grave comes as the death toll in Gaza has topped 27,000. At least another 66,000 have been injured. The group Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is now estimating that more than 25,000 Palestinian children have lost one or both parents in Gaza over the past four months.
Here’s the thing about calling us deniers:
The claim that Jews are attempting extermination and are being helped by the globalist liberals is the oldest conspiracy theory on earth. It keeps popping up somewhere every 20 or so years, in some rightwing shithole nation, and it’s never true. It’s solely a justification to begin a campaign of antisemitic policies and violence.
Why should we believe the anti-Semites are telling the truth now?
Not that you are anti-Semitic yourself, but everybody else who previously made this claim was. How can we trust that you are different and telling the truth this time?
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.
Why is it that the people making the accusations of genocide don’t like it when it is pointed out that the people they are specifically accusing the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors?
You may be refusing to use the word Jew, you may be talking only of specific Jews (in truth the majority of Israeli/American Jews, who are the majority of Jews worldwide, but I digress), and you may refuse to bear mention of their relation to genocide themselvea, but this is what you mean, clearly, unless you can decontextualize the Israeli government from the people of Israel, as if it is something placed on them and not of them. You aren’t able to do that, I suspect.
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.
Sure, plenty of people in Israel are aghast at their government’s actions, but they aren’t claiming genocide like you are.
So.again, we are dealing with you using Jews as a prop who can be trusted when they agree with you but but can’t when they disagree with you.
How is this not antisemitism in your mind?
A Jewish Holocaust and genocide scholar is.
Is this the consensus or have you just found somebody who agrees with you and are ignoring other voices?
Yes, you posted this before and never replied when I responded.
If 1 scholar is enough to prove something for you, does 2 disprove it?
Have you established consensus of scholars are on your side?
As for your ICJ argument, did the Israeli judge concur genocide was taking place?
If so? It’s pretty disingenous to argue that Israeli officials can be trusted when they agree with you, but can’t when they disagree with you.
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.
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.
Please shoe me a quotation from the panel where they state that this is “likely genocide.”
Is that your interpretation or the direct wording?
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.
Physical evidence is presented to a court and tried, it isn’t decontextualized videos on tiktok and news reports from the Qatar state’s english propaganda directed at leftists.
Do you understand the difference?
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.
Please link me to Reuters accusing Israel of genocide and the evidence they are using.
I’m still waiting for that link, FYI.
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.
If Reuters is that person’s source for his claims of genocide yet Reuters said no such thing, Reuters is not his source.
This is the problem I having. You guys are throwing all these respected names around to make your case, but when asked for the source, it’s always “well of course they don’t actually say genocide but all the reporting in totality equals genocide.”
So sure, how about you post here the ICJ definition of genocide and explain how the Oct. 7 war meets the definition.
So you are saying this person’s source is a scholar at a university yet they claimed it was Reuters to make it sound more legitimate?
Why would they do that.
Also if one scholar is enough to establish genocide, is 2 scholars enough to establish it isn’t genocide?
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.