HN user

tguvot

1,319 karma
Posts11
Comments1,456
View on HN

a) they were not ethnically cleansed. even article says "displaced". this is what usually called "internally displaced". My relatives in Ukraine are "internally displaced". There was also 500k Israeli that were internally displaced during war.

b) most of cities/population in gaza is west of yellow line

d) CMCC is currently developing protocols for how to let population move east of yellow line (while preventing militants doing so), because this is where international community starts reconstruction efforts and where ISF will be deployed

here we go. you finally used (by mistake, but we won't count this against you) appropriate verb: "displaced". population in gaza is displaced but still in gaza.

While on the other side population of Nagorno Karabakh was ethnically cleansed from Nagorno Karabakh and had to leave to Armenia.

so not genocide ?

"doing it over and over again", you mean war moves around and not restricted to same 1 square kilometer.

and what kind of ethnic cleansing it is, if all population remains in gaza.

the trick is, to shift goalposts. if you bomb city with population: genocide. if you order people to evacuate it's ethnic cleansing.

if you want to see how ethnic cleansing actually looks, i'll suggest to take a look at what azeri did a while ago.

there are no statements of intents with exception of mistranslated and partial hebrew quotes.

i read arguments in full. it mix of cherry picked news, mistranslated/irrelevant quotes and total avoidance of "uncomfortable facts" that go against the narrative.

you surely read on the other side few of 400 page long documents that debunk it ?

"army ordered civilians to evacuate from warzone so it's genocide" is not as great argument as you think.

if army had prevented civilians to leave city and then bombed it to the ground, you would have something to talk about.

in my example countries stated that they will arrest diplomat covered by diplomatic immunity based on icc warrant. not local citizens.

in case international law is not binding, than whatever US did is ok.

and according to usa it was law enforcement operation. not invasion. just like uk and france didn't invade but casually bombed

at flight that I had bunch of years ago i peeked into printed out manuscript that guy sitting next to me was reading. it was something about "explosive formation of underwater shock wave and how it influences metal hulls". might have included something like DOD and MIL at footer.

later I tried to google some of the phrases that I remembered, but couldn't find anything

worldbank data is off almost by factor of 2

from israeli site:

The 2021 budget framework for the "Ministry of Defense" includes an expenditure budget of NIS 62.357 billion, in addition to NIS 14.972 billion in income-contingent expenditure and authorization to commit in the amount of NIS 36.3 billion.

In 2022, the framework for the budget includes an expenditure budget of NIS 59.833 billion, in addition to NIS 15 billion in income-contingent expenditure and authorization to commit in the amount of NIS 42.9 billion.

my point is that diplomatic immunity is international law. signatories to rome statue said that they will violate it (diplomatic immunity of Israeli head of state) because of icc warrant.

this is violation of international law that multiple countries openly stated that they will perform.

essentially it means that international law is not binding and selectively enforced. this is slippery slope.

if you can ignore vienna convention why not ignore whatever other part of international law that prohibits invasion ?

PS. UK and France just bombed ISIS in Syria. Is it also invasion and morally wrong ?

Vienna Convention (1961): This treaty standardized the rules, making diplomatic immunity a binding obligation for its over 190 signatory nations

And then comes ICC (via Rome statue, ratified by 125 countries and half a dozen of them in process of withdrawal) and trashes with it warrants diplomatic immunity.

So in case international law/treaty from 1961 is all of sudden not binding, why wouldn't uniliteral invasion (actually it looks like it more of arrest operation) (which is probably prohibited by some other international treaties) not be ok ?

i was pointing out that diplomatic immunity (of head of state) that you mention is trashed by ICC warrants (in countries who are party to it. i.e. good chunk of europe).

so, in the moment that something as basic as diplomatic immunity can be violated by warrants for investigation (not for trial), invading another country to arrest somebody based on warrants that you had issued domestically is not that big of leap

well, there are ICC warrants. They do ignore diplomatic immunity. And opinion of many people that, for example, Netanyahu should be at least arrested if he lands in Europe and at most "somebody" should send extraction team to kidnap him

[dead] 7 months ago

do you look for real answer or just casually trolling ? there been done multitude of investigations on this topic in Israel over past couple of years, I can sum it up

[dead] 7 months ago

so, your position that 10 unidentified, people each with rpg that they were observed to used, without military uniform, blown up count as 10 civilians ?

right ?

[dead] 7 months ago

was debunked multiple times.

17% are terrorists that IDF can identify by name. Unidentified people with RPGs in their hands that were blown up don't suddenly become civilians.

If we stick with that logic, 99.9% of dead in war in Ukraine are civilians, because opposite party can't identify them