The **** should be in prison, together with Hancock and the rest of the corrupt cabale. 200k deaths on their hands - and a PM who was AWOL. And as someone said, an alternative term for someone going AWOL is 'Traitor'.
The word "genocide" is being used quite a lot in this conflict. How would you justify use of the term with reference to it's definition?
Handily, the US Holocaust Museum states: "Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories: 1. Killing members of the group 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" I think it would be reasonable to suggest that, acknowledging both Hammas' and the Israeli Governments stated intentions, the line items of 1-3 above apply quite readily to the current situation. Although arguably it is the Israeli actions that are closest to this general definition and likeliest to succeed at this immediate time.
Thank you for the considered reply. I think the problem with this definition is the "or in part" bit. Because I would suggest that widens the scope almost to encompass any kind of warfare to the extent it is almost meaningless. After all, any time you go fight an enemy you are destroying a part of that grouping, but clearly not all warfare is genocide. Of course I cannot dispute your use of the term given your references, which I understand go right back to the 1948 convention. Personally I think that definition is too watered down as to make it legally uninforceable, and am surprised considering the source. For me, a more appropriate definition is the first one that turns up on Google: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group" Because I would argue strongly that Israel is not trying to destroy the palestinians in general, but certainly in part (Hamas) and therefore (by more succinct definitions of genocide), is not committing it. However I am also going to ask a friend who served on the Serbian war crimes tribunals in the Hague if they had any discussion about this definition. NB, as usual I appreciate the clarity of your response and the manner in which you replied.
For the most part because Blackshirt Benny and his inner circle have been using the language of genocide for this entire conflict - a conflict where they have repeatedly and systematically targeted people based solely on their national origin with missile strikes, cutting off their basic needs, and displacing them, all while going out of their way to block access from outside parties or even journalists who wish to cover what is going on But hey, it means the BBC can pretend the Covid Enquiry isn't going on...
I fully accept that the differing form of words will bring alternative interpretation: in this case the word 'deliberate'. It is also why I was keen to emphasise the two combatants as Hamas and the (current) Israeli government, as I do not believe this is a war between the Palestinian and Israeli people. However, I do believe that both the parties mentioned above are keen to wipe each other off the face of the planet and both are more than happy to deliberately kill a large number of people - not just combatants - to achieve that goal. It is just a very sad situation that is nor being assisted by the hate-filled rhetoric emanating from not only extremists on both sides, but, unfortunately even some external Governments (UK included).
The new Republican "trumpy" speaker to allow funds for Israel but not Ukraine hoping to give billionaires a nice tax break............!?
There are literally too many clips of the 'evidence' coming out of the COVID Enquiry to highlight one or two specific ones. Whether they highlight incompetence, laziness, corruption or insane ideology, the bottom line is that the Government led by Johnson was not fit for office, they are directly responsible for at least 20k deaths (probably far more) and the client journalists who are now feigning surprise, knew all along and supported them - which we all said at the time! Criminal prosecutions must follow!
