Where did I say that Israel needs to wipe out any particular population? I said they need to deal with Hezbollah, which is a genocidal terror army, and then deal with the Iranian regime, which is a genocidal Islamist government regime. Putting off a two state solution until the Palestinians can agree to stop trying to murder Jews isn't advocating for genocide. That's a ridiculous statement you made.
Israel isn't done yet. Hezbollah is almost done, but there is still the head of the octopus: the Iranian regime. As long as they are in power and are working towards nukes, Israel will not be able to live in peace.
A two state solution is a long term goal. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was the first test of a 2SS and look how that turned out. The Palestinian people have a role to play in this too, by making a commitment to pursue peaceful coexistence. Otherwise we will go through all this again in another 15 years.
Communism is inherently a political/economic ideology. Capitalism is primarily an economic ideology with political implications.
Sorry, by "persisted" I didn't mean to imply that it's the oldest. More that it is surviving where other systems have failed.
No, extreme is the further away an ideology is from centrist/moderate ideologies. At one end of the spectrum is fascism, at the other is communism.
It's been a long time since I've read any of this stuff - do you have a reference for the claim about legal and de facto responsibility?
That being said, I would argue that they are not incompatible but rather that capitalism acts as a constraint on liberty. That being said, it is the economic system in which liberty is maximized relative to any other system. No doubt that's why it has persisted.
Actually, it sounds more like you're dismissing a standard political spectrum model to make communism sound less extreme than it is. Would you feel better if I used the word 'radical' rather than 'extreme'?
No, it's because communism is an extremist ideology. You literally can't go farther left on the political spectrum than communism. That is the very definition of extremism.
By the way, capitalism is not a political ideology. It's an economic one. I am a capitalist, but a centrist Libertarian one. I used to consider myself left of center, but the insanity of the left since Oct 7, 2023, has caused me to shift right of center.
The entire area is a giant terrorist base. There are 500km of tunnels underneath Gaza used to transport weapons and conduct terror attacks. Hamas was integrated into the civilian infrastructure.
The impact on civilians is devastating but this is the only way to end the cycle of violence. Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.
I didn't realize that was even open for debate....
US operations have killed a lot of civilians. But there is no theater of war quite like Gaza, which is what makes the numbers that much more impressive.
We need less criminalization of speech, not more.
They're not. The statement is nothing more than a face-saving move to avoid looking weak to other Middle East countries. They don't want to retaliate because they know it will end with the destruction of their nuclear dreams, so they're using the ceasefire as an excuse.
You can't cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here's a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739
Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it's a vague term and international laws of war don't exist?
Gaza isn't a country, it's a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.
Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.
They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It's one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn't respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.
Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same "international law" that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.
'Strike' is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.
Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don't support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn't, Israel's enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.
One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>
No, it literally means nothing other than, "We, the ICJ, can hear this case."