Has enough been done to tackle incitement to genocide?

How nice of you to keep a record of all my posts. Presumably you're also factoring into that data about posts I've reported, the contents of private messages I've sent, email discussions I've had, etc.

People say far worse than that about me, about Palestinians, about Muslims, on a regular basis. Including on this site, where people have attempted to defend, justify and deny atrocities.

Do you think enough is being done to tackle the incitement to genocide that is in the linked article? Do you think it's ok that elected politicians and mainstream media are making statements that appear to call for the eradication of a people and society?

If so, on what grounds? If not, what can be done to address that?

@SharonEllis has nothing better to do with her time than write lengthy expositions on Mumsnet. If I need to "read a history book" then you need to get out of the cul de sac. 🙄

@SharonEllis has nothing better to do with her time than write lengthy expositions on Mumsnet. If I need to "read a history book" then you need to get out of the cul de sac. 🙄

@SharonEllis These arguments are used as a basis to try to justify what is effectively genocide-the intentional destruction of a population in whole or in part. The extent of death and destruction is entirely foreseeable consequence of Israeli actions. Israel may find these consequences vaguely regrettable but decided to prosecute the war in this way regardless. The definition of genocide does not state that destruction of a population has to be the primary aim of the perpetrators- in this case it’s clear from the destruction of water treatment, sewage , schools, hospitals, places of worship, that Israel is aiming to cause forced migration as a subsidiary war objective.

Yes, you’re right of course that WW2 is not "modern" in one sense, but I meant wars in which, unlike in the days before bomber planes, civilian areas can be easily targeted and attacks are not confined to battles between armies in battlefields or ships at sea, as in olden times.

Yes, I’m sure some of the tactics that were used in WW2 by the Allies as well as their enemies would be against the "rules" of modern warfare. Yet they helped defeat the Nazis, which was by no means a foregone conclusion. The trouble is that those who keep to the rules are often at a disadvantage against those who don’t. The Hamas cold-blooded massacre and rapes of civilians last October certainly broke all the "rules", but it doesn’t seem to have done them much harm in the opinions of a lot of people, does it? The abduction of hundreds of civilians was certainly against the "rules", but I’ve yet to see an international popular outcry demanding that they be released, or any penalty being suffered by Hamas for it.

Yes, you’re right of course that WW2 is not "modern" in one sense, but I meant wars in which, unlike in the days before bomber planes, civilian areas can be easily targeted and attacks are not confined to battles between armies in battlefields or ships at sea, as in olden times.

Yes, I’m sure some of the tactics that were used in WW2 by the Allies as well as their enemies would be against the "rules" of modern warfare. Yet they helped defeat the Nazis, which was by no means a foregone conclusion. The trouble is that those who keep to the rules are often at a disadvantage against those who don’t. The Hamas cold-blooded massacre and rapes of civilians last October certainly broke all the "rules", but it doesn’t seem to have done them much harm in the opinions of a lot of people, does it? The abduction of hundreds of civilians was certainly against the "rules", but I’ve yet to see an international popular outcry demanding that they be released, or any penalty being suffered by Hamas for it.

WWII was not a modern war. It predates the Geneva convention and modern international laws on the rules of war, including the law against genocide. Many attacks that were done during WWII would be considered unjustified and illegal today. Today’s laws were specifically written and agreed on by the UN to ensure that Never Again really meant never again for anyone. At least that was the intent. The consistent insistence on WWII as some sort of standard we should regress to is to scrap international law and go back to the days of WWII where millions can be murdered through genocide before anyone lifts a finger or spears out in condemnation instead of thousands.

While it is very tempting to tell you to go and read a history book as you have done to other posters, I will rise above the urge.

No, the only other way is not one side destroys the other completely.

There are numerous ways to enforce peace that do not rely on two warring factions to come to a negotiated agreement. We just need the international political will to do so. We seem to find this will easily when it comes to protecting shipping in the Red Sea because that endangers profits rather than people.

1948 included Israel invading and occupying lands set aside by the UN in 1947 for Palestine. The Nakba.

1967 was Israel starting the six day war, illegally taking and occupying the rest of the lands set aside by the UN for Palestine.

Actually, the issue in this thread is: Has enough been done to tackle incitement to genocide?

No Im sorry I dont understand at all. If there is no peace process then the only way of concluding this is for one side to destroy the other completely. Which side would that be and how is that consistent with peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians?
I also dont know what occupation you are talking about. The occupation of the West Bank was 1967. 1948 is the creation of the state of Israel when the jewish people returned to their ancestral homeland.

You asked a question you got an answer. My answer was reasonable pointing out how countries are supporting Israel to help combat Hamas genocidal rhetoric.

unsolicited
Maybe next time list the posters you want to respond to your questions to prevent any further unsolicited responses 🙄

I will once again ask you to point out where I said it was unfair Israel were receiving funding and arms for defence against Hamas?

I am 100% sure you know what occupation we are referencing here as I was responding to you. You said the occupation can only be ended by negotiation- but your belief is unfounded because that was already tried and it failed. I am 100% sure you also know what peace and security look like for any civilian population. I feel I have been perfectly clear and explicit enough.

I think you need to be more explicit. You date the 'illegal occupation' to 1948.

You say it 'ending' is the best chance of peace & security.

You say it cannot be ended by negotiation.

Exactly what occupation. If it doesnt end by a negotiated process how does it end?

What does peace & security look loke for Israrlis and Palestinians at the end?