Has enough been done to tackle incitement to genocide?

[Scirocco]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze5w2wd4x0o

They meet the definition in all respects. Everything you list is irrelevant in the context of determining if an entity is a proxy or not for a larger power.
Goodies and baddies and everyone in between can and has used proxies.

The US used Israel and Iran as a proxies to counter the USSR’s Middle East proxies in the 1970s. Then the USSR collapsed and now the US is using Israel as a proxy against Iran.

Times change.

Here is a 2019 blog from London School of Economics with a bit of the history of the US and it’s proxies in the Middle East
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2019/09/03/u-s-proxy-warfare-patterns-in-middle-eastern-conflicts/

Israel is surrounded by Iranian funded terrorists- Hezbollah and Hamas.They face existential threat from utterly ruthless opponents.

Of course Israel must obey international law and they have questions to answer. ( Little Hind / the aid workers )

I do want answers to those questions when the conflict is over and Hamas is defeated.

But Hamas and Iran should be held accountable for the suffering of the Palestinians.

You have lost it Im afraid.

What about Israeli snipers shooting young Palestinian children in the head which has reported by international doctors? Just as a start.

OnlyCherry has not lost anything

I'm not even talking about their actions in the current conflict, investigations and rulings will happen on that in tine. Israel have been choosing to break international law for decades. The landmark ruling of 19 July 2024 declared that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful, along with the associated settlement regime, annexation and use of natural resources. The Court added that Israel's legislation and measures violate the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ mandated Israel to end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, provide full reparations to Palestinian victims and facilitate the return of displaced people.

More here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/07/experts-hail-icj-declaration-illegality-israels-presence-occupied

Iran break international law and so do Israel. We don't need to wait for answers, we have answers. It is clear that Israel are responsible for some of the suffering of Palestinians. Ignoring one because the other is 'breaking international law worse' is absurd.

@SharonEllis you said you respect the ICJ and the ICC, so you know exactly what Israel are choosing to do, that you choose to downplay it is imo 'sick' as you would say. Hold Israel to account and condemn them for their measures that violate international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. International law is international law.

They also called on the international community to challenge Israel’s deliberate efforts to rewrite the rules of international humanitarian law, using it as “humanitarian camouflage” to legitimise potentially genocidal violence against all Palestinians.

This paragraph should not be ignored. Don't be part of Israels camouflage.

Israel is surrounded by Iranian funded terrorists- Hezbollah and Hamas.They face existential threat from utterly ruthless opponents. @Limesodaagain

Whilst you may have a case for defending some of Israel's actions, you do not strengthen your argument by perpetuating the falsehood that Israel's existence is under threat. Take a look at the materiel and manpower that Hamas and Hezbollah can call upon and then compare that with the armoury of Israel. The former two, whilst being able to bring destruction and death to Israel, are totally incapable and far short of being able to wipe it out. Hamas and Hezbollah may claim they wish to, but that it simply bluff,and rhetoric for local consumption. And I'm pretty sure that if there were a real threat from Iran,then nuclear USA and nuclear Israel could see them off pretty quick.
So no, militarily there is no existential threat to Israel and you are grossly exaggerating the danger that there is.

I've read your posts minimising what Israel is doing in Gaza so I don't think you're in a position to judge me.

Where have I minimised what Israel is doing? You keep accusing posters without providing evidence. You paraphrase in order to twist people’s meaning. It’s tiresome.

“So no, militarily there is no existential threat to Israel and you are grossly exaggerating the danger that there is.” I genuinely hope you are right.
But Im not sure it’s a such gross exaggeration …. Hamas aim is to destroy Israel. Iran is a powerful country. If the West withdrew support from Israel ( as so many of you are proposing) then Israel would be in great danger .

So we support a country that according to the ICJ are a great danger to other people? Priorise Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians. The ICJ were clear that Israel are causing great harm to Palestinians and you want us support them in breaking international law? I mean you are of course entitled to your opinion but you have to see why your wish to support a country in breaking international law and causing immense harm in doing so is a controversial one and will provoke a strong reaction.

I am beginning to think the greatest existential threat to Israel is Netanyahu. And

I don’t see why it’s controversial to point out that if the west withdrew its support Israel would face a threat to its existence from all sides.
Im not as one sided as you seem to believe. I understand that Netanyahu also has responsibility for this horrific situation . But some posters on here see things in very black and white terms .

His extremism is definitely a threat for everyone in the region

I don't think anyone wants to see Israeli suffer and I think most people would be more than happy to provide any aid the Israeli people need through charities independent of the government. If they need medical aid, chairites can help, if they need nutrition chairites can help, need help with housing in Israel for the people who need to leave the illegally occupied territories charities can help etc. There is no need to abandon the Israeli people but supporting, funding and arming a government that willfully breaks international law and systematically causes harm to millions of people shouldn't be an option.

And supporting Israel which you are in favour of means that Palestinians are right now suffering every single day at their hands. The ICJ have been clear on that. If you can't see why that is controversial then there is nothing left to say is there really.

What I’m not in favour of is leaving Israel to the mercy of the terrorist forces that surround it.

But I do see that it is very complicated and innocent Palestinians are suffering.

Rather than simply going "you're on your own mate", the suggestion that seems to be causing so much offence is that a government which expects the international community to provide them with military assistance for the security of their country's people should, in return, be expected to respect and adhere to the laws and limits of the international community.

There are very real grounds to consider that is not the case, and indeed that it is not a particularly fringe viewpoint within the government, wider political and military bodies and the voting population that there should continue to be an expectation of supplies being provided without an accompanying expectation of adhering to those laws and limits.

Supporting the unconditional supply of military equipment that is used in Palestine is effectively supporting the use of such equipment in the killing of Palestinians and the destruction of Palestinian society. It is saying that those very real deaths and harms are an acceptable price to pay, in their eyes, to reduce the risk of deaths and harms in a different population.

That might feel distasteful to some people, to have to think about their own acceptance of that and what it means about how they weigh up the values of the lives in the balance. So it gets equivocated and deflected and denied.

Thanks @Scirocco you are so patient

That might feel distasteful to some people, to have to think about their own acceptance of that and what it means about how they weigh up the values of the lives in the balance. So it gets equivocated and deflected and denied.

Spot on.

Sure, you have made it clear that to you Israelis are more important than the 'complicated suffering' their government perpetrates against international law on Palestinians. I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep repeating it, it isn't possible to rephrase it in a palatable way. It is what it is.

But you don’t comment on the threat to Israel's existence.

Let’s just assume a hypothetical situation. Suppose that countries such as the US and the UK stopped selling weapons to Israel and the surrounding Arab countries then collaborated to launch an outright attack with the declared aim of wiping Israel off the map. (I’ll be generous and refrain from adding "and killing all Jews", which is an avowed aim of Hamas and some other Muslim leaders.)

If that happened, would you support a proposal for the rest of the international community to support Israel and fight against the Arab coalition? Or would you be happy for Israel to be destroyed, leaving no majority Jewish state anywhere in the world?

I don't think Western governments should support any of them so long as they break international law. Treat them all the same, independent charity funding sure, help with an peace talks sure. Arming them and facilitating them, no absolutely not.

Saying we should arm this lot, it's unfortunate that the other lot will suffer and die because of that but what can you do, just isn't acceptable to me.