Why kill Dr Marwan Sultan?

[TakeMe2Insanity]

Just that, why kill one of the few (2) cardiologists and his WHOLE family? So much for the targeted attacks. Or shall we go with the current zionist theory that all of Gaza is a sleeper cell.
Israel needs to be held to account for the hell they have created.

Civillians aren't 'dying', they are being killed, raped, tortured, murdered, disappeared, starved, bombed, shot.

Look at your language. Palestinians die. Israelis are murdered.

Oh right so if Israeli citizens were dying in theit tens of thousands, Israel had been reduced to rubble, and the people were now facing famine and disease with no functioning health care system, you would just shrug your shoulders dismissively and say "oh yeah well bad things happen in war" would you? Somehow I don't think you would!

Why did Hamas commit the atrocities they did on October 7th?

They were resisting the brutal occupation of Israel of Gaza . One that affected every aspect of daily life for the Palestinians living there . As @NiMaithLiomDeLuain says Palestinians were taken without trial to Sde Teiman.(Even with a trial it was by Israeli courts with a conviction rate of 99%).

Nothing justifies the heinous actions of October 7th but to think that it was all rosy and came from nowhere shows a typical colonist/oppressor attitude.

Of course they were at war before October 7th, it was just that the world had come to ignore the long term siege on Gaza. At least 227 Palestinians had been killed by Israel that year already, the highest in almost 20 years. 30-35; Israeli's killed in the same period, mostly settlers or IDF.

Thousands have died over the past decades, usually 8-20 Palestinians for every Israeli death. In that time Gazans have been denied adequate healthcare and almost non existent freedom of movement. Everything going in or out was at Israelis mercy. There were times when crayons were banned, pasta sauce was banned, pasta was banned (not at the same time...). The Gazans try to build an airport, Israel bombs it. They try to make a port. Israel bombs it. In the year before 7 the October, Israel launched at least 400 airstrikes on Gaza.

So when you say that they weren't at war, what you mean is there was little threat to Israeli's, and Palestinians didn't matter.

Yes, but by group you mean anyone of the same nationality/ethnicity, and not ‘those responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks”.

Which is of course ignoring the total asymmetry of what is happening.

But it is interesting that you can only see yourself in Israel’s role. How do you feel about a UK supported attack, being used as a pretext to leave generations of your family living like Gazans? Has the UK every done something that might be twisted into justifying your children or grandchildren being starved to death, and you being told primly “well actually, it’s your own fault”

It’s ridiculous. The naive bleating on about October 7th but, but, but….
The world is watching Israel. The world is watching what it is doing to Palestine every single day. And they don’t fucking support it.

Well said 👏🏻👏🏻

🙄

FFS🙄

Oh, so people now aren’t allowed to have a different opinion from I support Israel and all that it does?
Noted.

@Martymcfly24 Appologies. Misunderstood you there.

Of course they were at war before October 7th, it was just that the world had come to ignore the long term siege on Gaza. @Soggybirthdaycamping

I think that a few weeks prior to Oct 7 the IAF had carried out 3 days of consecutive air strikes killing over a dozen people. Added to that, there was the shooting in the lags and knees of dozens of stone throwing Gazan youths. So, there was no ceasefire in place.

No they did not. I'm losing the will to live over the number of times I have shared this clip.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

The ICJ decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.
The court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.

In truth, it’s only a handful of posters. They just post very, very regularly.

Yep. And less and less this week. Wonder why?

Are you saying that if a group flew soldiers into Glastonbury killed hundreds of people, and kidnapped more, you would just shrug and say 'oh well', here, have a few million pounds in aid? You wouldn't want that group found and punished?

It’s actually wild to me that there are people who think that if the French were taken over by a terrorist group who committed a terrible atrocity in the UK that all of Britain would be calling for every man, women and child in France to suffer in return. That’s someone being radicalised I suppose, That they think it is “obvious” that the whole population should suffer.

I certainly wouldn’t would the civilian population of their ethnic group/geographical location held under siege for 20+ months, a breakdown of all infrastructure, killing of babies, amputation of limbs, removal of medications etc, a shoot to kill policy that has resulted in the killings of teenagers with Down Syndrome, the killing of paralysed people in their beds, blind people, a 7 year shot to death by a tank knowing she was in a car of dead people, killing paramedics going to help people, old people walking to their deaths, people falling with exhaustion.

There is the concept of getting justice for victims of the Nova attack and getting the hostages back but this dream of building Gaza as the Riviera and deleting the Palestinians while doing what is being done to them is beyond vengeance and beyond depravity.

Quite.

How can deliberately targeting a cardiologist in his family home, a man who has spent his entire life dedicated in preserving the lives of others, ever, ever, ever, even within the realms of the twisted world we live in, be justified in any way shape or form as acceptable?

Semantics, as Lawyer Alonso Gurmendi has put it:

"Saying "the ICJ said there is a plausible genocide" and "the ICJ said the rights of Palestinians [not to be the victims of genocide under the Genocide Convention] are plausibly at risk of imminent & irreparable harm" is saying the same thing; first colloquially, then in legalese"

That the interview with the American former president of the ICJ Donohue is amplified d as some sort of gotcha but it is nothing more than semantics.

Remember this is the panel, where 32% of the dissenting opinion [in a separate advisory case on Israel's occupation] from Judge Sebutinde is alleged to have been plagarised:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/fresh-allegations-emerge-plagiarism-icj-president-israel-opinion

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/icj-president-accused-plagiarism-dissenting-opinion-israeli-occupation

Absolutely all of this.

No its not semantics at all. Read it again.

Yeah, OK.
History will be the judge.

Its a question of facts. History will judge the ruling in exactly the same way as anyone with basic reading and comprehension skills does today.