A US-based aid group admitted Friday that a group of individuals — who the Israeli military says were armed — took control of an aid convoy in the southern Gaza Strip the day before, without the organization having vetted them or coordinated the matter with the Israel Defense Forces.
The military said Thursday that it struck the gunmen, killing them while not harming aid workers.
According to the IDF, Hamas operatives frequently try to hijack aid deliveries.
The IDF had said on Thursday that a convoy of aid trucks from the American Near East Refugee Aid (Anera) organization entered the southern Rafah area with Israeli coordination. It said that during the drive, it identified a group of gunmen taking over a vehicle at the front of the convoy and beginning to lead it. The IDF described the act as a hijacking attempt.
Shortly afterward, the IDF said it was able to determine that it could strike just the car with the gunmen, without harming the rest of the convoy, and so it carried out a strike, killing at least four.
Any country that intentionally withholds food, medicine, and potable water from a population it considers problematic is a nation intentionally committing genocide.
It is, in fact, the most common, and efficient, form of genocide ever.
That is just one of the reasons the ICC, the organization literally with the legal authority to determine of some thing is genocide or not determined that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
You like to talk about truth and nuance a lot. Forgive me if I trust the literal genocide determining organization and not the self confident black and white statement og some asshole on the internet that loves to talk about nuance except when it comes to their own statements.
As to the systemic system of rape and torture, why don’t you read Israels OWN fucking reporting on Sde Teiman.
Any nation that murders at least 100,000 children is fucking evil. And those are not Hamas’s numbers. Those are the Lancet medical journals numbers. I’m not saying they are the most evil, as that would maybe be the British Empire, off the top of my head.
That number is an estimate in an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed article. There’s no factual basis. The authors have already regretted putting the numbers in there.
People under 18 are not all children. Young adults of 17 definitely aren’t children like 3 year olds. Plenty of teenagers in Gaza are members of armed groups and participating in the fighting.
It’s not an opinion piece. It was labeled a correspondence, and isn’t peer reviewed, but the methodology for measuring dead in conflicts where the ability to make such counts is, and they used the conservative side of those calculations. The authors didn’t express regret, merely that some people made claims the article didn’t make.
Such methods are required, because Israel has intentionally bombed every hospital in Gaza to make counting the dead difficult, if not impossible, then insulting the methods required to actually estimate the dead. It sure would be nice if Israel didn’t intentionally destroy all civilian medical infrastructure and send many of the doctors to a torture camp so we could have some actual numbers.
But, that’s the point, isn’t it? That’s also the point of my comment you didn’t bother addressing at all because you know there is no moral defense, even though you’re willing to try and justify the murder of children.
Concentrating people in an enclosed area, and removing their access to food, water, and medicine is both the most common and the most efficient method governments have used historically engaged in the process of genocide.
And starvation kills children first, with the youngest dying the earliest.
It isn’t astounding that you (presumably, based on your instance) are from a country whose highest proportion of people charged with antisemitism are Jewish people protesting the genocide.
That is a misrepresentation of what the ICJ ruled. You can’t even tell apart the ICJ and the ICC, it seems. You can’t even get the organization right.
Here you can hear the President of the ICJ explain what is meant by plausible.
Plausible only refers to the right of South Africa to bring this case to the ICJ.
You’re right about the ICJ vs ICC which is a mistake I don’t ordinarily make. My only execute for that is I woke up in the middle of the night from a migraine.
Your quotes however are extremely cherry picked, and your description of what they mean is absolutely wrong.
Part of the case was about establishing South Africa’s right to bring the case, but part of it was to determine the plausibility of the charge.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa
But, I’m sure NPR is Hamas, right?
Since when does the West Bank have restrictions on Journalists entering?
You don’t believe the president of the court you cite, okay then.
I literally posted a link, so others don’t have to determine of over cherry picked my quote that shows my assertion.
You don’t believe anything that goes counter to your love for an apartheid government.