Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear. Amalek chants can be interpreted as incitement because of this ambiguity, I guess.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks with extreme views, who are more likely to commit warcrimes, or be flexible with rules of engagement. However even they need at least a plausible pretext before they can take action. Otherwise they can and are disciplined or prosecuted. The IDF has a well functioning internal investigation unit Military Advocate General. It even publishes investigations and their state on their website.
IDF soldiers can get away with excessive violence, but they always need at least a plausible military objective. Gaza had been converted into a fortress for two decades, so finding a military objective isn’t difficult. If a house has been used by a Hamas sniper, has a tunnel entrance, weapons were found in it, blocks a line of sight, it can be destroyed as a military objective.
Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
Yeah I know what it means!
“‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
I bolded some for a hopefully obvious reason. Clearly the Amalekites were genocided. Worse they even killed the fucking animals.
So Netanyahu, not some random person with no importance, saying this is a sign of intent.
And it being repeated by soldiers on the ground means the message was received and embraced by the people with the weapons.
And all of this is ignoring a probably bigger point: intent is not usually stated openly. Even if they hadn’t said it, the intent is clear in the nature of the attacks: choosing to kill supposed Hamas operativesin their homes along with their families rather than during military operations, destroying hospitals, holding up aid, shooting the people bringing the aid, shooting people collecting aid, damaging or destroying vital water facilities. Need I go on?
You don’t need a signed affidavit to prove what is happening or to prove intent. Everyone knows what happens if you deprive people of the essentials of life on purpose.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear.
Come on now.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks …
All of this is just a bit weird. I can tell that you trust the IDF, yes, but aren’t we talking about intent to commit genocide?
The fact that you can pick a “plausible target” is not exactly proof this isn’t intentional genocide is it? I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you but if you’re committing a genocide it’s probably a fair bet you will also lie about it. The tunnels etc are the perfect wishy washy defence for which no evidence is presented.
Read the Guardian article linked above. The choice to kill innocents is INTENTIONAL. It was done for the sake of ease.
Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear. Amalek chants can be interpreted as incitement because of this ambiguity, I guess.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks with extreme views, who are more likely to commit warcrimes, or be flexible with rules of engagement. However even they need at least a plausible pretext before they can take action. Otherwise they can and are disciplined or prosecuted. The IDF has a well functioning internal investigation unit Military Advocate General. It even publishes investigations and their state on their website.
IDF soldiers can get away with excessive violence, but they always need at least a plausible military objective. Gaza had been converted into a fortress for two decades, so finding a military objective isn’t difficult. If a house has been used by a Hamas sniper, has a tunnel entrance, weapons were found in it, blocks a line of sight, it can be destroyed as a military objective.
Yeah I know what it means!
I bolded some for a hopefully obvious reason. Clearly the Amalekites were genocided. Worse they even killed the fucking animals.
So Netanyahu, not some random person with no importance, saying this is a sign of intent.
And it being repeated by soldiers on the ground means the message was received and embraced by the people with the weapons.
And all of this is ignoring a probably bigger point: intent is not usually stated openly. Even if they hadn’t said it, the intent is clear in the nature of the attacks: choosing to kill supposed Hamas operatives in their homes along with their families rather than during military operations, destroying hospitals, holding up aid, shooting the people bringing the aid, shooting people collecting aid, damaging or destroying vital water facilities. Need I go on?
You don’t need a signed affidavit to prove what is happening or to prove intent. Everyone knows what happens if you deprive people of the essentials of life on purpose.
Come on now.
All of this is just a bit weird. I can tell that you trust the IDF, yes, but aren’t we talking about intent to commit genocide?
The fact that you can pick a “plausible target” is not exactly proof this isn’t intentional genocide is it? I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you but if you’re committing a genocide it’s probably a fair bet you will also lie about it. The tunnels etc are the perfect wishy washy defence for which no evidence is presented.
Read the Guardian article linked above. The choice to kill innocents is INTENTIONAL. It was done for the sake of ease.