I as a german asked an expert on that topic. Chatgpt. According to chatGPT there is no genocide if you don't kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So if for example you drop accidentally poison into their water because you mixed the Botox and sugar bottle in the water station then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since chatgpt is infallable this is the only truth.
Except that basically all Israeli politicians have made statements saying they have genocidal intentions.
All?
The charge document includes quotes of expression of genocidal intent by the following state officials:
Prime Minister of Israel
President of Israel
Israeli Minister of Defence
Israeli Minister for National Security
Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure
Israeli Minister of Finance
Israeli Minister of Heritage
Israeli Minister of Agriculture
Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Member of the Foreign Affairs and Security
Committee
Israeli Army Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (‘COGAT’)
Israeli Army Reservist Major General, former Head of the Israeli National Security
Council, and adviser to the Defence Minister
You can read the actual quotes in the application document in chapter D.
Upvoted but I wish you would have run your post through ChatGPT as well my friend. That was hard to read.
Comma rule in German is so fucked that normal humans just give up and never use any.
I could use german grammar to set the commas, but then I would have probably 10 to many for English grammar. So I tend to use less in English.
None of those sentences needed commas, they're just not constructed very clearly.
I, as a German, asked an expert on that topic: ChatGPT. According to ChatGPT, there is no genocide if you don't kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So, if for example you accidentally drop poison into their water because you mixed the botox and sugar bottle at the water station, then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since ChatGPT is infallible, this is the only truth.
—
Six commas, colon, capitalization, word order, word choice, “infallible”. Infallible like my editing 🤓 & dunt u disagreeme
PS: I speak zero languages (rounded), good job all who learn English and attempt to use it
Okay, yes, those are all valid places to put commas, good job -- except for the one after "So", which actually decreases the legibility. It would be better to surround "for example" with commas.
However, none of them are grammatically necessary. The original comment is totally fine and can be parsed unambiguously as-is. I would support the colon insertion above any of your commas.
Good point!
Interesting, anywhere I can read about grammatically necessary vs. recommended yet unnecessary commas? (Perhaps on the first search result for that question heh)
This is a decent article, at least for the most part: I actually don't like their examples for the "Preposition of Time" stuff at all, the versions with commas are just bad writing.
But basically it just comes down to whether the sentence/clause can be parsed unambiguously without the commas. There is no syntactical difference between "I as a German asked..." and "I, as a German, asked...". It's entirely a style choice.
I know your being sarcastic but I just want to point out that this is incorrect
here is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet
If you plan to cull a demographic by only 10% its still genocide according to the UN. This is the definition that South Africa's case at the ICJ will be ruled under. Under this definition all ethnic cleansing requires genocide.
Fire Nation: "We never did the Air Nomad genocide. We didn't intend to kill them all, we only intended to kill one guy"
Yeah, genocide often requires intent. So I guess this could be more of a massacre than a genocide.
But there's quite a few different definitions, some are more lax.
Except for all the politicians, from shutzstaffel commanders to the (Hitler apologist) PM's PR guy saying exactly this, using words like cexterminate' 'wipe from the earth' 'every last one' and many individual storm troopers posting on their social media (in videos while doing war crimes), or even their 'civilians' frequently saying it
Edit: nevermind. It wasnt a press guy; their pm.said it himself. Of course it did.
I really doubt their aim with this thing is to destroy all the Palestinians, but if you can provide those quotes that show that that's their stated aim then I'd definitely consider this a genocide.
How many do you need? So we don't have any more goalpost shifting?
I was thinking the ones in the above reply but it doesn't have to be very many at all if it's the top people saying it. PM, DM, generals (that sort of people) saying their goals are extermination of Palestinians seems like it'd make the case pretty clear.
I'm sorry if you see asking for sources as goalpost shifting but my goalpost was that there should be intent shown (because that's a common genocide definition I think). It hasn't changed. Asking for source is just basic thing on online discussions. It's not a personal thing against you.
How many. Give me a number. IMO case is already so obvious you need special glasses to look directly at it and keep your eyes. So tell me how many high level and how many low level (probably nsfl) sources would work.
If Theres a 'might convince me' range and a 'this is so fucking obvious how could I have missed this?' Range, feel free to include that.
Uhh, let's say five? Is that alright?
I'm sorry I didn't first see that you had edited the comment. I don't know what would be a solid number for "this is obvious". I guess it would depend on what is said by who. But I guess if you want some sort of hard number then let's go with five top level comments or something? Would that work?
Here's one article from January with more than five incidents, though only four from separate named top level sources. These aren't ambiguous or off record; these are what south Africa's lawyers are taking to the UN world court.
(Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, 'heritage minister' whatever that is) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-rhetoric-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-case_n_65a94997e4b041f1ce65175e
Taking a loooooooong-ass shower now, so sorry about slow reply.
The thing about fascism is: every accusation is a confession. Every last one. I know, you're thinking the dumb version of 'he who fights monsters' (having never read Nietzsche), but that was Hitlers entire strategy with 'the big lie'; to turn his storm troopers into exactly the thing he accused his victims of being, and then use shit libs like you as his defense. And it worked for a really fun king long time. Read a book (though maybe not his. Plenty of scholars of fascism out there can explain it better than i!) .
They aren't human. They weren't born this way, and denying that is denying their autonomy. They've said they won't stop, short of being killed, or that 'nothing will stop us'. There is one way to stop this genocide, and if you didn't care about saving the Palestinian people, you're a fucking bad faith liar for saying there is anything disallowed to do to kapostanis. They need to die. Their 'culture' (which is literally just atrocities and shit they pillaged. Bet you can't even get a decent bagel or pastrami sandwich over there)
And lol, using grammar or immediate 'fuck wrong button' edits to pretend I said totally different shit
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you.” Amalekites were persecutors of the biblical Israelites, and a biblical commandment says they must be destroyed.
Two days after the Hamas attack, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said Israel was “fighting human animals,” in announcing a complete siege on Gaza.
I don't think those show the sort of genocidal intent we discussed it, with more obvious extermination comments. "We must deal with them like with Amalekites" would be one for sure.
Deputy Knesset speaker Nissim Vaturi from the ruling Likud party wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Israelis had one common goal, “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Israeli Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, from the far-right Jewish Power party, suggested that Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and said there were “no uninvolved civilians” in the territory.
The first comment from here is much clearer.
Defending Israel in court, lawyer Malcolm Shaw said the remarks were made mostly by officials with little role in determining Israeli policy, calling them “random quotes” that were misleading and had been in some cases repudiated by Netanyahu.
I think that might be true for some, though deputy speaker from the ruling party seems like someone who'd have a role.
Off topic, but the two articles are remarkably similar. Some stuff (not meaning quotes) are word for word same and the same structure and everything is the same. Journalists being lazy, I guess.
They aren’t human. They weren’t born this way, and denying that is denying their autonomy. They’ve said they won’t stop, short of being killed, or that ‘nothing will stop us’. There is one way to stop this genocide, and if you didn’t care about saving the Palestinian people, you’re a fucking bad faith liar for saying there is anything disallowed to do to kapostanis. They need to die. Their ‘culture’ (which is literally just atrocities and shit they pillaged. Bet you can’t even get a decent bagel or pastrami sandwich over there)
I don't know if you are saying that about Israelis or talking about or lampooning the rhetoric the Israelis use about Palestinians.
And lol, using grammar or immediate ‘fuck wrong button’ edits to pretend I said totally different shit
I was talking about how you added a lot to your comment. First the comment was just "How many. Give me a number.", then you added the rest. That's what I meant.
Youre not responding to any if the other examples. There are at least five in those two links.
I fucking called that you would move the goal posts.
Genocidal fucking coward.
I thought the other examples was some soldiers and a journalist, a mention of "military officials and two Israeli pop singers are also cited by South Africa for making inflammatory comments" (didn't include the comments) so not the top level stuff we discussed about? The goalposts have always been the same and you even wanted a specific number for it, five top level comments talking about extermination etc.
It would be a lot easier if you quoted the parts you specifically refer to, so there would be no room for me to miss them. A lot clearer that way.
Genocidal fucking coward.
Wat. I'm just disagreeing with you online, it doesn't seem serious enough to call me genocidal because of that, even if you are very passionate about the topic.
I listed the officials cited. At least five cabinet level or high up parliament ghouls.vthere were more but I stopped when I reached five.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
Teeeeensy nitpick: there are two definitions of genocide that have ever mattered. Two. Not many. Two.
Lemkins original, much much broader, definition, And the one you're familiar with, adopted by the UN because like everyone on the permanent security council thing had an interest in the definition being a little more narrow. Under which the way the Palestinian people are being exterminated absolutely still counts.
Interestingly, by lemkin's broader definition, making the shutzstaffel stop killing Palestinians might constitute a genocide of the kapostanis; it would be destroying every trace of their culture, and the means of its reproduction.
I didn't say there were plenty "that have ever mattered" so it doesn't seem like a nitpick towards me.
I'm sure your high school had its own? Doesn't count.
There are plenty of abbreviations. But those aren't separate content; just condensed versions.
There are two.
Well that's certainly a view.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I'm going to laugh at it so hard.
Which is probably going to get me kicked out of a lot of 'stop the genocide' stuff.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I’m going to laugh at it so hard.
Weird.
Yeah I'm not gonna look totally cracked and it's gonna be all your fault, I hope it occurs to you to feel bad about making me laugh at such an inappropriate time while you're starving to death, because it was not a nice thing to do.
I probably wouldn't be thinking about some random Lemmy comment in that situation tbh
To meet the legal definition of genocide, you also have to have the intent to destroy a particular group of people. So, legally speaking, your example isn't genocide according to any source.
I don't know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started, but if it doesn't involve an intent to destroy Palestinians specifically, I guess I could see how GPT's take is valid. Like, the war in Ukraine is egregious too, but that by itself doesn't make it a genocide.
Deliberate displacement of particular ethnic or religious groups is also recognized as genocide, in particular because it's often a pretext. ChatGPT is wrong, and needs to read the UN definition.
I don't know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started
Religion
How it started: the Ottomans sided with the Nazis, so when they lost, the Ottomans also lost their land and the Allies got it, following the usual war rule where the winner wins the land. Dividing up the land is where the British Mandate for Palestine came from, under which we gave 2/3 of the land to the Arabs (Transjordan) and 1/3 of the land to Israel. But the Arabs refused to accept this and started the first of a series of wars against Israel. The Arabs, now also partially known as Palestinians, have continually refused to accept any peace deal, starting wars whenever possible and so far losing every one of them. Israel has repeatedly accepted peace deals, even at the cost of land, but it only works if both sides agree, which they don't: the only deal the Arabs want is all the land and no Israel, which also means no Jews (proof: look at the Jewish communities within existing Arab states (TLDR: non-existent or shrinking)), which means the Arabs are hellbent on a genocide of all the Jews, and are determined to achieve that or die trying.
I as a german asked an expert on that topic. Chatgpt. According to chatGPT there is no genocide if you don't kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So if for example you drop accidentally poison into their water because you mixed the Botox and sugar bottle in the water station then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since chatgpt is infallable this is the only truth.
Good thing then that Israeli politicians haven’t been on record saying that Gaza needs to be "wiped from the face of the Earth"!
Except that basically all Israeli politicians have made statements saying they have genocidal intentions.
All?
The charge document includes quotes of expression of genocidal intent by the following state officials:
Committee
Council, and adviser to the Defence Minister
You can read the actual quotes in the application document in chapter D.
Upvoted but I wish you would have run your post through ChatGPT as well my friend. That was hard to read.
Comma rule in German is so fucked that normal humans just give up and never use any.
I could use german grammar to set the commas, but then I would have probably 10 to many for English grammar. So I tend to use less in English.
None of those sentences needed commas, they're just not constructed very clearly.
I, as a German, asked an expert on that topic: ChatGPT. According to ChatGPT, there is no genocide if you don't kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So, if for example you accidentally drop poison into their water because you mixed the botox and sugar bottle at the water station, then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since ChatGPT is infallible, this is the only truth.
—
Six commas, colon, capitalization, word order, word choice, “infallible”. Infallible like my editing 🤓 & dunt u disagreeme
PS: I speak zero languages (rounded), good job all who learn English and attempt to use it
Okay, yes, those are all valid places to put commas, good job -- except for the one after "So", which actually decreases the legibility. It would be better to surround "for example" with commas.
However, none of them are grammatically necessary. The original comment is totally fine and can be parsed unambiguously as-is. I would support the colon insertion above any of your commas.
Good point!
Interesting, anywhere I can read about grammatically necessary vs. recommended yet unnecessary commas? (Perhaps on the first search result for that question heh)
This is a decent article, at least for the most part: I actually don't like their examples for the "Preposition of Time" stuff at all, the versions with commas are just bad writing.
But basically it just comes down to whether the sentence/clause can be parsed unambiguously without the commas. There is no syntactical difference between "I as a German asked..." and "I, as a German, asked...". It's entirely a style choice.
I've counted 6 missing commas.
You overuse commas.
No, he doesn't.
Read some Cormac McCarthy some time.
No, u
I know your being sarcastic but I just want to point out that this is incorrect
If you plan to cull a demographic by only 10% its still genocide according to the UN. This is the definition that South Africa's case at the ICJ will be ruled under. Under this definition all ethnic cleansing requires genocide.
Fire Nation: "We never did the Air Nomad genocide. We didn't intend to kill them all, we only intended to kill one guy"
Yeah, genocide often requires intent. So I guess this could be more of a massacre than a genocide.
But there's quite a few different definitions, some are more lax.
Except for all the politicians, from shutzstaffel commanders to the (Hitler apologist) PM's PR guy saying exactly this, using words like cexterminate' 'wipe from the earth' 'every last one' and many individual storm troopers posting on their social media (in videos while doing war crimes), or even their 'civilians' frequently saying it
Edit: nevermind. It wasnt a press guy; their pm.said it himself. Of course it did.
I really doubt their aim with this thing is to destroy all the Palestinians, but if you can provide those quotes that show that that's their stated aim then I'd definitely consider this a genocide.
How many do you need? So we don't have any more goalpost shifting?
I was thinking the ones in the above reply but it doesn't have to be very many at all if it's the top people saying it. PM, DM, generals (that sort of people) saying their goals are extermination of Palestinians seems like it'd make the case pretty clear.
I'm sorry if you see asking for sources as goalpost shifting but my goalpost was that there should be intent shown (because that's a common genocide definition I think). It hasn't changed. Asking for source is just basic thing on online discussions. It's not a personal thing against you.
How many. Give me a number. IMO case is already so obvious you need special glasses to look directly at it and keep your eyes. So tell me how many high level and how many low level (probably nsfl) sources would work.
If Theres a 'might convince me' range and a 'this is so fucking obvious how could I have missed this?' Range, feel free to include that.
Uhh, let's say five? Is that alright?
I'm sorry I didn't first see that you had edited the comment. I don't know what would be a solid number for "this is obvious". I guess it would depend on what is said by who. But I guess if you want some sort of hard number then let's go with five top level comments or something? Would that work?
Here's one article from January with more than five incidents, though only four from separate named top level sources. These aren't ambiguous or off record; these are what south Africa's lawyers are taking to the UN world court. (Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, 'heritage minister' whatever that is) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-rhetoric-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-case_n_65a94997e4b041f1ce65175e
Heres another article from about the same time about the same thing, also cites a 5th top level named source (adding finance minister) https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724
So that's five (more? Didn't scroll down farther in AP article) cabinetish level genocidal shit geysers in literally the first two search results.
And as a fun bonus, here's the kinds of songs they have their children sing: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/we-will-annihilate-everyone-in-gaza-israeli-children-song-calls-for-destroying-gaza-video/
Taking a loooooooong-ass shower now, so sorry about slow reply.
The thing about fascism is: every accusation is a confession. Every last one. I know, you're thinking the dumb version of 'he who fights monsters' (having never read Nietzsche), but that was Hitlers entire strategy with 'the big lie'; to turn his storm troopers into exactly the thing he accused his victims of being, and then use shit libs like you as his defense. And it worked for a really fun king long time. Read a book (though maybe not his. Plenty of scholars of fascism out there can explain it better than i!) .
They aren't human. They weren't born this way, and denying that is denying their autonomy. They've said they won't stop, short of being killed, or that 'nothing will stop us'. There is one way to stop this genocide, and if you didn't care about saving the Palestinian people, you're a fucking bad faith liar for saying there is anything disallowed to do to kapostanis. They need to die. Their 'culture' (which is literally just atrocities and shit they pillaged. Bet you can't even get a decent bagel or pastrami sandwich over there)
And lol, using grammar or immediate 'fuck wrong button' edits to pretend I said totally different shit
I don't think those show the sort of genocidal intent we discussed it, with more obvious extermination comments. "We must deal with them like with Amalekites" would be one for sure.
The first comment from here is much clearer.
I think that might be true for some, though deputy speaker from the ruling party seems like someone who'd have a role.
Off topic, but the two articles are remarkably similar. Some stuff (not meaning quotes) are word for word same and the same structure and everything is the same. Journalists being lazy, I guess.
I don't know if you are saying that about Israelis or talking about or lampooning the rhetoric the Israelis use about Palestinians.
I was talking about how you added a lot to your comment. First the comment was just "How many. Give me a number.", then you added the rest. That's what I meant.
Youre not responding to any if the other examples. There are at least five in those two links.
I fucking called that you would move the goal posts.
Genocidal fucking coward.
I thought the other examples was some soldiers and a journalist, a mention of "military officials and two Israeli pop singers are also cited by South Africa for making inflammatory comments" (didn't include the comments) so not the top level stuff we discussed about? The goalposts have always been the same and you even wanted a specific number for it, five top level comments talking about extermination etc.
It would be a lot easier if you quoted the parts you specifically refer to, so there would be no room for me to miss them. A lot clearer that way.
Wat. I'm just disagreeing with you online, it doesn't seem serious enough to call me genocidal because of that, even if you are very passionate about the topic.
I listed the officials cited. At least five cabinet level or high up parliament ghouls.vthere were more but I stopped when I reached five.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
Teeeeensy nitpick: there are two definitions of genocide that have ever mattered. Two. Not many. Two.
Lemkins original, much much broader, definition, And the one you're familiar with, adopted by the UN because like everyone on the permanent security council thing had an interest in the definition being a little more narrow. Under which the way the Palestinian people are being exterminated absolutely still counts.
Interestingly, by lemkin's broader definition, making the shutzstaffel stop killing Palestinians might constitute a genocide of the kapostanis; it would be destroying every trace of their culture, and the means of its reproduction.
I didn't say there were plenty "that have ever mattered" so it doesn't seem like a nitpick towards me.
I'm sure your high school had its own? Doesn't count.
There are plenty of abbreviations. But those aren't separate content; just condensed versions.
There are two.
Well that's certainly a view.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I'm going to laugh at it so hard.
Which is probably going to get me kicked out of a lot of 'stop the genocide' stuff.
Weird.
Yeah I'm not gonna look totally cracked and it's gonna be all your fault, I hope it occurs to you to feel bad about making me laugh at such an inappropriate time while you're starving to death, because it was not a nice thing to do.
I probably wouldn't be thinking about some random Lemmy comment in that situation tbh
Wow. Rude.
Sorry
To meet the legal definition of genocide, you also have to have the intent to destroy a particular group of people. So, legally speaking, your example isn't genocide according to any source.
I don't know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started, but if it doesn't involve an intent to destroy Palestinians specifically, I guess I could see how GPT's take is valid. Like, the war in Ukraine is egregious too, but that by itself doesn't make it a genocide.
Deliberate displacement of particular ethnic or religious groups is also recognized as genocide, in particular because it's often a pretext. ChatGPT is wrong, and needs to read the UN definition.
Religion
How it started: the Ottomans sided with the Nazis, so when they lost, the Ottomans also lost their land and the Allies got it, following the usual war rule where the winner wins the land. Dividing up the land is where the British Mandate for Palestine came from, under which we gave 2/3 of the land to the Arabs (Transjordan) and 1/3 of the land to Israel. But the Arabs refused to accept this and started the first of a series of wars against Israel. The Arabs, now also partially known as Palestinians, have continually refused to accept any peace deal, starting wars whenever possible and so far losing every one of them. Israel has repeatedly accepted peace deals, even at the cost of land, but it only works if both sides agree, which they don't: the only deal the Arabs want is all the land and no Israel, which also means no Jews (proof: look at the Jewish communities within existing Arab states (TLDR: non-existent or shrinking)), which means the Arabs are hellbent on a genocide of all the Jews, and are determined to achieve that or die trying.