It’s genocide dickhead. Can’t believe I still have to vote for this mother fucker.
I appreciate you still voting though, mate. The alternative is far worse and that's terrifying that our alternative to supporting a literal genocide is even worse.
It's also not just voting against Trump.
Biden on climate is an A student. The inflation reduction act, according to basically every climate wonk, gives us a real chance at achieving necessary goals both under its regime and thanks to further future legislation it certainly unlocks. Things are looking less bad right now than they have for a long time in spite of all the worsening indicators. And it's written with intense virtuous cycles built-in that will make it VERY sticky policy once it builds up a couple of years worth of inertia. The fact that he got it past an overtly hostile senate that had at least 51 anti-science, anti-climate, fossil fuel shills turning up to vote is nothing short of a policy miracle.
Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to reverse everything that could still be reversed about the IRA (a frustratingly large amount, unfortunately, could still be undone by executive fiat thanks to its still-developing political base). He's vowed to double down on every kind of fossil fuel subsidy. He's vowed to restore coal power even though it's horrible for everyone involved and the most expensive kind of energy production. He's vowed to fight windmills just because he doesn't like their aesthetics -- literal quixotic shit.
I won't defend Biden on Israel for even one millisecond. His position is heinous. It's evil. And if he loses in November, it will almost certainly be the reason why and he'll deserve it. But it will probably also spell actual global war and apocalypse fueled by climate within all of our lifetimes. It may sound dramatic, but a Trump win will bring us from feast to famine and may spell the actual end of our civilization.
Lol, Biden is not an A student for climate.
Regardless of who's in charge, we are still on track for environmental disaster unless we completely get rid of infinite growth capitalism. Joe Biden sure as heck isn't going to do that.
I'm sick and tired of moderates thinking that our planet being uninhabitable is some sort of worthy compromise for the ownership class.
It is a war and an urban warfare with civilian to combatant death ratio less than 2:1, while according to civiliansinconflict.org, typical ratio is more like 10:1.
You might want to argue it is an unjustified war, but genocide it is not.
It’s genocide dickhead.
Wow, your intelligence is blinding. You should be careful with that.
Some scholars, like Verdeja, say that debates on whether the current conflict can be called a genocide are a “bad use of focus.” Part of that is because proving whether something is a genocide takes time, and does not actually stop people from being killed. Hinton agrees, noting that because genocide is seen as the crime of all crimes, people focus too rigidly on defining a particular moment as such. May be, legal jargon could be restrained until a thorough investigation is conducted. But thorough investigations are rarely conducted when it comes to Israeli crimes in Gaza or anywhere else in Palestine. Segal clearly points to how the U.S. government refused to call crimes committed against the Hutus in Rwanda a genocide. Without sticking to the truth, we’ll never have a truthful reckoning of how we arrived at the seventh of October, and how we go forward,” Segal says. “We need to name it for what it is.” source
You might want to make up definitions for genocide but in 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Then technically, ALL wars are genocide.
EDIT: so many downvotes, so little arguments against it. Predictable as it gets.
The key feature is the first part about "intent to destroy." Russia isn't trying to destroy the concept of Ukraine, either as an ethnicity or a country (they just want it to be a puppet-state obedient to their dictates). The US wasn't trying to destroy the concept of Vietnam or Vietnamese people.
Other people could draw different conclusions I guess, but to me it's undeniable that Israel's goal is to steadily destroy the whole concept of Palestine, with maybe some isolated individuals of Palestinian ethnicity still surviving in some location inside or outside Israel, but with Palestine itself completely erased.
They are forcefully removing children and telling them they are Russian. Which is exactly part of the quoted definition from the comment you are replying to.
Yeah, fair enough; maybe I picked a wrong example for one of my examples. I think most of the time, it's not that way though. Not that I'm saying that makes war good or anything.
Actually, Putin does want to destroy the concept of Ukraine and he said it is not a real country.
Putin absolutely wants to destroy Ukraine. The definition above defines all wars that have ever happened.
Woah I think I just saw some neurons firing
Yes the intent matters. Israel intent is to destroy Hamas. That’s not genocide.
The precursors to genocide are actively unfolding before our eyes. On 10 October, the head of the Israeli army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, addressed a message directly to Gaza residents: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell”. The same day, Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari acknowledged the wanton and intentionally destructive nature of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza: “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Raz Segal, the program director of genocide studies at Stockton University, concretely says it is a “textbook case of genocide.”
It is when they consider every Palestinian to be hamas (and anyone who they don't like on a particular day)
And her we come back to civilian vs militants kill ratio, which is much lower than average numbers for urban warfare. You statement is just not supported by statistics.
Yes because they consider anyone they kill hamas
Intent does not matter when the direct results of premeditated actions slaughter children and innocent civilians. These aren't mistakes, they are literally being explained by Israel as the war rages on as collateral damage.
If this is acceptable on the world stage, then the only people "winning" in the near future will be government officials and very high ranking military personnel. What's the point of peace when it comes at such a cost?
The amount of aid alone that Israel continues to block, and even destroy, is absolutely sickening.
genocide it is not.
It wasn’t really in question when this was published back in October. It was genocide then and it continues to be genocide.
“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.””
These are act of genocide. True, but the intent matters too (and I am sure it is described in the document you are linking to). And destruction of Hamas is not the intent compatible with genocide. If Israel wants to destroy citizens of Gaza as a group, then it is doing really shitty job, since somehow the civilian to military ratio is well below expectations for urban warfare.
Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Which are also what Hamas perpetrated on 10/7.
But what about….
Yes we know that Hamas is awful, evil, etc. That doesn’t give a moral pass to do just whatever to people who aren’t Hamas.
You're right. Both sides are awful, and neither side gets a pass. Both sides have been accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the ICC.
That said, neither side has been accused of genocide by the ICC. The difference between "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" is very important to some (for good reason), but not very important to others (also for good reason).
We're not selling weapons to Hamas.
That doesn't affect whether or not Hamas committed genocide.
And how does that absolve Israel?
Hamas is not generally considered to have committed genocide, which suggests that the definition of genocide does not depend only on those three factors.
And how does that absolve Israel?
The precursors to genocide are actively unfolding before our eyes. On 10 October, the head of the Israeli army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, addressed a message directly to Gaza residents: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell”. The same day, Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari acknowledged the wanton and intentionally destructive nature of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza: “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Raz Segal, the program director of genocide studies at Stockton University, concretely says it is a “textbook case of genocide.” source
Yes, I already know that people disagree on whether Israel is committing genocide.
I'm confused, why are you acting like anyone here is defending Hamas? One foul deed does not make up for another. Israel is figuratively and literally shooting through civilians in order to kill Hamas. How is that acceptable?
Imagine if the police handled hostage situations like this. Some crazy guy pulls one of your loved ones away from you, puts a gun to their head, and threatens to fire... So the police just shoot them both.
Would you accept that? Would you thank the officer that shot them both?
I don't think anyone is defending Hamas. The question is, did Hamas commit genocide?
As evil as they are, I do not think they committed genocide. I think most would agree.
But they meet the same of OP's criteria as Israel. Hence, those criteria are not enough to establish that Israel committed genocide. (That does not mean Israel did nothing wrong!)
What Hamas did, was terror act, not genocide. What Israel does is war with Hamas in Urban territory where civilian to militant ratio 2:1 is considered to be much better than average urban warfare.
It may be frustrating that these talking points don’t work on Lemmy. Better luck next genocide.
Like if you squint at the numbers hard enough you cannot see starving children or murdered aid workers? Maybe that's why I keep hearing about how they're killing journalists.
Every conflict is a genocide if you squint your eyes hard enough
Not sure where you're getting those figures since the people keeping track of deaths were killed months ago.
Fucking ghoul
There are Hamas estimates of total death (~35,000). UN estimates are just Hamas estimates. There are Israel estimates ~30,000. Hamas estimates are for all deaths (including from natural causes and including due to Hamas rockets falling in Palestine). So the numbers are quite similar. I have seen different estimates how many Hamas militants were killed. The smallest is ~13K. If we take the largest number for total population killed (35K) then it is 22K civilians and 13K militants, with the ratio less than 2:1.
Two questions regarding your assertions
What are your sources(assuming they exist) for the estimates on militants killed?
How are your sources (again assuming they exist) defining militants vs civilians?
Displacement based on ethnicity and combat also counts
It is called ethnic cleansing in this case, not genocide.
You uhh ... You switched those ratios around there bud.
In what sense? I am stating that less than two civilians are killed for every militant.
It’s genocide dickhead. Can’t believe I still have to vote for this mother fucker.
I appreciate you still voting though, mate. The alternative is far worse and that's terrifying that our alternative to supporting a literal genocide is even worse.
It's also not just voting against Trump.
Biden on climate is an A student. The inflation reduction act, according to basically every climate wonk, gives us a real chance at achieving necessary goals both under its regime and thanks to further future legislation it certainly unlocks. Things are looking less bad right now than they have for a long time in spite of all the worsening indicators. And it's written with intense virtuous cycles built-in that will make it VERY sticky policy once it builds up a couple of years worth of inertia. The fact that he got it past an overtly hostile senate that had at least 51 anti-science, anti-climate, fossil fuel shills turning up to vote is nothing short of a policy miracle.
Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to reverse everything that could still be reversed about the IRA (a frustratingly large amount, unfortunately, could still be undone by executive fiat thanks to its still-developing political base). He's vowed to double down on every kind of fossil fuel subsidy. He's vowed to restore coal power even though it's horrible for everyone involved and the most expensive kind of energy production. He's vowed to fight windmills just because he doesn't like their aesthetics -- literal quixotic shit.
I won't defend Biden on Israel for even one millisecond. His position is heinous. It's evil. And if he loses in November, it will almost certainly be the reason why and he'll deserve it. But it will probably also spell actual global war and apocalypse fueled by climate within all of our lifetimes. It may sound dramatic, but a Trump win will bring us from feast to famine and may spell the actual end of our civilization.
Lol, Biden is not an A student for climate.
Regardless of who's in charge, we are still on track for environmental disaster unless we completely get rid of infinite growth capitalism. Joe Biden sure as heck isn't going to do that.
I'm sick and tired of moderates thinking that our planet being uninhabitable is some sort of worthy compromise for the ownership class.
Why not vote for him, then protest for his removal after Trump is imprisoned?
Like that's gonna happen.
We should all gather together at congress. Like early Jan. The 6th maybe? /s
God they all just fucking suck so much. Do you want the turd sandwich or the talking douche?
Yeah, this is going to be the worst vote I've ever had to cast. It really fucking sucks.
Trump is worse in this issue, and hundreds of others... But fuck them both.
Surprise, what would you expect from 50 year politician veteran?
It is a war and an urban warfare with civilian to combatant death ratio less than 2:1, while according to civiliansinconflict.org, typical ratio is more like 10:1.
You might want to argue it is an unjustified war, but genocide it is not.
It’s genocide dickhead.
Wow, your intelligence is blinding. You should be careful with that.
You might want to make up definitions for genocide but in 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Then technically, ALL wars are genocide.
EDIT: so many downvotes, so little arguments against it. Predictable as it gets.
The key feature is the first part about "intent to destroy." Russia isn't trying to destroy the concept of Ukraine, either as an ethnicity or a country (they just want it to be a puppet-state obedient to their dictates). The US wasn't trying to destroy the concept of Vietnam or Vietnamese people.
Other people could draw different conclusions I guess, but to me it's undeniable that Israel's goal is to steadily destroy the whole concept of Palestine, with maybe some isolated individuals of Palestinian ethnicity still surviving in some location inside or outside Israel, but with Palestine itself completely erased.
They are forcefully removing children and telling them they are Russian. Which is exactly part of the quoted definition from the comment you are replying to.
Yeah, fair enough; maybe I picked a wrong example for one of my examples. I think most of the time, it's not that way though. Not that I'm saying that makes war good or anything.
Actually, Putin does want to destroy the concept of Ukraine and he said it is not a real country.
Putin absolutely wants to destroy Ukraine. The definition above defines all wars that have ever happened.
Woah I think I just saw some neurons firing
Yes the intent matters. Israel intent is to destroy Hamas. That’s not genocide.
It is when they consider every Palestinian to be hamas (and anyone who they don't like on a particular day)
And her we come back to civilian vs militants kill ratio, which is much lower than average numbers for urban warfare. You statement is just not supported by statistics.
Yes because they consider anyone they kill hamas
Intent does not matter when the direct results of premeditated actions slaughter children and innocent civilians. These aren't mistakes, they are literally being explained by Israel as the war rages on as collateral damage.
If this is acceptable on the world stage, then the only people "winning" in the near future will be government officials and very high ranking military personnel. What's the point of peace when it comes at such a cost?
The amount of aid alone that Israel continues to block, and even destroy, is absolutely sickening.
It wasn’t really in question when this was published back in October. It was genocide then and it continues to be genocide.
“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.””
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
These are act of genocide. True, but the intent matters too (and I am sure it is described in the document you are linking to). And destruction of Hamas is not the intent compatible with genocide. If Israel wants to destroy citizens of Gaza as a group, then it is doing really shitty job, since somehow the civilian to military ratio is well below expectations for urban warfare.
Which are also what Hamas perpetrated on 10/7.
But what about….
Yes we know that Hamas is awful, evil, etc. That doesn’t give a moral pass to do just whatever to people who aren’t Hamas.
You're right. Both sides are awful, and neither side gets a pass. Both sides have been accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the ICC.
That said, neither side has been accused of genocide by the ICC. The difference between "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" is very important to some (for good reason), but not very important to others (also for good reason).
We're not selling weapons to Hamas.
That doesn't affect whether or not Hamas committed genocide.
And how does that absolve Israel?
Hamas is not generally considered to have committed genocide, which suggests that the definition of genocide does not depend only on those three factors.
And how does that absolve Israel?
Yes, I already know that people disagree on whether Israel is committing genocide.
I thought New Coke was better. But consensus reality disagrees, as it does concerning the Palestinian genocide accusation.
Consensus means a general agreement. There is no consensus on this issue, it is a matter of active debate.
Time will tell:
I'm confused, why are you acting like anyone here is defending Hamas? One foul deed does not make up for another. Israel is figuratively and literally shooting through civilians in order to kill Hamas. How is that acceptable?
Imagine if the police handled hostage situations like this. Some crazy guy pulls one of your loved ones away from you, puts a gun to their head, and threatens to fire... So the police just shoot them both.
Would you accept that? Would you thank the officer that shot them both?
I don't think anyone is defending Hamas. The question is, did Hamas commit genocide?
As evil as they are, I do not think they committed genocide. I think most would agree.
But they meet the same of OP's criteria as Israel. Hence, those criteria are not enough to establish that Israel committed genocide. (That does not mean Israel did nothing wrong!)
What Hamas did, was terror act, not genocide. What Israel does is war with Hamas in Urban territory where civilian to militant ratio 2:1 is considered to be much better than average urban warfare.
It may be frustrating that these talking points don’t work on Lemmy. Better luck next genocide.
Like if you squint at the numbers hard enough you cannot see starving children or murdered aid workers? Maybe that's why I keep hearing about how they're killing journalists.
Every conflict is a genocide if you squint your eyes hard enough
Not sure where you're getting those figures since the people keeping track of deaths were killed months ago.
Fucking ghoul
There are Hamas estimates of total death (~35,000). UN estimates are just Hamas estimates. There are Israel estimates ~30,000. Hamas estimates are for all deaths (including from natural causes and including due to Hamas rockets falling in Palestine). So the numbers are quite similar. I have seen different estimates how many Hamas militants were killed. The smallest is ~13K. If we take the largest number for total population killed (35K) then it is 22K civilians and 13K militants, with the ratio less than 2:1.
Two questions regarding your assertions
What are your sources(assuming they exist) for the estimates on militants killed?
How are your sources (again assuming they exist) defining militants vs civilians?
Displacement based on ethnicity and combat also counts
It is called ethnic cleansing in this case, not genocide.
You uhh ... You switched those ratios around there bud.
In what sense? I am stating that less than two civilians are killed for every militant.