Its only a genocide if it comes from the third reich. Anything else is just sparkling ethnic cleansing.
Turkey: See I told you guys
Japan, after decimating Ainu people and brutally murdering Chinese and Korean people in the occupied territories: "uwu"
It's probably all the radiation.
Being on the wrong side of history on the same topic 75 year apart
Every Jew in modern day Germany...
They are already. Antisemitic violence has been on the rise here since October 7. Antisemites see Israel do a thing and think “I know, let's hurt some Jews”
I think the bigger problem is Germany arresting Jews for antisemitism.
?
Protesting Israel is considered antisemitism in Germany even if you're Jewish. Real antisemitism is also on the rise but all pro-Palestinian protests are also lumped in. Anti-Zionist jews (Jewish Voice for Peace, etc) always on the forefront of these marches.
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.
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.
(Preface: I am team genocide. I also live in Germany. Germany's politics are a disgrace, but I digress.)
What annoys me about this is that this discussion gets so much media attention and focus, while it doesn't matter in this very moment. I understand that there are implications if it will be defined as a genocide. But right now people are being killed every day en masse and they frankly give a crap about whether they died in a mass murder or terrorist attack or a genocide.
It reminds me of the early days of the Ukraine war when everyone was so obsessed with comparing Putin to Hitler (Putler is still a popular term) and the discussion was high on whether Putins actions amount to fascism or not, with a lot of internet laymen but also experts on that subject chiming in. When I asked a half Russian, half Ukrainian what their opinion was, their reply was something like "who the fuck cares? Call it a chicken pea pie, nobody cares, people are being killed, I don't give a crap. Somewhen in the future people will be looking back and asking the same question, but it doesn't matter right now." And it stuck with me.
If I understand correctly, the ICJ will rule again on the case in a couple of years (?), which obviously isn't relevant right now. It seems like the ruling would have an aftermath in retrospect but even if they ruled it were a genocide today, nothing much would change directly - but please correct me if I am wrong here.
But what definitely doesn't matter is what we think. What matters is what is happening. And it doesn't need a name to be evil and detrimental.
Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they'd have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it's of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that's not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.
Ok, this sounds valid. But what would oblige them to stop them from delivering weapons if the ICJ rules it is a genocide? Is there any legal obligation, can they denounce the ruling?
If you mean acknowledge in a sense of civilian/political acknowledgement, then my issue with it is that it shouldn't be necessary to be this anal about some definition. It's splitting hairs on cut off heads. Supporting mass murder is wrong in the context of genocide as well as outside of it. It shouldn't be necessary to convince the governments that it is a genocide to convince them to stop supplying weapons.
The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):
"A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party"
Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they'd have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.
Thank you, that is a very helpful insight!
crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements
Why do we then seem to hear only about the genocide controversy? Wouldn't it be easier/faster/more obvious to argue for all the other crimes mentioned above?
That's because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It's basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you're willing to see things as they are.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I'm genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)
terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.
Especially when the terrorists come from an area which the victim has effective control over. It's a police matter, not a 2,000 pound bomb matter.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?
Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?
Here's South Africa's 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.
American companies allegedly kept on working with Nazi Germany after the US entered the war. Therefore, unless Israel gets on the UN stand and says, "Yes, we're committing genocide and y'all's are next" no one will let non-white deaths affect the bottom line.
I dunno, can we trust them? Agree tho; people are dying and it needs to stop no matter what we call it, even if there were no larger implications; its fucking pointless and needs to stop.
I hope I won't be remembered for this quote. I'll choose my phrasing better in the future.
"I (...) won't be (...) better in the future. "
-volvoxvsmarla
I need to stop digging, my grave is already big enough to fit a walrus
I need to stop ███ing, my ███ is already big enough to f███ a walrus
Well, he is right, its mass murdering, but not genocide.
Wait until we find his 2012 Twitter handle calling everyone but Titans unnecessary
If I randomly kill all humans it would be genocide. I absolutely hate the common usage of the word, but killing all humans definitely would be genocide.
It's still genocide if somebody survives. Otherwise Holocaust wouldn't be a genocide.
Killing 50% of any one people is genocide, right? For example, the Nazis killed up to 50% of European Romani people and it is classified as a genocide.
Let's assume killing 50% of n peoples is genocide.
Since killing 50% of n peoples is genocide, killing 50% of n+1 peoples must also be genocide, else a number N would exist such that killing 50% of N - 1 peoples is genocide but killing 50% of N peoples is not. The existence of such a number N would be quite contradictory, as it would imply one could undo genocide by killing more people. Additionally, if one were to first kill 50% of N - 1 people and then kill 50% of one more people some time later, both events would be classified as genocide, since killing 50% of one people is assumed to be genocide.
Therefore, Thanos did in fact commit genocide.
Israel: [Murdering journalists and foreign aid workers] see? It's not only Palestinians, it's random.
Genocide, as in the legal definition, requires intent. As far as I see it Germany is not even trying to deny anything Israel did or does, or argue evidence in any other way, all the government is basically doing is saying "Your honour, our client can't have intent because they're demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity". Not in that many words, but to that effect.
And a sane person/nation would willingly engage in genocide? Insanity doesn't negate intent, only ones ability to distinguish reality or prevent themselves from carrying out actions they know to be immoral. Inb4 India, China, the USA, and Russia of course but you take my point?
With individuals, criminal insanity means that you can't be held accountable on account of not being able to tell good from wrong: Lacking that ability, you cannot have an intent to do wrong. It's also not a get out of jail free card, it's quite often a get locked into a closed institution for an indeterminate amount of time card, until the doctors decide that you're not a danger to yourself or society. Being judged criminally insane can turn a five-year sentence into de facto life.
And it's not like I personally agree that the notion is really applicable to a people, or that it should be considered when it comes to the genocide convention, but damn someone has to be their defence lawyer -- they certainly aren't capable of defending themselves, pretty much everything they say just makes people more mad, justifiably so. Given Germany's history don't blame us for taking on that role.
The thing about insanity is made up by the person eho posted that comment. What they actually say is that Israel's intent is to defend themselves against the armed attacks by the Hamas, so self-defense, and not to commit a genocide.
That's such a weird take. I mean you're right, that is exactly the argument, but it doesn't hold any water. To defend against Hamas attacks, Israel would need a huge border fence (check), a vastly superior military (check), constant surveillance on Gaza (check), Iron Dome (check), and even morally questionable methods like full control over the Palestinian population registry to track criminals (check). The fact that they had all those and still failed self-defense just adds to the argument that killing tens of thousands of civilians and destroying the majority of civilian infrastructure (while making the vast majority unusable) and completely debilitating the medical infrastructure and blocking humanitarian aid (also via criminal methods) and
Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
is actually genocide.
Your honour, our client can't have intent because they're demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity". Not in that many words, but to that effect.
That's completely made up, either by you or by another person. What they actually say is that Israel's intent is to defend against the armed attacks of the Hamas, not to commit a genocide.
More like: "Your honor, our client is just trying to defend themselves, they are not doing this to commit a genocide"
Mere defensive intent does not match up with the evidence unless you assume psychosis, and Germany very much is not denying the evidence.
That's why I said "in not that many words".
Germany provided Israel with anti-tank weapons and also training muniton. That's it (according to official statements). Doesn't sound like something you could commit a genocide with to me...
That's a spark, not the kindling, much less the oil we poured on top of it. Without that, the "holocaust oil", Israelis would probably be like French levels of patriotic today: Occasionally annoying but harmless and also mostly charming.
it's not genocide, it's war crimes: Germany, 2024
If it weren't tragic, it would be funny.
Germany: "Fucking casuals, you call that a genocide!"
germany really said
I guess they have fairly high standards when it comes to genicide....
In hindsight this should have been posted in the political meme section not here.
My apologies, I'm new to lemmy. Thank you for your patience yall, I'll do better.
A shitpost's a shitpost damnit
great meme OP or should i say groß meme!
Germany, are you going to be responsible for EVERY FUCKING World War you humans fight in!?! Liiiike feck.
I don't get this WW3 talk that seems to only be here on Lemmy. Like, does anyone actually expect any countries with significant global influence to line up behind Hamas?
The closest I can think of is Iran, and they're a regional power at best, and they prefer to work behind the scenes.
No, this will be a nasty little "tempest in a teacup" as always, with lots of onlookers wagging fingers but doing nothing. This is what all neighbouring nations are already doing - in fact they love the fact that Israel's disproportionate response is damaging their reputation. They're more than happy to stand by and watch, as they're the ones who set Gaza up as a punching bag in the first place.
Ukraine is far more likely to evolve into a global conflict, especially with Ukraine's position weakening and Poland chomping at the bit to jump in.
Look if Germany isn't evil, is it even a World War sequel. Come on, the writers need to stay consistent
Like, does anyone actually expect any countries with significant global influence to line up behind *Hamas*?
Do you seriously think WWI happened because countries "lined up behind" Gavrilo Princip?
Do you know of any countries that have a defensive alliance with Hamas?
Is all champaigne from france?
If Germany's not on the wrong(er) side, its just a sparkling global conflict.
😂 but also 😭
Staatsräson 🫠
Germany moment
it took me way too long to figure out the joke on this one.
I'll see myself out now.
That is one of Germanys foreign politics problems that for historic reasons it cannot critizise whatever Israel does. If they started beheading children in Jerusalem or bombed orphanages, the German government will turn a blind eye.
Should say "Genocide Denial Expert" in that plaque.
We should cancel Israel on the internet already
Right now it seems like the effect of people who got bullied in the past is likely to bully people in the future
It would be genocide if they were targeting a particular ethnic group. And please remind me why it's more important to spend UN session time trying to decide whether it it genocide and not, idk, actually taking actions to stopping the war?
They are targeting Palestinians, a particular ethnic group. That's why they are executing unarmed civilians, too bad they got caught when they "felt threatened" by murdering shirtless fleeing Israeli hostages the soldiers thought were Palestinians.
"Gaza beachfront property" is already being carved up.
21% of Israel's population is Arab, but I don't see them being rounded up for the gas chambers.
Neither are they attacking the eastern chunk of Palestine, which in ethnically identical.
This is a war between nations.
So no gas chambers = no Palestinian genocide? That's one hell of a leap.
Also West Bank Palestinians are being displaced and attacked by "settlers". That's another war crime.
They have tried to stop the war... With Ceasefire votes... That even the US no longer vetoes..
The next best thing is that UN committees can investigate and identify genocide without it necessarily being vetoed. Once the UN and especially ICJ identify such genocide, that adds global pressure; such global pressure leads to supporters of Israel to reconsider holding Israel's hands; hence why the US in an unprecedented move has stepped further away from Israel than it has for decades. People don't understand just how closely-linked Israel and US have been. I never would've thought a sitting US President would say a bad word about Israel/Bibi without fear of major backlash. We're certainly at an inflection point — and it's about fucking time.
Edit: Also, let's not all pretend we're human rights lawyers who can definitively define what is and what isn't genocide. If the ICJ took the case up and thought there was merit in the case, then one should probably hold their tongue; after all, according to the ICC:
First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Note: National; note religious; note "whole OR in part" On the flip-side, then we'd have to say Hamas wasn't carrying out an attempt of genocide with October 7th, since they killed Palestinian Muslims among the Jewish population.
It's kind of a moot point. At this point Israel has committed something around 20 October 7ths in the number of civilian deaths they've incurred in Gaza. With an estimated 80:20 civilian-combatant death ratio according to US figures, that's well-above average. Forgetting the fact that more aid workers have died in this war than any previous one in decades... This is a travesty. So the question remains: If we're all pro-civilian and anti-terrorist... Even if Israel didn't do anything in Gaza and just enhanced its border protections, then what are the odds when looking at it from a quantifiable standpoint Hamas would be able to commit another 20 (and counting) October 7ths? (forgetting the fact that even before October 7th the IDF committed the vast-majority of civilian casualties for decades).
Russia and China never vetoed a ceasefire only an American bill that endorsed israel committing collective punishment.
What kind of shady shit are you pulling to try to side-step the fact that this was, by definition, a ceasefire? Yes, China and Russia vetoed a ceasefire.
Also let's not pretend Russia and China are acting out of humanitarian interest.
(Also, choosing between no ceasefire and Israel committing collective punishment, or a ceasefire and israel committing collective punishment — welp, I'd surmise the latter is better.)
No, the US resolution was distinctly bullshit and did not call for an immediate ceasefire. The previous resolutions that the US vetoed did. Let's not pretend the US proposed this version of a resolution out of humanitarian interest.
"Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza"
Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S.-sponsored United Nations resolution supporting “an immediate and sustained cease-fire” in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza
???
It's a misleading headline, whether deliberate or not. Read the context of the resolution. It was a highly conditional ceasefire proposal that would require Gaza to give up all hostages while Israel would be permitted to continue controlling the region. Not immediate and clearly untenable for Palestinians. The US submitted the proposal knowing it would not pass just so they can act like they're trying to negotiate peace, only being shot down by the usual bad guys. It's a propaganda tactic and it's clearly working.
I acknowledge your point and agree there is contradiction in AP and Reuters' headline. On the other hand release of hostages is kind of a given to accept a sustained ceasefire. Hamas must come to the table in some capacity. After all, it isn't really even the hostages that are preventing Israel from bombing Gaza into oblivion. And it isn't the hostages that is spurring public outcry, but rather the death of Palestinian civilians already occurring. So anything that advances the protections of those civilians should be paramount, and that includes hostages.
The text demanded “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”. It also demanded the release of hostages but did not make a truce dependent on them being freed, as Washington had previously demanded.
Not sure I agree with that personally, nor that China and Russia are some sort of concerned humanitarian forces in the region, but alas.
I agree with much of what you're saying, as well. With Israel holding all the cards, I just find it worrying that Gaza would be forced to give up its one and only leverage. We've already seen that Israel does not care if hostages are involved when attacking a location. It's hard to imagine how much more aggressive they will be when the risk of Israeli collateral damage is removed from the equation.
Can you blame them? This is what happens when you use the metric system
Imperial coping™
Everyone seems to be forgetting who started this in the first place.
Israel is sure as hell gonna finish it
Everyone seems to be forgetting who started this in the first place.
Israel?
try again
Ah - You must be referring to the ones that funded and backed Hamas's rise to power over the secular moderates with predictable results...
Israel.
Israel?
History didn't start on Oct 7th.
I'm inclined to believe they have the expertise and experience to make this claim.
In a world where they don't have their own agenda (e.g. military income), I'd agree.
In THIS world, where the AfD has a considerable voice and the government blocks itself on gender inclusive language and rather does nothing, I don't. Let's not call it genocide, then we don't have to act. Let's not be too hasty about Putin so we don't have to send any help. Let's think about weed legalization for half a decade to be sure.
I think they're being obstructive on purpose.
Ofc they are being obstructive on purpose.
War is good business.
So are illegal drugs.
Politicians are often on the side of "what makes the most money to the people who give me money", I've found. Wish it weren't so.
I'm not. They've lied about this shit before.
Glad to see Germany addressing the conflict rationally, unlike half of Lemmy which just screams "genocide!" in every thread.
Still waiting to hear an explanation for why there are no Jews in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt, when there were historical populations in those countries (hint: it's the G word)
You mean that G word that happened right after Israel came into existence and proceeded to demonstrate its intent to conquer by immediately disregarding its own borders with Palestine?
Genocide ain't it no matter who's doing it and for what reason, but it's real fuckin' convenient to just ignore a major instigating factor that just happens to be the country you're trying to apologism for.
You mean after the Arab neighbours started a G on the jews as soon as the Brits left?
Sure the jews aren't much better but it's clear they'd be G'd themselves if it wasn't for their weapons
Jewish people from all over the world (not only parts of Europe invaded by Nazi Germany) were brought there to displace the Arab population that was forced to flee after a campaign of terrorist attacks.
The different religions didn't have much beef with each other until that ethnic cleansing by religious fanatics who actually think that specific strip of desert land was gifted to them by god.
The only people who committed Jewish genocide were the Nazis. That's why if at all a Jewish state should have been carved out from German territory and not have Arabs pay with their homeland.
Jews went there on their own. In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Those from the Ottoman empire who didn't were largely genocided by their muslim neighbours to 'punish' them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that "different religions didn't have much beef" is complete bs.
Not to say the zionist jews aren't among the worst people as well, of course
Jews went there on their own.
To displace the native population. That's a war crime.
In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Not genocide, though. Unlike what's happening to Palestinians now which is another coordinated effort to get rid of them. The civilians are systematically attacked and pushed towards Egypt for that reason.
‘punish’ them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that “different religions didn’t have much beef” is complete bs.
When I write that “different religions didn’t have much beef” before the creation of Israel by religious fanatics, any action that happens afterwards is no counter argument to that.
Yeah, I think this idea comes from not really knowing much history then.
As long as there are different religions, there's been religious beef.
Jews living as minorities in predominantly islamic countries have experienced this by various degrees. Islamic law demands that they always be treated as second class citizens and, to no surprise, they have. And in certain periods in certain places, this was spiced up with some forced conversion or genocide.
Read up on this for a nice example. It's like claiming black African slaves had a nice life in the US until some troublemakers started demanding equal rights.
The mass migration towards Palestine and zionist efforts to create a majority jewish state there aren't a pinnacle of humanity, but it's important to know where it comes from
As an atheist I'm far from being an Islam defender but a special tax for "book religions" other than Islam and bans on certain jobs isn't genocide and really not an excuse to displace or even murder a Muslim population who wasn't even the ruling class that made those laws in the first place.
Islam isn't treating Judaism and Christianity the way it would treat polytheists like Hindus. Now that's a whole other can of worms but Palestinian genocide is inexcusable no matter how much anyone tries to justify it belittle it.
If you don't see having to choose between conversion or death, with hundreds of thousands killed, as genocide, what would you call it?
What about being killed in the street for wearing shoes as a jew?
What about legally being allowed to genocide jews because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman?
That's a strange idea of religions living peacefully together
What about legally being allowed to genocide jews because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman?
That's a bullshit lie. There was no Jewish genocide "because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman". Either you don't know what a genocide is and actively decide to stay uninformed or you're spreading propaganda. The only Jewish genocide happened in Europe at the hands of Nazis. Scattered instances of violent crimes are abhorrent but not genocide. Equating both borders on Holocaust denial because it belittles actual genocide.
And no, the Herero and Nama genocide wasn't a genocide
Those were practice rounds?
Sparkling Genocide
Its was one, du Lurch. We deliberately drove 80.000 People into the fucking desert and watched as they starved.
They should just give all of Palestine to Israel and be done with it. Give the Palestinians reservations in the US or Canada and just let the Jews live in peace. It's not like Israel is going to cause any problems since it would have all of Israel for itself at that point.
Ah yes, complete the ethnic cleansing of the region... What a wonderfully ethical suggestion /s
Absolutely deranged take.
They should just give all of Palestine to Israel and be done with it.
It already is Israeli territory. There is no state of Palestine. Attempts to formalize statehood were vetoed by the US on Israel's request. Israel opposes Palestinian statehood. There are two formally autonomous regions on Israeli ground, West Bank and Gaza, but those aren't states.
Just give all of Israel to Palestine. It belongs to the Palestinian people. The former Israelis can live in Palestine--there were already Palestinian Jews--but they do not deserve an Israeli government, and ought to give the Palestinians their homes back.
Forgot to say: Is your username "cumskin_genocide"? I'm not using it as an argument, just amused
I don't agree with it, but at least people would stop being slaughtered like cattle.
Hamas supporters so deranged that they're trying to use the past to guilt today's Germans.
When you say Hamas supporter, do you mean netanyahu?
As a German: I think it really is not our job to criticise Israel/the jewish people. There are about 200 other countries that are capable of voicing their opinions. I seriously doubt Hamas left Israel much of a choice, though. They are still keeping and mistreating hostages. What is Israel supposed to do? Passively standing by and watching their hostages being impregnated?
What is Israel supposed to do? Passively standing by and watching their hostages being impregnated?
No, obviously not.
Killing international aid workers, Palestinian men, women, and children indiscriminately doesn't seem like a viable solution either and calling everyone who criticizes your military policy "anti-Semitic" is not what you should do either.
what about the genocide claim buddy bud
Whatabout the hair in your butt?
my butt hair is more on topic that your comment my guy
don't forget to wear that keffiyeh!
What the fuck is a "keffiyeh"?
But it's not so simple and the media reporting is sometimes super biased and misrepresenting things. For example the aid workers that got killed. Before that happened the convoi got hijacked by Hamas fighters that actually started firing first. Somehow all the reports leave out that quite important detail.
But it's not so simple and the media reporting is sometimes super biased and misrepresenting things.
Is the best military policy at that point to just wipe out the entire lot of them? Including the aid workers?
Also, I noticed you haven't even acknowledged anything about the innocent men, women, and children that have been brutally killed on camera time and time again, for all the world to see, broadcast live, in some instances. Children are Hamas fighters now.
But who gives a shit, amirite? Every critical Goyim opinion is just Jew-hate now according to the Israeli government. They can do no wrong. Israel Uber Alles is the only opinion that is not "Anti-Semitic".
No of course it is not the best policy, that's not what I said. However it changes the story quite substantially in that a big share of the blame should be attributed also to Hamas. And leaving that part out is super dishonest.
I do acknowledge also the civilian casualties and it's a tragedy of course. I was just pointing out one example of bad reporting and I'm sure if you look closely there are many more cases where civilians died mainly because Hamas was hiding among them. So if you mention the deaths I feel you can't leave out that part. But mostly what I'm trying to say is it's not black & white and there simply are no good options for Israel: either give in to Hamas human shield tactics (for which Hamas basically takes all of Gaza hostage) or accept civilian deaths. It's a bad position and I don't know the answer, but I can understand that letting Hamas get away with everything is also not an option.
ALL OF THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS AND THEIR MILITARY AND POLITICAL PROXY MOVEMENTS (THEIR PARTIES OF GOD) ARE ANTITHETICAL TO FREE AND OPEN SOCIETIES.
I've sufficiently "cleared my throat" now.
In my opinion, Hezbollah and Hamas are proxies for the Shiah Iranians to destabilize the normalization of Israeli relations with their Sunni neighbors. The zionists also benefit from the sundering of any lasting political stability.
The Hamas, the right-wing zionist movement, and the Netanyahu administration historically and currently enable each others barbarity. The Israeli government in this latest conflict has an order of magnitude (at least) of innocent blood on its hands, and my government (and others) enables that.
The CIA calls it "blowback".
Hamas hiding amongst civilians doesn't account for the slaughter I've seen, again, sometimes on live broadcast. There were four boys who were vaporized by the Israelis just recently. I saw zero Hamas hiding amongst them. I haven't seen any videos of them with hostages, Kalashnikovs, or RPGs. But clearly they must have been Hamas fighters. Israel never gets it wrong!
Willfully or unintentionally, the objective is clear: in public discourse, use active agents and useful idiots to obfuscate. The Israeli government and its military cannot be seen as solely culpable for any situation even with evidence in individual cases pointing to the contrary. Any critique of Israel needs a "Whatabout _____________?"
A pox on both their houses certainly, but this time, Bibi's first.
I agree with most of what you said. I'm not saying that the extend of the military campaign is justified or that the current balancing of objectives between saving civilians and fighting Hamas is fine and reasonable. Still to me indeed the current situation is not solely on Israel. The october attacks, the hostages and the rockets flying from Gaza to Israel are facts that did happen just as well as the killings of civilians in Gaza. We shouldn't just ignore that.
That looks like a really objective website there
As a German, I feel like, we should be capable of seeing 10th of thousands of people die, including reporters, aid workers and literal children, and fathom that this…
is bad.
Youre gonna have to be a bit more specific in your defense. They have been killing all Palestinians, have been saying that all Palestinians are Hamas (including kids), and have said multiple times they want to wipe them off the face of the earth.
How is that not genocide?
Benjamin Netanyahu has in recent days called on politicians to choose “their words carefully” so as not to give ammunition ahead of the hearing in The Hague, Vaturi on Wednesday reaffirmed his calls to “wipe Gaza off the face of the earth,” and added: “Gaza must be burned.” “I stand behind my words... It is better to burn down buildings rather than have [Israeli] soldiers harmed. There are no innocents there,” he said in a radio interview before calling for the “elimination” of the estimated 100,000 Palestinians left in northern Gaza. “I have no mercy for those who are still there. We need to eliminate them,” added Vaturi, who belongs to Likud, the right-wing party led by Netanyahu.
They are 2 million in gaza. Hamas (oh so trustworthy source...) says Israel killed over 30000 thousand.
That's 1.5%.
Palestinians are near extinction I tell you!
It's about the intent
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
That's still a large number of people, and we don't have to wait until it's a significant percentage of them to call it a genocide. Make up your own word if you mean something else, this is genocide (successful or not and the extent of it is left to be seen).
If there was an intent to destroy Gaza and all it's inhabitants Israel would have done so already. I probably need to see more justification than some emotional outburst a few days after getting terror attacked and israeli citizens kidnapped.
Your arguments are weak. Yes there is a sad situation where a lot of Palestinians are dying but it's not a genocide.
What do you call ethnically cleansing and starving an entire population? Is that not genocide?
I think Lemmy likes perpetuating a particular propaganda that keeps reiterating the same talking points until they are engraved in your brain. Genocide is an extremely specific judgement that requires both evidence of specific intent and specific action. You can make claims to one but not to both. The intent doesn't match the action.
Again, what so you call ethnically cleansing and starving an entire population?
Its only a genocide if it comes from the third reich. Anything else is just sparkling ethnic cleansing.
Turkey: See I told you guys
Japan, after decimating Ainu people and brutally murdering Chinese and Korean people in the occupied territories: "uwu"
It's probably all the radiation.
Being on the wrong side of history on the same topic 75 year apart
Every Jew in modern day Germany...
They are already. Antisemitic violence has been on the rise here since October 7. Antisemites see Israel do a thing and think “I know, let's hurt some Jews”
I think the bigger problem is Germany arresting Jews for antisemitism.
?
Protesting Israel is considered antisemitism in Germany even if you're Jewish. Real antisemitism is also on the rise but all pro-Palestinian protests are also lumped in. Anti-Zionist jews (Jewish Voice for Peace, etc) always on the forefront of these marches.
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.
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.
(Preface: I am team genocide. I also live in Germany. Germany's politics are a disgrace, but I digress.)
What annoys me about this is that this discussion gets so much media attention and focus, while it doesn't matter in this very moment. I understand that there are implications if it will be defined as a genocide. But right now people are being killed every day en masse and they frankly give a crap about whether they died in a mass murder or terrorist attack or a genocide.
It reminds me of the early days of the Ukraine war when everyone was so obsessed with comparing Putin to Hitler (Putler is still a popular term) and the discussion was high on whether Putins actions amount to fascism or not, with a lot of internet laymen but also experts on that subject chiming in. When I asked a half Russian, half Ukrainian what their opinion was, their reply was something like "who the fuck cares? Call it a chicken pea pie, nobody cares, people are being killed, I don't give a crap. Somewhen in the future people will be looking back and asking the same question, but it doesn't matter right now." And it stuck with me.
If I understand correctly, the ICJ will rule again on the case in a couple of years (?), which obviously isn't relevant right now. It seems like the ruling would have an aftermath in retrospect but even if they ruled it were a genocide today, nothing much would change directly - but please correct me if I am wrong here.
But what definitely doesn't matter is what we think. What matters is what is happening. And it doesn't need a name to be evil and detrimental.
Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they'd have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it's of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that's not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.
Ok, this sounds valid. But what would oblige them to stop them from delivering weapons if the ICJ rules it is a genocide? Is there any legal obligation, can they denounce the ruling?
If you mean acknowledge in a sense of civilian/political acknowledgement, then my issue with it is that it shouldn't be necessary to be this anal about some definition. It's splitting hairs on cut off heads. Supporting mass murder is wrong in the context of genocide as well as outside of it. It shouldn't be necessary to convince the governments that it is a genocide to convince them to stop supplying weapons.
The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):
"A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party"
Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they'd have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.
Thank you, that is a very helpful insight!
Why do we then seem to hear only about the genocide controversy? Wouldn't it be easier/faster/more obvious to argue for all the other crimes mentioned above?
That's because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It's basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you're willing to see things as they are.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I'm genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)
terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.
Especially when the terrorists come from an area which the victim has effective control over. It's a police matter, not a 2,000 pound bomb matter.
This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.
Here's South Africa's 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.
American companies allegedly kept on working with Nazi Germany after the US entered the war. Therefore, unless Israel gets on the UN stand and says, "Yes, we're committing genocide and y'all's are next" no one will let non-white deaths affect the bottom line.
”i am team genocide"
-volvoxvsmarla
I dunno, can we trust them? Agree tho; people are dying and it needs to stop no matter what we call it, even if there were no larger implications; its fucking pointless and needs to stop.
I hope I won't be remembered for this quote. I'll choose my phrasing better in the future.
-volvoxvsmarla
I need to stop digging, my grave is already big enough to fit a walrus
-volvoxvsmarla
Lol please don't; it was hilarious to read.
Well, he is right, its mass murdering, but not genocide.
Wait until we find his 2012 Twitter handle calling everyone but Titans unnecessary
If I randomly kill all humans it would be genocide. I absolutely hate the common usage of the word, but killing all humans definitely would be genocide.
It's still genocide if somebody survives. Otherwise Holocaust wouldn't be a genocide.
Killing 50% of any one people is genocide, right? For example, the Nazis killed up to 50% of European Romani people and it is classified as a genocide.
Let's assume killing 50% of n peoples is genocide.
Since killing 50% of n peoples is genocide, killing 50% of n+1 peoples must also be genocide, else a number N would exist such that killing 50% of N - 1 peoples is genocide but killing 50% of N peoples is not. The existence of such a number N would be quite contradictory, as it would imply one could undo genocide by killing more people. Additionally, if one were to first kill 50% of N - 1 people and then kill 50% of one more people some time later, both events would be classified as genocide, since killing 50% of one people is assumed to be genocide.
Therefore, Thanos did in fact commit genocide.
Israel: [Murdering journalists and foreign aid workers] see? It's not only Palestinians, it's random.
Genocide, as in the legal definition, requires intent. As far as I see it Germany is not even trying to deny anything Israel did or does, or argue evidence in any other way, all the government is basically doing is saying "Your honour, our client can't have intent because they're demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity". Not in that many words, but to that effect.
And a sane person/nation would willingly engage in genocide? Insanity doesn't negate intent, only ones ability to distinguish reality or prevent themselves from carrying out actions they know to be immoral. Inb4 India, China, the USA, and Russia of course but you take my point?
With individuals, criminal insanity means that you can't be held accountable on account of not being able to tell good from wrong: Lacking that ability, you cannot have an intent to do wrong. It's also not a get out of jail free card, it's quite often a get locked into a closed institution for an indeterminate amount of time card, until the doctors decide that you're not a danger to yourself or society. Being judged criminally insane can turn a five-year sentence into de facto life.
And it's not like I personally agree that the notion is really applicable to a people, or that it should be considered when it comes to the genocide convention, but damn someone has to be their defence lawyer -- they certainly aren't capable of defending themselves, pretty much everything they say just makes people more mad, justifiably so. Given Germany's history don't blame us for taking on that role.
The thing about insanity is made up by the person eho posted that comment. What they actually say is that Israel's intent is to defend themselves against the armed attacks by the Hamas, so self-defense, and not to commit a genocide.
That's such a weird take. I mean you're right, that is exactly the argument, but it doesn't hold any water. To defend against Hamas attacks, Israel would need a huge border fence (check), a vastly superior military (check), constant surveillance on Gaza (check), Iron Dome (check), and even morally questionable methods like full control over the Palestinian population registry to track criminals (check). The fact that they had all those and still failed self-defense just adds to the argument that killing tens of thousands of civilians and destroying the majority of civilian infrastructure (while making the vast majority unusable) and completely debilitating the medical infrastructure and blocking humanitarian aid (also via criminal methods) and
is actually genocide.
That's completely made up, either by you or by another person. What they actually say is that Israel's intent is to defend against the armed attacks of the Hamas, not to commit a genocide.
More like: "Your honor, our client is just trying to defend themselves, they are not doing this to commit a genocide"
Mere defensive intent does not match up with the evidence unless you assume psychosis, and Germany very much is not denying the evidence.
That's why I said "in not that many words".
Germany provided Israel with anti-tank weapons and also training muniton. That's it (according to official statements). Doesn't sound like something you could commit a genocide with to me...
The insanity started way before Nazi genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzl%27s_Mauschel_and_Zionist_antisemitism
That's a spark, not the kindling, much less the oil we poured on top of it. Without that, the "holocaust oil", Israelis would probably be like French levels of patriotic today: Occasionally annoying but harmless and also mostly charming.
it's not genocide, it's war crimes: Germany, 2024
If it weren't tragic, it would be funny.
Germany: "Fucking casuals, you call that a genocide!"
germany really said
I guess they have fairly high standards when it comes to genicide....
In hindsight this should have been posted in the political meme section not here.
My apologies, I'm new to lemmy. Thank you for your patience yall, I'll do better.
A shitpost's a shitpost damnit
great meme OP or should i say groß meme!
Germany, are you going to be responsible for EVERY FUCKING World War you humans fight in!?! Liiiike feck.
I don't get this WW3 talk that seems to only be here on Lemmy. Like, does anyone actually expect any countries with significant global influence to line up behind Hamas?
The closest I can think of is Iran, and they're a regional power at best, and they prefer to work behind the scenes.
No, this will be a nasty little "tempest in a teacup" as always, with lots of onlookers wagging fingers but doing nothing. This is what all neighbouring nations are already doing - in fact they love the fact that Israel's disproportionate response is damaging their reputation. They're more than happy to stand by and watch, as they're the ones who set Gaza up as a punching bag in the first place.
Ukraine is far more likely to evolve into a global conflict, especially with Ukraine's position weakening and Poland chomping at the bit to jump in.
Look if Germany isn't evil, is it even a World War sequel. Come on, the writers need to stay consistent
Do you seriously think WWI happened because countries "lined up behind" Gavrilo Princip?
Do you know of any countries that have a defensive alliance with Hamas?
Is all champaigne from france?
If Germany's not on the wrong(er) side, its just a sparkling global conflict.
😂 but also 😭
Staatsräson 🫠
Germany moment
it took me way too long to figure out the joke on this one.
I'll see myself out now.
That is one of Germanys foreign politics problems that for historic reasons it cannot critizise whatever Israel does. If they started beheading children in Jerusalem or bombed orphanages, the German government will turn a blind eye.
At most wag their finger.
https://invidious.lunar.icu/watch?v=sacn_bCj8tQ
https://invidious.lunar.icu/watch?v=UjGK_cclZXI
Should say "Genocide Denial Expert" in that plaque.
We should cancel Israel on the internet already
Right now it seems like the effect of people who got bullied in the past is likely to bully people in the future
It would be genocide if they were targeting a particular ethnic group. And please remind me why it's more important to spend UN session time trying to decide whether it it genocide and not, idk, actually taking actions to stopping the war?
They are targeting Palestinians, a particular ethnic group. That's why they are executing unarmed civilians, too bad they got caught when they "felt threatened" by murdering shirtless fleeing Israeli hostages the soldiers thought were Palestinians.
"Gaza beachfront property" is already being carved up.
21% of Israel's population is Arab, but I don't see them being rounded up for the gas chambers.
Neither are they attacking the eastern chunk of Palestine, which in ethnically identical.
This is a war between nations.
So no gas chambers = no Palestinian genocide? That's one hell of a leap.
Also West Bank Palestinians are being displaced and attacked by "settlers". That's another war crime.
They have tried to stop the war... With Ceasefire votes... That even the US no longer vetoes..
... Russia and China vetoed. Blame them:
Reuters - "Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire"
AP - "Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza"
The next best thing is that UN committees can investigate and identify genocide without it necessarily being vetoed. Once the UN and especially ICJ identify such genocide, that adds global pressure; such global pressure leads to supporters of Israel to reconsider holding Israel's hands; hence why the US in an unprecedented move has stepped further away from Israel than it has for decades. People don't understand just how closely-linked Israel and US have been. I never would've thought a sitting US President would say a bad word about Israel/Bibi without fear of major backlash. We're certainly at an inflection point — and it's about fucking time.
Edit: Also, let's not all pretend we're human rights lawyers who can definitively define what is and what isn't genocide. If the ICJ took the case up and thought there was merit in the case, then one should probably hold their tongue; after all, according to the ICC:
Note: National; note religious; note "whole OR in part" On the flip-side, then we'd have to say Hamas wasn't carrying out an attempt of genocide with October 7th, since they killed Palestinian Muslims among the Jewish population.
It's kind of a moot point. At this point Israel has committed something around 20 October 7ths in the number of civilian deaths they've incurred in Gaza. With an estimated 80:20 civilian-combatant death ratio according to US figures, that's well-above average. Forgetting the fact that more aid workers have died in this war than any previous one in decades... This is a travesty. So the question remains: If we're all pro-civilian and anti-terrorist... Even if Israel didn't do anything in Gaza and just enhanced its border protections, then what are the odds when looking at it from a quantifiable standpoint Hamas would be able to commit another 20 (and counting) October 7ths? (forgetting the fact that even before October 7th the IDF committed the vast-majority of civilian casualties for decades).
Russia and China never vetoed a ceasefire only an American bill that endorsed israel committing collective punishment.
That's equivocation.
Reuters - "Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire"
AP - "Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza"
What kind of shady shit are you pulling to try to side-step the fact that this was, by definition, a ceasefire? Yes, China and Russia vetoed a ceasefire.
Also let's not pretend Russia and China are acting out of humanitarian interest.
(Also, choosing between no ceasefire and Israel committing collective punishment, or a ceasefire and israel committing collective punishment — welp, I'd surmise the latter is better.)
No, the US resolution was distinctly bullshit and did not call for an immediate ceasefire. The previous resolutions that the US vetoed did. Let's not pretend the US proposed this version of a resolution out of humanitarian interest.
???
It's a misleading headline, whether deliberate or not. Read the context of the resolution. It was a highly conditional ceasefire proposal that would require Gaza to give up all hostages while Israel would be permitted to continue controlling the region. Not immediate and clearly untenable for Palestinians. The US submitted the proposal knowing it would not pass just so they can act like they're trying to negotiate peace, only being shot down by the usual bad guys. It's a propaganda tactic and it's clearly working.
I acknowledge your point and agree there is contradiction in AP and Reuters' headline. On the other hand release of hostages is kind of a given to accept a sustained ceasefire. Hamas must come to the table in some capacity. After all, it isn't really even the hostages that are preventing Israel from bombing Gaza into oblivion. And it isn't the hostages that is spurring public outcry, but rather the death of Palestinian civilians already occurring. So anything that advances the protections of those civilians should be paramount, and that includes hostages.
Regardless it's a moot point, for a ceasefire resolution did pass days later:
Not sure I agree with that personally, nor that China and Russia are some sort of concerned humanitarian forces in the region, but alas.
I agree with much of what you're saying, as well. With Israel holding all the cards, I just find it worrying that Gaza would be forced to give up its one and only leverage. We've already seen that Israel does not care if hostages are involved when attacking a location. It's hard to imagine how much more aggressive they will be when the risk of Israeli collateral damage is removed from the equation.
Can you blame them? This is what happens when you use the metric system
Imperial coping™
Everyone seems to be forgetting who started this in the first place.
Israel is sure as hell gonna finish it
Israel?
try again
Ah - You must be referring to the ones that funded and backed Hamas's rise to power over the secular moderates with predictable results...
Israel.
Israel?
History didn't start on Oct 7th.
I'm inclined to believe they have the expertise and experience to make this claim.
In a world where they don't have their own agenda (e.g. military income), I'd agree.
In THIS world, where the AfD has a considerable voice and the government blocks itself on gender inclusive language and rather does nothing, I don't. Let's not call it genocide, then we don't have to act. Let's not be too hasty about Putin so we don't have to send any help. Let's think about weed legalization for half a decade to be sure.
I think they're being obstructive on purpose.
Ofc they are being obstructive on purpose.
War is good business.
So are illegal drugs.
Politicians are often on the side of "what makes the most money to the people who give me money", I've found. Wish it weren't so.
I'm not. They've lied about this shit before.
Glad to see Germany addressing the conflict rationally, unlike half of Lemmy which just screams "genocide!" in every thread.
Still waiting to hear an explanation for why there are no Jews in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt, when there were historical populations in those countries (hint: it's the G word)
You mean that G word that happened right after Israel came into existence and proceeded to demonstrate its intent to conquer by immediately disregarding its own borders with Palestine?
Genocide ain't it no matter who's doing it and for what reason, but it's real fuckin' convenient to just ignore a major instigating factor that just happens to be the country you're trying to apologism for.
You mean after the Arab neighbours started a G on the jews as soon as the Brits left?
Sure the jews aren't much better but it's clear they'd be G'd themselves if it wasn't for their weapons
Jewish people from all over the world (not only parts of Europe invaded by Nazi Germany) were brought there to displace the Arab population that was forced to flee after a campaign of terrorist attacks.
The different religions didn't have much beef with each other until that ethnic cleansing by religious fanatics who actually think that specific strip of desert land was gifted to them by god.
The only people who committed Jewish genocide were the Nazis. That's why if at all a Jewish state should have been carved out from German territory and not have Arabs pay with their homeland.
Jews went there on their own. In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Those from the Ottoman empire who didn't were largely genocided by their muslim neighbours to 'punish' them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that "different religions didn't have much beef" is complete bs.
Not to say the zionist jews aren't among the worst people as well, of course
To displace the native population. That's a war crime.
Not genocide, though. Unlike what's happening to Palestinians now which is another coordinated effort to get rid of them. The civilians are systematically attacked and pushed towards Egypt for that reason.
When I write that “different religions didn’t have much beef” before the creation of Israel by religious fanatics, any action that happens afterwards is no counter argument to that.
Yeah, I think this idea comes from not really knowing much history then.
As long as there are different religions, there's been religious beef.
Jews living as minorities in predominantly islamic countries have experienced this by various degrees. Islamic law demands that they always be treated as second class citizens and, to no surprise, they have. And in certain periods in certain places, this was spiced up with some forced conversion or genocide.
Read up on this for a nice example. It's like claiming black African slaves had a nice life in the US until some troublemakers started demanding equal rights.
The mass migration towards Palestine and zionist efforts to create a majority jewish state there aren't a pinnacle of humanity, but it's important to know where it comes from
As an atheist I'm far from being an Islam defender but a special tax for "book religions" other than Islam and bans on certain jobs isn't genocide and really not an excuse to displace or even murder a Muslim population who wasn't even the ruling class that made those laws in the first place.
Islam isn't treating Judaism and Christianity the way it would treat polytheists like Hindus. Now that's a whole other can of worms but Palestinian genocide is inexcusable no matter how much anyone tries to justify it belittle it.
If you don't see having to choose between conversion or death, with hundreds of thousands killed, as genocide, what would you call it?
What about being killed in the street for wearing shoes as a jew?
What about legally being allowed to genocide jews because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman?
That's a strange idea of religions living peacefully together
That's a bullshit lie. There was no Jewish genocide "because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman". Either you don't know what a genocide is and actively decide to stay uninformed or you're spreading propaganda. The only Jewish genocide happened in Europe at the hands of Nazis. Scattered instances of violent crimes are abhorrent but not genocide. Equating both borders on Holocaust denial because it belittles actual genocide.
PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
So you think historians are lying about what happened under, for instance, the Almohads?
It's about your bs claim that jews were generally having a great time living under islamic regimes
Ironically you pointing towards the nazis is the whataboutism here
[citation needed] specifically for a genocide after a single case of domestic violence.
It's the convert word.
Too rational for Lemmy.
We know genocide, we had one
And no, the Herero and Nama genocide wasn't a genocide
Those were practice rounds?
Sparkling Genocide
Its was one, du Lurch. We deliberately drove 80.000 People into the fucking desert and watched as they starved.
They should just give all of Palestine to Israel and be done with it. Give the Palestinians reservations in the US or Canada and just let the Jews live in peace. It's not like Israel is going to cause any problems since it would have all of Israel for itself at that point.
Ah yes, complete the ethnic cleansing of the region... What a wonderfully ethical suggestion /s
Absolutely deranged take.
It already is Israeli territory. There is no state of Palestine. Attempts to formalize statehood were vetoed by the US on Israel's request. Israel opposes Palestinian statehood. There are two formally autonomous regions on Israeli ground, West Bank and Gaza, but those aren't states.
Just give all of Israel to Palestine. It belongs to the Palestinian people. The former Israelis can live in Palestine--there were already Palestinian Jews--but they do not deserve an Israeli government, and ought to give the Palestinians their homes back.
Forgot to say: Is your username "cumskin_genocide"? I'm not using it as an argument, just amused
I don't agree with it, but at least people would stop being slaughtered like cattle.
Hamas supporters so deranged that they're trying to use the past to guilt today's Germans.
When you say Hamas supporter, do you mean netanyahu?
As a German: I think it really is not our job to criticise Israel/the jewish people. There are about 200 other countries that are capable of voicing their opinions. I seriously doubt Hamas left Israel much of a choice, though. They are still keeping and mistreating hostages. What is Israel supposed to do? Passively standing by and watching their hostages being impregnated?
No, obviously not.
Killing international aid workers, Palestinian men, women, and children indiscriminately doesn't seem like a viable solution either and calling everyone who criticizes your military policy "anti-Semitic" is not what you should do either.
what about the genocide claim buddy bud
Whatabout the hair in your butt?
my butt hair is more on topic that your comment my guy
don't forget to wear that keffiyeh!
What the fuck is a "keffiyeh"?
But it's not so simple and the media reporting is sometimes super biased and misrepresenting things. For example the aid workers that got killed. Before that happened the convoi got hijacked by Hamas fighters that actually started firing first. Somehow all the reports leave out that quite important detail.
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hypzdd3ya
Is the best military policy at that point to just wipe out the entire lot of them? Including the aid workers?
Also, I noticed you haven't even acknowledged anything about the innocent men, women, and children that have been brutally killed on camera time and time again, for all the world to see, broadcast live, in some instances. Children are Hamas fighters now.
But who gives a shit, amirite? Every critical Goyim opinion is just Jew-hate now according to the Israeli government. They can do no wrong. Israel Uber Alles is the only opinion that is not "Anti-Semitic".
No of course it is not the best policy, that's not what I said. However it changes the story quite substantially in that a big share of the blame should be attributed also to Hamas. And leaving that part out is super dishonest.
I do acknowledge also the civilian casualties and it's a tragedy of course. I was just pointing out one example of bad reporting and I'm sure if you look closely there are many more cases where civilians died mainly because Hamas was hiding among them. So if you mention the deaths I feel you can't leave out that part. But mostly what I'm trying to say is it's not black & white and there simply are no good options for Israel: either give in to Hamas human shield tactics (for which Hamas basically takes all of Gaza hostage) or accept civilian deaths. It's a bad position and I don't know the answer, but I can understand that letting Hamas get away with everything is also not an option.
ALL OF THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS AND THEIR MILITARY AND POLITICAL PROXY MOVEMENTS (THEIR PARTIES OF GOD) ARE ANTITHETICAL TO FREE AND OPEN SOCIETIES.
I've sufficiently "cleared my throat" now.
In my opinion, Hezbollah and Hamas are proxies for the Shiah Iranians to destabilize the normalization of Israeli relations with their Sunni neighbors. The zionists also benefit from the sundering of any lasting political stability.
The Hamas, the right-wing zionist movement, and the Netanyahu administration historically and currently enable each others barbarity. The Israeli government in this latest conflict has an order of magnitude (at least) of innocent blood on its hands, and my government (and others) enables that.
The CIA calls it "blowback".
Hamas hiding amongst civilians doesn't account for the slaughter I've seen, again, sometimes on live broadcast. There were four boys who were vaporized by the Israelis just recently. I saw zero Hamas hiding amongst them. I haven't seen any videos of them with hostages, Kalashnikovs, or RPGs. But clearly they must have been Hamas fighters. Israel never gets it wrong!
Willfully or unintentionally, the objective is clear: in public discourse, use active agents and useful idiots to obfuscate. The Israeli government and its military cannot be seen as solely culpable for any situation even with evidence in individual cases pointing to the contrary. Any critique of Israel needs a "Whatabout _____________?"
A pox on both their houses certainly, but this time, Bibi's first.
I agree with most of what you said. I'm not saying that the extend of the military campaign is justified or that the current balancing of objectives between saving civilians and fighting Hamas is fine and reasonable. Still to me indeed the current situation is not solely on Israel. The october attacks, the hostages and the rockets flying from Gaza to Israel are facts that did happen just as well as the killings of civilians in Gaza. We shouldn't just ignore that.
That looks like a really objective website there
As a German, I feel like, we should be capable of seeing 10th of thousands of people die, including reporters, aid workers and literal children, and fathom that this… is bad.
It’s one thing to refrain from commenting but supporting Israel makes it clear that Germany learned nothing.
None of the hostages were raped or are being raped. This is total Birth of a Nation, "They're coming for our white women"_ bullshit.
Maybe because what is happening is not genocide?
Youre gonna have to be a bit more specific in your defense. They have been killing all Palestinians, have been saying that all Palestinians are Hamas (including kids), and have said multiple times they want to wipe them off the face of the earth.
How is that not genocide?
They are 2 million in gaza. Hamas (oh so trustworthy source...) says Israel killed over 30000 thousand.
That's 1.5%.
Palestinians are near extinction I tell you!
It's about the intent
That's still a large number of people, and we don't have to wait until it's a significant percentage of them to call it a genocide. Make up your own word if you mean something else, this is genocide (successful or not and the extent of it is left to be seen).
If there was an intent to destroy Gaza and all it's inhabitants Israel would have done so already. I probably need to see more justification than some emotional outburst a few days after getting terror attacked and israeli citizens kidnapped.
Your arguments are weak. Yes there is a sad situation where a lot of Palestinians are dying but it's not a genocide.
What do you call ethnically cleansing and starving an entire population? Is that not genocide?
I think Lemmy likes perpetuating a particular propaganda that keeps reiterating the same talking points until they are engraved in your brain. Genocide is an extremely specific judgement that requires both evidence of specific intent and specific action. You can make claims to one but not to both. The intent doesn't match the action.
Again, what so you call ethnically cleansing and starving an entire population?
When your argument is trying to explain the technical definition of genocide, you've lost the fucking argument, it's a genocide.
Technically you aren't brain dead but some might say you are brain dead. Is that the same thing?