If you’re going to define your movement as anti-genocidal you should really have a firm grasp on what genocide is and who is committing it:
Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:
… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Hamas, what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy, is not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. However, Jews/Israel/Israelis, what Hamas has been clear they intend to destroy, are. Therefore, legally Oct 7 was an act of genocide, and Israel’s war on Hamas is not. Such a designation has nothing to do with body count.
I support Israel because I oppose the genocidal. Binding their hands and preventing them from retaliating in self-defense only serves to support genocidal Hamas by keeping them in power.
“Look at me displacing almost 2 million people and bombing their homes and cities whole to the ground one by one. It’s not a genocide though, because I haven’t explicitely claimed that my goal is to commit a genocide.”
Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.
No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.
A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.
That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.
All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.
Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.
And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.
Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well
Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?
It’s almost as if words mean things and have specific definitions, especially legal ones. Feel free to criticize such behaviors with different accurate words for things you don’t like.
Curious how you moved the goal posts from “not openly stating one’s intent” which was used as justification to claim what Israel is doing is not a Genocide to “not having intent” which is what defines the difference between murder and manslaught.
People are convicted of murder all the time when they didn’t openly said their intention was murder if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was their intention.
So the previous poster’s point holds very well and you just further dug the grave on yours.
Anytime somebody starts quibbling over whether something is technically genocide, they’re an immoral person and nothing they say is of any worth to the human species. I didn’t get past the first sentence you wrote before I clicked away.
You support Israel because you oppose the genocidal.This is one of the most batshit insane things i have read on this site,you really cannot have typed that with a straight face.
Take your hasbara bullshit somewhere else. According to that same organization you took your definition from, an occupying nation like Israel can not claim self defense when attacked
If you’re going to define your movement as anti-genocidal you should really have a firm grasp on what genocide is and who is committing it:
Hamas, what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy, is not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. However, Jews/Israel/Israelis, what Hamas has been clear they intend to destroy, are. Therefore, legally Oct 7 was an act of genocide, and Israel’s war on Hamas is not. Such a designation has nothing to do with body count.
I support Israel because I oppose the genocidal. Binding their hands and preventing them from retaliating in self-defense only serves to support genocidal Hamas by keeping them in power.
“Look at me displacing almost 2 million people and bombing their homes and cities whole to the ground one by one. It’s not a genocide though, because I haven’t explicitely claimed that my goal is to commit a genocide.”
If so then the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Chechnya were all genocides.
When entire civilian populations are bombed or starved, then yes. The US is not free of war crimes. They’re merely immune from the consequences.
Not just the US. Chechnya was invaded by Russia. German civilians were bombed by the UK and USSR.
In fact, it’s hard to find a large-scale modern war that didn’t cause thousands of civilian casualties.
Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.
Are you really suggesting that every asymmetrical war that is conducted successfully is genocide? O.o
No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.
A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.
That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.
I mean, there isn’t any obligation in war to make sure casualties are evenly distributed among both sides.
Normally, a lopsided war ends only when the losing side surrenders.
Now you’re getting it
“Genocide” is just another word for “war”?
When it’s targeted at a specific group of people and there’s such a dramatic power imbalance, yes. Whether modern definitions agree or not.
All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.
So if your definition amounts to a highly favorable balance of power, then all countries at war would aspire to make it a “genocide”.
Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.
And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.
Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well
Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?
It’s almost as if words mean things and have specific definitions, especially legal ones. Feel free to criticize such behaviors with different accurate words for things you don’t like.
If someone punches you to death, declaring they weren’t trying to kill you doesn’t make them any less guilty of murder.
Actually, in the US it could. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.
Curious how you moved the goal posts from “not openly stating one’s intent” which was used as justification to claim what Israel is doing is not a Genocide to “not having intent” which is what defines the difference between murder and manslaught.
People are convicted of murder all the time when they didn’t openly said their intention was murder if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was their intention.
So the previous poster’s point holds very well and you just further dug the grave on yours.
Anytime somebody starts quibbling over whether something is technically genocide, they’re an immoral person and nothing they say is of any worth to the human species. I didn’t get past the first sentence you wrote before I clicked away.
You support Israel because you oppose the genocidal.This is one of the most batshit insane things i have read on this site,you really cannot have typed that with a straight face.
Take your hasbara bullshit somewhere else. According to that same organization you took your definition from, an occupying nation like Israel can not claim self defense when attacked
Sorry to invade your echo chamber with dissent. It must pain you to be reminded that not everyone agrees with you, that must be so hard for you.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. A blockade is not an occupation.