Recent coverage of Gaza and the West Bank illustrates that, while corporate media occasionally outright call for expelling Palestinians from their land, more often the way these outlets support ethnic cleansing is by declining to call it ethnic cleansing.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Yes, and you can destroy a group by means other than killing its members, such as forced sterilization, systematic abuse, or the transfer of children away from the community. It’s the demo that’s being killed, not necessarily its individual members.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You’re incorrect on this one. Abducting “enemy” children and brainwashing them is genocide. Erasing local language from books and signage is genocide. Part of the definition. You can kill an ethnicity by erasing it and not have to kill a single person.

        • 9bananas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          maybe read the actual convention on genocide instead of relying on a dictionary then?

          because the case of abducted children stated above is explicitly stated in the convention…the dictionary definition you found is simply wrong and incomplete.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            The definition isn’t wrong, they just didn’t read it correctly. Those things in the UN convention are methods that could be used to “cause the destruction of a people”. They’re spelled out to avoid people misinterpreting the definition just like they did.

            • 9bananas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              yes, true, but not exactly why i used the phrasing “wrong AND incomplete”:

              i wrote it that way, because without clarifying that “destruction” means many different things apart form the common interpretation of “to kill”, it’s difficult for a casual reader to know what the convention actually says.

              if anyone wants to shorten the definition to fit into a dictionary, they should be more responsible in their phrasing, so that this exact problem is less likely to occur.

              so i do fault merriam webster here for providing an incomplete, oversimplified definition.