Uh… Did you not hear of that one Lancet study about how it’s likely for every documented death there are 5 undocumented deaths? Do you understand how the Gazan healthcare system has already collapsed and they’re unable to count the dead? Even just taking the current 41k and multiplying them by 5 gives 205 thousand, or more than 10% of Gaza’s population. All of Gaza is in famine, with North Gaza faring the worst, and Israel still refuses to let aid in. How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?
How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?
uh, simple. The definition of genocide as defined in the dictionary is an “ethnic cleansing” and if we assume this to be the “correct” definition, for the sake of argumentative purpose here.
It must follow, as defined that if the conflict were to stop, that israel would stop killing Palestinians. Since this has been going on for like 80 years or something, it’s hard to say, but i think it’s probably fair to say that israel would stop killing people if they came to a peace agreement.
However, this changes a little bit if we pull into the definition of genocide as defined by the UN or something, which is a lot more broad, likely due to legal deliberation, this is extremely common. Now i don’t know of any ruling from the ICC the ICJ, or the UN that classifies this as a “genocide” though i know the ICJ has said that this could very well be genocide. And that the ICC has pushed a warrant containing multiple war crimes for netanyahu.
Though to be fair, i haven’t read into anything the UN has said on this conflict specifically, so i could be mistaken there just due to sheer ignorance lol.
I know numerous “countries” have claimed as such, but i believe that very few have specifically stated as such, there has been a lot of public outcry, and im sure a number of politicians against this. But to my knowledge, only south africa has stated that this “is a genocide” however accurate that quote is, though to be fair again, i don’t know much about this one either.
I mean take a look at South Africa’s case. They have evidence of genocidal acts (causing significant harm to an ethnic group) and genocidal intent (the countless quotes from high ranking Israeli officials calling for genocide). It’s genocide; it’s just that the case is taking a while.
yeah, and if we take a look at south africas case, it’s not “genocide” it appears that it has reasonable extent to be genocide. Which are two different things.
You’re doing guilty until proven innocent here, which, is weird. Even weirder, when i see people calling for the literal denazification of israel.
As far as the two requirements go here, those are two very broad, and not very specific statements, genocidal acts is incredibly broad, so broad in fact that the vast majority of things that would apply, are probably not genocide. Intent is a lot clearer, but then you also have to consider military and governmental intent, rather than just personal statements. Civil intent is also a big problem here as well. I’m not convinced that the majority of israel literally wants to ethnically cleanse palestinians. Or that the governmental figures do to begin with, albeit they aren’t doing themselves a favor when they say super sus shit like that either.
Though this is also the middle east, and from my knowledge, this kind of death toll and fighting is not unusual? They tend to have very aggressive opinions on this stuff for some reason.
so in summary here, you’ve basically said, well, it sort of looks like a duck, and the sound it makes is vaugely similar to a duck, so this weird silhouette behind the sheet here must be a duck, there is no possible alternative in this situation.
Also. wouldn’t it follow, that if the evidence were SO telling in this case, that this legal case would probably be over a little bit quicker than it seems to be taking right now? It’s weird that we’re even deliberating on the verdict before it’s happened, and it’s even weirder that you seem to be 100% confident about it, even though im assuming you have basically the same knowledge level that i do on it.
Maybe i’m wrong, and you’ve written a PHD dissertation on conflict in the middle east, and have extensively studied israel and it’s history, but i’m going to go out on a limb here and say since you’re yelling at me on lemmy, you probably haven’t.
Notice how im not 100% confident on the statements i make? Even though i’d be pretty willing to bet money on this, i’m still not going to authoritatively state it either. It’s not really that hard to just, not be so aggressive about something this vile.
You’re doing guilty until proven innocent here, which, is weird
No, they’re pointing at the video footage of someone committing a crime and accurately describing the crime
YOU are up and down this thread going “well ackshully by my limited definition and the fact that no court has ruled on it means this isn’t genocide so nyeh!” Large chunks of text going in circles to argue for unreality
No, they’re pointing at the video footage of someone committing a crime and accurately describing the crime
yeah but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the legal criminal proceedings. Unfortunately the israel palestine crowd has backed themselves into a corner here claiming that it’s legally genocide, when they have a moderate basis of evidence for this. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single legal proceeding besides the ICJ case brought by south africa.
This is the entire basis of evidence you are working with here.
If i were to shoot you in the head with a gun. That would be a crime. However, i would only be charged with that crime after the courts have been run through and they determine that me shooting you in the head with a gun, is in fact, not legal.
This is vigilante justice to the highest degree because we’re too impatient to do anything other than opinion based colonization because anybody who disagrees with this even moderately is clearly too brainrotted to engage in this thread.
I guess we shouldn’t have intervened in the whole Yugoslavia thing then, I mean, clearly we have to wait until like 40% of the ethnic minority is dead!
i mean, up to 10% is quite a bit. That’s still 90% of the population existing though, so i’m not sure that’s to the levels of genocide, as defined by uh, genocide. Which would be ethnic cleansing.
If we’re going by existing figures, that’s like what, 2.5% of the population. I feel like famines have probably killed more people, and that war has most definitely contributed more deaths to this as well.
I think you misunderstand something. You don’t need to kill everyone for it to be genocide. That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is. The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.
i’m not saying that it has to be either, i just don’t think that calling it a genocide, when you could call it literally hundreds of other things that would be so vastly more accurate than this specific statement, would be a lot more responsible.
But even past that, i’m not convinced that this is going to count as genocide, since genocide would traditionally be an ethnic cleansing, and i feel im not being uncharitable here using that as a definition, considering how many times i’ve seen people call it ethnic cleansing. I have not seen sufficient evidence that demonstrates that as anything more than significant war crimes. Many war crimes even, but not genocide.
That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is.
and to be clear, you aren’t wrong here, you’re correct, but again, they literally haven’t fucking ruled it on it yet (to my knowledge, maybe im dumb and stupid lol) i can’t begin to state how concerning it is that you’re calling it a genocide before this ruling has even been made, it’s SO incredibly presumptuous.
The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.
is this the legal ruling on the cases here? Or are we just making statements here.
Also wiping out the native americans from north america was not a “side effect” that was most definitely a secondary if not primary intention. We literally fought with them over this. That wasn’t just an accidental woopsie daisy.
Removed by mod
Uh… Did you not hear of that one Lancet study about how it’s likely for every documented death there are 5 undocumented deaths? Do you understand how the Gazan healthcare system has already collapsed and they’re unable to count the dead? Even just taking the current 41k and multiplying them by 5 gives 205 thousand, or more than 10% of Gaza’s population. All of Gaza is in famine, with North Gaza faring the worst, and Israel still refuses to let aid in. How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?
uh, simple. The definition of genocide as defined in the dictionary is an “ethnic cleansing” and if we assume this to be the “correct” definition, for the sake of argumentative purpose here.
It must follow, as defined that if the conflict were to stop, that israel would stop killing Palestinians. Since this has been going on for like 80 years or something, it’s hard to say, but i think it’s probably fair to say that israel would stop killing people if they came to a peace agreement.
However, this changes a little bit if we pull into the definition of genocide as defined by the UN or something, which is a lot more broad, likely due to legal deliberation, this is extremely common. Now i don’t know of any ruling from the ICC the ICJ, or the UN that classifies this as a “genocide” though i know the ICJ has said that this could very well be genocide. And that the ICC has pushed a warrant containing multiple war crimes for netanyahu.
Though to be fair, i haven’t read into anything the UN has said on this conflict specifically, so i could be mistaken there just due to sheer ignorance lol.
I know numerous “countries” have claimed as such, but i believe that very few have specifically stated as such, there has been a lot of public outcry, and im sure a number of politicians against this. But to my knowledge, only south africa has stated that this “is a genocide” however accurate that quote is, though to be fair again, i don’t know much about this one either.
I mean take a look at South Africa’s case. They have evidence of genocidal acts (causing significant harm to an ethnic group) and genocidal intent (the countless quotes from high ranking Israeli officials calling for genocide). It’s genocide; it’s just that the case is taking a while.
yeah, and if we take a look at south africas case, it’s not “genocide” it appears that it has reasonable extent to be genocide. Which are two different things.
You’re doing guilty until proven innocent here, which, is weird. Even weirder, when i see people calling for the literal denazification of israel.
As far as the two requirements go here, those are two very broad, and not very specific statements, genocidal acts is incredibly broad, so broad in fact that the vast majority of things that would apply, are probably not genocide. Intent is a lot clearer, but then you also have to consider military and governmental intent, rather than just personal statements. Civil intent is also a big problem here as well. I’m not convinced that the majority of israel literally wants to ethnically cleanse palestinians. Or that the governmental figures do to begin with, albeit they aren’t doing themselves a favor when they say super sus shit like that either.
Though this is also the middle east, and from my knowledge, this kind of death toll and fighting is not unusual? They tend to have very aggressive opinions on this stuff for some reason.
so in summary here, you’ve basically said, well, it sort of looks like a duck, and the sound it makes is vaugely similar to a duck, so this weird silhouette behind the sheet here must be a duck, there is no possible alternative in this situation.
Also. wouldn’t it follow, that if the evidence were SO telling in this case, that this legal case would probably be over a little bit quicker than it seems to be taking right now? It’s weird that we’re even deliberating on the verdict before it’s happened, and it’s even weirder that you seem to be 100% confident about it, even though im assuming you have basically the same knowledge level that i do on it.
Maybe i’m wrong, and you’ve written a PHD dissertation on conflict in the middle east, and have extensively studied israel and it’s history, but i’m going to go out on a limb here and say since you’re yelling at me on lemmy, you probably haven’t.
Notice how im not 100% confident on the statements i make? Even though i’d be pretty willing to bet money on this, i’m still not going to authoritatively state it either. It’s not really that hard to just, not be so aggressive about something this vile.
No, they’re pointing at the video footage of someone committing a crime and accurately describing the crime
YOU are up and down this thread going “well ackshully by my limited definition and the fact that no court has ruled on it means this isn’t genocide so nyeh!” Large chunks of text going in circles to argue for unreality
That’s weird
yeah but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the legal criminal proceedings. Unfortunately the israel palestine crowd has backed themselves into a corner here claiming that it’s legally genocide, when they have a moderate basis of evidence for this. To my knowledge there hasn’t been a single legal proceeding besides the ICJ case brought by south africa.
This is the entire basis of evidence you are working with here.
If i were to shoot you in the head with a gun. That would be a crime. However, i would only be charged with that crime after the courts have been run through and they determine that me shooting you in the head with a gun, is in fact, not legal.
This is vigilante justice to the highest degree because we’re too impatient to do anything other than opinion based colonization because anybody who disagrees with this even moderately is clearly too brainrotted to engage in this thread.
Can’t be a genocide, if it’s not effective amirite? /s
I guess we shouldn’t have intervened in the whole Yugoslavia thing then, I mean, clearly we have to wait until like 40% of the ethnic minority is dead!
what are the statistics for ethnic deaths here anyway? How far up the chain have we gotten?
I mean we’re looking at at least 10%. That’s… Uh… A lot, to say the least.
i mean, up to 10% is quite a bit. That’s still 90% of the population existing though, so i’m not sure that’s to the levels of genocide, as defined by uh, genocide. Which would be ethnic cleansing.
If we’re going by existing figures, that’s like what, 2.5% of the population. I feel like famines have probably killed more people, and that war has most definitely contributed more deaths to this as well.
I think you misunderstand something. You don’t need to kill everyone for it to be genocide. That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is. The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.
i’m not saying that it has to be either, i just don’t think that calling it a genocide, when you could call it literally hundreds of other things that would be so vastly more accurate than this specific statement, would be a lot more responsible.
But even past that, i’m not convinced that this is going to count as genocide, since genocide would traditionally be an ethnic cleansing, and i feel im not being uncharitable here using that as a definition, considering how many times i’ve seen people call it ethnic cleansing. I have not seen sufficient evidence that demonstrates that as anything more than significant war crimes. Many war crimes even, but not genocide.
and to be clear, you aren’t wrong here, you’re correct, but again, they literally haven’t fucking ruled it on it yet (to my knowledge, maybe im dumb and stupid lol) i can’t begin to state how concerning it is that you’re calling it a genocide before this ruling has even been made, it’s SO incredibly presumptuous.
is this the legal ruling on the cases here? Or are we just making statements here.
Also wiping out the native americans from north america was not a “side effect” that was most definitely a secondary if not primary intention. We literally fought with them over this. That wasn’t just an accidental woopsie daisy.