• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    I think there’s a big difference between protecting yourself and your people, and killing 40,000 civilians while whatever the hell this is.

    Love to see you have eaten the poised, miss-information campaign about the peace protests.

    So, yes, Israel is absolutely committing a genocide. I for one am against genocides, Are you? How many civilians are allowed to death while defending yourself?

    Its currently nearly 40:1. Is that ok? if so, what about 80:1? 200:1? 400:1? When is enough enough?

    • @DarthJon
      link
      -36 hours ago

      Do you know how many civilians died in WWII protecting the world from the Nazis and Imperial Japan?

      And no, Israel is not committing a genocide. Claiming “40,000 dead civilians” doesn’t define a genocide. Besides, a large proportion of those “civilians” were actually Hamas fighters.

      It’s frightening how many people just soak up terrorist propaganda. What are you going to bring up next? The alleged hospital bombing? The fake famine? The so-called “Flour Massacre?”

      • Victor Villas
        link
        fedilink
        13 hours ago

        “40,000 dead civilians” doesn’t define a genocide.

        What is the criteria then to tell if Israel is committing genocide to Palestinians?

        • @DarthJon
          link
          03 hours ago

          Have you not been following the news on this? There is an actual definition of genocide in international law. "The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. "

          South Africa will not be able to make their case, which is probably why they asked for an extension on the date to provide evidence. No rational person can conclude from the facts that Israel has demonstrated the intent to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part.

          • Victor Villas
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            So your criteria is a court conviction? I guess that’s one way to answer, but I was more asking what’s your criteria, meaning what’s the criteria you’d personally use to think whether such court decision would be fair or not.

            demonstrated the intent to destroy the Palestinian people

            If that’s what you mean as your answer, then I kinda agree. That’s about what I would use to define genocide.

            • @DarthJon
              link
              14 minutes ago

              That’s the definition of a genocide. The evidence has to support the conclusion that Israel has demonstrated intent to destroy the Palestinian people, and the evidence clearly doesn’t show that. Here are a few key data points:

              1. Even if we take the estimated death toll at face value, every military expert who has looked at the numbers has concluded that the civilian-to-combatant ratio is among the lowest (and possibly THE lowest) in the history of urban warfare. This suggests that the IDF has actually done a very good job of minimizing civilian casualties.
              2. Even if we take the estimated death toll at face value, it represents maybe 1-2% of the entire Palestinian population. If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the death toll to be much higher.
              3. The pace of civilian death slowed dramatically over the course of the war in Gaza as the IDF moved into different phases of the war. If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the pace of civilian death to remain constant and not diminish over time.