• @DarthJon
    link
    -34 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
      11 hour 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
        047 minutes 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
          36 minutes 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.