I am doing no such thing, I am pointing out that this is not a genocide as defined by international law. You should look up the legal definition of genocide, because you clearly don’t understand what it means.
The situation in Gaza hits the majority of these conditions, but legally it only needs to satisfy ONE of these conditions, and even if it targets only a PART of the population.
Item B: I think mental and bodily harm are given here, considering they are being killed. But let’s focus on the displacement of the population, and how over 70% of all civilian housing is now destroyed leaving people with nowhere to live. I would think this easily satisfies the condition for systematic mental harm - destroying the homes and livelihoods of the people.
Items D/E: To my knowledge there has been no systemic anti-birth measures or forceful displacement of children. Just death instead.
“But Aha!” One might say, “Genocide is a matter of intent, not actions!” Israel can kill all the Palestinians it wants as long as they claim it’s only targeting legal targets! If you think this might be true, please review again the systemic denial of foreign aid to the citizens. What possible motivation could a country have to deny women and children food and medicine? There is none other than a hope to destroy that people.
So yes, Israel will claim to have different motivations but their actions are clear as day.
It’s clear that several of the conditions are met for the international definition of genocide (remember, only ONE condition is required). Whether the nations in charge decide to enforce it or not is an entirely different story. The United States seems like it is unwilling to act.
but legally it only needs to satisfy ONE of these conditions, …
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
No; reread that. It must satisfy TWO conditions, any of the lettered items as well as an an intent to destroy in whole or in part, which Israel has not exhibited. According to their statements, they want to destroy Hamas, not Palestinians. Israel has a sophisticated intelligence network in order to select targets and even built AI to select legal targets faster than humans can, which would be an odd thing to do if they simply wanted to destroy Palestinians and weren’t trying to follow international law. Israel’s tolerance for collateral damage has clearly gone up, but that does not a genocide make.
If you think this might be true, please review again the systemic denial of foreign aid to the citizens. What possible motivation could a country have to deny women and children food and medicine? There is none other than a hope to destroy that people.
long lines because they have to inspect what goes into Gaza to deny Hamas tools of war
many “dual-use” shipments are rejected because they could be weaponized
many shipments are blocked by Israeli protesters
and many aid organizations have given up because of the risks associated with delivering shipments in a war zone.
Israel wants to pacify the ones who are attacking them. They want safety. If Israel wanted to destroy Palestinians and didn’t care about international law, I suspect they could have turned the entirety of Gaza to glass in a day. If they wanted to starve Gazans out it’s odd that they are letting an average of 100 trucks a day through instead of zero.
Ultimately critics of Israel believe they are responsible for keeping supply lines open to a hostile and belligerent nation while at war with them, a nation they are blockading and attacking but not occupying. I have a hard time thinking of examples of any other nation that has been put into this situation.
It’s about plausible deniability, and it seems to be working for them. They can’t overtly destroy the whole nation because they’d be shunned from global trade.
Intent is very tricky to prove, so yes, Israel will get away with it, and it will very likely be ruled “not a genocide”, legally. After all, they are being abetted by the US. Turns out that the only thing that really matters in international law is being allied with the big players.
But arguing the “legal” definition is a sad excuse for a distraction anyway. What matters is that the death and starvation of many thousands of children continues, and Israel shows no signs of stopping.
It’s about plausible deniability, and it seems to be working for them. They can’t overtly destroy the whole nation because they’d be shunned from global trade.
They have proven themselves quite resilient even when opposed by the rest of the world and their neighbors. I suspect what is keeping them from destroying the entire nation is ethical restraint, and the memory of what led to the creation of Israel in the first place, the genocide they themselves experienced, the sort these laws were created to prevent.
But arguing the “legal” definition is a sad excuse for a distraction anyway. What matters is that the death and starvation of many thousands of children continues, and Israel shows no signs of stopping.
Okay, if we’re talking common usage of the term and not legal definition, genocide is destroying an ethnic group. The ethnic group in question here is Arab, and Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, 21% of Israel’s population is Arab. They are in no risk of destruction, nor are they making any meaningful attempt to eradicate this group within or without their own borders. No one is putting Arabs on trains to extermination camps. The only way to make genocide even arguable is because national groups are included in the legal definition.
By all means, take issue with death and starvation. I agree that it is terrible. What I take issue with is holding Israel to a different standard than other nations and blaming them for defending themselves by inappropriately calling it a genocide.
You should look up the Paradox of Tolerance. We don’t tolerate genocidal apologists here.
I am doing no such thing, I am pointing out that this is not a genocide as defined by international law. You should look up the legal definition of genocide, because you clearly don’t understand what it means.
Oh you wanna go there? Yeah let’s go over this in excruciating detail. From your link:
The situation in Gaza hits the majority of these conditions, but legally it only needs to satisfy ONE of these conditions, and even if it targets only a PART of the population.
Let’s review:
Item A: Killing people in Gaza is a given. As I mentioned before, over 1% of the civilian population is now dead, with no end in sight. What’s worse is that even by Israel’s estimates, the majority of deaths are civilians including women and children, not combatants.
Item B: I think mental and bodily harm are given here, considering they are being killed. But let’s focus on the displacement of the population, and how over 70% of all civilian housing is now destroyed leaving people with nowhere to live. I would think this easily satisfies the condition for systematic mental harm - destroying the homes and livelihoods of the people.
Item C: Israel is deliberately inflicting conditions of famine and sickness on the civilian population by denying relief efforts from entering the country. Not only that, but they are restricting water, electricity, internet, food, medicine, and all other necessities of life. According to WHO, 1 in 6 children there are acutely malnourished.
Items D/E: To my knowledge there has been no systemic anti-birth measures or forceful displacement of children. Just death instead.
“But Aha!” One might say, “Genocide is a matter of intent, not actions!” Israel can kill all the Palestinians it wants as long as they claim it’s only targeting legal targets! If you think this might be true, please review again the systemic denial of foreign aid to the citizens. What possible motivation could a country have to deny women and children food and medicine? There is none other than a hope to destroy that people.
So yes, Israel will claim to have different motivations but their actions are clear as day.
It’s clear that several of the conditions are met for the international definition of genocide (remember, only ONE condition is required). Whether the nations in charge decide to enforce it or not is an entirely different story. The United States seems like it is unwilling to act.
No; reread that. It must satisfy TWO conditions, any of the lettered items as well as an an intent to destroy in whole or in part, which Israel has not exhibited. According to their statements, they want to destroy Hamas, not Palestinians. Israel has a sophisticated intelligence network in order to select targets and even built AI to select legal targets faster than humans can, which would be an odd thing to do if they simply wanted to destroy Palestinians and weren’t trying to follow international law. Israel’s tolerance for collateral damage has clearly gone up, but that does not a genocide make.
Israel is letting aid through, just not as much as the belligerent nation attacking them would like. If you want to know why, here’s an article about it;
Israel wants to pacify the ones who are attacking them. They want safety. If Israel wanted to destroy Palestinians and didn’t care about international law, I suspect they could have turned the entirety of Gaza to glass in a day. If they wanted to starve Gazans out it’s odd that they are letting an average of 100 trucks a day through instead of zero.
Ultimately critics of Israel believe they are responsible for keeping supply lines open to a hostile and belligerent nation while at war with them, a nation they are blockading and attacking but not occupying. I have a hard time thinking of examples of any other nation that has been put into this situation.
It’s about plausible deniability, and it seems to be working for them. They can’t overtly destroy the whole nation because they’d be shunned from global trade.
Intent is very tricky to prove, so yes, Israel will get away with it, and it will very likely be ruled “not a genocide”, legally. After all, they are being abetted by the US. Turns out that the only thing that really matters in international law is being allied with the big players.
But arguing the “legal” definition is a sad excuse for a distraction anyway. What matters is that the death and starvation of many thousands of children continues, and Israel shows no signs of stopping.
They have proven themselves quite resilient even when opposed by the rest of the world and their neighbors. I suspect what is keeping them from destroying the entire nation is ethical restraint, and the memory of what led to the creation of Israel in the first place, the genocide they themselves experienced, the sort these laws were created to prevent.
Okay, if we’re talking common usage of the term and not legal definition, genocide is destroying an ethnic group. The ethnic group in question here is Arab, and Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, 21% of Israel’s population is Arab. They are in no risk of destruction, nor are they making any meaningful attempt to eradicate this group within or without their own borders. No one is putting Arabs on trains to extermination camps. The only way to make genocide even arguable is because national groups are included in the legal definition.
By all means, take issue with death and starvation. I agree that it is terrible. What I take issue with is holding Israel to a different standard than other nations and blaming them for defending themselves by inappropriately calling it a genocide.