“Look at me displacing almost 2 million people and bombing their homes and cities whole to the ground one by one. It’s not a genocide though, because I haven’t explicitely claimed that my goal is to commit a genocide.”
Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.
No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.
A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.
That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.
All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.
Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.
And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.
Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well
Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?
It wouldn’t be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I’m not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won’t readily denounce it.
It’s almost as if words mean things and have specific definitions, especially legal ones. Feel free to criticize such behaviors with different accurate words for things you don’t like.
On the other hand, genocide was committed in October, when Hamas brutally attacked the Jewish state, murdering an estimated 1,200 people, Schiff said.
…and the article lost credibility. If what Israel is doing isn’t genocide, then what Hamas did can’t be genocide.
Looked up the people quoted in the article. Rabbi Danny Schiff is an ethics lawyer from Pittsburgh, not a genocide scholar. Avi Ben-Hur, who is more qualified to speak on this said:
“We have a monster on our doorstep,” he said. “We were caught asleep. We had horrible things done to us. It’s not a question of payback. We have to retrieve our safety and security so people can go back to their homes and live their lives like normal people. We have to degrade the monster’s offensive capabilities so this can’t happen again.” source.
Calling them “monsters,” and dehumanizing people, doesn’t gain my trust.
Oct 7 literally is an act of genocide, see my post above. You’re saying they don’t have credibility because you don’t understand what genocide is. This designation has nothing to do with body count.
Even if the definition of “genocide” is ceded. The crimes against humanity outlined in the ICJ against Israel and the ongoing humanitarian crisis created by the ongoing conflict is damning.
If we wait to call it a “genocide” after it’s already been committed, then the world will have failed Palestine.
Curious how you moved the goal posts from “not openly stating one’s intent” which was used as justification to claim what Israel is doing is not a Genocide to “not having intent” which is what defines the difference between murder and manslaught.
People are convicted of murder all the time when they didn’t openly said their intention was murder if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was their intention.
So the previous poster’s point holds very well and you just further dug the grave on yours.
The thing is, Israel’s leaders have expressed genocidal intent over and over again. Just read South Africa’s allegations at the ICJ. They have the receipts.
“Look at me displacing almost 2 million people and bombing their homes and cities whole to the ground one by one. It’s not a genocide though, because I haven’t explicitely claimed that my goal is to commit a genocide.”
If so then the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Chechnya were all genocides.
When entire civilian populations are bombed or starved, then yes. The US is not free of war crimes. They’re merely immune from the consequences.
Not just the US. Chechnya was invaded by Russia. German civilians were bombed by the UK and USSR.
In fact, it’s hard to find a large-scale modern war that didn’t cause thousands of civilian casualties.
Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.
Are you really suggesting that every asymmetrical war that is conducted successfully is genocide? O.o
No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.
A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.
That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.
I mean, there isn’t any obligation in war to make sure casualties are evenly distributed among both sides.
Normally, a lopsided war ends only when the losing side surrenders.
Now you’re getting it
“Genocide” is just another word for “war”?
When it’s targeted at a specific group of people and there’s such a dramatic power imbalance, yes. Whether modern definitions agree or not.
All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.
So if your definition amounts to a highly favorable balance of power, then all countries at war would aspire to make it a “genocide”.
Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.
And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.
Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well
Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?
It wouldn’t be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I’m not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won’t readily denounce it.
It’s almost as if words mean things and have specific definitions, especially legal ones. Feel free to criticize such behaviors with different accurate words for things you don’t like.
…and the article lost credibility. If what Israel is doing isn’t genocide, then what Hamas did can’t be genocide.
Looked up the people quoted in the article. Rabbi Danny Schiff is an ethics lawyer from Pittsburgh, not a genocide scholar. Avi Ben-Hur, who is more qualified to speak on this said:
Calling them “monsters,” and dehumanizing people, doesn’t gain my trust.
Oct 7 literally is an act of genocide, see my post above. You’re saying they don’t have credibility because you don’t understand what genocide is. This designation has nothing to do with body count.
Even if the definition of “genocide” is ceded. The crimes against humanity outlined in the ICJ against Israel and the ongoing humanitarian crisis created by the ongoing conflict is damning.
If we wait to call it a “genocide” after it’s already been committed, then the world will have failed Palestine.
If someone punches you to death, declaring they weren’t trying to kill you doesn’t make them any less guilty of murder.
Actually, in the US it could. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.
Curious how you moved the goal posts from “not openly stating one’s intent” which was used as justification to claim what Israel is doing is not a Genocide to “not having intent” which is what defines the difference between murder and manslaught.
People are convicted of murder all the time when they didn’t openly said their intention was murder if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it was their intention.
So the previous poster’s point holds very well and you just further dug the grave on yours.
The thing is, Israel’s leaders have expressed genocidal intent over and over again. Just read South Africa’s allegations at the ICJ. They have the receipts.