Not really. I wanted you to explain to me why you think that cutting off food and water to 2.3 million people doesn’t meet the definition of genocide. But you just want to talk about Hamas. I didn’t even mention them.
I shouldn’t have said you aren’t capable of it. You are, I’m sure. You just don’t want to for some reason.
You cannot prove a negative and it is really hard to prove intent. You both disagree on the intent. All he has to do is show military purpose. Your burden of proof is much higher.
I’m not sure what else the intent could be. If I lock someone in a room and eventually stop pushing food and water under the door for them what else am I doing but killing them on purpose? I honestly don’t understand how else this can be interpreted. I don’t even think this is really a matter of opinion.
Gaza has been blockaded for almost 20 years. It’s the complete stopping of food and water for months that makes it genocide, yeah. Combined with all the bombing etc. Are you being serious?
If you show me any analogous situation to Gaza then yes you will show me another genocide. Feel free to give an example you think is similar but widely accepted as fine.
Edit: still absolutely reeling over this: “Oh so you’re saying that every case of mass civilian starvation is genocide?!” Err… yeah?
The word genocide has been over-used and diluted. It should only be used sparingly if you want it to retain any meaning at all. Hitler actually attempted to exterminate the Jews. That is the modern canonical example for genocide, but there are many historical examples as well (Carthage, etc.). Israel isn’t doing anything like that. You are just playing word games with an ambiguous definition.
Ah yes, comparing 18,000 people dead as the result of collateral damage in dense urban warfare to the systematic round-up and extermination of 6 million Jews by Hitler. Makes perfect sense. What was I thinking?
I hope they read it. This post was what made me start openly calling it genocide. It’s a weighty word to use but that’s why it’s important to do so when it is actually happening. You can’t promise “never again” if you don’t remember what it even is.
Yes, I know. I’m saying that the definition can be read expansively or narrowly, and when it is read expansively, it loses some of its impact. To my mind, putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same category as Nazi death camps is somewhat problematic. Do you disagree?
I disagree. Genocide doesn’t list a minimum number of causalities to be considered genocide. If I go out and kill one person, that makes me a murderer. If I kill a couple of people, that makes me a serial killer. If I kill less people than John Wayne Gacy, does that suddenly mean I’m not a serial killer, because his serial killing was worse?
Just because the atrocities committed in Israel aren’t as significant as those in Nazi Germany doesn’t mean it’s not a genocide.
Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.
The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.
To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.
People left to die from preventable diseases in a preventable siege?
153:10 at the UNGA, with only ten countries (including the US and Israel, or “Azrael” as my grandma liked to call them) standing in the way of a humanitarian ceasefire?
Literally all of this was happening in Ukraine and nobody serious was calling it a genocide. It is just urban warfare. It sucks but it is not genocide.
oh, so you do acknowledge that Putin’s actions have also been called genocidal, you’re just also being consistent at refusing to acknowledge genocide at all. well, at least you’re willing to acknowledge consistency in genocide, even if you’re unwilling to call it that.
still, you’d also have to say that if I don’t know what genocide means, then the UN also doesn’t know what genocide means when they accuse Putin of genocide in Ukraine (source) as they have of Israel in Palestine (source)…
Putin’s actions have not been found to be genocide by anyone reputable. I can say that while being vehemently against the invasion and all it stands for and additionally supporting Ukraine in every capacity.
Words matter. They are important to understand.
You have not gotten me in any logical inconsistency despite thinking you have. Genocide is an important concept to understand so you do not water it down when it actually happens. If every action in war is considered a war crime, no actions are war crimes and people will not believe your claims when you make them.
Not really. I wanted you to explain to me why you think that cutting off food and water to 2.3 million people doesn’t meet the definition of genocide. But you just want to talk about Hamas. I didn’t even mention them.
I shouldn’t have said you aren’t capable of it. You are, I’m sure. You just don’t want to for some reason.
You cannot prove a negative and it is really hard to prove intent. You both disagree on the intent. All he has to do is show military purpose. Your burden of proof is much higher.
I’m not sure what else the intent could be. If I lock someone in a room and eventually stop pushing food and water under the door for them what else am I doing but killing them on purpose? I honestly don’t understand how else this can be interpreted. I don’t even think this is really a matter of opinion.
Is it really that inconceivable to you that a blockaid had a military purpose? Were all the blockaids in history considered genocide?
Gaza has been blockaded for almost 20 years. It’s the complete stopping of food and water for months that makes it genocide, yeah. Combined with all the bombing etc. Are you being serious?
If you show me any analogous situation to Gaza then yes you will show me another genocide. Feel free to give an example you think is similar but widely accepted as fine.
Edit: still absolutely reeling over this: “Oh so you’re saying that every case of mass civilian starvation is genocide?!” Err… yeah?
The word genocide has been over-used and diluted. It should only be used sparingly if you want it to retain any meaning at all. Hitler actually attempted to exterminate the Jews. That is the modern canonical example for genocide, but there are many historical examples as well (Carthage, etc.). Israel isn’t doing anything like that. You are just playing word games with an ambiguous definition.
Ah yes 18,000 civilian dead bodies, all just playing word games in their mass graves.
Ah yes, comparing 18,000 people dead as the result of collateral damage in dense urban warfare to the systematic round-up and extermination of 6 million Jews by Hitler. Makes perfect sense. What was I thinking?
We’re on our way to get to 6 million. This is the world failing to stop a full blown genocide from resuming.
Imagine yourself saying that at the beginning of the holocaust when the humber of casualties was only 18k.
That would be disgusting wouldn’t it?
I think no one except for supporters of Israel would dub this was “collateral damage”. Literally no one else agrees.
Disturbing.
You’re wrong, please educate yourself.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
I hope they read it. This post was what made me start openly calling it genocide. It’s a weighty word to use but that’s why it’s important to do so when it is actually happening. You can’t promise “never again” if you don’t remember what it even is.
I literally gave the official UN definition and argued a specific point regarding it.
Yes, I know. I’m saying that the definition can be read expansively or narrowly, and when it is read expansively, it loses some of its impact. To my mind, putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same category as Nazi death camps is somewhat problematic. Do you disagree?
I disagree. Genocide doesn’t list a minimum number of causalities to be considered genocide. If I go out and kill one person, that makes me a murderer. If I kill a couple of people, that makes me a serial killer. If I kill less people than John Wayne Gacy, does that suddenly mean I’m not a serial killer, because his serial killing was worse?
Just because the atrocities committed in Israel aren’t as significant as those in Nazi Germany doesn’t mean it’s not a genocide.
Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.
The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.
To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.
A military blockade on a civilian area?
People detained in unknown locations?
Constant shelling of schools and hospitals?
Withholding medical supplies?
People left to die from preventable diseases in a preventable siege?
153:10 at the UNGA, with only ten countries (including the US and Israel, or “Azrael” as my grandma liked to call them) standing in the way of a humanitarian ceasefire?
Sounds like
a pretense togenocide to me.Literally all of this was happening in Ukraine and nobody serious was calling it a genocide. It is just urban warfare. It sucks but it is not genocide.
Nice whataboutism, but people are absolutely calling what Putin is doing a genocide against Ukrainians (and have been all along) because it is.
Well, at least you are consistent about not understanding the differences between war and genocide.
Putin isn’t trying to “genocide” Ukrainians…
Are you sure you understand what genocide means? It doesn’t mean “any bad war thing”
oh, so you do acknowledge that Putin’s actions have also been called genocidal, you’re just also being consistent at refusing to acknowledge genocide at all. well, at least you’re willing to acknowledge consistency in genocide, even if you’re unwilling to call it that.
still, you’d also have to say that if I don’t know what genocide means, then the UN also doesn’t know what genocide means when they accuse Putin of genocide in Ukraine (source) as they have of Israel in Palestine (source)…
Putin’s actions have not been found to be genocide by anyone reputable. I can say that while being vehemently against the invasion and all it stands for and additionally supporting Ukraine in every capacity.
Words matter. They are important to understand.
You have not gotten me in any logical inconsistency despite thinking you have. Genocide is an important concept to understand so you do not water it down when it actually happens. If every action in war is considered a war crime, no actions are war crimes and people will not believe your claims when you make them.
Removed by mod
You are so close. So very close.