this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
35 points (74.6% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because it's very similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazi_marches_in_Dresden
Of course one should question how much force is necessary, but that doesn't change that you can't expect a country defending itself to not put the safety of their soldiers over that of the enemy's population. And compared to the Allies Israel is fairly careful. With firebombings like back then we'd see 30k deaths per day, per quarter of a year. Calling the bombings of Dreseden or war in Gaza a genocide is asinine. In both cases it's clear that the winning side merely wanted to eliminate a very real threat and may in some occassions have crossed the line while doing just that. But if it were a genocide neither I nor any Palestinians in Gaza would still be alive.
Just as Germany's government back then Hamas has the ability to end the bloodshed immediately by issuing an unconditional surrender. The fact that it doesn't makes it the entity that's the most responsible for the suffering of the civilian population.
Believe it or not but the word "genocide" does have a meaning and different definitions for sure which doesn't make it arbitrary. If the accusation was far fetched, the case brought forth by South Africa, I'm sure you heard of, would just have been dismissed.
You think genocide means that the whole populations is killed? As said, there are different definitions of genocide but afaik none goes that far. Has there ever been a genocide under this strict definition? If you are interested in real definitions, here is a video about the topic which doesn't ignore the broader context.
And even if you disagree, which is your right obviously, the matter isn't settled, but putting off an accusation that the International Court of Justice takes seriously as victim blaming or antisemitic should be below journalistic standards.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
here is a video about the topic
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It means the intend to wipe out an entire people. Not necessarily by killing everyone (forced sterilzation etc. would work as well), but to be guilty of genocide you actually have to try to unexist a people and the fac that the Palestinians still exist is proof that Israel doesn't want to do that to them. If someone has the means to do something and doesn't that's generally speaking proof that they don't want to do it.
Not that this was a real answer to my comment but by your criteria, was there ever a genocide? US did a lot to unexist the indigenous peoples (boarding schools count as well by the way because that also eliminates the cultural identity) but they still exist and so it was no genocide or did they try and didn'tsucceed? Neither was the Shoa? Or the nazis didn't have the time? And the Israeli state could have be done by now but the fact that the genocide is still going on is proof that there is no intent to be faster?
Well, the atrocities against the Native Americans are indeed where the line becomes blurry. European settlers wiped most of the native population and took their lands, but it's still up for debate which parts, if any, of that can be called a genocide. It's also questionable whether cultural (e.g. what the Chinese are doing in Xinjiang or the Americans and Australians attempted with forced adoptions) count at all. There's not even a consensus the trail of tears counts. That's how high the bar is. You can murder countless, but as long as you "only" want to steal their land or kill them for any other reason it's not a genocide. For genocide wiping the people in qusetion has to be the point, not just means to an end.
Hence clear cut genocides are indeed quite rare. The Shoa was one, so were the Armenian genocide and the Rwandan genocide, but wars rarely count, regardless how destructive they are.
Therefore considering what is happening in Gaza a genocide is - for now - a huge stretch. That's why the ICJ didn't even ask Israel to stop thier military campaign. The court merely affirmed it shouldn't actually start a genocide.
All that said, what Israel doing clearly not being a genocide does not mean it's entirely legal. The threshold for war crimes is a log lower.
That is just factually wrong. The legal definition, as is in the UN convention on the prevention of genocide defines "in whole or in part". If you watch the trial the judges repeat it multiple times and show why they see the case by South Africa as plausible