|
Neurolimal posted:https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1712811314299490353 This person is lying, Herzog wasn't even insinuating that innocent civilians do not exist. Full context can be found at https://www.lontimes.com/israeli-president-defends-gaza-air-strikes-deaths-of-hamas-militants-we-are-fighting-terror/ quote:Israeli President Isaac Herzog defended his country’s attack on Hamas during a fiery press conference on Thursday, saying Israel is “fighting terrorism” and that they will eliminate those who carried out the worst attack on Israel in its 75-year history. Will leave no stone unturned to do so. quote:During the press conference, the Israeli President specified that his country was at war with Hamas and was not intentionally targeting civilians, but said that if terrorists use the sites to target Israel first then the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will fire at civilian targets. Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Oct 13, 2023 |
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
https://x.com/middleeasteye/status/1712763624706457938?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q Here's hoping that she (and as many other people as possible in the strike zone, of course) makes it out OK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Ugh just read this bit re-reading about the Gaza blockade: While the import of food is restricted through the Gaza blockade, the Israeli military destroys agricultural crops by spraying toxic chemicals over the Gazan lands, using aircraft flying over the border zone. According to the IDF, the spraying is intended "to prevent the concealment of IED's [Improvised Explosive Devices], and to disrupt and prevent the use of the area for destructive purposes."[262]
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This person is lying, Herzog wasn't even insinuating that innocent civilians do not exist. Full context can be found at https://www.lontimes.com/israeli-president-defends-gaza-air-strikes-deaths-of-hamas-militants-we-are-fighting-terror/ quote:Herzog said, “The rhetoric about civilians not being aware and not involved is simply not true. They could have stood up, they could have fought against the evil regime that had taken over Gaza in a coup “ So, basically, "you could have fought a futile fight for me and died instead of trying to stay out of the way and dying by my hand!" What a compelling argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Nope. The only non-genocidal outcome - and the one Israel has forced by never offering a good faith two-state solution - is a single state which would necessitate the destruction/dissolution of Israel as a separate entity. That's the destruction of the state. They said the nation should be destroyed. The destruction of a nation is genocide. This is not ambiguous, it is the literal text of the UN genocide convention: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml quote:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This twitter rando is lying, Herzog wasn't even insinuating that innocent civilians do not exist. Full context can be found at https://www.lontimes.com/israeli-president-defends-gaza-air-strikes-deaths-of-hamas-militants-we-are-fighting-terror/ I don't think it is meaningful context that he paid lip service to the hypothetical concept of innocent civilians before he said civilians are legitimate targets and to blame for their government committing war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:That's the destruction of the state. They said the nation should be destroyed. The destruction of a nation is genocide. Yes, both sides have genocidal rhetoric. Arguably only one has any capacity to perform it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This person is lying, Herzog wasn't even insinuating that innocent civilians do not exist. Full context can be found at https://www.lontimes.com/israeli-president-defends-gaza-air-strikes-deaths-of-hamas-militants-we-are-fighting-terror/ I'd still say this bit: quote:Herzog said, “The rhetoric about civilians not being aware and not involved is simply not true. They could have stood up, they could have fought against the evil regime that had taken over Gaza in a coup “ Is rather damning and heartless. Yes, twitter rando is outright lying about what was being said about what. But to condemn folks for failing to start a civil war while they're being bombed? God drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
e: Sorry this is not CSPAM. I keep doing this by mistake
Mantis42 fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yes, both sides have genocidal rhetoric. Arguably only one has any capacity to perform it. Is it too much to ask that nobody here, in this discussion, call for a genocide?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
My expert analysis of the pixels is that it's fake. And I mean very obviously fake, someone sloppily drew the flag on their phone. Why the hell would you post that nonsense here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yes, both sides have genocidal rhetoric. Arguably only one has any capacity to perform it. In 1948 and 1967 the Palestinians and Arab combatants were objectively stronger pre-war than the Israeli's. They had the capacity to perform it and were all too happy to try and do so. I think a lot of posters in this thread have forgotten that. Or things like they had a two state solution in 1948, how did that go? Palestinians could have had the 1967 borders by negotiation with Jordan and Egypt in 1967, how did that go? Hell, the 1993 Oslo Accords were a great deal for Palestine. It wasn't what they wanted, but several genocidal wars, directly being involved in two civil wars among your allies, a host of political assassinations among your allies, and a couple decades of terrorism mean you shouldn't expect the perfect deal. Also since I couldn't stop myself from typing this out there is a question I think this forum could reasonable debate. The age numbers thrown around the thread about the Gaza strip come from the CIA World Factbook. The few news sources that actually mention where they got the figure are clear on that. The CIA World Factback doesn't, as far as I can tell, explain how they came to those numbers. I find it very suspicious that several people in the thread have tossed that number around as cold hard verified fact while debating specific details on other things? If the goal is the media should be reporting what they can truly verify then I'm all for that but unless someone can find some actual data on the Gaza population age stats to backup the reporting, it's a big stretch to call that verified information. nessin fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
Haystack posted:The Palestinians are literally in the concentration camp, right now. The fact that Isreal finds it politically convenient to let the nastiest inmates run the camp doesn't obviate the fact that it's a concentration camp.  Let me put this another way, the Gaza Strip could literally be an open air torture-dungeon directly next to giant night clubs. There is nothing in the world that would make justifiable to kill or even hurt even the dumbest naive yuppie doing lines of blow from their parents trust fund. Nix Panicus posted:First: lmao at the clean wehrmacht take here. Klaus deserved death as surely as the proverbial guard in the tower at Auschwitz. Only an act of mercy would allow Klaus to live. I never said the Wehrmacht was clean, that's an assumption on your part. It wasn't an act of mercy that allowed former German soldiers go back into civilian life to live either. It was the realization from the Allies including even surviving holocausts victims that some dumb private or whatever despite serving in even a genocidal army isn't exactly responsible the war. You could imprison him, sentence him to death or whatever but that is not justice. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The failure to provide representation and basic human rights to its entire civilian population on such an egregious scale is the reason the nation of Israel should be destroyed. Keeping two million people - mostly children! - in a ghetto for decades justifies any and all violence the prisoners inflict upon their captors. Peaceful protests have been met with sniper fire and brutality. Israel has total responsibility here; every drop of blood spilled can be directly blamed on the people of Israel. Every death, from a Hamas militant's blade or an Israeli bomb, is the fault of the people of Israel and they should face a reckoning for it. The blog post "But not like this - On living and dying with ghosts" by Sam Kriss has been posted in this thread. I'm reposting the link because it is a direct, well-spoken, and comprehensive rebuttal to the implication that violence against civilians is acceptable. I am interpreting Nix Panicus' phrases "justifies any and all violence that prisoners inflict upon their captors" and "the nation of Israel should be destroyed" to mean "violence against civilians is acceptable". I don't see any other way to interpret those claims. https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this I urge everyone in this thread who has not read Sam Kriss' blog post to please consider reading it. You may want to skim or skip over the first part, which talks about the World War II Holocaust in Poland followed by the expulsion of the Germans. The second part of the blog post talks about I/P current events and the online discourse about them. I'll post some bullet points from the blog down below, focusing on the blog's major arguments against the murder of civilians. I think this blog communicates what I want to say more effectively than any words I try to put together could. Sam Kriss posted:You are directly identifying resistance and liberation with a slaughter of unarmed civilians. I know why you’re doing this, of course. You are trapped in a little game of meaningless discursive gestures, in which you have to constantly affirm the eternal righteousness of whatever side you’ve chosen, or else people online will make fun of you. And so you end up saying that atrocity is resistance, this is what it will always look like, and anyone who has any reservations about it does not belong to the cause. You end up aligning yourselves with the ugliest, most eliminationist strands of Israeli fascism, and you don’t even realise it! Sam Kriss posted:If this is how you talk, how can you possibly adopt any stance of moral outrage when Israel commits its own crimes? Why not drop the act and throw your lot in with the IDF, since they already speak your language? Sam Kriss posted:I know [not murdering civilians] is possible, because there were plenty of Hamas fighters who didn’t do it. Some filmed themselves with women or disabled or elderly people in their homes, promising not to harm them. [...] They lived in the same city under the same siege; they lived through the same Israeli bombings as the ones who happily took their revenge. Could it be that whatever our condition, and whatever evils are visited on us, we are all answerable for the deeds of our hands? Sam Kriss posted:Maybe the biggest, most sophisticated, most convoluted blackmail is this: don’t tell Palestinians how to resist the occupation. [...] But that’s exactly what you are doing. If you affirm this massacre, if you claim that gunning down defenceless people is an acceptable mode of resistance, then what are you saying to the Palestinians who maintain that it is not? There are a lot of ways to resist. There are people who follow the occupation forces with cameras, who protest at checkpoints, who strike, who put themselves in front of Israeli guns and clubs, without any weapons of their own, because they’re committed to nonviolence—but you think they should have avoided all that. You know the correct way of resisting Israel, and it’s to mow down teenagers at a music festival. Even those Hamas fighters who fought the IDF but decided not to murder helpless people—as soon as you trot out your bullshit line about not telling Palestinians how to resist, you’re saying they should have pulled the trigger. Sam Kriss posted:It’s true that Palestinians have been resisting nonviolently for a very long time, with very little to show for it. But there has been violent resistance for a very long time too, and that has not worked either. The last intifada was a catastrophe for Palestine and utterly ruinous for any chance of peaceful cohabitation. Do you actually believe that there is a military path to the liberation of Palestine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:So, basically, "you could have fought a futile fight for me and died instead of trying to stay out of the way and dying by my hand!" What a compelling argument. Stop dying you cowards!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
nessin posted:Hell, the 1993 Oslo Accords were a great deal for Palestine. No they weren't it's why I posted yesterday that Israel had never offered a deal that wasn't dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Victar posted:The blog post "But not like this - On living and dying with ghosts" by Sam Kriss has been posted in this thread. I'm reposting the link because it is a direct, well-spoken, and comprehensive rebuttal to the implication that violence against civilians is acceptable. I am interpreting Nix Panicus' phrases "justifies any and all violence that prisoners inflict upon their captors" and "the nation of Israel should be destroyed" to mean "violence against civilians is acceptable". I don't see any other way to interpret those claims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:That's the destruction of the state. They said the nation should be destroyed. The destruction of a nation is genocide. that is referring to the members of a national group (ie. people), not the actual nation. east germany can be destroyed without a genocide, for example. the whole article: quote:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:No they weren't it's why I posted yesterday that Israel had never offered a deal that wasn't dogshit. The follow on sentence is critical context to my statement. But let's talk about that. I can't remember off hand if Palestine was asking for 1948 or 1967 borders at that time, but if that's what they wanted they shouldn't have tried to go to war for something else and then come asking for all that to be forgiven decades later. They also refused to consider allowing Israel to man the border with Jordan. If they were going to quibble over that they should have not allowed that passage to be used multiple times to bring in weapons and supplies for war and terrorism. They wanted the right to return. That's an honest and legitimate sticking point that's hard to solve. However their best option for that was to settle in under the UN Plan in 1947 and negotiate that out back then. With the context given in my follow statement that you didn't quote, a right to return is basically impossible even in 1993. I know there were other disagreements but those are the big ones I remember off-hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
mannerup posted:I think one of the main issues with this ongoing argument on the morality of atrocities against civilians is people either viewing it as a categorical imperative where there is absolutely no circumstance where it is morally justifiable and others viewing it from a utilitarian perspective where there are very specific situations where it can be morally permissible in the name of justice.  And even so, I don't think this event even from the weakest utilitarian perspective makes it morally permissible to go on a killing spree of dumb young people getting hosed up on their holiday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Yeah I think this article makes a critical point. Any time you argue that all Israelis (and tourists and Thai guest workers I guess) are collectively responsible for their nation's transgressions and that targeting civilians for revenge is acceptable you're arguing in favour of Israel's current campaign in Gaza, which is justified by the same logic. "My side is allowed to do collective punishment but yours isn't" is not an effective argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
nessin posted:They also refused to consider allowing Israel to man the border with Jordan. If they were going to quibble over that they should have no allowed that passage to be used multiple times to bring in weapons and supplies for war and terrorism. I mean, a sovereign state should be free to import whatever they want including weapons of war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Mr Lanternfly posted:This is a subject I'm not familiar with so sorry if this is a stupid question, but... When you say "what has been" you have to clarify what timeframe you're talking about. There have been different leaders and different ideas for the last 80 years. The original plan was the partition plan proposed back in the 40's. Where the Israelis and Palestinians would split the land 50/50. But, the Palestinians didn't like that because the Israelis were only about 35-40% of the population, so why were they splitting it 50/50? After that, there was war from the various Arab neighbors and Israel's main strategy was to militarily defeat their neighbors and take territory from them on their border to prevent them from launching another war. The Oslo Peace process was the most recent official goal. Israel was actually pushing hard for a peace plan in this situation and their PM was assassinated for it. The Palestinians were the ones who broke that down by eventually refusing to participate at the Camp David accords and starting the second intifada. Since 2000, Israel hasn't really had any plan beyond "divide the Palestinians and stall for time." And Israel has been the one where the bulk of the intransigence has come from on any potential peace process because the general Israeli population became disillusioned with negotiating with the Palestinians after Oslo and there have been a series of right-wing governments with no interest in it for the last 23 years. Rabin's death, the Palestinians breaking from the Oslo framework and resuming terrorism, and the rise of nearly a quarter century of hard-right Israeli political leadership has basically eliminated any long-term peace plans in Israel since 2000. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
break-up breakdown posted:that is referring to the members of a national group (ie. people), not the actual nation. east germany can be destroyed without a genocide, for example. A nation is a national group. To destroy a nation means to destroy a national group which is genocide. Seriously, if anyone here said "the nation of Palestine must be destroyed, its people must face a reckoning" would you interpret that as non-genocidal? What happened to East Germany was the destruction of the state. If you're unable to distinguish between state and nation, that's because of European nationalist ideology which is directly at fault for this decades-long atrocity. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
I feel like there's obvious and understandable reasons why a country might reject any deal that ends up with their borders & other sovereign factors controlled by a another country, especially if that country has previously engaged in ethnically cleansing your people from the land they want & is hyper-paranoid about you. E: quote:The original plan was the partition plan proposed back in the 40's. Where the Israelis and Palestinians would split the land 50/50. But, the Palestinians didn't like that because the Israelis were only about 35-40% of the population, so why were they splitting it 50/50? After that, there was war from the various Arab neighbors and Israel's main strategy was to militarily defeat their neighbors and take territory from them on their border to prevent them from launching another war. For the record, in letters to his son in 1937 Ben-Gurion made it clear that these land proposals weren't going to satisfy the Zionists' desire, and that they'd use it as a springboard to seize more land. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
nessin posted:The follow on sentence is critical context to my statement. But let's talk about that. I can't remember off hand if Palestine was asking for 1948 or 1967 borders at that time, but if that's what they wanted they shouldn't have tried to go to war for something else and then come asking for all that to be forgiven decades later. Oslo pushed off the most important issues to future negotiations - the dismantling of settlements and expulsion of settlers is a necessity for a proper two-state solution and that wasn't going to be discussed until a hypothetical future. Israel still controlled the Palestinian airspace, land borders, and maritime area under Oslo. And the line about them bringing in weapons is silly they're allowed to resist by arms. Part of Oslo was the removal of all Israeli forces from the West Bank and we're two decades on and the Palestinian controlled area shrinks each day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:That's the destruction of the state. They said the nation should be destroyed. The destruction of a nation is genocide. That's not what that means. Changing ownership of land or the government of a people isn't genocide, so long as you don't try to force assimilation with those people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I feel like there's obvious and understandable reasons why a country might reject any deal that ends up with their borders & other sovereign factors controlled by a another country, especially if that country has previously engaged in ethnically cleansing your people from the land they want & is hyper-paranoid about you. Oslo didn't require any of that. Israel didn't even ask for that. Their high-end was that they were willing to negotiate down was that they couldn't ban Israeli aircraft from Palestinian airspace and for an international force to be temporarily deployed in the Jordan Valley to cover 15% of the border with Jordan. They didn't ask for permanent control over all of the Palestinian state borders. The only permanent security presence was the 15% of the Jordan border. The things that tanked the deal were that the PLO were worried that they would lose their careers or be branded sellouts if they gave up on the right of return or having all of Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. It wasn't the border issues. So, they walked back their initial support and made the right to return a red line that kept the plan from going through because Israel would never accept both a Palestinian state AND giving all Palestinians the right of return. Then, the second intifada started and everyone pulled out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:That's not what that means. Changing ownership of land or the government of a people isn't genocide, so long as you don't try to force assimilation with those people. They didn't say "the ownership of land or the government should be changed," they said "the nation of Israel should be destroyed." Destroying a nation is genocide. Nobody here is confused about this, or tries to split hairs about it, when an Israeli fascist makes parallel remarks. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:It is Clancy chat, but it's also uncharted territory so I think it's appropriate. What got drowned in the bigger news of Saturday is that a police shot two Israeli tourists dead in Egypt. Hamas itself is an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood, which the army and Sisi cracked down on heavily but is obviously a difficult task because MB is so popular. So yeah, Egyptian government doesn't want Gazans to come to them, they'd much prefer Israeli tourists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
mannerup posted:seeing as there are so many 9/11 comparisons, Axios has released video of Bush making comments about the current situation Once upon a time: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-day-that-bush-took-gaza/ quote:But who’s going to take over that responsibility? Not the tattered Palestinian Authority. Not cautious Egypt, which once ruled Gaza. Instead, de facto responsibility for what happens in Gaza once Israel withdraws will fall to the United States. That’s the hidden meaning in the president’s letter of assurance to Sharon saying that the United States will lead an international effort to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism and prevent the areas from which Israel withdraws from posing a threat. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:That's not what that means. Changing ownership of land or the government of a people isn't genocide, so long as you don't try to force assimilation with those people. I think it's the cumulative effect of multiple actions. Eg: single death doesn't constitute genocide, but add them up and that's what you get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Oslo didn't require any of that. Israel didn't even ask for that. Their high-end was that they were willing to negotiate down was that they couldn't ban Israeli aircraft from Palestinian airspace and for an international force to be temporarily deployed in the Jordan Valley to cover 15% of the border with Jordan. They didn't ask for permanent control over all of the Palestinian state borders. The only permanent security presence was the 15% of the Jordan border. The Camp David accords weren't quite so generous: Wikipedia posted:Key points of the West Bank and Gaza section
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:This person is lying, Herzog wasn't even insinuating that innocent civilians do not exist. Full context can be found at https://www.lontimes.com/israeli-president-defends-gaza-air-strikes-deaths-of-hamas-militants-we-are-fighting-terror/ Herzog is explicitly, directly saying that the existence/presence of innocent Palestinians (such as meets his definition, anyway) will do nothing to stop or deter IDF from striking. He's saying that their status doesn't matter and that they will die regardless as a "side effect" of the strikes purportedly against Hamas. Paying lip service to the idea of innocence, then A. saying that they will be targeted anyway B. saying that they weren't really innocent, because they could've prevented Hamas from taking power, means Herzog is dissembling about innocent civilians. Herzog does not believe that they are innocent, nor would it matter to him if they were. He makes that very clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:They didn't say "the ownership of land or the government should be changed," they said "the nation of Israel should be destroyed." Destroying a nation is genocide. Destroying a group of people is genocide. A nation is not it's people, unless your assertion is that dismantling an ethnostate and allowing free citizenship is somehow genocidal which in that case holy poo poo. It's genocide if they say they want to destroy *Israelis*, but people are not the nation. A lot of the people pushing to destroy Israel want to kill Jews too, that isn't up for debate. But genocide has a specific definition and that isn't one of them. Outrail posted:I think it's the cumulative effect of multiple actions. Eg: single death doesn't constitute genocide, but add them up and that's what you get. Yes, if you are actually killing people it's genocide. If you are forcing them to lose their language, homes, children, or religion then it's genocide. But to call a "single state solution" genocide is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:
The moral framework that we both operate under that draws nice clean lines like "don't kill civilians" is just that, a framework, based on a tremendous number of social, historical, and material factors. A huge part of the reason why Israel is so upsetting is because their treatment their Palestinian subjects undermines the moral framework they claim to uphold. Israel routinely and passionately ignores the principle of "don't abuse people you don't like" and then get angry when the victims of their abuse lash out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Destroying a group of people is genocide. A nation is not it's people English is a bad language lmao. Y'all are arguing past eachother because you're using "Nation" to mean sate (valid) and Fishbot is using "Nation" to mean "group of people" (also valid). Regardless, idk, good ol' Wikipedia does outline genocide as "the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group" So the net of it is that I'd say it's a grey area at best. An English speaker could mean "destroy the Israeli state" or they could mean "destroy the Israeli people" when they say "destroy the nation of Israel", and, well, frankly, years of seeing the poo poo the far-right pulls with language has me pretty solidly intolerant of grey areas wrt discussing genocide. And obligatorily before someone accuses me of suggesting otherwise: yes, Israel is doing those first 3 things. Decon fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Oct 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Private Speech posted:The Camp David accords weren't quite so generous: Nothing in there is even remotely close to "Israel would still control all the borders, seaports, and air space." The Jordanian border temporarily having an international team at certain military checkpoints that included Israel and Palestine is extremely different from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2023 16:00
|
|