context: the debatejak-fan high school friend I’ve complained about before, I’m pressing him on his debate daddy’s claim that nuking the Gaza Strip and annihilating the entire population of it would not be an act of genocide

He tries to say it depends on the context, and I’m like, ‘elaborate’ interviewer

Here is the hypothetical scenario in which an Israeli nuke is launched into the Gaza Strip, killing everybody in it, where purportedly no one is guilty of genocide. I am going to try my best to quote this conversation as close to how it played out as I can.

Let’s say, a rogue IDF soldier sees one Hamas guy in the Gaza Strip, and he launches a nuke to deal with him.

That would still be genocide, dude, the rogue IDF soldier would have committed an act of genocide.

It wouldn’t, because–

What do you mean it wouldn’t?

Because he’s using the nuke without the special intent to kill everyone in the Gaza Strip, he’s using it to get the Hamas guy-

No, wait, when you’re launching a– if you unleash a WMD the results of the action is a responsibility you take on and can be assigned to your– unless a fucking breeze literally takes your nuke and puts it somewhere else, it’s– you assume responsibility for the consequences of your actions, especially if you can comprehend them, which I’m not even going to consider people not knowing what nukes do to be valid.

But it wouldn’t be genocide! He doesn’t have the special intent.

How the fuck did this rogue soldier get the nuclear codes anyways strangelove-wow

  • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]
    ·
    3 months ago

    To take this seriously: legally, genocidal intent does not mean "you can't prove my mental state therefore not guilty". Requiring intent may not be the best standard, but even within the UN convention defninition, intent is usually inferred from the sum of actions taken, and euphemisms and rhetoric used in statements, and such, it is not taken as a requirement of definitive proof of the (fundamentally unprovable) mental state of the perpetrators. For example in the Srebrenica trials, the act of mass killing itself, with an awareness of the consequences it would have, was taken as the factual basis for specific intent all on its own. just "you killed a bunch of members of the group, knowing full well it would decimate their population in the region, that's genocide." If anything dropping a nuke would be far more clear cut.

    Bullshit "gotcha" technicalities don't actually work IRL when you are being judged by other humans, not law-following robots. The only way I could see this hypothetical soldier not being guilty of genocide is if they were ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial, like to the point that they actually did not realize what they were doing and what the consequences would be. And even then I would think there would be a case to be brought against the israelis collectively, if not that one person.

    BadEmpanada's video on this is decent background though you have to hop around a bit to find the parts that are relevant to this hypothetical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRDyitlHVRA