As bloody as the war in Gaza has been so far, it may not fit the popular conception many have of genocide from the 20th century, when the death tolls were far larger and, in retrospect, the intent by perpetrators to wipe out an entire people was undeniable.
the "popular conception many have of genocide from the 20th century"? Srebrenica was called a genocide and only 8,000 people died - it does not say anywhere in international law that a certain number of people have to be killed.
is there not enough genocidal intent evidenced by Israelis every single day? laughable point.
Notice that there are two components here. One is a physical element — the five acts just listed — which can be empirically determined. But the other is a mental element — the “intent to destroy” a group “as such” — and that’s much harder to prove.
By “as such,” the Convention means that the victims must be deliberately targeted not as individuals but because of their membership in a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group and as part of a broader plan to destroy that group. That second part is key: Not every violent attack against civilians — even if it is motivated by national, ethnic, racial, or religious bias — qualifies as genocide. It has to be intended to eliminate the group as a collective. (Note that genocide can be perpetrated against only part of a group, so long as it’s an identifiable and substantial part.)
very easily proven when the Israeli president is saying they're "fighting against an entire nation", when Netanyahu is invoking Amalek where an entire group of people were slaughtered, when every other Israeli politician is saying Palestinians need to be murdered or expelled, when they're saying diseases should be allowed to spread, when they're cutting off water, food, electricity, fuel.
Israel has said its siege and bombardment of Gaza — which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on November 3 will continue with “all of [Israel’s] power” — is intended to eliminate Hamas, after the horrors of October 7. It has denied that it intentionally targets civilians, and in a statement to Insider, the IDF said it is “fully committed to respecting all applicable international legal obligations,” putting procedures in place to ensure as much. Instead, it says civilian deaths are the unfortunate collateral damage of its war on Hamas, which Israel has accused of hiding behind civilian infrastructure.
yes they say they're fighting Hamas, then on the other hand they say all Palestinians are Hamas and support Hamas. an Israeli official recently said the 10,000+ people they've killed were "mostly terrorists". also, when 99% of people being killed are civilians, it does not matter if you're not explicitly saying you're going to target civilians. if Hitler said "I have no problem with Jews, I'm only targeting the Judeo-Bolsheviks", these people would be cool with that?
International law does not outright ban civilian casualties during war. Principles around “proportionality,” for instance, imply that some civilian deaths can be acceptable depending on the military objective.
sure? pretty disgusting to point this out when Israel is bombing hospitals with the pretense that there's Hamas command centers under it, then finding nothing.
Israel, for its part, has urged civilians to move south as its troops encircle Gaza City and warned that anyone who remains could be seen as “sympathizers of a terrorist organization.” But some are unable to move or have refused to move, fearing permanent displacement from their homes. Israel is continuing its bombardment, even on corridors to the south. Its reliance on aerial bombing, as opposed to “ground-level, up-close-and-personal killing,” may allow for “obfuscation” about who exactly it’s targeting, Jones said.
oh "for its part" they just "urged" a million people to move south? how kind of them. it's super obfuscated who they're targeting.
nonsense ass article, and definitely not the gotcha you thought it was honestly. they repeatedly cite clear intentionality from Israeli sources, they cite how Israel is explicitly targeting civilians - and then turn around and go "ahh well it's hard to prove, no one can really know!"
On the one hand, there is a metric ton of evidence that this is unequivocally genocide.
On the other hand we have sone really strong counter arguments, like how "some have commented" that "Israel could kill even more Gazans if they wanted to".
also, a professor of "Israel studies" says calling it genocide "cheapens the concept", and a bunch of Israelis say it's a "false claim" - guess it must be true!
Ah shit not Vox, I'll definitely read their essay arguing semantics over the word genocide because it makes a U.S. client state look like the fascists that they are. A State Department ghoul that approved weapons sales to foreign countries resigned because the wanton destruction had gotten too egregious even for him, can you imagine how many people he's signed a death warrant for but started to lose sleep over Israel going full barbarism?
Removed by mod
Genocide denying
loser cries about getting banned everywhere for having shitty opinions. Blames everyone but himself.
"Where have all the edgy and factual comments gone?"
Shit your pants and cry harder @Potatofish@lemmy.ml
Why won't you tankies debate him in the marketplace of ideas?
the "popular conception many have of genocide from the 20th century"? Srebrenica was called a genocide and only 8,000 people died - it does not say anywhere in international law that a certain number of people have to be killed.
is there not enough genocidal intent evidenced by Israelis every single day? laughable point.
very easily proven when the Israeli president is saying they're "fighting against an entire nation", when Netanyahu is invoking Amalek where an entire group of people were slaughtered, when every other Israeli politician is saying Palestinians need to be murdered or expelled, when they're saying diseases should be allowed to spread, when they're cutting off water, food, electricity, fuel.
yes they say they're fighting Hamas, then on the other hand they say all Palestinians are Hamas and support Hamas. an Israeli official recently said the 10,000+ people they've killed were "mostly terrorists". also, when 99% of people being killed are civilians, it does not matter if you're not explicitly saying you're going to target civilians. if Hitler said "I have no problem with Jews, I'm only targeting the Judeo-Bolsheviks", these people would be cool with that?
sure? pretty disgusting to point this out when Israel is bombing hospitals with the pretense that there's Hamas command centers under it, then finding nothing.
oh "for its part" they just "urged" a million people to move south? how kind of them. it's super obfuscated who they're targeting.
nonsense ass article, and definitely not the gotcha you thought it was honestly. they repeatedly cite clear intentionality from Israeli sources, they cite how Israel is explicitly targeting civilians - and then turn around and go "ahh well it's hard to prove, no one can really know!"
On the one hand, there is a metric ton of evidence that this is unequivocally genocide.
On the other hand we have sone really strong counter arguments, like how "some have commented" that "Israel could kill even more Gazans if they wanted to".
So, who can say for sure right?
also, a professor of "Israel studies" says calling it genocide "cheapens the concept", and a bunch of Israelis say it's a "false claim" - guess it must be true!
Ah shit not Vox, I'll definitely read their essay arguing semantics over the word genocide because it makes a U.S. client state look like the fascists that they are. A State Department ghoul that approved weapons sales to foreign countries resigned because the wanton destruction had gotten too egregious even for him, can you imagine how many people he's signed a death warrant for but started to lose sleep over Israel going full barbarism?