Seems to me that it’s what Israel is doing. Seems to me that it’s what the United States is, with a shrug, allowing. Seems to me that mainstream modern thought on the matter might be that what’s happening is, as it happens, appropriate.
…I don’t know what else you want me to say. That sentence doesn’t stand on its own. Why do you think I included the word “but?” Because its connected to the first sentence.
I won’t engage you any further on this.
I’ll refer you as well to the submission by South Africa to the International Court of Justice, along with the interim decision made by the ICJ. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is detailed at length, along with how Israel have response has breached the convention, point by point. It is 84 pages long, so it might take you a while to read. But it isn’t short of evidence.
The connection to a prior sentence is the assertion that “it” changes the way that wars will be waged in the future. If there’s no such change, then the ‘it’ is as irrelevant as the ‘but’; if there’s no such change, then the sentence is false regardless of what you were referring to beforehand.
Uh, okay; I’ll go take a look, and let you know.
Maybe I’m missing something, but, as far as I can tell, the definition they’re using is this one:
And it seems to me that Israel of course has the intent to destroy, in whole or in part — namely, in part — such a group, by killing members of that group. If that’s the definition, then, sure, I’m okay with saying it applies here; it seems pretty obvious that they’re killing members of that group, with the intent to destroy “in part” that group, and I approve.
What a strange definition.
…are you talking about Hamas, or Palestinians? Which group of people do you approve of destroying?
As far as I can tell, Israel is out to destroy Hamas in whole or in part, and knows that their efforts to do so (a) have been destroying Palestinians in whole or in part, and (b) will destroy Palestinians in whole or in part — and I approve — and, with each day that the destruction-in-whole-or-in-part continues, I find myself asking, hey, wait a minute: is this “in part” destruction really outside the mainstream of modern thought? Because it sure seems like it’s being done with thought, and being met with shrugs.
Certainly there are some people who are okay with genocide in the world; but there’s also growing international sentiment against Israel’s actions. That international sentiment has yet to translate into concrete action taken against the Israeli government, but I believe, and hope, that such action takes place, in terms of withholding military aid to Israel, imposing economic sanctions, and the like.
Those who accept genocide must be ostracized from the international community. Obviously that’s not something I can do here, but I’ll support politicians and policies that engage in such ostracism.
…I’m sorry, I’m finding this really hard to parse.
But it looks like you are saying that yes, you approve of “destroying Palestinians” to serve a message that “terrorism is bad” and as a response to October the 7th.
Is that a fair reading? Or do you want to clarify what you said?
And bringing it back to what you consider a “strange definition.” Considering the submission is concerned with Palestinians broadly and not specifically Hamas, do you approve of “deliberately inflicting on Palestinians conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part of Palestinians living in Gaza?”
Do you approve of “imposing measures on Palestinians intended to prevent births within that group?” Because miscarriages are up 300% in Gaza.
That article, written on Feb the 8th, is already out of date, by the way. Its 24 hospitals that have shut down now. There is much more at the link.
Is this the sort of thing you approve of? Because this is all part of the submission to the court. Its why South Africa argued that this is a genocide, and why the court issued interim measures.
Or if you would like to clarify, please go ahead.
If the goal of Netanyahu (and Likud?) is to destroy Hamas, why did they give them financial support for so long?
I was going to post a link, but it seems @iiandyiiii brought it up earlier in this thread.
It doesn’t seem that you’re finding it at all hard to parse; yes, I approve of deliberately inflicting, on Palestinians, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part — specifically, “in part” — sure as that’s what Israel is clearly doing.
They don’t seem to mind, and neither do I.
…so you approve of the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Which is what that definition says. I want to be crystal clear here: is this your position? I don’t want to get it wrong.
I don’t want you to get it wrong either, but I don’t know how much clearer I can make this: (a) by the definition provided, ‘genocide’ means killing members of such a group with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, such a group; (b) Israel has, as far as I can tell, decided to do that; (c) I’ve decided that I approve of it; which part of that wasn’t crystal clear to you before this post, a or b or c?
Putting aside that they are your team, and I am not asking you to change your aliegence, is there no line Israel could cross that you would say is too much? Like, just for discussions sake, say the IDF did start lining up civilians and gunning them down in mass graves.
Follow up question: if Israel did cross some line and the rest of the region with US backing said screw it, you’re done, the Netanyahu government needs to be eliminated would any Israeli civilians killed in such a conflict just be unfortunate? Not saying you would have to like it or support such an effort, but that would be fair play as long as the rest of the world was cool with it?
…the part where I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to anyone who approves of the genocide of a group of people before.
But I suppose there is a first time for everything. So that’s a thing, I suppose. You both agree that this is a genocide of the Palestinian people, and you approve of the genocide of the Palestinian people.
…from the latest flash report: an update on one of the other hospitals currently under siege: Al Amal Hospital in Khan Younis.
And on the general health situation:
More from the report:
On the West Bank:
More at the link.
This entire side discussion strikes me as downright odd; you’re asking, with an “if”, about a hypothetical situation where someone decides screw it, you’re done, and Israeli civilians will be killed in such a conflict — which is a lot like a hypothetical situation where someone decides the opposite — only we’re in the actual situation where Hamas already decided Screw It You’re Done Israeli Citizens Will Be Killed. We’re already living in the world where Hamas crossed the line of gunning down civilians en masse and “the rest of the region with US backing” then didn’t say That Was Too Much And Screw It You’re Done to, as it were, Hamas.
You want me to mull, for discussion’s sake, whether a hypothetical would involve fair play, while the important question seems to me to be whether Israel has decided to okay this actual response to that actual attack, and whether I okay it likewise? Well, I guess I’d advise Israel not to cross a line that would prompt a Screw It You’re Done response that wouldn’t be in Israel’s best interests, if we’re in that hypothetical — and to do what they’re doing, if we’re in the hypothetical where (a) it wouldn’t draw such a response, and (b) they believe it’s in their best interests — and I guess I’d advise the US to let Israel know key facts about where that hypothetical line is, and I guess I’d advise Israel to let the next would-be 10/7-type attacker know what to expect in response to a 10/7-type attack, so everyone can draw useful conclusions about their own best interests.
At which point, fair play isn’t the point; interest is the point.
Possibly you should explain to them, slowly and patiently, that you’re going to ask if they approve of killing members of such a group to destroy such a group in whole or in part. Then ask them whether they approve of killing members of such a group to destroy that group in whole — no? Well, okay, thanks; and now, to continue on to the thrilling conclusion — “in part?”
Maybe you’ll find that, say, half of the people you’re speaking with will happen to approve; sure, maybe it’ll only be three out of ten, but maybe it’ll be seven; or, granted, maybe zero or one, but maybe nine or ten?
I am thankful that on this board, you appear to be alone in this advocacy of genocide.
Israel seems to be okay with what Israel is doing. I’m likewise okay with what Israel is doing. I’ve seen polling where, yes, some Americans say Israel has gone too far, but other Americans put it at “about right” and yet others at “not gone far enough.” Time will tell, I suppose.
Your confusion is fair, it made more sense in my head. Let me try this. At the moment, Israel is making a much larger military response than the original 10/7 attack. Also, while Hamas is definitely a problem Israel needs to eliminate, it is extremely unlikely that Hamas, or even all Palestinians, could inflict the level of military damage that Israel can upon Gaza.
And so yes, at a very basic level Israel can do what it wants in Gaza unless a larger nation or coalition of nations steps in. And you support Israel’s response, and find any claims of genocide or pleas to international courts to be meaningless.
So my question is let’s suppose that a US led coalition did decide that the Netanyahu government had gone too far, and the bombing on started tonight. Just for fun, let’s also say that the US had a way of over riding the Iron Dome, and so within a few days there were 50,000 dead Israeli civilians. I am assuming you would still support Israel, but would you view those bombings as a genocidal attack? And if the International court said it was genocide would you consider that a positive thing for Israel or just meaningless blather?