Meaningless blather, I guess, if — like the one mentioned upthread — it’s one of those decisions that “the court has no way to enforce”, and things just keep on keeping on. But I guess my real issue with your hypothetical is that I genuinely don’t see the US doing that.
I know, I know, don’t fight the hypothetical; but I don’t really see the US saying “you’ve gone too far, and the bombing starts tonight.” I can, with some effort, see the US helpfully explaining to Israel, ‘hey, listen: if you keep this up, then we’ll start bombing’ — and, for that matter, it takes no effort to imagine the US instead continuing to act as it, well, has — but, deep down, I kind of figured that this is exactly the sort of situation where the US would use the threat of force before resorting to the use of force (because that’d make sense) to thereby give Israel a chance to make a decision based on its best interests (which would also make sense).
Granted, you can contrive a hypothetical where that’s not the case, but it just seems unrealistic to the point of being unhelpful.
Sadly, I don’t think TOWP is alone in his advocacy; he’s just the only one who has admitted it. Several others are fully supportive of all the same acts, they just balk at calling it genocide.
Still, I’m gobsmacked by this admission. Hooray for honesty, I guess.
I was trying to match Israel’s automatic, do not pass Go response after 10/7. You are correct that it is highly unlikely that the US would launch an attack with no previous threat.
In any case, you answered my one question, which is that you wouldn’t be calling for an International court to do anything. I was trying to clarify if you were of a mindset that Israel is a special case deserving a different internationally protected status than say Gaza, or to make it less in your face, let’s say Vatican City.
…its incredibly difficult to parse what you are saying.
Who is this “them” you are talking about? Why would I be explaining anything to them?
People that support what Israel is doing almost overwhelmingly are not calling this a genocide. Most absolutely bristle at the suggestion.
You are different.
You not only concede that yes, this is a genocide, but it is a genocide you wholeheartedly support. I’ve honestly never interacted with someone who admits they support a genocide. Which is why I wanted to be absolutely certain I wasn’t misrepresenting your words.
But you’ve still got an opportunity to retract here, if you want. I won’t hold it against you. Because I suggested you read the entirety of South Africa’s submission to the International Court of Justice. Now I suggested that because it was important to not only read what the definition said, but how the way Israel have chosen to conduct this war fit the definition. It looks like you read the definition and stopped. You should go back and read the rest.
And after reading it you still support the genocide of the Palestinian people, well then, as TroutMan says, thanks for your honesty. I’ll remember that for any future conversations, because this context will be important.
I’m not sure what’s so difficult to parse; I’d copy-and-pasted the one sentence I was replying to. You said: “I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to anyone who approves of the genocide of a group of people before.” I suggest that, when you’re speaking to people about this matter, you simply read them (that’s The People You’re Speaking With) the definition you’re using — right down to the ‘in whole or in part’ bit — and ask if they (The People You’re Speaking With approve of doing so “in whole”, and if they (The People You’re Speaking With) approve of doing so “in part”.
I read the definition you’re using; I can’t see any way to argue that it, as written, doesn’t apply.
As far as I can tell, you should hold that against me. If anyone reads that definition, and says with a straight face that it doesn’t encompass what Israel is doing, I figure I’d hold it against them, because that’s pretty clearly what it spells out.
I read the definition because doing so let me answer the question I’d been asked; I’ll read the rest out of courtesy, but I honestly don’t know what use you think it’ll be.
I’m speaking to people here. I’ve spoken to people in this thread for months. You are the only person who has openly supported genocide. I don’t think you will get anyone here rallying to your cause.
But let’s open the floor.
Is there anyone else here that supports the genocide of the Palestinian people?
But there’s two parts to the equation.
Firstly, do you agree with the definition?
Secondly, do you support the genocide?
People who agree with the definition by and large do not support the genocide.
People who disagree that Israels actions fit the definition also do not support the genocide of the Palestinian people.
I mean, if you openly support the deliberate starvation of millions of people, the destruction of the healthcare system, the forced relocation of 1.7 million people, the destruction of heritage sites and civilian infrastructure, routine humiliation-beatings-torture of Palestinian detainees, the slaughter of over 14 thousand Palestinian children, then sure. I’ll hold that against you.
But I want to be crystal clear that this is what you mean. Because as I said: it appears that you read the definition in the submission, then stopped there. Have you read the rest yet? Do you support it?
I doubt it will be any use to you. But it will be helpful for everyone else to have clarity.
…the footage here, of the way that Palestinian prisoners are being treated in detention, are simply horrific. All taken from the very same documentary shared above. Being treated worse than animals.
I’m not sure how anyone could defend this. They are claiming that these are only the “terrorists”, but we know from the testimony and from physical evidence from released detainees that this is how they treated everyone.
You are correct, there is a war going on. So that means you are cool with any member of the IDF being killed because that is what happens in war, right?
And since there is a war going on now, any Israeli civilian deaths happening after 10/7 should be viewed as merely collateral damage, and just the cost of doing business. I don’t want to hear otherwise from you if there are any successful Hamas attacks in Israel. Both teams get the ball in overtime.
You guys are right, being a cold blooded pragmatist about all of this really removes the stress.
I get that you’re surprised that TOWP is okay with genocide, and maybe Smapti is as well–but, without getting personal, I’m not surprised. Conversation between them and those who aren’t okay with genocide may not prove productive.
Before reading it, I figured that Israel was okay with doing what it thought was in its best interests, and that I’d be okay with it likewise, and that it met the specialized in-whole-or-in-part definition that you’re using.
After reading it, that’s all — still true? Nothing in there really came as a surprise to me; much of it I’d already heard, the rest seemed significantly similar. I sure do hope you now have, uh, crystal clarity.
When you watch MCU movies, do you just fast forward over the parts where the good guys feel conflicted about all of the destruction they cause? It must really save time.
