Good thing it isn’t then
You answer my straightforward yes/no question first.
Worked for the USA against the Native Americans…
Thanks to the USA’s funding, Israel doesn’t really have that problem, now does it?
It’s the goal Israeli leadership has actually said out loud (as cited in the ICJ case), so yes, it is.
I suspect we’d be wealthier and better off today as a country if we’d developed collaborative relationships with Native Americans.
These actions greatly increase the chances of less US support and aid.
Sure. Doesn’t mean it was ineffective, though.
Genocide works really well if you get to keep all the dead’s stuff. And aren’t facing a larger enemy at the same time.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Congress certainly isn’t stopping funding yet.
In the short term, I agree with you. In the long term, Israel’s leadership is doing serious and maybe irreparable harm to their relationship with the US. It used to be that both parties were rock solid in support of Israel’s government. Now they’ve lost about half of one party, and it’s getting worse and worse for them. Effective and capable militaries aren’t this short sighted. And if incompetence was involved (as I suspect, at least partially, that it was), then that’s an even clearer sign.
Also, generally speaking, a highly effective military should have been capable of essentially defeating Hamas’s military capability by now. It’s clear they have not.
…the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it is.
It is actual evidence actually. It doesn’t have to be “proven in a court” of actual intent to genocide. We can read the words that they said. We can determine intent for ourselves. It’s not as if Israel are going to listen to the International Court of Justice anyway.
So you concede that Israel has committed multiple warcrimes? Which ones in particular?
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was signed in 1948 and became effective from 1951. And the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law came about in part because of things that happened in World War Two.
They have literally forced the entire population into a single, concentrated area, destroyed the healthcare system and are starving them to death.
They have systematically targeted the academic class. 94 university professors killed. Hundreds of teachers. Thousands of students. All of the universities. Most of the schools. You realize that targeting academics and targeting journalists and targeting the police and targeting aid workers and targeting healthcare workers are all genocidal actions? Because it was supposed to be a war on Hamas. But by targeting these people in particular means you are breaking down the fabric of society. The goal here is to make “getting back to normal” impossible.
Of course I’ve thought about that. As I’ve already told you, I didn’t use the word genocide. Its a loaded word.
But is this really the best you can do?
“Its bad.”
Is that the sum total of your argument? Is that it?
Just today, I’ve posted multiple cites outlining clear and obvious warcrimes. All of them different warcrimes. From AI targeting to the destruction of a hospital to the destruction of an apartment block to deliberate starvation in the north to torture and abuse of Palestinian prisoners.
And I’ve posted multiple cites, at least every week here, documenting what I consider clear evidence of an ongoing genocide.
And your total rebuttal here is “its bad, but not that bad?”
Yeah, it is.
I think we are allowed to be emotional about the ongoing slaughter of the Palestinian people. But that isn’t an argument against the evidence I’ve posted here. Feel free to address that evidence. But this isn’t the appropriate place to be debating my “emotions.”
Imagine if this were a real war and Hamas had an air force with Alkhazami software targeting IDF reservist homes. IDF propaganda would cast those as genocidal atrocities while Hamas would claim the IDF was using civilians as shields.
Since there is no way to assess the efficiency of Lavender target selection, the system is running open ended without quality control. A science fiction nightmare.
No it wouldn’t be genocide if they firebombed most of Japan, because the US didn’t go out to exterminate every last Japanese person
Who’s said it? Citing the ICJ case means nothing without them making a judgement againstIsrael on the case brought forward by SA.
…this might be what is causing your confusion. Because this isn’t how genocide is defined.
Genocide doesn’t require everyone involved to have a positive goal of extermination. If a large enough portion of them do, and most of the rest are indifferent, then that can be enough for extermination, or local ethnic cleansing, to occur.
They didn’t need an Airforce to do similar actions on October 7th.
For an act to be classified as genocide, it is essential to demonstrate that the perpetrators had a deliberate and specific aim (dolus specialis) to physically destroy the group based on its real or perceived nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion.
I know how it’s defined thanks
Seems clear and self evident that some portion of Israeli leadership and the IDF is either in favor of extermination or cleansing of Gaza. Some other portion is indifferent to extermination/cleansing. Presumably another portion is opposed to it - but are they being effective in opposing it? Only, ISTM, to the extent that the IDF isn’t nuking Gaza or systematically rounding them up in death camps. Otherwise the IDF seems to be, at best, mostly indifferent to civilian death and suffering. Allowing a million people to risk starving, which does seem like it may be coming, is close enough to genocide IMO to reasonably warrant the term being used. Even if it’s somewhat hyperbolic - some level of hyperbole may be useful here to shift events on the ground.
…do you know that “destroy” is not the same as “kill?”
For example, the genocide of Uyghurs in China. The intent wasn’t to “kill all Uyghurs.” It was to suppress them, indoctrinate them, intern them, sometimes sterilize them.
But not kill them all.
Likewise, the Bosnian genocide. Less people were killed in Bosnia than in the current conflict in Gaza. But its still called the Bosnian Genocide.
The elements of genocide are all presented in the South African case presented to the International Court of Justice. Each element is addressed. It’s all right there. Have you read it?
Ok, and? Still wasn’t a genocide
The recent bombing of the world food kitchen staff?
Well for those who would like the rule of law and not rule of the mob, it being proven in an impartial court of law is important for its validity.
Same thing happened in Japan, blockaded, bombed to oblivion to force a surrender, terrible, but still not a genocide.
Warcrimes, again, doesn’t mean it’s genocide
No, my rebuttal is that it’s bad, but not a genocide and that Hamas didn’t need to mindlessly butcher 1500 people for no apparent gain whatsoever.
All of which had documented evidence of the respective governments to commit genocide, re-education camps for the Uyghurs and the genocide in Sbrenica, Where’s the equivalent in the Gaza Strip?
The elements of genocide are all presented in the South African case presented to the International Court of Justice. Each element is addressed. It’s all right there. Have you read it?
Hasn’t been judged to be a genocide though, only a case brought to trial
…you are citing an event that happened before the genocide convention was ratified. It isn’t considered a genocide because it was never put to the test. But feel free, if you want, to put it to the test now.
That’s one. Any more?
Of course, over 200 aid workers have been killed by the IDF since the start of the conflict. Do they count as well?
Well, no, thats not how it works.
The intent of the South African case at the court is to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths. Cases take years to get through the ICJ. By the time the court makes it ruling the genocide will be all over and done with.
What matters here is the interim judgement, which ruled that it was plausible that Israel were committing a genocide. And Israel were ordered to:
That’s a far cry from “rule of mob.” This impartial court ruled overwhelmingly that Israel had to stop the killing. The “mob rule” here isn’t people like me who happen to use a word starting with g. Its the state actor which upon hearing the ruling of the court decided to act even worse.
And since then we’ve had the Geneva Conventions, Humanitarian International Law, the Genocide Convention. These are all relevant now. Things that happened before they were ratified? Not so much. Because again, the reason we have these things now is because of what happened during WW2.
Its just the genociding that makes it a genocide.
This isn’t a rebuttal.
Here.
It’s literally all there. Legal arguments presented by a legal team that addresses every single element of the genocide convention.
Have you read it?
I’ve outlined what the court has actually ruled.
you are citing an event that happened before the genocide convention was ratified. It isn’t considered a genocide because it was never put to the test. But feel free, if you want, to put it to the test now.
The Armenian genocide and Holocaust happened before the convention was ratified, your point?
If I take what you say at face value, yes? Does it constitute genocide? No
But it’s not a genocide, and their legal ruling would lend credence to the accusation if it turns out to be valid.
Prevention doesn’t mean it’s doing one
And since then we’ve had the Geneva Conventions, Humanitarian International Law, the Genocide Convention. These are all relevant now. Things that happened before they were ratified? Not so much.
What? The Armenian genocide was well documented and known throughout the world because it was beyond reasonable doubt, you don’t need Conventions after the fact to point that out, only to provide legal definition to the crimes committed.
Because again, the reason we have these things now is because of what happened during WW2.
And WWI
No it’s a rebuttal, even if you don’t like it
It’s literally all there. Legal arguments presented by a legal team that addresses every single element of the genocide convention.
Great, now where’s the evidence of dolus specialis?
Ive outlined what the court has actually ruled.
To prevent genocide as opposed to committing it