They are important. And relevant. And absolutely key to understanding what genocide is.
Which is why all of the people I chose to cite used the definitions you cited as a framework to argue that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a genocide.
You used those very same definitions to argue that it isn’t a genocide. The difference here is that you aren’t an expert in international humanitarian law, you aren’t a lawyer arguing a case at the International Court of Justice, you aren’t a historian who has dedicated their life to studying the holocaust and genocide.
I’ll say it again: your cites are perfectly fine. They just don’t support your argument.
…well nobody here is doing that. I don’t think that anyone in this thread has called for revenge. And my position is the same as it was six months ago. That what Hamas did on October the 7th was an atrocity. Israel had a right to defend itself. But the way they decided to wage this war is not “self-defence.” It crossed the line early into the campaign into multiple war crimes, and has since evolved into a full-blown genocide.
So I don’t think you are talking about me. And I can’t think of anyone here who you could be talking about.
This may sound odd coming from someone who started a thread to distinguish between a pogrom and a race riot, but i feel like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” overlap a lot, and I’m not super interested in distinguishing those two entities.
…I’ve argued that both are going on here. But there is no treaty or convention that covers ethnic cleansing. It’s considered “a crime of humanity” under international law, which is one of the things Netanyahu, Gallant and Deif have been charged with.
Yeah. Contrary to all the talk about “cheapening” terms like genocide I think the opposite is the problem; people trying to rules-lawyer their way into denying that something is genocide.
Yes, clearly. I mean they managed genocide in places like Armenia, Cambodia and Rwanda without either boxcars or building several large facilities dedicated to the wholesale murder of people literally shipped in by the trainload.
Arguing that indeed is definitionally obtuse. But here’s the thing: you’re the one making that argument with your gold standard of the Nazis for genocide and the box-car theory:
And just to remind you, I am still curious about your feelings on the second largest group of victims of the Holocaust, the 3.3 million Soviet POWs murdered by deliberate neglect and starvation.
Not gonna read this whole thread, which has clearly gone predictably off the rails, but I don’t see why “pogrom” shouldn’t be restricted specifically to “anti-Semitic mob attacks perpetrated in the Russian Empire”. Those were frequent enough and historically significant enough to deserve their own word, and obviously there are lots of other words available to describe other horrors.
