You just repeating yourself without addressing the objections raised to your argument is not particularly compelling.
Pot meet kettle.
A pogrom and ethnic cleansing seem almost the same thing. I am hard pressed to find what distinguishes one from another.
Pogroms seemed to focus on Jews but I am not sure the word can only be applied to Jews.
Maybe a pogrom, as mentioned above, is more a spontaneous things and not directed by the government. Still not sure though.
…you do realize that all of my cites use the Genocide Convention to make their case, right?
I mean, just how stupid are you?
You’ve provided the definition.
My cites show how what is happening in Gaza fit the definition.
This isn’t difficult at all.
Your cites support mine.
What you are arguing is your interpretation of the Genocide Convention. And that is backed by absolutely nothing at all. You aren’t an expert in international humanitarian law. You aren’t even looking at the evidence.
Your citations don’t “beat mine.” They support mine.
What is this bullshit?
The United Nations?
The International Court of Justice?
Maryam Jamshidi, Associate Professor of Law at University of Colorado Law School?
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights?
Raz Segal, Israeli historian, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Endowed Professor in the Study of Modern Genocide at Stockton University, who directs the Master of Arts in Holocaust and Genocide Studies?
Are you calling these people and organisations fringe? Because the publications certainly are not.
What a fucking joke.
Smarter than you which is all that matters for this.
What is the current UN treaty on genocide? Not some rando bloviating. The fucking LAW all (or most anyway) countries agree to?
I won’t hold my breath.
Where is the UN trial that demonstrated Israel’s intent in Gaza? If there hasn’t been a trial, you can’t point at the requirements for conviction as evidence that they aren’t committing genocide.
You keep saying that but the answer is you are innocent until proven guilty.
ETA: More to the point, the requirements to be guilty of genocide has been posted here and Israel is not doing that. At least, no one has provided any evidence of it. Ethnic cleansing? Sure. Clearly so, without a doubt. And that is plenty bad on its own. But it’s not genocide.
…in the eyes of the law. The government must treat you as innocent until it proves your guilt, which means (in theory, at least) it can’t lock you up or confiscate your property without trial. It has absolutely nothing to do with what’s going on in this thread, which consists of private citizens rendering their own opinions on the morality and legality of Israel’s actions.
…I’m glad I quoted this before you deleted.
You can see it being addressed here.
If you are confused by the link, its a direct link to the South African submission to the International Court of Justice, arguing the case for genocide by Isreal in Gaza.
It addresses the UN convention step by step.
From the introduction: (apologies for the wonky copy-and-paste formatting)
There is 84 pages of evidence that was submitted to support the case for genocide. It addresses every element of the convention and provides evidence to support their contention. Israel were given the opportunity to respond. You can look up their response yourself. This was followed by two days of testimony, and the case is ongoing.
The process to legally define this as a genocide is long and will take years. So if you are waiting for the definitive legal take, we won’t get that for a very long time. And by then, it will be too late. The reason why South Africa took the case was because they believed Israel were committing a genocide. The Court ordered a set of measures that Israel were required to undertake to prevent a genocide. Israel ignored those measures.
But the Straightdope isn’t a courtroom. And I’m as entitled as anyone else to look at the evidence, to look at what historians and experts in genocide have to say, people that “aren’t on the fringe”, and the consensus here is pretty clear.
You aren’t arguing why the evidence doesn’t fit the convention. You are just denying the evidence actually exists.
I used to wonder how people could live right next to concentration camps, yet remain blissfully unaware of what was happening there. But that’s the reality of the world we are living in right now. It’s not that they didn’t know.
Let’s try it another way.
Let’s assume (sake of argument) that the Nazis were the gold standard when it came to genocide.
They built several large facilities dedicated to the wholesale murder of people who were literally shipped in by the trainload and whose only distinguishing feature was they were Jewish. There was little distinction of age or gender. Everyone got killed eventually (with some kept alive to work for some time before being killed).
Is Israel trying any of that?
…yeah, they are.
This is a lie.
There is no way that you’ve even clicked on any of the links I provided. Not in the time that you’ve had in between responses.
The standard is the Convention. The very convention you cited. It doesn’t have to reach any “gold standard.”
This isn’t a requirement of the convention.
And we’re back to “Are boxcars required for it to be a genocide?”
I am not going to reply to your Gish Gallop.
Or you can answer…
Is Israel building murder centers to kill any Palestinian they can get their hand on?
…you asked for evidence.
I provided evidence.
I even neatly summarised those cites for you, provided the authors and more context.
I’m happy to distil the evidence down further in any way that makes it easier for you to digest. What would you suggest? I think this is important. How do you want me to present the evidence for genocide in a way that you won’t dismiss as a fallacy?
…where does it say this in the Convention?
That was an answer.
A lot of the Holocaust was carried out by Eiensatz groups in the field, who didn’t use big complicated facilities - they’d just walk into a village, round every one up, and shoot them.
Was that not part of the genocide, because they didn’t put everyone in “murder centers” first?
Right here. Post #21:
It turns out that is not an easy thing to do but they sure tried.
And that brings us back to:
And I would say I see no such intent from Israel and no one has shown that either.
I do believe Israel wants to clear out Gaza. That is ethnic cleansing. Also not a nice thing but also not genocide.