…so once again: the Dem leadership aren’t listening to what its voters want.
No wonder they lost the Supremes, the House, the Senate and the Presidency.
I think we should stop every genocide. Before today, I didn’t think that would be a controversial opinion, but here we are I suppose.
This should be rather obvious: but you don’t prevent genocides by committing a genocide. If you commit a genocide, that just makes you a bunch of war criminals that need to be sent to the Hague.
What an incredibly strange thing to say.
Obviously it might not be the case in this or that situation. But: how can you conclusively rule out the possibility that a genocide against Group A could, as it happens, be prevented via a genocide against Group B?
It’s always convenient when the right thing to do politically on a national level is to do exactly what the speaker wants…
Because there’s no possible scenario in which the only way to prevent a genocide is to attempt to murder every single man, woman, and child of a particular ethnic, national, or religious group?
…because genocide is wrong.
I’m not arguing that exterminating a national, ethnical, racial or religious group of people (in whole or in part) wouldn’t eliminate the potential threat of a genocide from that group. It obviously would.
I’m arguing, you just don’t do that.
You don’t try and eliminate a group of people based on their national, ethnical, racial or religious group. End of story. And if you DO try and do that, you are war criminals and should be bought to justice.
Just don’t do genocide. It’s a crime against humanity.
And don’t advocate for genocide, either. That really isn’t a good look.
This isn’t an incredibly strange thing to say. “Don’t commit genocide” seems a rather obvious thing to do.
…honestly: I’m rather flabbergasted.
Would it be wrong to physically or culturally genocide the Borg, a species that exists by committing genocide?
…honestly, as a sci-fi geek, I’ve played this scenario out in my head multiple times. And I’m on team don’t genocide the Borg.
But that obviously isn’t comparable here. Because Palestinians aren’t a “hive mind.” They are just people.
Even if they were a hive mind it’s a fucking big ask to commit to their genocide.
I’m not even sure why you mention it because even with a “hive mind” the Borg are still people.
…does this have anything to do with what is happening in Gaza and the Democrats? I thought you were making a joke. But if you weren’t: it simply isn’t analogous to what we are talking about at all.
No, it clearly isn’t. Hypotheticals like this strain our settled assumptions. In this weird hypothetical, given the only way the Borg reproduce, stopping the Borg from committing genocide is committing the genocide of the Borg. It’s a version of the Trolley Problem.
…not here. On Earth: genocide is bad. On Earth: Palestinians have as much value as everyone else. They aren’t subhuman. They aren’t an alien species. And we don’t talk about them as if they are a hive-mind like the Borg.
They don’t deserve to be genocided. They didn’t bring this on themselves. Palestinian babies are not inferior to any other kind of baby.
And the Democrats should be standing up for them, just like they are standing up for Ukrainians. Because America is funding and supporting what is happening in Gaza and have much of the responsibility to stop it.
There is one single episode of TNG where an Admiral gives Picard shit for not committing genocide against the Borg. He tells the Admiral he didn’t do it because it would be wrong. It never comes up again.
However, there are tons and tons of Borg episodes (Voyager in particular but as early as “I, Borg” in TNG) where we have examples of how the Borg aren’t so bad after all. So to bring it back to the topic, if not even the soulless, all-consuming Borg “deserve it”, I’m not sold on the idea that the Palestinians somehow do.
How about this? Gazan civilians cannot really do anything, because they do not hold sway in the U.S. However, the U.S. is a superpower. If Democrats are able to gain control of the U.S. government, or at least enough of it, the President of the United States could absolutely call Israel and influence what happens there, including demand greater protection for civilians. The real question is why that has not already happened, which leaves us pessimistic that U.S. policy is going to change tomorrow.
ETA I am not sure what might be the relevance of this Star Trek stuff, but Israel is saying, and the US and other countries must essentially agree, you cannot tell us not to send armed forces into Gaza to fight enemy terrorists. The official Israeli position is that it is a regular military operation and not a genocide. The U.S. may not want to publicly call them lying liars, but diplomacy could theoretically work, of course (especially with a different Israeli government).
…the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory, Ms. Francesca Albanese, addressed this when asked the question by a reporter:
What exactly would you expect the people perpetrating a genocide to say? Of course they are going to be denying it. It’s why multiple organisations have been painstakingly collating evidence over the last two years. They’ve been gathering evidence of war crimes. They’ve been gathering evidence of intent. Denying they are committing genocide is just what people committing genocide will do.
Again: I’m not sure that people are understanding what genocide actually means.
Here is the genocide convention.
Bolding mine.
What the multiple different organisations are accusing Israel of is intentionally trying to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part, because they are Palestinians.
That’s what makes genocide different. Both the intent, and the fact they are targeting a group of people based on a set of characteristics, their national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
It’s an extermination. There is deliberate starvation. Ethnic cleansing. They are sniping children. Deliberately assassinating journalists. They’ve broken the healthcare system. Established concentration camps.
Again: this is all very well documented and I’ve provided citations in this and other threads. What this means is that if Israel are successful, Palestinians will either be killed, forced into exile, or have to live under tyranny.
Did you know that a couple of days ago Israel killed four American citizens, including two children, in a drone strike in Lebanon? That nine US citizens have been killed either by Israeli settlers or soldiers in dubious circumstances since 2022? Do you know what resulted from US diplomacy here? Under Biden? No criminal charges. No sanctions. No comment.
Did you know, as I type this, Israel are dropping explosive devices and gas on boats taking part in a flotilla that is currently in international waters? Breaking story.
In Gaza the IDF are packing old M113 Armoured Personal Carriers with bombs, sending them into neighbourhoods and exploding them. British Doctors are reporting children being shot in the testicles in some sort of sick game. And speaking of games: there used to be 400 aid distribution sites in Gaza. Now there are only officially four. And in order to get to those sites people have to literally run a gauntlet like some Squid Game dystopia. 2500 people have been killed so far just trying to get food from these sites. Over 18,000 wounded.
So what sort of “diplomacy” are you actually imagining would have some impact here? They are killing American citizens. Attacking a flotilla of boats in international waters. Blowing up entire neighbourhoods. Making live-action Squid Games. I would expect cutting off funding, cutting off arms, stopping opposing resolutions at the United Nations, cutting off diplomatic relations, would be the absolute minimum one would expect.
But it sounds like you think something different would work. Perhaps a strongly worded letter? But not as far as “publicly calling them liars.” That would be a bridge too far. What are you actually suggesting here? What does “diplomacy” look like to you?
This is what Biden did. And its the equivalent of what someone suggestions earlier of offering “thoughts and prayers” without the prayers.
What this thread has made quite clear to me is that while there are plenty of Democrat supporters that understand that its a genocide, there are also a number that don’t think it their problem, that don’t think “Palestinian babies should get to live over Israeli babies”, that the Palestinians need to be genocided in order to potentially prevent a future genocide. I think the people in this thread should get a pass: because they really aren’t understanding the ramifications of what the word “genocide” means here. Either they don’t believe its a genocide, or they are thinking in terms of an ordinary military campaign and don’t understand the ramifications of what genocide actually means.
But the Dem leadership don’t get a pass. And I think the Dem leadership is full of people who think many of the very same things. They will say in public what needs to be said. Plausible deniability. But privately, they think you need to burn the village to save the village. And that the Palestinians bought this on themselves and deserve what’s coming for them.
So the answer to the question posed by the OP of what do Palestinians in Gaza need to do to get the sympathy of the Dem leadership?
And the answer is there is nothing they can do. Its a genocide. And a genocide targets people based on their national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This is probably uncomfortable for people to hear. But hating people just because of who they are is something that has happened throughout history. And there are just enough Dems in the leadership who hate Palestinians just because they are Palestinians that they will just continue to let this happen.
Well I was certainly willing to take your word for it that it was a genocide, and then you drop this:
This is simply not true, they are trying to destroy Palestine because Palestine is trying to destroy them.
Hamas is trying to destroy Israel. Not Gaza, not Palestine, and certainly not hundreds of thousands of peaceful men, women and children who are at extreme risk of starving to death or violent death at the hands of the IDF.
…I mean: trying to destroy Palestine is still genocide. You accept that, right? That intentionally trying to destroy a people is genocide?
I guess, if you are going to change the definition until it fits.
What definition are you using?