LOL! You’re the one who brought up Bosnia completely out of left field.
Out of left field? It’s a well-documented genocide. The relevance to the current Gazan genocide is very clear. Doesn’t mean Israel is actually connected to Bosnia.
It’s clear you have no actual counter to the Bosnian example’s demolition of your poor low kill count objection to use of the term genocide.
What’s clear is that, when faced with irrefutable facts that blow up your often illogical arguments, you short circuit. You start bringing in unrelated crap and then pat yourself on the back for being so brilliant.
Read my lips because, after this, I’m done with you:
Israel’s military response in Gaza is not remotely close to being genocide for the reasons I have already stated and which, of course, you have ignored and avoided. I will, however, repeat them again so that you can ignore them again.
Gaza harbors Hamas, a terrorist group, whose favorite hobby is to launch rocket attacks at Israel. They’ve done this on a continuing basis for many years. Israel is in Gaza to destroy Hamas, a group that shows its humanity by hiding weapons and munitions under hospitals and adjacent to schools full of children. Considering the fact that Hamas is blatantly using the civilian population as a shield, only ten percent of the population has become casualties. Contrary to being genocide, it is a real effort on Israel’s part to limit civilian casualties as much as possible.
This is contrary to pretty much all the independent reporting, including reports from IDF members themselves. Mass starvation and mass atrocities against civilians, all at the hands of the IDF.
Right, two genocides have nothing in common…
One reason - low kill count - has been clearly demolished since you have no actual response.
The other - intent - has already been convincingly argued by the South African legal team, with ample cites.
Both your reasons don’t stand up.
I did no such thing.
Only three percent died in Bosnia…
Seven percent less effort (or more than 200 percent less effort- depends how you count) than the Serbian genocidaires is hardly real effort.
And yet people are willing to help Palestinians continue to genocide Israel for no other reason than because they are bad at it. Call it whatever you want, I still see what Israel is doing as an effective measure that is stopping the main problem.
I’m a little bemused. I should think the obvious answer is that genocide is always wrong. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about Armenians, Palestinians, Jews, Romani, or Native Americans.
Moderating:
Reminder to all, there is a useful and noticeable distinction to be made between Hamas and Palestinian civilians. The OP asks about the latter, so let’s try to steer back to actions Gazan Civilians can and should take. Some posts are verging on personal attacks due to the highly charged nature of the discussion. Please avoid this.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
There is no right side here, both sides are wrong and assholes. All genocide is wrong so lets help this genocide instead of this other one is such a ridiculous position to take. Israel are still our allies and if one side has to win it should obviously be them.
Pretty sure no-one here is doing that, or suggesting the DNC do that. Supporting Palestinian civilians against genocide in no way would be doing that.
It is doing exactly that. Every single bit of help given to Palestinians is helping them genocide Israel because that is their end goal. I don’t understand if people are being purposedly naive or what.
No Palestinians (including the children) are non-combatants. That’s your argument?
More textbook ethnic bigotry. They’re evil because they’re Palestinians – men, women, and children, with no distinction between babies and gun-carrying extremists.
This certainly is what Smotrich and the like would have us believe. I guess you agree with them?
It boggles the mind that any modern person with any understanding of history would remotely buy into “we gotta kill all of them before they kill all of us!”.
There’s a slight touch of “nits make lice” about that argument, too.
Seems like a lot more than “slight”…
And yet it sure as hell seems to be working a lot better at stopping Palestinian attacks on Israel than a cease fire ever did.
So the ends justify the means? Genocide is a-okay with you if it results in no further attacks (for now, at least)?
All that calling this a genocide does is convince me the bar for genocide is ridiculously low and utterly meaningless. I support what Israel is doing, attach to it whatever buzz word you want.
You support mass starvation and mass atrocities, as reported by IDF members themselves?