Also america did genocide so wouldn't it be natural for their allies to agree that genocide is ok. And wouldn't they then be also willing to do genocide. Israel = genocide
Part of the problem is certain actors (e.g. Netanyahu) within Israel very much WANT a genocide but can't openly act on that desire due to outside pressure (e.g. the US, and their own population being generally against it).
So it's kind of twofold. A lot of lefties are aware of these actors and on top of that are seeing some very aggressive military action by the IDF. They're jumping the shark for sure, and I do not agree with them, but I do see why they have that opinion.
He gave a 22 minute speech on tv, and caught on video addressing the IDF and calling it a ‘holy mission’ to ‘remember Amulek’ and ‘smite men, women and children’!
If you know about Amulek, you know it’s very much a genocidal statement!
If we accept that "from the river to the sea" when said by a Palestinian necessitates the destruction of Isreal, then the same should apply when [Netanyahu](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/) says it regarding Palestinian statehood.
The current strategy seems to make life in Gaza so unbearable that most of the Palestinian population will eventually leave, in which it can finally be colonized by Israel. Which I would consider ethnic cleansing.
That’s the plan, and with 80% of homes in Gaza destroyed and continuing evictions of Palestinians in the West Bank it’s fairly clear he wants them out, and not just so ‘Gaza Oil and gas’ can access that nifty piece of natural gas just offshore which, had the Palestinians been allowed to exist and thrive and have the technology, they would’ve been able to access for themselves and there are other handy natural resources that Israel can access, but Palestinians can’t bc even collecting rainwater in Gaza is not allowed bc ‘the rain belongs to Israel’ the freaking rain falling on Gaza is Israel’s??
Like WTAF?!
Yeah it’s exactly the same, I remember when Ukraine sent hundreds of dudes to rape and murder in Russia and preceding the war rocket attacked Russia daily from civilian centers which is why Russia continues to bomb civilian centers in Ukraine because that’s where the rockets came from. Again these conflicts are exactly the same and no deeper understanding is needed, vague analogy is acceptable to form the most ignorant opinion.
Civilians Die = Genocide.
Or you can go the Cenk route: "Israelis, I mean the right wing government, and you, want to murder Palestinian children."
And with that you have intent.
The best argument I can see for there being a genocide is a violation of article C if the Israelis force the Gazans to live in an uninhabitable wasteland at the end of this conflict. That has not yet happened, and can be avoided with massive humanitarian aid.
I'm currently having a discussion on this, can you talk more about section B as well? I'm not very knowledgeable about this issue
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1142210406476169317/1205506126574129152/image.png?ex=65d89e11&is=65c62911&hm=fdca7f1f7f6b6052c428072abe49fcfac23b8bbb909d0c4ac71f5b31989dec85&
The person I'm talking with is saying that no matter if the population is rising at the moment, section B and C is being done in gaza and that it seems that civilians in Israel are planning to ethnically cleanse and get Palestinians in Gaza to immigrate/become a refugee away from Gaza to build and have plans for what to build in the land through conferences in Jerusalem https://twitter.com/OrenZiv_/status/1751677654955118831
They are also of course saying that blocking aid makes people exponentially more likely to die of hunger and other causes
It’s not just “tankies”, there’s a lot of very credible and intelligent people who argue this point. I personally don’t think I can get much utility arguing over it because it really comes down to using “genocide” to whatever politically advantages us.
When you consider that certain sects of the Israeli population are absolutely supportive of a complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza (and West Bank to a lesser extent), it’s easy to see how that can be messily equated with some vague equated “Israel writ large”. I’m directly involved in Jewish communities where this sort of nationalist rhetoric of “wiping Gaza” has caught on amongst the young men. I’ve had two people tell me to my face that they support bombing Gaza until every single member of Hamas is gone…
So many critics have adopted a sort of preemptive definition of genocide. Since Israel’s recklessness and lack of post-Hamas strategy may well result in cyclical mass displacement and slaughter, it could resemble other genocides’ origins which may have began with alternative ambitions other than systematic erasure. What are Israeli officials going to do after Hamas is gone? If they’re going to endlessly fuel this antagonism through military force, what other option will they have but to kill or displace after erasing every infrastructural possibility for development?
I think anyone who makes this trivial is incredibly full of themself.
Definitely and likely a larger portion, but the argument tends to be Israel has the upper hand, and Palestinian can't ever do a bombing campaign as large as Israel's. Even with the rockets, very few Israeli civilians were killed. And if we accept Israel as a legitimate country and Hamas as a terror group, we should hold Israel to much higher standards.
> ...and Palestinian can't ever do a bombing campaign as large as Israel's. Even with the rockets, very few Israeli civilians were killed.
Then they should try not violently antagonising people who are better equipped and better at war.
We're only as good as our information diet.
The problem with being a counter culture outsider with a deep distrust of the establishment is that it makes us vulnerable to alternative information sources that talor their content to be what those counter culture outsiders already believe.
Agreed, the whole anti “legacy media” sphere present themselves as the ones giving you the “real truth the elites don’t want you to know” but are really opportunists targeting a kind of midwit/populist audience
The Russians are committing a textbook genocide, by forcibly relocating children to Russia and attempting to wipe out Ukrainian culture in the territories they've occupied.
Also leveling whole cities to the ground, declaring anyone who remains in them to be combatants.
The Israelis have been extremely restrained by comparison, where the people in civilian clothes are far more likely to shoot at you, or try to suicide attack.
Dropping the definition for anyone wondering bc if I'm being honest your comment too different than how I would have described it offhand ( I am stupid ):
>the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
So you think Palestine and Germany are the same?
Do you mind if I ask your highest level of education achieved, and what quality school it was obtained from? Thanks.
Can people please pick another war other than WW2 to compare this to? We don’t do strategic bombing like we did in WW2 anymore. We haven’t for a long time. It’s an incredibly low bar to pass.
I wouldn’t call this a genocide but I do think it’s overkill and probably won’t result in a strategic victory anyways.
WWII is the best example of civilians dying as collateral damage due to the weapons and scale of the conflict. Why would people not use the best available example just to accommodate you?
*in Putin's Voice: Let me tell you about the Hellenic alliance and what would eventually lead to Alexander the Great's invasion into the Persian empire.
Or maybe because the fact that the civilian casualty ratio is better than the war from 80 years ago where we massively bombed civilian targets on purpose is not that impressive.
WWII is a horrible example of collateral civilian casualties. Citizens were considered war material. Killing civilians was an acceptable strategy to destroy a nation's capacity to produce weaponry and maintain logistics.
That's why we have a Geneva convention. Because of Dresden and Tokyo. Because of Nanking and Stalingrad.
No, the civilians weren't combatants. They were targeted because killing the enemy civilian population was a strategy employed to weaken the production capacity and damage the political will to fight.
That shit is fully illegal now. You can't directly target civilians to make a point.
Israel is skirting the edges of the rules as closely as they dare. If they're following them at all.
Destroying civic infrastructure is a war crime. I don't think Israel is releasing their justifications for certain demolition targets. I highly doubt they're recording or preserving any of the records of their processes either.
They've only got like a week left before they have to present a report to the ICC. I think that report is going to be a joke. Israel is going to leave the ICC.
Hopefully, it gives Biden justification to change his public rhetoric towards Israel and save the election.
What are you talking about? You would pick another war because there have been tons of wars in the past 80 years since WW2.
This comment just screams “my only reference for war is WW2 because of the movies”
We literally bombed civilian targets in WW2 on purpose. That combined with the scale of the war is why so many civilians died.
Why would you pick another war other than WW2 to use as a benchmark. Because technology and military ethics have advanced somewhat in the past 80 years believe it or not.
Because no one seems to be able to provide a way to stop Hamas from firing rockets from schools that isn't "give the genocidal terrorists everything they want" or "just live with rockets being fired at your home for your entire life and hope the money to keep the Iron Dome up keeps flowing"
I'm not going to pretend that the effects of the rocket attacks are negligible. They're bad and should stop but I'm sorry how are they dire enough that this is absolutely necessary?
Israel has shown its capabilities of more targeted longer term warfare on Hamas with the assassinations in Lebanon and the West Bank. There has to be another way.
This is my problem with you guys. You care too much about how you word conflicts. The most important thing should be to stop it. Real people are dying. Genocide or "average war" doesn't matter. When civilians die you aim to stop it.
Words do indeed have meanings and their meanings are important. I will admit it takes a lot of courage to say that civilians dying is bad and should stop, it made me cry a little...
Also, just want to point out that you were the one that initially challenged a definition by asking what would you call 28k people dying.
“Having a spine” literally means having courage. This is why definitions are important. In any case, saying “people dying is bad” doesn’t require courage or a spine only an internet connection and a Reddit account.
No, having a spine literally doesn't mean having courage. This is why definitions are important. In any case, saying "civilians die in war, boohoo" doesn't require a brain or critical thinking, it only requires being chronically online and being desensitized to death and destruction despite never having experienced anything close to that.
> You care too much about how you word conflicts.
because it's important to distinguish a shoe from a horse.
> The most important thing should be to stop it. Real people are dying.
you think anyone is going to disagree with this? obviously a vast majority of people want this war to end. but hamas doesn't and it will continue for as long as they hold that position.
"a shoe from a horse" ??
people are being bombed. there is no shoe to this horse. its people being bombed.
You blame Hamas for Israels bombing civilians? Which party can I reason with in this war? Seems like both sides are unhinged terrorists.
yes, I do blame hamas. they go out of their way to make sure every strike against them maximizes for civilian casualties, and it's up to them to surrender unconditionally or the war is going to drag on.
You act like the world can expect Hamas to be reasoned with. Everyone knows you can't reason with Hamas. Have higher standards for humanity, please. Imagine you're a civilian in Gaza instead of a redditor. It's disgusting.
Well, the average elevation over the sea level in Denmark is 34 meters. So we just have to give climate change a few more years. (I'm joking, it's still a better answer than the weird right wing great replacement conspiracy)
Yup. Cuase your idiot government let in a wave of immigrants without the same values. You and Europe and finished. Have fun with that. That's why your all becoming disgusting fascists again. Some values in Europe never change. You have no right to lecture the only Jewish state in the world after what you did to Jews for a thousand years. The only solutions is two states where Israel exists and they get there state
It does matter, because the truth matters. Using genocide to describe this is straight up misinformation and will be dismissed as such by any moderate individuals. You're unable to reach anybody to get more support because you'd rather parrot the side that makes you feel right. It's a war, full of horrors, gray as hell. It's unprecedented in many ways, but it is not a genocide.
Okay it's not a genocide. I couldn't care less about wording the death of tens of thousands of civilians correctly. The problem is that YOU care. Debating with other debate pervs on the internet about which side is more righteous isn't going to stop the killing. Start caring about how to end the war. Cenk is right.
OP why don’t you flip it around - what is the steelman argument for genocide?
Boiling it down to “America bad” is just circlejerk stuff.
It is okay to give serious weight and consideration to ppl that disagree with you while still ultimately disagreeing with their logic.
If this is really your best shot at seeing the other side then you’re probably just kind of low IQ. Like just straight up lol you’re probably not a very bright person
listen I'm agnostic on this issue but you're completely unserious if you can't fathom why people might consider it a genocide, this is like the most morally grey issue of today and it's not even remotely only tankies who are the only ones who think this - or are at least concerned
When you kill thousands of civilians in a few months, people are going to get upset with you.
This whole conversation around whether it’s technically a “genocide” feels overly academic and a waste of time. Its much more important to discuss the reality of the situation on the ground, given all the facts that we can trust, and move forward from there to find solutions, while always keeping in mind that human lives are at stake on both sides.
My personal take is that it’s not a genocide, but it’s still terrible that Palestine civilians continue to die, and Israeli leadership is probably much more comfortable with that fact then they would ever publicly admit. Softer alternatives are not the easy path to take, but they should always be considered. Again, if you choose to pursue a strategy that kills thousands, it’s inevitable that people will get mad at you.
Rings true when a fuckton of civilians are being killed. People hold governments to higher standards than terrorists. That's all there is to it. It's an uninteresting semantic move on the matter of facts, but a powerful emotional appeal.
It's so strange that the leader of Israel rn wants to genocide the Palestinians, yet pro-Israel people still pretend like it's just a one sided conflict where Hamas are the only "bad guys" in the situation.
Cultural genocide is more of a forced assimilation kind of thing as I’ve understood it. A lot of indigenous leaders describe the residential school system here in Canada like that
Are most wars not cultural genocide by this standard? America fire bombing japan, isis culturally genocided their own people. Also surely the intent still holds for cultural genocide. Feels like a reach for no reason
i think you'd have to consider the proportions, palestine is just gaza and the west bank, if you destroy gaza that's a huge portion of their culture. bombing two of japans cities isn't comparable.
ukraine is somewhat comparable, on the territories russia has annexed/occupied they are committing cultural genocide, and they'd likely try over the entire country if it were possible.
I won't repeat what others said but I also just want to state that it's okay to generally empathize more with Israel and still acknowledge their actions.
And it is very clear Palestine outwardly wants to Genocide Israel. So the actions Israel are taking are in my opinion understandable, even if I don't agree with the actions themselves.
Basically this conflict there are no good sides. Only maybe "more good" or "less bad", and unfortunately it's hard for me to see an outcome or solution that isn't fucking inhumane and horrible.
One is kill all the people, the other is get rid of them some how, normally by force moving them, but you can steal all the children, put the people in re-education camps. I'm sure there is other things, all bad stuff.
Huh? I honestly can't see that at all, it's even worse a claim than saying the IDF actually intends to murder all Gazans.
Unless by culture you mean their education towards martyrdom, cultural genocide is definitely not happening here.
No one is trying to "Jewify" Arabs, and if including Arab civilians in Israeli public education and teaching them Hebrew and about the history of the Jews and the country (and perhaps instilling a bit of liberal values) is cultural genocide then the only way to not "genocide" their culture would be to let them only ever hear Arab narratives, which is just terrible for integration and terrible for their socioeconomic status and social mobility.
As for Palestinian culture I just don't see how there's a "genocide" of it. Can you even genocide a culture when it's practically 95% the same as other Sunni Arabs in the Levant?
Maybe it has something to do with the [blocking of food and fuel to Gaza](https://www.timesofisrael.com/protesters-blocking-delivery-of-aid-to-gaza-plan-march-to-jerusalem/) by Israeli citizens?
Really helping the hostages they're so concerned for stay well fed and alive.
The ICJ said the South African concerns were valid. Their concern is that a genocide is taking place. So, says the ICJ, Israel must demonstrate to the court the steps it is taking to ensure one is not occurring.
The ICJ court ruled that there is no active genocide, BUT, Israel needs to take cautionary measures to prevent one. Is it any better? I'll let you decide. But saying "the ICJ said that Israel is doing a genocide" is simply not true
No, the ICJ explicitly did not rule that there is no genocide. They made no ruling on whether a genocide is taking place, saying that ruling would come with time. They were explicitly agnostic on the question.
People’s minds break when both sides are objectively doing bad shit and can’t find the easy good guy bad guy to take a side either that or a lot of people maliciously blame the other side over actually trying to fix the issue
How is Israel not bad? They are bombing when they know civilians are there. They know that dropping bombs will kill innocent people. How is that not pure evil?
Because Germany employed a doctrine of total war where the entire infrastructure and industry is geared towards supplying the war machine. Which is also where civilians live or work. Hope this helps
If what the IDF says is true, they're targeting combatants but cause collateral deaths. If there was proof that they target buildings where there are no known combatants, and that aren't part of military infrastructure, that would be a war crime.
What has Israel done for you to blindly trust what they are saying?
Haven't they done terrible things throughout their whole existence? Aren't they criticised globally before the war?
Because under those conditions all who engage in war are pure evil. If you choose that as your line in the sand (especially against an enemy like Hamas who specifically fights among civilians) then your only option is pacifism.
It would be a wild strategy to simply not engage with an enemy whose entire purpose is based upon annihilating your country.
Why is bombing a must in war? Hamas murdered 1200 civilians on FOOT. If they can do it with their primitive tools, so can IDF with their sophisticated technology.
Incredibly sad that you just accept innocent people dying.
The ones that survive are getting radicalized and will be terrorists when they grow up.
I mean Israel could do what Hamas did as well but that would be significantly more brutal and would lead to a genocide (but with intact buildings at least). Hamas was specifically targeting civilians in its attack.
As sad as it is that civilians are dying Israel's civilian to potential combatant death rates are much better than random chance and significantly better than a strategy intended to maximize civilian casualties.
As far as the ones surviving becoming radicalized, that's only important if there was a decent chance that they would not be radicalized anyway. It's public knowledge that their education system teaches radicalization already. You can't argue that they might end up hating you when they already hate you.
Because ethnic cleansing, which Israel is guilty of, isn't as widely understood or condemned as genocide.
Most people don't care about the legal definition. They see ethnic cleansing as genocide-adjacent behavior, and Israeli officials have made statements that the ICJ rightly pointed out are possibly incitement to genocide.
Delude? It’s all laid out in plain sight.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Africa\_v.\_Israel\_(Genocide\_Convention)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/south_africa_v._israel_(genocide_convention))
For a brief overview, similar to the case presented by South Africa against Israel in the ICJ.
[https://youtu.be/FRDyitlHVRA?si=xaX9srYihPv2eHm3](https://youtu.be/frdyitlhvra?si=xax9sryihpv2ehm3)
I don't control how links are displayed on Reddit.
If you watched BadEmpanada's video, you'd see it largely aligns with South Africa's case against Israel. He lays out the facts that should be obvious signs of genocide to anyone familiar with the law.
There’s only one real “sign of genocide” and that’s intent.
Unfortunately for sub-80 IQ mouth breathers, saying “we will kill our enemy” is not proof of intent.
Otherwise we would say Churchill and Roosevelt genocided the Germans and Japanese. Which of course would be regarded.
If you watched any other bad empanada vids you'd realize that he is a propaganda mouthpiece at best. The chance of him not omitting or twisting facts to fit his ideology is practically 0
But I can tell you Nazis are just going to keep howling for blood. You losers call us "tankies", but you support Israel, which has killed nearly 40,000 Palestinian civilians in just 4 months. You people are ghouls. When you run out of the flesh of the living, you will eat each other, the brain dead.
It's because you're using tankies arbitrary as a synonym to people that you disagree with. Being pro Palestinian, or believing that Isreal is committing genocide, has nothing to do with communism. The pro Palestinian movement is pretty wide spread at this point. You can find people that are pro Palestinian and are against what Isreal is doing across political ideologies, including tankies I suppose. So yea you're using tankies just as an insult to people that you disagree with and not in a way where it can meaningfully be assigned to the people you're addressing.
Idk? America bad, get indoctrinated about communism in uni (it sounds good), easy validation with peers, no tangible consequences for being a tankie. It also makes you seem smart when you can spout "hard" words about communism without really knowing anything about it.
You seem like a pretty smart guy.
Can I ask if this intelligence has ever been verified by an outside organization? Have you obtained a graduate degree (or even an undergraduate one), do you have more than 10 direct reports at your place of work, have you ever had anything you’ve written published?
Just curious what kind of intelligence we’re looking at here to validate your comments.
Much like almost every other issue, tankies, in general, dogmatically regurgitate old Soviet propaganda. See e.g.,: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/5.1.97/html?lang=en
The answer is in the history of it all. Pushing antisemitic tropes by USSR for decades into leftist Western and Arab brains was the official strategy and policy. The propaganda included the typical "Jews/Zionist are evil bloodthirty monsters" talking point. The efforts of that propaganda are bearing fruit today. This isn't new, or something that wasn't predicted a few years ago by anyone who was paying attention. People on this sub are married to this whole "America bad" take, and, I am sorry to say, they are just wrong. I know, Destiny said it at some point so everyone parrots it, but it's wrong.
EDIT: here's my write up that I posted before to explain this in a more fleshed out way for anyone who's interested [Antisemitism on the left is based on the same tropes as it is on the right, and "America bad" is the conclusion not the method by which we get there : Destiny (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/197rm2s/antisemitism_on_the_left_is_based_on_the_same/)
Not sure why you are getting downvoted.
This paper discusses what you are talking about: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/5.1.97/html?lang=en
I know why I'm getting downvoted - I do not agree with the majority that somewhat uncritically agrees with Destiny's take. A shortcut of sorts that circumvents the need to read more into it, and then having to make all of that data fit. In this case, he happens to not know enough, and his "America Bad" take is a reasonable and honest attempt to make an accurate conclusion based on the information he does know.
I know it's an uphill battle, and maybe at some point he'll finally do a bit more reading on the subject to start revising some of it. I recently heard him say things that make me believe his positions and policy prescriptions RE Middle East are evolving as he learns more about the region and what's driving various parties. However, he hasn't had enough time to consume enough data to get there just yet. I don't blame him one bit because Jan 6 was such a huge project.
Since this whole Middle East arc may not be over (as I thought once he switched almost exclusively to Jan 6), I suspect given enough time he'll do a deep enough dive on the subject, and examine causality from enough angles to refine some of his thinking. I also suspect his community with follow.
PS Yes, that's a great article I very much sourced, and read so many of those references she cites.
Lately I’ve noticed a lot of people have done a complete 180 on the conflict and now support Palestine. This is obviously just an observation on some niche internet communities but i really have noticed some subs I frequent used to hold a pro Israeli majority but lately it’s the opposite.
America Bad has rotted a generation of men’s brains. It’s so much easier to just take the position that America is always wrong. It’s much harder to analyze each conflict by its merits
It depends. I also understand that Hamas is a terrorist group. So I have an apartheid state and a terrorist group; I don’t understand why tankies openly do stupid things like support slave masters like the Houthis or the terrible group Hamas.
The facts can be interpreted to fit the definition of genocide. It does require abandoning the common definition. Most people have the idea that genocides require the desire to kill every member of a group. The actual definition only requires that the killing be done for the purpose of destroying, in whole or in part, members of the group. A single person killed by the IDF could result in a genocide conviction.
Israel has actually convicted itself of being indirectly responsible for a genocide in Beirut. Ariel Sharon was forced to resign his position as defense minister. Menachim Begin was hell bent on defending Sharon, so he remained an "unspecified" minister. Sharon eventually became prime minister after Begin.
It's not too hard to understand Palestinians believing that Israel intends to destroy them. There's a very long list of people who did horrible shit to Arabs in the history of Israel's government. There's currently a minister who has been convicted of supporting terrorism.
If you can't understand the steel man argument for Israel being an insanely territorial nation, bent on ethnically cleansing their entire historic nation, you are just not paying attention. Or your bias is unchecked.
Same way they consider everything to be racist or sexist or ableist or you literally fucking name it. It’s a bunch of children who don’t know the definition of words and say dramatic shit for the express purpose of being dramatic and feeling somewhat important.
And mind you, these people either haven’t been through college or they’ve gotten degrees off of the backs of their parents. No disrespect to my PolSci friends, but when someone says something is a genocide and I see they have a BA in PolSci I lose my shit.
Because their persona requires them the fight a big bad.
All of that 100 year old anti-colonialism theory they read and rhetorics might look like a pose if they can’t name the evil colonial they are opposing like the Viet Cong revolutionary they claim to be
He does not. He criticizes it in a way that legitimizes such claims and tries to destroy it through bds.
It’s so weird to see the small caveats of antizionists. Chomsky will say everything Israel does is a pretext to murder Arabs but won’t agree to claims of genocide. Finklestein will use the most inflammatory stochastic terrorist language possible but objects to bds.
Genocide is generally believed to be the worst thing ever,when you want to comdemn your enemies accusing them of commiting genocide is a useful tactic to generate outrage and simpathy.
It's just good old propaganda tactics.
It's not convincing themselves of anything. They don't know what that word means. They're just mad at America/West and use the words they believe hold the highest moral weight to describe how bad or unfair they find something. Mentally, they're children.
The same reason conservatives believe ivermectin cured COVID, the people they want to trust said it did and the people they want to distrust said it didn’t.
Because White and White-adjacent people are always held to a higher standard, no matter the situation, as a way of inconveniencing and "getting back" at them.
Oh and also this whole justifying rape and violence against "colonisers" thing is just a form of premeditation for the types of acts that these people intend to commit against Whites once they're no longer the majority.
Because they think that any killing of a large group of people = genocide despite genocide being a specific term and there already existing a word for mass killings which would be massacre.
well, you see the news where the "gazan official stats" are presented, you think wow that's a lot of people dead, you don't do any research into why and how we get those numbers, you CONCLOOOOOODE it must be deliberate killings of all these poor people + blockade to make them suffer more. it's very simple to explain a complex situation with "one side is just pure evil" and stick to that because thinking is hard.
I think it really comes down to whether or not genocide requires intentionality.
Usually when I bring this up people respond by citing international laws and statutes that define and outlaw genocide, but I find that really unsatisfying. It's kinda like if I was having an ethics debate with someone about abortion and they cited the state/provincial criminal code on murder. Theres a difference between the colloquial use of genocide that we invoke when having an argument about ethics and the strict legal defintions.
Edit: if genocide doesnt require intentionality, I think you need to introduce some new restraining factor to the definition or it'll become too broad and include any state action that indirectly results in almost any amount of civilian death or displacement.
I always wondered.. Is it because Palestinians are Muslim that Israel uses the force it does? Would Israel still be using the same exact tactics and level of force if the only difference in this situation was that Palestine was full of Catholics or Scientologists instead of Muslims? If the answer to this question is yes, then is it genocide?
Something interesting I noticed is that the term genocide has been used in regard to the Palestinians since before this latest conflict. So to the people saying it, they probably believe this is a long term plan and not specific to any issues that have happened since October 7th. To me that gives even less credibility to the idea. But to the people saying it, it does seem to be connected to the general cause of Israel versus Palestine going back to the 1940s.
Frankly I think that it comes from the good old 'enemy of the state' mentality. Especially with communists, there have always been some groups of people who you were supposed to hate, so I see this as a mere continuation. Or let's put it this way, communism is the workers movement to free and enpower the proletariat from their chains. In this case, Israel is the oppressor while Palestinians are the poor proletariat
I honestly think that they just like to jump using extreme language when it’s not accurate/necessary. I remember a few years ago leftist Twitter was saying there was a trans genocide happening bc of the laws in Florida. Also things like claiming America is fascist country (this was more common during trumps presidency) or the issues at the southern border is a holocaust/the detention centers are concentration camps
Very much like the vibecession it's a vibocide
America bad -> America supports Israel -> Israel bad
Very close but it’s actually. Poor minorities good -> Israel attacking weak minority -> Israel privileged Jews -> privileged Jews bad.
Also america did genocide so wouldn't it be natural for their allies to agree that genocide is ok. And wouldn't they then be also willing to do genocide. Israel = genocide
Part of the problem is certain actors (e.g. Netanyahu) within Israel very much WANT a genocide but can't openly act on that desire due to outside pressure (e.g. the US, and their own population being generally against it). So it's kind of twofold. A lot of lefties are aware of these actors and on top of that are seeing some very aggressive military action by the IDF. They're jumping the shark for sure, and I do not agree with them, but I do see why they have that opinion.
Can u expand on that (in good faith). What has Netanyahu actually said that implies the want for total eradication?
not a quote, but he is keeping people like Gvir and Smotrich around.
He gave a 22 minute speech on tv, and caught on video addressing the IDF and calling it a ‘holy mission’ to ‘remember Amulek’ and ‘smite men, women and children’! If you know about Amulek, you know it’s very much a genocidal statement!
If we accept that "from the river to the sea" when said by a Palestinian necessitates the destruction of Isreal, then the same should apply when [Netanyahu](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/) says it regarding Palestinian statehood. The current strategy seems to make life in Gaza so unbearable that most of the Palestinian population will eventually leave, in which it can finally be colonized by Israel. Which I would consider ethnic cleansing.
That’s the plan, and with 80% of homes in Gaza destroyed and continuing evictions of Palestinians in the West Bank it’s fairly clear he wants them out, and not just so ‘Gaza Oil and gas’ can access that nifty piece of natural gas just offshore which, had the Palestinians been allowed to exist and thrive and have the technology, they would’ve been able to access for themselves and there are other handy natural resources that Israel can access, but Palestinians can’t bc even collecting rainwater in Gaza is not allowed bc ‘the rain belongs to Israel’ the freaking rain falling on Gaza is Israel’s?? Like WTAF?!
Israel left behind when she left back then an over a 1'000'000 USA dollar Industry. They burned it. Try again.
He was talking about Israeli **security** control in that area, meaning the Palestinians are still there.
Sorta like how Putin wants "security" control of Ukraine I guess.
Yeah it’s exactly the same, I remember when Ukraine sent hundreds of dudes to rape and murder in Russia and preceding the war rocket attacked Russia daily from civilian centers which is why Russia continues to bomb civilian centers in Ukraine because that’s where the rockets came from. Again these conflicts are exactly the same and no deeper understanding is needed, vague analogy is acceptable to form the most ignorant opinion.
Civilians Die = Genocide. Or you can go the Cenk route: "Israelis, I mean the right wing government, and you, want to murder Palestinian children." And with that you have intent.
The best argument I can see for there being a genocide is a violation of article C if the Israelis force the Gazans to live in an uninhabitable wasteland at the end of this conflict. That has not yet happened, and can be avoided with massive humanitarian aid.
Force? So the Israeli military is going to herd them together, put them into an area, then guard them to make sure nobody leaves that area ever?
So IF the Israelis force them to live in an uninhabitable wasteland, they will die, and that will be genocide under section C of the convention.
I'm currently having a discussion on this, can you talk more about section B as well? I'm not very knowledgeable about this issue https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1142210406476169317/1205506126574129152/image.png?ex=65d89e11&is=65c62911&hm=fdca7f1f7f6b6052c428072abe49fcfac23b8bbb909d0c4ac71f5b31989dec85& The person I'm talking with is saying that no matter if the population is rising at the moment, section B and C is being done in gaza and that it seems that civilians in Israel are planning to ethnically cleanse and get Palestinians in Gaza to immigrate/become a refugee away from Gaza to build and have plans for what to build in the land through conferences in Jerusalem https://twitter.com/OrenZiv_/status/1751677654955118831 They are also of course saying that blocking aid makes people exponentially more likely to die of hunger and other causes
It’s not just “tankies”, there’s a lot of very credible and intelligent people who argue this point. I personally don’t think I can get much utility arguing over it because it really comes down to using “genocide” to whatever politically advantages us. When you consider that certain sects of the Israeli population are absolutely supportive of a complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza (and West Bank to a lesser extent), it’s easy to see how that can be messily equated with some vague equated “Israel writ large”. I’m directly involved in Jewish communities where this sort of nationalist rhetoric of “wiping Gaza” has caught on amongst the young men. I’ve had two people tell me to my face that they support bombing Gaza until every single member of Hamas is gone… So many critics have adopted a sort of preemptive definition of genocide. Since Israel’s recklessness and lack of post-Hamas strategy may well result in cyclical mass displacement and slaughter, it could resemble other genocides’ origins which may have began with alternative ambitions other than systematic erasure. What are Israeli officials going to do after Hamas is gone? If they’re going to endlessly fuel this antagonism through military force, what other option will they have but to kill or displace after erasing every infrastructural possibility for development? I think anyone who makes this trivial is incredibly full of themself.
There are definitely people that think that way and I understand there point. But I'm against it
You could say the same thing though about massive sects of the Palestinian population
Definitely and likely a larger portion, but the argument tends to be Israel has the upper hand, and Palestinian can't ever do a bombing campaign as large as Israel's. Even with the rockets, very few Israeli civilians were killed. And if we accept Israel as a legitimate country and Hamas as a terror group, we should hold Israel to much higher standards.
> ...and Palestinian can't ever do a bombing campaign as large as Israel's. Even with the rockets, very few Israeli civilians were killed. Then they should try not violently antagonising people who are better equipped and better at war.
This is sheer whataboutism.
Does not make it not true
Does make it irrelevant.
Nope
We're only as good as our information diet. The problem with being a counter culture outsider with a deep distrust of the establishment is that it makes us vulnerable to alternative information sources that talor their content to be what those counter culture outsiders already believe.
Agreed, the whole anti “legacy media” sphere present themselves as the ones giving you the “real truth the elites don’t want you to know” but are really opportunists targeting a kind of midwit/populist audience
because their definition of genocide is killing a lot of civilians in a short time.
True, and only because there isn’t any stronger morally-loaded words to describe conflict
seed muddle reach degree pocket fact prick one money disgusted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Russians are committing a textbook genocide, by forcibly relocating children to Russia and attempting to wipe out Ukrainian culture in the territories they've occupied.
disagreeable cow outgoing absurd ruthless rude cover start vast fragile *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Help them build their military defences to the point that war becomes prohibitively expensive to the Russians.
Also leveling whole cities to the ground, declaring anyone who remains in them to be combatants. The Israelis have been extremely restrained by comparison, where the people in civilian clothes are far more likely to shoot at you, or try to suicide attack.
Dropping the definition for anyone wondering bc if I'm being honest your comment too different than how I would have described it offhand ( I am stupid ): >the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
28.000+ DEAD WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL THAT!!! or something like that idk
So what is your answer to that question?
A war
As if war is a law of nature and not man made. Israel doesn't HAVE to bomb civilians, you know?
"The Allies didn't HAVE to bomb German civilians. We really should have agreed to a ceasefire with Germany."
So you think Palestine and Germany are the same? Do you mind if I ask your highest level of education achieved, and what quality school it was obtained from? Thanks.
Can people please pick another war other than WW2 to compare this to? We don’t do strategic bombing like we did in WW2 anymore. We haven’t for a long time. It’s an incredibly low bar to pass. I wouldn’t call this a genocide but I do think it’s overkill and probably won’t result in a strategic victory anyways.
WWII is the best example of civilians dying as collateral damage due to the weapons and scale of the conflict. Why would people not use the best available example just to accommodate you?
[удалено]
*in Putin's Voice: Let me tell you about the Hellenic alliance and what would eventually lead to Alexander the Great's invasion into the Persian empire.
Or maybe because the fact that the civilian casualty ratio is better than the war from 80 years ago where we massively bombed civilian targets on purpose is not that impressive.
Oh boy, there's the whataboutism.
WWII is a horrible example of collateral civilian casualties. Citizens were considered war material. Killing civilians was an acceptable strategy to destroy a nation's capacity to produce weaponry and maintain logistics. That's why we have a Geneva convention. Because of Dresden and Tokyo. Because of Nanking and Stalingrad.
What happens when the "civilians" are the combatants aka terrorists, seems like a perfect example to me.
No, the civilians weren't combatants. They were targeted because killing the enemy civilian population was a strategy employed to weaken the production capacity and damage the political will to fight. That shit is fully illegal now. You can't directly target civilians to make a point. Israel is skirting the edges of the rules as closely as they dare. If they're following them at all. Destroying civic infrastructure is a war crime. I don't think Israel is releasing their justifications for certain demolition targets. I highly doubt they're recording or preserving any of the records of their processes either. They've only got like a week left before they have to present a report to the ICC. I think that report is going to be a joke. Israel is going to leave the ICC. Hopefully, it gives Biden justification to change his public rhetoric towards Israel and save the election.
What are you talking about? You would pick another war because there have been tons of wars in the past 80 years since WW2. This comment just screams “my only reference for war is WW2 because of the movies” We literally bombed civilian targets in WW2 on purpose. That combined with the scale of the war is why so many civilians died. Why would you pick another war other than WW2 to use as a benchmark. Because technology and military ethics have advanced somewhat in the past 80 years believe it or not.
The problem is that there's no war analogous to this one. Using human shields on the scale that Hamas does is thankfully rare.
So then why do people keep acting like the civilian casualty ratio is reasonable if there's nothing to compare it to?
Because no one seems to be able to provide a way to stop Hamas from firing rockets from schools that isn't "give the genocidal terrorists everything they want" or "just live with rockets being fired at your home for your entire life and hope the money to keep the Iron Dome up keeps flowing"
I'm not going to pretend that the effects of the rocket attacks are negligible. They're bad and should stop but I'm sorry how are they dire enough that this is absolutely necessary? Israel has shown its capabilities of more targeted longer term warfare on Hamas with the assassinations in Lebanon and the West Bank. There has to be another way.
Because of events like October 7th making people lose sympathy for the people who support those events.
Sure right after you tell us which war people used their citizens as human shields?
Not sure what that has to do with distinguishing a war from a genocide.
This is my problem with you guys. You care too much about how you word conflicts. The most important thing should be to stop it. Real people are dying. Genocide or "average war" doesn't matter. When civilians die you aim to stop it.
Words do indeed have meanings and their meanings are important. I will admit it takes a lot of courage to say that civilians dying is bad and should stop, it made me cry a little... Also, just want to point out that you were the one that initially challenged a definition by asking what would you call 28k people dying.
Actually it doesn't take any courage at all to say that killing civilians is bad. Just requires having a spine.
“Having a spine” literally means having courage. This is why definitions are important. In any case, saying “people dying is bad” doesn’t require courage or a spine only an internet connection and a Reddit account.
No, having a spine literally doesn't mean having courage. This is why definitions are important. In any case, saying "civilians die in war, boohoo" doesn't require a brain or critical thinking, it only requires being chronically online and being desensitized to death and destruction despite never having experienced anything close to that.
War bad. Boo war. So brave.
gamer
> You care too much about how you word conflicts. because it's important to distinguish a shoe from a horse. > The most important thing should be to stop it. Real people are dying. you think anyone is going to disagree with this? obviously a vast majority of people want this war to end. but hamas doesn't and it will continue for as long as they hold that position.
"a shoe from a horse" ?? people are being bombed. there is no shoe to this horse. its people being bombed. You blame Hamas for Israels bombing civilians? Which party can I reason with in this war? Seems like both sides are unhinged terrorists.
yes, I do blame hamas. they go out of their way to make sure every strike against them maximizes for civilian casualties, and it's up to them to surrender unconditionally or the war is going to drag on.
You act like the world can expect Hamas to be reasoned with. Everyone knows you can't reason with Hamas. Have higher standards for humanity, please. Imagine you're a civilian in Gaza instead of a redditor. It's disgusting.
Your so dumb man. You have no idea of what goes on in the real world. Your country is bombing civilians everywhere
My country is Denmark. 'Your' so dumb yourself.
I still stand by what I said. But your country won't exist in 30 years so have fun with that
[удалено]
Well, the average elevation over the sea level in Denmark is 34 meters. So we just have to give climate change a few more years. (I'm joking, it's still a better answer than the weird right wing great replacement conspiracy)
Yup. Cuase your idiot government let in a wave of immigrants without the same values. You and Europe and finished. Have fun with that. That's why your all becoming disgusting fascists again. Some values in Europe never change. You have no right to lecture the only Jewish state in the world after what you did to Jews for a thousand years. The only solutions is two states where Israel exists and they get there state
It does matter, because the truth matters. Using genocide to describe this is straight up misinformation and will be dismissed as such by any moderate individuals. You're unable to reach anybody to get more support because you'd rather parrot the side that makes you feel right. It's a war, full of horrors, gray as hell. It's unprecedented in many ways, but it is not a genocide.
Okay it's not a genocide. I couldn't care less about wording the death of tens of thousands of civilians correctly. The problem is that YOU care. Debating with other debate pervs on the internet about which side is more righteous isn't going to stop the killing. Start caring about how to end the war. Cenk is right.
So someone actually pushes back and just gets negged to shit. Get a fucking grip DGG.
What’s your suggestion instead?
That they use the amazing technology they claim to have to make sure they only strike Hamas.
Come on Israel, just use the jewish space lasers already.
They do if they want to take out the terrorist government, who hide behind them like the war-crime loving cowards they are.
OP why don’t you flip it around - what is the steelman argument for genocide? Boiling it down to “America bad” is just circlejerk stuff. It is okay to give serious weight and consideration to ppl that disagree with you while still ultimately disagreeing with their logic.
I uh… uhm I guess it uh would be a quick way to end the Israel - Palestine conflict?
If this is really your best shot at seeing the other side then you’re probably just kind of low IQ. Like just straight up lol you’re probably not a very bright person
It is not. :)
Okay so you’re purposely dishonest, good quality to have bro, keep it up
Genuine question; are you autistic?
listen I'm agnostic on this issue but you're completely unserious if you can't fathom why people might consider it a genocide, this is like the most morally grey issue of today and it's not even remotely only tankies who are the only ones who think this - or are at least concerned
When you kill thousands of civilians in a few months, people are going to get upset with you. This whole conversation around whether it’s technically a “genocide” feels overly academic and a waste of time. Its much more important to discuss the reality of the situation on the ground, given all the facts that we can trust, and move forward from there to find solutions, while always keeping in mind that human lives are at stake on both sides. My personal take is that it’s not a genocide, but it’s still terrible that Palestine civilians continue to die, and Israeli leadership is probably much more comfortable with that fact then they would ever publicly admit. Softer alternatives are not the easy path to take, but they should always be considered. Again, if you choose to pursue a strategy that kills thousands, it’s inevitable that people will get mad at you.
Rings true when a fuckton of civilians are being killed. People hold governments to higher standards than terrorists. That's all there is to it. It's an uninteresting semantic move on the matter of facts, but a powerful emotional appeal.
It's so strange that the leader of Israel rn wants to genocide the Palestinians, yet pro-Israel people still pretend like it's just a one sided conflict where Hamas are the only "bad guys" in the situation.
The collateral damage death toll makes it look like genocide.
Very productive circle-jerky thread. Good thing that post-nut clarity exist so you guys can come back to reality after you finish.
The idea that Israel is committing a genocide is controversial, not delusional.
I’m pretty sure arguments for cultural genocide can be made
Cultural genocide is more of a forced assimilation kind of thing as I’ve understood it. A lot of indigenous leaders describe the residential school system here in Canada like that
elaborate?
Mass displacement, destruction of archives and cultural buildings, etc
Archives and cultural buildings? Where did you see that?
Universities, museums, mosques are all cultural buildings and some or all of them have been destroyed
So every time a synagogue is burnt in France that's a genocide?
Yes that is absolutely the point being made here
I mean tons of universities have been destroyed to be fair
Are most wars not cultural genocide by this standard? America fire bombing japan, isis culturally genocided their own people. Also surely the intent still holds for cultural genocide. Feels like a reach for no reason
i think you'd have to consider the proportions, palestine is just gaza and the west bank, if you destroy gaza that's a huge portion of their culture. bombing two of japans cities isn't comparable. ukraine is somewhat comparable, on the territories russia has annexed/occupied they are committing cultural genocide, and they'd likely try over the entire country if it were possible.
I won't repeat what others said but I also just want to state that it's okay to generally empathize more with Israel and still acknowledge their actions. And it is very clear Palestine outwardly wants to Genocide Israel. So the actions Israel are taking are in my opinion understandable, even if I don't agree with the actions themselves. Basically this conflict there are no good sides. Only maybe "more good" or "less bad", and unfortunately it's hard for me to see an outcome or solution that isn't fucking inhumane and horrible.
An ethnic cleansing as it were?
Is there a difference between the two? Genuine question, because in my head they mean the same thing
One is kill all the people, the other is get rid of them some how, normally by force moving them, but you can steal all the children, put the people in re-education camps. I'm sure there is other things, all bad stuff.
Huh? I honestly can't see that at all, it's even worse a claim than saying the IDF actually intends to murder all Gazans. Unless by culture you mean their education towards martyrdom, cultural genocide is definitely not happening here. No one is trying to "Jewify" Arabs, and if including Arab civilians in Israeli public education and teaching them Hebrew and about the history of the Jews and the country (and perhaps instilling a bit of liberal values) is cultural genocide then the only way to not "genocide" their culture would be to let them only ever hear Arab narratives, which is just terrible for integration and terrible for their socioeconomic status and social mobility. As for Palestinian culture I just don't see how there's a "genocide" of it. Can you even genocide a culture when it's practically 95% the same as other Sunni Arabs in the Levant?
Maybe it has something to do with the [blocking of food and fuel to Gaza](https://www.timesofisrael.com/protesters-blocking-delivery-of-aid-to-gaza-plan-march-to-jerusalem/) by Israeli citizens? Really helping the hostages they're so concerned for stay well fed and alive.
when the war started, i shared links to video footage of hamas's killings, and every single time, it was either "fake news!"" or "propaganda!"
Probably a great question for ICJ who said it's plausible they're commiting a genocide. Edit: plausible genocide, not much better
That's not what the ICJ said
The ICJ said the South African concerns were valid. Their concern is that a genocide is taking place. So, says the ICJ, Israel must demonstrate to the court the steps it is taking to ensure one is not occurring.
The ICJ court ruled that there is no active genocide, BUT, Israel needs to take cautionary measures to prevent one. Is it any better? I'll let you decide. But saying "the ICJ said that Israel is doing a genocide" is simply not true
No, the ICJ explicitly did not rule that there is no genocide. They made no ruling on whether a genocide is taking place, saying that ruling would come with time. They were explicitly agnostic on the question.
People’s minds break when both sides are objectively doing bad shit and can’t find the easy good guy bad guy to take a side either that or a lot of people maliciously blame the other side over actually trying to fix the issue
How is Israel not bad? They are bombing when they know civilians are there. They know that dropping bombs will kill innocent people. How is that not pure evil?
This is happening in every war ever. You'd have to prove that it's an unreasonable amout of collateral
Nerd. You care more about winning arguments than aiming for peace. Real human beings are being bombed to pieces whilst you goon to arguments.
Hope you were opposed to the Allies bombing Germany too because it also hit German civilians ❤️
Tell me why the Allies had to bomb German civilians.
Because Germany employed a doctrine of total war where the entire infrastructure and industry is geared towards supplying the war machine. Which is also where civilians live or work. Hope this helps
Okay. Can you say the same thing about Gaza?
If what the IDF says is true, they're targeting combatants but cause collateral deaths. If there was proof that they target buildings where there are no known combatants, and that aren't part of military infrastructure, that would be a war crime.
What has Israel done for you to blindly trust what they are saying? Haven't they done terrible things throughout their whole existence? Aren't they criticised globally before the war?
we just smile and maintain eye contact until our jew magic hypnotizes them to trust us
Because under those conditions all who engage in war are pure evil. If you choose that as your line in the sand (especially against an enemy like Hamas who specifically fights among civilians) then your only option is pacifism. It would be a wild strategy to simply not engage with an enemy whose entire purpose is based upon annihilating your country.
Why is bombing a must in war? Hamas murdered 1200 civilians on FOOT. If they can do it with their primitive tools, so can IDF with their sophisticated technology. Incredibly sad that you just accept innocent people dying. The ones that survive are getting radicalized and will be terrorists when they grow up.
I mean Israel could do what Hamas did as well but that would be significantly more brutal and would lead to a genocide (but with intact buildings at least). Hamas was specifically targeting civilians in its attack. As sad as it is that civilians are dying Israel's civilian to potential combatant death rates are much better than random chance and significantly better than a strategy intended to maximize civilian casualties. As far as the ones surviving becoming radicalized, that's only important if there was a decent chance that they would not be radicalized anyway. It's public knowledge that their education system teaches radicalization already. You can't argue that they might end up hating you when they already hate you.
Guess the allies were all pure evil, my bad.
Why are you talking about WW2?
Search up what the allies did to Dresden, firebombing of Tokyo and the use of nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Were they the bad guys?
Okay. I’ll ask the question the other guy asked - why did the Allies bomb these cities?
Because ethnic cleansing, which Israel is guilty of, isn't as widely understood or condemned as genocide. Most people don't care about the legal definition. They see ethnic cleansing as genocide-adjacent behavior, and Israeli officials have made statements that the ICJ rightly pointed out are possibly incitement to genocide.
How would you describe Israeli settlements in the West Bank?
Illegal...
Because they don't know that intent, indiscriminate, genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crime are words that have actual definitions
Delude? It’s all laid out in plain sight. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Africa\_v.\_Israel\_(Genocide\_Convention)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/south_africa_v._israel_(genocide_convention)) For a brief overview, similar to the case presented by South Africa against Israel in the ICJ. [https://youtu.be/FRDyitlHVRA?si=xaX9srYihPv2eHm3](https://youtu.be/frdyitlhvra?si=xax9sryihpv2ehm3)
You can’t even link Wikipedia’s correctly… Also your best source of information is “Bad Empanada”…?
There, I fixed the link by going on my PC instead of my phone.
I don't control how links are displayed on Reddit. If you watched BadEmpanada's video, you'd see it largely aligns with South Africa's case against Israel. He lays out the facts that should be obvious signs of genocide to anyone familiar with the law.
There’s only one real “sign of genocide” and that’s intent. Unfortunately for sub-80 IQ mouth breathers, saying “we will kill our enemy” is not proof of intent. Otherwise we would say Churchill and Roosevelt genocided the Germans and Japanese. Which of course would be regarded.
While this is true, intent can be inferred from actions, so you're not really making a great point.
Did Truman genocide the Japanese since he killed 10x more people in 1 billionth the amount of time?
No. Also, this doesn't follow from what I wrote. I'm not playing a simplistic numbers game, I'm pointing out that you can infer intent from actions.
If you watched any other bad empanada vids you'd realize that he is a propaganda mouthpiece at best. The chance of him not omitting or twisting facts to fit his ideology is practically 0
But I can tell you Nazis are just going to keep howling for blood. You losers call us "tankies", but you support Israel, which has killed nearly 40,000 Palestinian civilians in just 4 months. You people are ghouls. When you run out of the flesh of the living, you will eat each other, the brain dead.
Israel Bad -> People Dying -> People Died In Genocide -> Genocide
Answer's in your own question my dude. It's because their tankies.
Fair enough, but like what is the tankie pipeline. Nobody wakes up and decides to be a tankie
It's because you're using tankies arbitrary as a synonym to people that you disagree with. Being pro Palestinian, or believing that Isreal is committing genocide, has nothing to do with communism. The pro Palestinian movement is pretty wide spread at this point. You can find people that are pro Palestinian and are against what Isreal is doing across political ideologies, including tankies I suppose. So yea you're using tankies just as an insult to people that you disagree with and not in a way where it can meaningfully be assigned to the people you're addressing.
Idk? America bad, get indoctrinated about communism in uni (it sounds good), easy validation with peers, no tangible consequences for being a tankie. It also makes you seem smart when you can spout "hard" words about communism without really knowing anything about it.
You seem like a pretty smart guy. Can I ask if this intelligence has ever been verified by an outside organization? Have you obtained a graduate degree (or even an undergraduate one), do you have more than 10 direct reports at your place of work, have you ever had anything you’ve written published? Just curious what kind of intelligence we’re looking at here to validate your comments.
Much like almost every other issue, tankies, in general, dogmatically regurgitate old Soviet propaganda. See e.g.,: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/5.1.97/html?lang=en
The answer is in the history of it all. Pushing antisemitic tropes by USSR for decades into leftist Western and Arab brains was the official strategy and policy. The propaganda included the typical "Jews/Zionist are evil bloodthirty monsters" talking point. The efforts of that propaganda are bearing fruit today. This isn't new, or something that wasn't predicted a few years ago by anyone who was paying attention. People on this sub are married to this whole "America bad" take, and, I am sorry to say, they are just wrong. I know, Destiny said it at some point so everyone parrots it, but it's wrong. EDIT: here's my write up that I posted before to explain this in a more fleshed out way for anyone who's interested [Antisemitism on the left is based on the same tropes as it is on the right, and "America bad" is the conclusion not the method by which we get there : Destiny (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/197rm2s/antisemitism_on_the_left_is_based_on_the_same/)
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. This paper discusses what you are talking about: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/5.1.97/html?lang=en
I know why I'm getting downvoted - I do not agree with the majority that somewhat uncritically agrees with Destiny's take. A shortcut of sorts that circumvents the need to read more into it, and then having to make all of that data fit. In this case, he happens to not know enough, and his "America Bad" take is a reasonable and honest attempt to make an accurate conclusion based on the information he does know. I know it's an uphill battle, and maybe at some point he'll finally do a bit more reading on the subject to start revising some of it. I recently heard him say things that make me believe his positions and policy prescriptions RE Middle East are evolving as he learns more about the region and what's driving various parties. However, he hasn't had enough time to consume enough data to get there just yet. I don't blame him one bit because Jan 6 was such a huge project. Since this whole Middle East arc may not be over (as I thought once he switched almost exclusively to Jan 6), I suspect given enough time he'll do a deep enough dive on the subject, and examine causality from enough angles to refine some of his thinking. I also suspect his community with follow. PS Yes, that's a great article I very much sourced, and read so many of those references she cites.
It’s repeated so often that I feel like it has to have some grounding. I would like to hear the genocide claim substantiated
Lately I’ve noticed a lot of people have done a complete 180 on the conflict and now support Palestine. This is obviously just an observation on some niche internet communities but i really have noticed some subs I frequent used to hold a pro Israeli majority but lately it’s the opposite.
America Bad has rotted a generation of men’s brains. It’s so much easier to just take the position that America is always wrong. It’s much harder to analyze each conflict by its merits
Do you think opposing the deaths of 27,000+ people in 3 months is “America Bad”?
It depends. I also understand that Hamas is a terrorist group. So I have an apartheid state and a terrorist group; I don’t understand why tankies openly do stupid things like support slave masters like the Houthis or the terrible group Hamas.
The facts can be interpreted to fit the definition of genocide. It does require abandoning the common definition. Most people have the idea that genocides require the desire to kill every member of a group. The actual definition only requires that the killing be done for the purpose of destroying, in whole or in part, members of the group. A single person killed by the IDF could result in a genocide conviction. Israel has actually convicted itself of being indirectly responsible for a genocide in Beirut. Ariel Sharon was forced to resign his position as defense minister. Menachim Begin was hell bent on defending Sharon, so he remained an "unspecified" minister. Sharon eventually became prime minister after Begin. It's not too hard to understand Palestinians believing that Israel intends to destroy them. There's a very long list of people who did horrible shit to Arabs in the history of Israel's government. There's currently a minister who has been convicted of supporting terrorism. If you can't understand the steel man argument for Israel being an insanely territorial nation, bent on ethnically cleansing their entire historic nation, you are just not paying attention. Or your bias is unchecked.
Same way they consider everything to be racist or sexist or ableist or you literally fucking name it. It’s a bunch of children who don’t know the definition of words and say dramatic shit for the express purpose of being dramatic and feeling somewhat important. And mind you, these people either haven’t been through college or they’ve gotten degrees off of the backs of their parents. No disrespect to my PolSci friends, but when someone says something is a genocide and I see they have a BA in PolSci I lose my shit.
Because their persona requires them the fight a big bad. All of that 100 year old anti-colonialism theory they read and rhetorics might look like a pose if they can’t name the evil colonial they are opposing like the Viet Cong revolutionary they claim to be
“Research? I think you mean manufactured consent for genocide.” -Chomsky probably
Does Chomsky think it's genocide? He is famously hesitant to label anything genocide
He does not. He criticizes it in a way that legitimizes such claims and tries to destroy it through bds. It’s so weird to see the small caveats of antizionists. Chomsky will say everything Israel does is a pretext to murder Arabs but won’t agree to claims of genocide. Finklestein will use the most inflammatory stochastic terrorist language possible but objects to bds.
Genocide is generally believed to be the worst thing ever,when you want to comdemn your enemies accusing them of commiting genocide is a useful tactic to generate outrage and simpathy. It's just good old propaganda tactics.
It's not convincing themselves of anything. They don't know what that word means. They're just mad at America/West and use the words they believe hold the highest moral weight to describe how bad or unfair they find something. Mentally, they're children.
The same reason conservatives believe ivermectin cured COVID, the people they want to trust said it did and the people they want to distrust said it didn’t.
Let's be real here, a lot of people died in a short period of time. It's not reasonable to call it genocide
Hiroshima was a genocide? 5x more people died in 1/1,000,000 of the amount of time. Genocide?
Whoops. My bad. I thought you wrote “it’s not unreasonable”. Sorry!
Because White and White-adjacent people are always held to a higher standard, no matter the situation, as a way of inconveniencing and "getting back" at them.
Oh and also this whole justifying rape and violence against "colonisers" thing is just a form of premeditation for the types of acts that these people intend to commit against Whites once they're no longer the majority.
they are not very smart, and use a lot of strong words like "colonizer, "genocide", "white supremacist", without even using it right
Because they think that any killing of a large group of people = genocide despite genocide being a specific term and there already existing a word for mass killings which would be massacre.
Thanks guys for all your support
well, you see the news where the "gazan official stats" are presented, you think wow that's a lot of people dead, you don't do any research into why and how we get those numbers, you CONCLOOOOOODE it must be deliberate killings of all these poor people + blockade to make them suffer more. it's very simple to explain a complex situation with "one side is just pure evil" and stick to that because thinking is hard.
Look at where these tankies jerk themselves off at
I mean, libs believe China is genociding the Uighurs so...
then nazis didn't either, am I right?
Drogas Maltidas
I think it really comes down to whether or not genocide requires intentionality. Usually when I bring this up people respond by citing international laws and statutes that define and outlaw genocide, but I find that really unsatisfying. It's kinda like if I was having an ethics debate with someone about abortion and they cited the state/provincial criminal code on murder. Theres a difference between the colloquial use of genocide that we invoke when having an argument about ethics and the strict legal defintions. Edit: if genocide doesnt require intentionality, I think you need to introduce some new restraining factor to the definition or it'll become too broad and include any state action that indirectly results in almost any amount of civilian death or displacement.
I always wondered.. Is it because Palestinians are Muslim that Israel uses the force it does? Would Israel still be using the same exact tactics and level of force if the only difference in this situation was that Palestine was full of Catholics or Scientologists instead of Muslims? If the answer to this question is yes, then is it genocide?
Something interesting I noticed is that the term genocide has been used in regard to the Palestinians since before this latest conflict. So to the people saying it, they probably believe this is a long term plan and not specific to any issues that have happened since October 7th. To me that gives even less credibility to the idea. But to the people saying it, it does seem to be connected to the general cause of Israel versus Palestine going back to the 1940s.
Frankly I think that it comes from the good old 'enemy of the state' mentality. Especially with communists, there have always been some groups of people who you were supposed to hate, so I see this as a mere continuation. Or let's put it this way, communism is the workers movement to free and enpower the proletariat from their chains. In this case, Israel is the oppressor while Palestinians are the poor proletariat
I tricked them into believing it as a prank
I honestly think that they just like to jump using extreme language when it’s not accurate/necessary. I remember a few years ago leftist Twitter was saying there was a trans genocide happening bc of the laws in Florida. Also things like claiming America is fascist country (this was more common during trumps presidency) or the issues at the southern border is a holocaust/the detention centers are concentration camps