Pretty sure it implies large numbers of a group, but is left unstated to give flexibility as to how it can be addressed by courts or nations and intents of those involved in committing 'acts of genocide' towards whichever targeted groups they may be. Israel has not been charged with genocide yet, but with Gaza I think they may be close to fitting the criteria.OK, you're a different poster, but I will pick it up from here. This definition seems awfully broad, does it not? I mean, how many countries have "killed members of a group" or "caused serious bodily injury or mental harm to a group"? According to that definition, it's just about every country in the world. With that definition, sure Israel is guilty of genocide, and so is every other country. That definition renders the word meaningless.
Tell me, what/who am I bigoted toward? How are you defining that word that you think it is appropriate to be used here? And while you are at it, could you please tell me what the appropriate way to criticize Israel would be, a country Americans spent billions of dollars on yearly.
Pretty sure it implies large numbers of a group, but is left unstated to give flexibility as to how it can be addressed by courts or nations and intents of those involved in committing 'acts of genocide' towards whichever targeted groups they may be. Israel has not been charged with genocide yet, but with Gaza I think they may be close to fitting the criteria.
Not sure what your point is. How does the fact that a population might be increasing say they are not having their children killed. And if these Palestinians are really animals like some Israelis and others say they are, perhaps like coyotes the more you wipe them out the faster they multiply and spread. They are even moving into where I live.Yeah, I looked over the full definition as you clipped out a lot, and needless to say, it's not a model of clarity. Based on what you quoted, it sounded overbroad to me. But most scholars find it too narrow. Why? Because this definition only results in identifying three occurrences as genocide: Turkish slaughter of Armenians from 1915-1920, the Holocaust, and Rwanda. It leaves out a bunch that scholars think are genocide, including Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Darfur, and ISIS's attempt to exterminate all Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria. No one but anti-Israel activists seriously characterizes what is happening between Israel and the Palestinians as genocide. Such people are operating under a politicized definition that was created specially for Israel.
How do you define genocide?
Genocide is among the gravest crimes against humanity, but there is debate over which historical crimes qualify.www.bbc.com
DId you have a reply regarding my citation of unusually fast, and very even and steady, population growth among the Palestinians?
Not sure what your point is. How does the fact that a population might be increasing say they are not having their children killed. And if these Palestinians are really animals like some Israelis and others say they are, perhaps like coyotes the more you wipe them out the faster they multiply and spread. They are even moving into where I live.
But my point was not that genocide was being committed. My point was that if what is happening is genocide that arguing population growth as a form of denial is not any kind of moral excuse. It could just be brutal murder at below population growth numbers which would still be monsterous.What we're discussing is whether it is a "genocide." "Having your children killed" is terrible, but it isn't genocide.
As to the rest of your comment, it is a straw man. Show me one place in this thread where I've de-humanized Palestinians as you claim.
You want an example of de-humanization? There is a narrative going on in this thread and elsewhere that Israel was founded by a bunch of judeo-supremacists hellbent on "stealing" the land of a people they thought were inferior. And ignoring their moral claim to a homeland based on them being victims of multiple recent genocides, as if it doesn't matter at all. That's called de-humanization.
But my point was not that genocide was being committed. My point was that if what is happening is genocide that arguing population growth as a form of denial is not any kind of moral excuse. It could just be brutal murder at below population growth numbers which would still be monsterous.
The only points I have made is that Israel looks to be running an apartheid state with the aim of creating such misery on the Palestinian side that it can create enough misery to break their will to live. That’s not a smart thing to try on Muslims. Their religion is uniquely designed to resist that I think.
Resist yes, but not effectively.Their religion is uniquely designed to resist that I think.
But I would just turn that around. Why are you arguing that what is going on isn’t genocide when what it appears to be is a conscious effort to create intolerable misery for the Palestinian people. X and Y are hideous. ‘If not X’is a red herring if Y is the case. What I see looks like apartheid. What I hear from you is that, what is, is justified. To me then, what I hear from you is a denial of what appears to be a substantive reality on the ground, rationalization based on ego identification. I believe that I can see this because I am not ego identifies with my nation, a religion, or my race.I wasn't trying to make a "moral excuse." I was arguing whether what is going constitutes genocide, because multiple people have repeatedly claimed that it is. It's a false characterization and a false narrative, so why aren't you taking issue with what they said?
Just to be clear, no, you cannot conclude that because someone said this isn't x, but rather y, that they are justifying y. Understand?
I don't think there's value in arguing over the specific definition of genocide and whether it applies in this case. I do think we can agree that if Israel specifically was just trying to eliminate just Hamas, they'd be approaching this war very differently. The cutting off of food, power, freedom of movement etc to the general palestinian population isn't really something you need to do if you're trying to kill leaders or eliminate military targets, even if targets are interspersed in the population. Whatever definition of genocide you want to use, what's happening is a stone or two throws away from it. If someone's response to accusations of genocide are "well, define genocide", they're probably gonna be in the wrong at the end of the day. Allegations of war crimes are rampant as it is, even from Western countries.I wasn't trying to make a "moral excuse." I was arguing whether what is going constitutes genocide, because multiple people have repeatedly claimed that it is. It's a false characterization and a false narrative, so why aren't you taking issue with what they said?
Just to be clear, no, you cannot conclude that because someone said this isn't x, but rather y, that they are justifying y. Understand?
OK, you're a different poster, but I will pick it up from here. This definition seems awfully broad, does it not? I mean, how many countries have "killed members of a group" or "caused serious bodily injury or mental harm to a group"? According to that definition, it's just about every country in the world. With that definition, sure Israel is guilty of genocide, and so is every other country. That definition renders the word meaningless.
Let me point out one unassailable fact here, Palestinian population has grown from 1.5 million in 1990 to 5 million in 2023. Furthermore, it's annual growth rate has been pretty stable at 2.5%, and it's population has grown at an even incline for over 20 years. There aren't even any blips on the graph for years they had wars in Gaza. Because the number of deaths was too small to even register on a population wide scale.
Population growth in Palestine
Population growth of the last 32 years in Palestine compared to the global averagewww.worlddata.info
By contrast, the current population growth in the United States is .38%.
So tell me how a genocide, or even a so-called "slow genocide" can be in progress when the targeted population is growing by leaps and bounds. I suppose you think Israel is attempting genocide but they're just really bad at it, eh?
Should I mention that the Nazis killed 5.5-6 million Jews in 4 years, and that this was one third of the world's entire Jewish population? Or we could talk about other genocides, like in Rwanda, where the Hutu's killed over 500,000 Tutsi's in just 100 days.
I think genocide comes down to intent, while actions on the ground are evidence of the intent or lack thereof. Israel is well capable of causing a genocide, whether fast or slow, but the facts say they have no intent to do so.
I don't think there's value in arguing over the specific definition of genocide and whether it applies in this case. I do think we can agree that if Israel specifically was just trying to eliminate just Hamas, they'd be approaching this war very differently. The cutting off of food, power, freedom of movement etc to the general palestinian population isn't really something you need to do if you're trying to kill leaders or eliminate military targets, even if targets are interspersed in the population. Whatever definition of genocide you want to use, what's happening is a stone or two throws away from it. If someone's response to accusations of genocide are "well, define genocide", they're probably gonna be in the wrong at the end of the day. Allegations of war crimes are rampant as it is, even from Western countries.
But I would just turn that around. Why are you arguing that what is going on isn’t genocide when what it appears to be is a conscious effort to create intolerable misery for the Palestinian people. X and Y are hideous. ‘If not X’is a red herring if Y is the case. What I see looks like apartheid. What I hear from you is that, what is, is justified. To me then, what I hear from you is a denial of what appears to be a substantive reality on the ground, rationalization based on ego identification. I believe that I can see this because I am not ego identifies with my nation, a religion, or my race.
Having grown up as a reasonably privileged white American male I never had any emotionally damaging experiences of bigotry toward my person, identified as I was without realizing it, as a pure top of the line model human being. I got called a Haole a few times with intended malice, I suppose, but to no effect.
You can then, I guess, call me naive rather that a person who has experienced victimization over identity others inflict on us. I just don’t understand the victim mentality state. But then I might counter that having no obvious reasons by way of ego identifications to blame on others for any self dissatisfaction I felt, it was easier for me to realize that it is really self hate that is the source of the problem not because others hated me for bigoted reasons. Hate is everywhere and no child can avoid it.
If you hate others they will hate you for it. If you love others they will say you are insane and distrust you because in a mirror full of love we see our own hatred reflected back at us. Cure this in the only place you can to find peace.
I don’t see that the discussion was ever open. I expressed my opinion that I have no interest in definitions of words or historical justifications. I said only that looking at the situation from my point of view I see the imposition by the Israeli government of an apartheid state and what would be the motive. That fact strikes me as so visibly obvious yet you don’t seem to see it or if you do you justify it somehow.Oh yes, now that it's Israel, there is a new definition of genocide. Now it's "a conscious effort to create intolerable misery." I wonder how many nations would qualify under that standard? BTW, is there a particular quantum of "misery" which must be inflicted, or do you just know it when you see it? But wait, it gets better, It just :"looks like" apartheid to you. No need to justify any comparison with historical facts! Because, Moonbeam, on this topic, you don't need no steenking facts.,
See, the problem is that these words you use are loaded words with powerful emotional connotations which to the vast majority of people, have a far more extreme definition than the watered down definition you employ. When you use that word, you know well what it means to the people who hear it. It means an attempt to physically exterminate a population. Period. So when you use it with a broadened definition knowing that people think it means a lot more, you are in fact being dishonest. You are defaming the state of Israel. You're telling a lie. No, you don't just get to redefine words at your whim and not even disclose it to the listener.
You know what's weird about you here. You say you're this great humanitarian, yet your sympathies for humans don't seem to extend to the Jews. When the topic of Jews and either historic oppression including actual, real genocide(s) as part of the moral case of the state of Israel, you have no comment. Also, don't seem to have much comment on Palestinians killing Jews in the first place, which is what is provoking these responses. Selective sympathy is highly suspect. You better check your "self-hate" meter. I don't think you're quite reached nirvana yet.
You don't know the historical facts here and are not interested in learning them, so this discussion is at a close.
Unfortunately, without the drone footage we often get after the fact in Ukraine, it's hard to determine the effects of these attacks.Some intense combat inside Gaza, no gore but multiple rpg hits on armor, i didn't see 10 though
trying to support armor inside a bombed out urban landscape is a nightmare
I never said the jews are just like the Nazis. Your Zionist personality did that.Yes, yes, "the Jews" are just like the Nazis now. Hey Perknose, you see what people are saying in this thread and why I'm reacting this way?
OK, I've been avoiding the vile swill you've posted in this thread. So let's start out this way: please supply me with the definition of "genocide" you are employing in this thread.
This surprised me. At first didnt think the Iranians would supply the Houthis with ballisitc missiles, but they may very well have. Israels Arrow missile defense systems appear to have shot one down.
MSN
www.msn.com
I wouldn't doubt it. Iran has been sending their Shiite cousins down there big stuff since 2015 or so, about when they took Sanaa. They've come a long way from just dhows full of AKs and RPGs. Sa'udi and UAE vessels both have been taken out of the fight by Houthi rockets and missiles IIRC, and they certainly embarrassed Riyadh (and it's money) on land, repeatedly.
As probably the most combat effective affiliate Tehran has, it would appear they've deemed the Houthi worthy of The Really Big Stuff. Now we wait to see if it was actually Houthi that fired it, or was it Iranian "advisors"? Gird your loins people. IDF and Mossad aren't going to just shrug and move on with their day.
Way to go Arrow btw, very cool. Not an easy task.