- 29,328
- 27,817
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
what's your reasoning for debate?
Israel declares War - Destruction of Gaza / Growing conflict in Middle East
what's your reasoning for debate?
- 14,655
- 35,384
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
20% of Israel is Arab, not Palestinian.
The definition of the term includes intent to destroy the target population.
What's the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?
World leaders have chosen their words carefully when describing the mass exodus of Rohingya fleeing violence in Myanmar, so far largely avoiding the legally specific and politically charged term "genocide."
www.pbs.org
The recurrence of the disproportionality in the Israeli response fits condition #2 (they have always killed ten times more Palestinians that they've lost Israelis). In addition, they've attacked non-violent protests within Palestinian territories and shot at non-armed folks.
In other words, had the Nazis not taken meticulous notes about "killing all Jews", it would've been possible for their lawyers to argue that they didn't commit genocide, which we all know is an objectively laughable argument to make.
The decision to completely cut off Gaza fits condition #3. The decision to abandon this plan came from external pressure; we know that Israelis are blockading the Mediterranean coast; Israelis know that Egypt will not allow a mass influx of Palestinian refugees. Palestinians in Southern Gaza are essentially trapped.
The official plan was to starve Hamas, but nothing was going to be done if Palestinian civilians started dying of hunger and disease.
The intent is there.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
okay and the majority of those Arabs are Palestinian. the point remains.
If the intent is to destroy the Palestinians. what explains the lack of action towards the Palestinians withing Isreal, and what explains the peace deals with Jordan? a majority Palestinian state?
Disproportionality doesn't automatically fit the condition. Iraqis took a disproportionate amount of casualties in the Iraq war, nobody calls the Iraq war a genocide.
Disproportionate losses doesn't automatically make something a genocide. Otherwise, Iraq war is a genocide. war in Afghanistan is a genocide. Any war with a better armed military is a genocide.
you are expanding the term.
which protests exactly are you talking about?
im not asking for meticulous notes. If the Nazi had a large Jewish population living withing their borders un molested, and they had sign peace treaties with majority Jewish nations, then you would have a point.
but they didn't do that. im not asking for notes, im asking for you to explain why they aren't genociding the Palestinians in Israel and why are they making peace with Jordan if their goal is to eliminate Palestinians from the region?
im not talking about ethnic cleansing, im talking about genocide.
it isn't. you haven't proven anything. you just keep restating different bad things israel is doing. all bad, not genocide.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
my reasoning is that people should have sober minded fact based conversations about the conflict.
instead of spamming inflammatory rhetoric to render reasonable disagreement impossible.
Israel is and has done some quite terrible things, we don't need to just expand the meaning of words so we can morally grand stand.
- 822
- 983
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
No, it isn’t. Wars still have rules of engagement which is why soldiers are to only engage with opposing soldiers. Civilian lives must be spared.
There has been absolutely no evidence provided by Israel to show Hamas HQ when bombing buildings. “Believe us” is not evidence.
- 22,443
- 16,245
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Not sure why you engage with him on this.
He’s like Piers Morgan level troll on the topic.
Just nod your head and move on. Not worth your blood pressure
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
war crimes =/= genocide.
again you just keep reciting bad things Israel is doing. still not a genocide.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
ah the retreat to name calling. the train is never late.
- 822
- 983
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
They’re intentionally killing women and children. They are the lifeblood of any ethnicity and culture, without them they will cease to exist. If it’s not genocide, what is it?
- 14,655
- 35,384
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
I'm not. The last 30 years have seen multiple clashes between Israelis and Palestinians, and in all of them, Israelis have killed way more Palestinians. This latest war is far from the first one where Israel has been accused of using excessive force and disregarding civilian safety.
There is a pattern of disregard for Palestinian civilians from the IDF.
Which decade do you want? Because the examples are too many to list.
Pattern of discriminatory Israeli police violations against Palestinians
Police targeted Palestinians with mass arrests, used unlawful force against peaceful protesters, and subjected detainees to torture
www.amnesty.org
Opinion | Israel’s Violent Response to Nonviolent Protests (Published 2018)
Israel should know that journalists have a right to work, and people have a right to demonstrate peacefully, without being shot.
Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence
You wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but peaceful protests are nothing new for Palestinians. But if they are to succeed this time, the…
foreignpolicy.com
Palestinians Engaged in Nonviolent Protest. Israel Responded With a Massacre.
The targeting of unarmed demonstrators by snipers using high-velocity weapons was methodical, precise, and lethal.
www.thenation.com
Ten die as Israeli tanks fire on peaceful protest
Israeli forces fired tank shells into a peaceful Palestinian protest during the ongoing assault on Rafah refugee camp yesterday, killing at least 10 people - mostly children - and critically wounding many others.
Youth, 17, says shot in the eye by Border Police officers
Matan Cohen told <i>Haaretz</i> officers fired rubber bullet at him during anti-fence protest in the the West Bank.
You're trying to attach to the definition of genocide constraints like the velocity of the act (months or years) or the territorial extent of it, which are only relevant to nations that want to avoid the geopolitical consequences of supporting a nation committing genocidal acts.
The point is, Israel is not interested in annexing a West Bank or a Gaza strip full of Palestinians, and they have to go somewhere. Problem is, Gazans can't go anywhere, and the Israeli government is willing to let them die by preventing help from going to the civilian population.
You're not being serious right now.
If a nation's wartime strategy is to trap and subject the civilian population of the enemy to starvation and environmental conditions favorable to mass civilian casualties (like cutting off power to hospitals and access to potable water), as Israel has done during the first few weeks of the conflict, you can't say there isn't an intent to commit genocide. When the Israeli
government turns a blind eye to Israeli settlers poisoning Palestinian water wells, you can't say that there is no intent to harm the population at large.
What doesn't matter here is the amount of people killed or the method by which they die as the result of those actions. What matters is the intent to destroy the targeted population, and it's there.
- 47,230
- 96,721
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
Typical... Always the victim
- 22,895
- 26,767
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
And this is why i'm gad this conflict has reached such platforms & people are finally able to speak out against Israel/zionist.
If i would have came on this website a year ago & said this exact same thing & just replaced Muslims with Jews i would be accused of antisemitism & condemned (FTR i don't think your question comes from a place of malice or hate)
I hope that we move to a place in the future where you are able to criticize the actions of some jewish people, without being accused of hate towards them.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
I'm not. The last 30 years have seen multiple clashes between Israelis and Palestinians, and in all of them, Israelis have killed way more Palestinians. This latest war is far from the first one where Israel has been accused of using excessive force and disregarding civilian safety.
There is a pattern of disregard for Palestinian civilians from the IDF.
Which decade do you want? Because the examples are too many to list.
Pattern of discriminatory Israeli police violations against Palestinians
Police targeted Palestinians with mass arrests, used unlawful force against peaceful protesters, and subjected detainees to torture
Opinion | Israel’s Violent Response to Nonviolent Protests (Published 2018)
Israel should know that journalists have a right to work, and people have a right to demonstrate peacefully, without being shot.www.nytimes.com
Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence
You wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but peaceful protests are nothing new for Palestinians. But if they are to succeed this time, the…
Palestinians Engaged in Nonviolent Protest. Israel Responded With a Massacre.
The targeting of unarmed demonstrators by snipers using high-velocity weapons was methodical, precise, and lethal.
Ten die as Israeli tanks fire on peaceful protest
Israeli forces fired tank shells into a peaceful Palestinian protest during the ongoing assault on Rafah refugee camp yesterday, killing at least 10 people - mostly children - and critically wounding many others.www.theguardian.com
Youth, 17, says shot in the eye by Border Police officers
Matan Cohen told <i>Haaretz</i> officers fired rubber bullet at him during anti-fence protest in the the West Bank.www.haaretz.com
You're trying to attach to the definition of genocide constraints like the velocity of the act (months or years) or the territorial extent of it, which are only relevant to nations that want to avoid the geopolitical consequences of supporting a nation committing genocidal acts.
The point is, Israel is not interested in annexing a West Bank or a Gaza strip full of Palestinians, and they have to go somewhere. Problem is, Gazans can't go anywhere, and the Israeli government is willing to let them die by preventing help from going to the civilian population.
You're not being serious right now.
If a nation's wartime strategy is to trap and subject the civilian population of the enemy to starvation and environmental conditions favorable to mass civilian casualties (like cutting off power to hospitals and access to potable water), as Israel has done during the first few weeks of the conflict, you can't say there isn't an intent to commit genocide. When the Israeli
government turns a blind eye to Israeli settlers poisoning Palestinian water wells, you can't say that there is no intent to harm the population at large.
What doesn't matter here is the amount of people killed or the method by which they die as the result of those actions. What matters is the intent to destroy the targeted population, and it's there.
Ill ask again you keep ignoring the question, ill just keep asking.
if there intent is to destory the Palestinans why do make peace with majority Palestinan countries on their boarder and why do they do nothing about Palestinians within their boarders?
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
wut im not im talking about velocity, im tlaking intent. If we know there intent we should be able to predict their actions. if there intent is to destroy Palestinians, then you'd predict they would be geocoding the Palestinians closest to them. but they don't seem to be doing that. Why?
also By this logic is Egypt geocoding the Palestinians?
They keep their boarder sealed. They don't take in refuges, or resettle them in their own country, they don't annex the territory.
Gazans can't go anywhere, and the Egyptian government is willing to let them die by preventing help from going to the civilian population.
by your logic Egypt is "genociding" the Palestinians.
your definition of genocide essentially boils down to, "all the stuff that Israel does" it's circular.
if i look into these, im not going to find the story is more complicated then "IDF is kills totally innocent people without provocation"?
- 22,895
- 26,767
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
two pages of playing Semantics over the word genocide 
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
two pages of playing Semantics over the word genocide
yah maybe im crazy i think genocide is a pretty serious charge, and should be used accuratley.
and people cynically employ it to lend credibility and create emotional reaction so I think it's pretty important to be clear about it's meaning.
so when people get mad at politicians for not stopping a "genocide"
i think it's important to understand that it doesn't actually fit that definition.
and the conflict is not as simple as one country genociding another.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
so im looking through the NY times article on and
so there is some dispute about how "non violent" the protests were.
im guessing if keep going through the other links im going to find the same thing?
im sure the IDF is acting disproportionally but id also guess its misleading to act like its as simple as they are mowing down throngs of peaceful protesters.
the amensty internation link, appears to be the same stuff, "unnecessary and excessive force", but generally in response to some violence
"l though a minority attacked police property and threw stones"
so again your characterization seems like more overheated rhetoric.
- 22,443
- 16,245
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Yea man. Like I said, no point engaging.two pages of playing Semantics over the word genocide
you have to be objectively sick to say it’s not anything but genocide or at the least a crime against humanity with genocide a week away
- 22,895
- 26,767
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
They have Abused & pillaged palestinians for decades, they have actively killed thousands, they have blown up hospitals, they have killed Children, they have attempted to starve people to death........ i can assure you using the word genocide or not isn't going to change anyone's emotional reaction
- 47,230
- 96,721
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
Osh gosh loves to be the contrarian, it's his schtick.
- 47,230
- 96,721
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
- 14,655
- 35,384
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
The definition for genocide doesn't included a modifier for territorial presence.
Should the Rwandan genocide not be considered one because the targeted population in Congo and in Burundi were not targeted by violence?
What about the Armenian genocide? Should it not be thought as one because Armenians in Armenia/Azerbaijan were not targeted?
The settlers are doing the killing, Israeli ministers (Ben Gvir) are providing weapons to Israeli militias in the WB, and the IDF is looking the other way,
In East Jerusalem, Arab neighborhoods and mosques are getting attacked by Jewish extremists while the Israeli police looks the other way (if they don't help).
This is ridiculous.
Is Egypt firing on Gazans?
That's you. You're playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word.
Because they signed the Geneva conventions and some of its amendments, the US, France, the UK will have to commit to punitive actions against Israel if they recognize that its behavior towards Palestinians can be qualified as genocide. That's not the case for you, so you don't have to do the mental gymnastics western diplomats subject themselves to to ensure that the governments they represent are not held accountable for policies that would impact their interests.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
then why the attachment to the word? why are people doing these mental gymnastics to make it fit.
if all that is bad enough, why the reach.
because genocide prompts a very specific emotional reaction.
- 33,518
- 28,757
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
no it includes a modifier for intent.
ill just keep asking it since you keep not responding.
if you have genocidal intent for a group of people. why are you ignoring the ones closest to you and the ones easiest to access?
targeting the ones closets to you and not the ones in sovereign countries makes total sense if you have an intent to do something.
people take the path of least resistance.
you need to explain why someone with intent would target the ones most difficult to reach.
the WB isn't Isreal proper.
and the other stuff is weak tea. you know as well as I Palestinians live in Isreal, of course they face discrimination,
but you know as well as I do Palestines withing Israel are not being genocided
so again explain this. you want to do something but you ignore the ones easiest to access.
This is ridiculous.
Is Egypt firing on Gazans?
you are the one that said "velocity" shouldn't matter?
so if Egypt watches as Palestinan starve to death and does nothing about it becuase they don't want Palestinans in their country.
Egypt is certainly complicent in enforcing the conditions in Gaza.
by your definition the velocity shouldn't matter, it's a genocide.
you're laughing because of course is ridiculous, but it's your logic.
That's you. You're playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word.
this is like "i know you are but what am i" level argument?
explain to me how im trying to prompt an emotional reaction?
The US, France and UK don't have to do anything. Just as they aren't doing anything in a whole bunch of other equally horrifying conflicts around the globe.
I don't know why you think the G word is the big joker that will instantly generate action. I don't see any evidence in other conflicts.
- 1,730
- 1,772
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
Saying neighbouring countries are also in on the “genocide” because they aren’t doing anything to help, is absolutely nuts.
Furthermore framing this situation in a way to say that neighborhing countries would be “helping” by taking the Palestinians in, knowing full well that Israel would be salivating at that prospect, is ridiculous and actually ignoring the source of an oppressive regime that’s absolutely intent on displacing them.
And the key part, they unequivocally do not give a f about whether that displacement of people comes in forms of migration, direct death by bombs, indirect death through starvation, disease, or lack of food, all they care about is the land.
Now is it genocide if the deaths of a whole population is due to being squeezed and being ethnically cleansed? or are we still saying that’s not their main intent.
This idea that it’s not genocide because that’s not their intent, but as a result of ethnic cleansing (agreed upon by all people) they are dying enmasse is a hypocritical argument and all it does is obfuscate Israel crimes.
Furthermore framing this situation in a way to say that neighborhing countries would be “helping” by taking the Palestinians in, knowing full well that Israel would be salivating at that prospect, is ridiculous and actually ignoring the source of an oppressive regime that’s absolutely intent on displacing them.
And the key part, they unequivocally do not give a f about whether that displacement of people comes in forms of migration, direct death by bombs, indirect death through starvation, disease, or lack of food, all they care about is the land.
Now is it genocide if the deaths of a whole population is due to being squeezed and being ethnically cleansed? or are we still saying that’s not their main intent.
This idea that it’s not genocide because that’s not their intent, but as a result of ethnic cleansing (agreed upon by all people) they are dying enmasse is a hypocritical argument and all it does is obfuscate Israel crimes.
