4 ms·

[flagged]

bawolff 3y ago
> What is that "pro-Israel" side? I just mean random people on the internet siding with the state of israel. > One of the five acts constituting genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention is "imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group". Yes i agree that is part of the definition. While i find a lot of the statements you mentioned concerning, for it to be genocide i would think they would have to come from people participating in the conflict or those who command them (since intent is required for genocide). I don't think statements by people not in charge of Israeli war planning count for much when trying to establish the intent behind the israeli war machine. The amalek statement of course came from someone in command. The actual statement is at https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netanyahu-28-oct-2023 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netan... . I agree its concerning, but i'm not sure in context it is really a smoking gun. It seems like it could be interpreted as meaning remember the existential threat hamas poses. There have been other statements by people in charge saying that the enemy is hamas not palestine. > what more do you want? Generally the bar would be proof that the intent of the military operation is to destroy the ethnic group. Showing intent is difficult, but that is generally what the crime of genocide requires. To quote wikipedia: >"The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's like looking for direct orders by Hitler before you can be really sure there's a problem.

[flagged]

> What is that "pro-Israel" side? I just mean random people on the internet siding with the state of israel. > One of the five acts constituting genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention is "imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group". Yes i agree that is part of the definition. While i find a lot of the statements you mentioned concerning, for it to be genocide i would think they would have to come from people participating in the conflict or those who command them (since intent is required for genocide). I don't think statements by people not in charge of Israeli war planning count for much when trying to establish the intent behind the israeli war machine. The amalek statement of course came from someone in command. The actual statement is at https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netanyahu-28-oct-2023 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netan... . I agree its concerning, but i'm not sure in context it is really a smoking gun. It seems like it could be interpreted as meaning remember the existential threat hamas poses. There have been other statements by people in charge saying that the enemy is hamas not palestine. > what more do you want? Generally the bar would be proof that the intent of the military operation is to destroy the ethnic group. Showing intent is difficult, but that is generally what the crime of genocide requires. To quote wikipedia: >"The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent

johnnyworker 3y ago
I'm sorry, but that's like looking for direct orders by Hitler before you can be really sure there's a problem.