5 ms·

No, words do mean something. Genocide is the ambition to eradicate and kill certain groups of people. Genocide isn't the only atrocity, so no need to put them a

No, words do mean something. Genocide is the ambition to eradicate and kill certain groups of people. Genocide isn't the only atrocity, so no need to put them all under the umbrella of the term. Genocide is certainly what some groups attempt to do to Jews. > Israel is a religious colonial project that sought to displace non-Jewish people in that area from its inception. Wrong. Different beliefs fare far better than in surrounding countries. Your statements are devoid of facts. Facts that are measurable. > Yes, it’s more complicated than what can be summarised in a comment You make wrong statements here. We can correct those in the context of your comment first before going deeper here. > The goal is explicitly to destroy Palestine and its people. That is a conspiracy theory.

runarberg 2y ago
Most genocides have conspirators that conspire the genocide into existence. The Gaza genocide is no exception. Both the ICC prosecution recommendation against Gallant and Netanyahu, as well as the ICJ genocide case against Israel, show genocidal intent among the Israeli ruling class, and to me at least (I‘m not a lawyer) it seems Israeli rulers have indeed conspired to commit a genocide. So yes, you can claim this is a conspiracy theory, however, unlike flat earth 9/11 truthers, etc. this conspiracy theory is very plausible.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Please stay factual. That is not what the ICJ concluded and the ICC has not ruled anything either but has compromised itself with arrest warrants and questionable panels. Not that the surveillance conducted by the Israeli government is anything that should be supported, but that is not relevant to the determination of the war being genocide or not. The war wasn't started by Israel and that should conclude investigations for Gaza at least.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    I did stay factual. I made special care in writing “ICC prosecution recommendation” and “ICJ genocide case”. Both are factual, one being recommendation and the other being an ongoing case. Both have factual documents supporting the case, including allegations of conspiracy against the Israeli rulers. Who started what does not matter, being rulers of a country who is victims of terrorism does not make it impossible to conspire to commit genocide. In fact indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. My point here is that allegations against Israeli rulers to commit genocide is very plausible. So much so that an international consensus has pretty much formed around it, including among genocide experts, and legal scholars of the world highest courts.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      There is neither a ruling on genocide nor is there any form of consensus around it. > indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. Just to reiterate, Israel is not a colonial state, so that doesn't apply here. If Palestinians want their own state, they need to fix their relation to Israel, otherwise they will remain in a limbo. And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        You talked about being factual, but also claim: > And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed. This is factually untrue. All of Palestine (including East Jerusalem) is internationally recognized to be occupied territory. Occupiers have obligations under international law, this includes lifting the occupation, or according to the UN[1] > The overarching principle is that an occupant does not acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory and therefore any occupation must only be a temporary situation. Note that this is enlisted in the fourth Hague convention of 1907 which Israel is a party to. The occupation of Palestine is the longest occupation in the history of that agreement, beating the Turkeys occupation of Northern Cyprus by 7 years, and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara by 8, but also is this occupation characterized serial violations of other parts of the agreement, most notably a policy of settlements (violating the prohibition of transfers of civilian populations) and the apartheid wall (violating measures to ensure restoration of civilian life, seizure of property, among others; and ruled a violation of international law in 2003, and ordered to be dismantled). Unlike Israel, Palestine is under no such obligations as occupied peoples. International law does grant the Palestinian people the right to resistance (particularly to peaceful protests). Israel has consistently denied Palestinians any means of resisting peacefully, including protests, but most destructively, Palestinians have no political avenue for their resistance, leaving only armed, violent resistance. Israel’s own policy of not obeying international law has indeed ensured this reality. Whether or not Israel is a colonial power is up for debate, but the debate is only about semantics. There is no doubt Israel is an occupying power. In my view, occupation is merely very concise legal term we apply to a subset of colonial conduct. Occupation is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for colonialism, but does grant international law the possibility to punish for some colonial behavior. In my books, 57 years of occupation counts as colonialism, and using resistance against said occupation to justify genocide is very similar to the rhetoric of 19th century colonial powers. 1: https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ohchr_syria_-_belligerent_occupation_-_legal_note_en.pdf https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...

runarberg 2y ago

Most genocides have conspirators that conspire the genocide into existence. The Gaza genocide is no exception. Both the ICC prosecution recommendation against Gallant and Netanyahu, as well as the ICJ genocide case against Israel, show genocidal intent among the Israeli ruling class, and to me at least (I‘m not a lawyer) it seems Israeli rulers have indeed conspired to commit a genocide. So yes, you can claim this is a conspiracy theory, however, unlike flat earth 9/11 truthers, etc. this conspiracy theory is very plausible.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
Please stay factual. That is not what the ICJ concluded and the ICC has not ruled anything either but has compromised itself with arrest warrants and questionable panels. Not that the surveillance conducted by the Israeli government is anything that should be supported, but that is not relevant to the determination of the war being genocide or not. The war wasn't started by Israel and that should conclude investigations for Gaza at least.
- runarberg 2y ago
  I did stay factual. I made special care in writing “ICC prosecution recommendation” and “ICJ genocide case”. Both are factual, one being recommendation and the other being an ongoing case. Both have factual documents supporting the case, including allegations of conspiracy against the Israeli rulers. Who started what does not matter, being rulers of a country who is victims of terrorism does not make it impossible to conspire to commit genocide. In fact indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. My point here is that allegations against Israeli rulers to commit genocide is very plausible. So much so that an international consensus has pretty much formed around it, including among genocide experts, and legal scholars of the world highest courts.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    There is neither a ruling on genocide nor is there any form of consensus around it. > indigenous resistance has been used as pretense for colonial genocide for centuries. Just to reiterate, Israel is not a colonial state, so that doesn't apply here. If Palestinians want their own state, they need to fix their relation to Israel, otherwise they will remain in a limbo. And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      You talked about being factual, but also claim: > And it is not on Israel to fix their situation, at some point their situation is entirely self imposed. This is factually untrue. All of Palestine (including East Jerusalem) is internationally recognized to be occupied territory. Occupiers have obligations under international law, this includes lifting the occupation, or according to the UN[1] > The overarching principle is that an occupant does not acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory and therefore any occupation must only be a temporary situation. Note that this is enlisted in the fourth Hague convention of 1907 which Israel is a party to. The occupation of Palestine is the longest occupation in the history of that agreement, beating the Turkeys occupation of Northern Cyprus by 7 years, and Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara by 8, but also is this occupation characterized serial violations of other parts of the agreement, most notably a policy of settlements (violating the prohibition of transfers of civilian populations) and the apartheid wall (violating measures to ensure restoration of civilian life, seizure of property, among others; and ruled a violation of international law in 2003, and ordered to be dismantled). Unlike Israel, Palestine is under no such obligations as occupied peoples. International law does grant the Palestinian people the right to resistance (particularly to peaceful protests). Israel has consistently denied Palestinians any means of resisting peacefully, including protests, but most destructively, Palestinians have no political avenue for their resistance, leaving only armed, violent resistance. Israel’s own policy of not obeying international law has indeed ensured this reality. Whether or not Israel is a colonial power is up for debate, but the debate is only about semantics. There is no doubt Israel is an occupying power. In my view, occupation is merely very concise legal term we apply to a subset of colonial conduct. Occupation is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for colonialism, but does grant international law the possibility to punish for some colonial behavior. In my books, 57 years of occupation counts as colonialism, and using resistance against said occupation to justify genocide is very similar to the rhetoric of 19th century colonial powers. 1: https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ohchr_syria_-_belligerent_occupation_-_legal_note_en.pdf https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/0...