4 ms·

there are many definitions already. what's yours? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

by pas 2y ago

there are many definitions already. what's yours? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_d...

EvgeniyZh 2y ago
> almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). > This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide This post mentions intent once: > While we don't have legal authority to establish intentionality But anyway somehow > What our medical teams have witnessed ... is consistent with the descriptions ... that genocide is taking place in Gaza and then the title was changed from "Gaza death trap: MSF report exposes Israel’s campaign of total destruction" to "Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide"
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > This post mentions intent once Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants. MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.
  - EvgeniyZh 2y ago
    > MSF care less about the label Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide? > the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped. > Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would. However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide. To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
      - EvgeniyZh 2y ago
        > There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind? > The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
        shkkmo 2y ago
        > Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind? The article I linked to has all kinds of proof, but if you want a carefully laid out argument for intent, I recommend the Amnesty International report https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/ > What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide? This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.

by pas 2y ago

there are many definitions already. what's yours? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_d...

EvgeniyZh 2y ago

> almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). > This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide This post mentions intent once: > While we don't have legal authority to establish intentionality But anyway somehow > What our medical teams have witnessed ... is consistent with the descriptions ... that genocide is taking place in Gaza and then the title was changed from "Gaza death trap: MSF report exposes Israel’s campaign of total destruction" to "Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide"

shkkmo 2y ago
> This post mentions intent once Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants. MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.
- EvgeniyZh 2y ago
  > MSF care less about the label Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide? > the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped. > Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would. However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide. To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
    - EvgeniyZh 2y ago
      > There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind? > The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        > Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind? The article I linked to has all kinds of proof, but if you want a carefully laid out argument for intent, I recommend the Amnesty International report https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/ > What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide? This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.