3 ms·

> 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 pra

> 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.
- EvgeniyZh 2y ago
  > I recommend the Amnesty International report The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about: > As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. > The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent. The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.

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.

EvgeniyZh 2y ago
> I recommend the Amnesty International report The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about: > As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. > The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent. The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.