6 ms·
1948
by michaelsshaw 2y ago
1948
- reissbaker 2y agoInteresting! And in this supposed 77 year long genocide, did the population size of Palestinians decrease?
- michaelsshaw 2y agoNot a determining factor. Genocide is the commission of one of the five prohibited acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
- reissbaker 2y agoA bit hard to show "intent to destroy" if for 77 years of rule, they haven't actually done it, though. I mean, in what other "genocide" did the population grow, year over year, for 77 years? Can you name a single one where the population grew for even five years of "genocide"?
- michaelsshaw 2y ago[dead]
- reissbaker 2y agoMmhm. And not only can I read — it would be quite amazing if I could write the posts you're angrily responding to without being able to read — I'm also pointing out that there is nothing that qualifies as a 77-year genocide in which the population grows year over year the entire time. No serious scholarship exists that even claims a 77 year genocide starting in 1948. Every time someone dies in a conflict, does not equate to an attempt to destroy a people "in whole or in part" — quite obviously, or else even a murder would count as a genocide, along with every single war ever. Certainly Palestinians have killed Israelis with the intent to destroy them — even prior to 1948. In fact, it was Israelis who accepted the 1948 partition plan, and the Palestinians who rejected it in favor of a war that they subsequently lost (but intended to win, and killed many people while trying!). Have the Palestinians been committing genocide for 100 years? No, obviously not. Your claims do not hold water and do not support a 77-year supposed genocide. Please try again. BTW the five acts are: killing — typically systematic, targeting civilians rather than militants; bodily/mental harm (e.g widespread slavery, systematic rape); deliberately inflicting conditions meant to destroy the group (e.g. mass starvation); forced birth control e.g. the Uyghur genocide; or forcible transfer of children outside of the group. If any of these things had been systematically happening for 77 years straight as you claim, the population would not have grown: it would have been demolished, like in every other case. That's the whole point of the term genocide, vs other, lesser terms. If the group wasn't meaningfully destroyed, it's pretty unlikely there was a genocide. Even if it were true that the end goal of Zionism has always been the complete expulsion of the Palestinians — which isn't the case, and in fact many early Zionists advocated for peacefully living together, as do plenty of modern ones — expulsion is not genocide, or else India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for even longer. Even with that steelman you're still wrong!
- michaelsshaw 2y ago>BTW the five acts are: killing — typically systematic, targeting civilians rather than militants; bodily/mental harm (e.g widespread slavery, systematic rape); deliberately inflicting conditions meant to destroy the group (e.g. mass starvation); Check, check and check. And Zionism has always been seeking to expel Palestinians, despite your dubious claims to the contrary. Success is not a requisite as written in the genocide convention. Your population stats are irrelevant. Try this: go on Israeli politicians twitters. Read the Hebrew language ones and translate them to English. Report back.
- reissbaker 2y agoI don't need to translate them to English, I speak Hebrew. There are far right ministers who say insane things, there are far left ministers who say the exact opposite, and both call themselves Zionists. You don't speak Hebrew so you need someone to point you to tweets to translate, and you've been pointed only at the far right ones and that's why you think those are the only ones that exist. If it was actually "check, check, and check" for 77 years, the population would go down, obviously, unless you believe Palestinians are each the second coming of Jesus Christ and can return from the dead at will. No serious academic scholarship agrees with you, and common sense is that you're wrong too. A genocide involves actually attempting to destroy a lot of people systematically, not periodic violence over land squabbles in which neither side is significantly reduced. There is certainly debate over whether the current war — starting on Oct. 7th — has devolved into genocide, although there isn't scholarly agreement on that (nor legal agreement, as the international courts haven't issued rulings yet; they've only declined to dismiss the case). But a 77-year genocide is a fantasy, in order to avoid thinking deeply about your preferred side's complicity in this endless conflict — and indeed in the current war, which they started, and in which they committed numerous war crimes (and continue to commit war crimes).
- za3faran 2y agoListen to their ministers and people in charge and they clearly state the intent outright. This latest conflict has exposed everything.
- reissbaker 2y ago[flagged]
- nashashmi 2y agoThat’s a terrible argument. Palestinians have fled. Nakba happened. Refugees increased. So did the population go down? yes. The population shifted to safer places. And then they are getting bombed there too.
- reissbaker 2y agoPeople fleeing a conflict isn't genocide. And no, the population did not decrease! You can literally look this up. "Moving 5 miles away" is not an overall group population decrease; here is a graph of the population of Israelis and Palestinians respectively: https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-population-growth/ https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-po... As you can see, it's been up and to the right this whole time, for both groups. Unless you think that India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for the last 78 years, neither Israel nor Palestine have been committing genocide against each other for the past 77 years. They had a land dispute, which Israel agreed to split via the U.N. partition plan, and which the Palestinians rejected in favor of a war which they subsequently lost. Just like the current war, in which you passively claim they're "getting bombed," as if nothing had happened to trigger the war — in fact, the government of Gaza (Hamas) invaded Israel, killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages, including civilians, sparking a war in which Gaza has now gotten bombed.
- nashashmi 2y agoYou have to look at the population of Palestinians in the 1948 region before and after. Towns are empty from the nakba. People fleeing a genocide and being refused return is genocide. Don’t try to rephrase this is as “conflict”. Nor equate the history of other regions as equivalent to this one.
- reissbaker 2y agoThey were obviously not fleeing a genocide, since no genocide happened in 1948. The population graphs of Palestine make that extremely clear. In fact, many did not flee and are citizens of Israel today and even serve in the Knesset, and are referred to as "Israeli Arabs." Of the five acts defined as genocide, moving five miles away is not one of them. And of course you can compare conflicts in history to each other. Why wouldn't you be able to? Literally the same thing happened with India and Pakistan, at almost exactly the same time, except that Pakistan agreed to the partition and didn't try to invade India. Many people were displaced, or fled, and there were even some border conflicts. But Pakistan and India both accepted partition in general in 1947, unlike the Palestinians who invaded Israel instead in 1948. In fact many more people were displaced or forced to move during the partition of British India into India and Pakistan: 15MM people, vs 900k during the 1948 war. If you didn't consider that genocide, neither is the latter.