4 ms·

Not every war is genocide. Calling it genocide over and over doesn't actually make it one if it literally doesn't meet the legal definition.

cookiengineer 1y ago
[flagged]
- ipv6ipv4 1y ago
  Even the Irish, who can’t be accused of being pro-Israel, recognize that the genocide accusation is bunk. The Irish solution is to try to redefine the term to fit their agenda. About par for the course. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-wants-expansion-of-the-definition-of-genocide-under-the-geneva-convention-says-taoiseach/a1112529887.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-wants-expansio...
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    The irish literally call it genocide. They want an expansion to include blocking aid as genocide, so that deniers like yourself can’t deny so flippantly
    - ipv6ipv4 1y ago
      The Irish call it genocide, but find that nobody agrees with them. Well, because the definition doesn’t agree with them. So they want to change the definition. As you yourself just admitted, it’s not a genocide as per the definition. Otherwise, there would be no need to change it so that “I can’t be flippant”
- dralley 1y ago
  >If four ICC judges are sanctioned by the corrupt Trump administration because of their rulings that it is a genocide They have done no such thing. The only ruling thus far was basically equivalent to a grand jury indictment. There has been no ruling that the Gaza conflict is or was a genocide, only that the claim was plausible enough to proceed through the legal process. It came with an order to preserve evidence and produce reports for the court and take steps to ensure a genocide did not occur. There was no ruling that a genocide is or was occurring. That is false. I expect you to retract your claim. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - cookiengineer 1y ago
    > There was no ruling that a genocide is or was occurring. That is false. I expect you to retract your claim. The ICC specifically ordered Israel to introduce immediate measures to prevent genocide. That is the exact wording of the order. [1] A trial will happen once the president and/or generals of the IDF set foot on European land, or once they are extradited, which they likely will never do. Both the ICC and the ICJ came to the same conclusion that the blockades of humanitarian aids, the destruction of religious and medical institutions, combined with military rocket strikes against civilians are evidence that Israel is "destroying Palestinians in Gaza", and that it is genocide. Additionally, multiple NGOs have come to the same conclusion, including Amnesty International [2] and the ECCHR [3] [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd1809a40bf.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/090... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter... [3] https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Q_As/ECCHR_Q_A__Gaza_and_Genocide_20241210.pdf https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Q_As/ECCHR_Q_A__Gaza_and_Geno...
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      > The ICC specifically ordered Israel to introduce immediate measures to prevent genocide. Can you quote the order you're referring to? That doesn't sound right, ICC would have no authority (under its own rules) to issue injunctive orders of that sort. > Both the ICC and the ICJ came to the same conclusion ... that it is genocide. ICJ made no such finding (so far) - the finding at this stage was that Palestinians had a "plausible right" to be protected from genocide, not that one is occurring. This doesn't sound right for the ICC either, since it's at the pre-trial stage where they don't make such findings of fact.
vFunct 1y ago
[flagged]
- dralley 1y ago
  I mean, that's pretty clearly false. Very recently, a certain orange man and his (until this past week) peppy sidekick have been referring to the predicament of Afrikaner farmers as genocide - I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that that isn't the case in actual reality. Therefore, I'm pretty sure you would agree there are some claims of genocide that are in fact false and made for cynical political reasons. Was dropping the atomic bomb on Japan "genocide"? Was firebombing Dresden "genocide"? We could probably even agree that these were ethically wrong, even perhaps war crimes, but nobody calls them genocide, because they aren't.
  - vFunct 1y ago
    Correct. The public consensus doesn't call them genocides, while calling other events as genocides. The only people going against the public consensus are this seeking to commit genocide.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > The only people that say something isn't genocide are those that support genocide. I don’t think you meant to phrase it this way. The point in the sibling comment is spot on. If I may, I suspect you want to replace the word “something” with “a credible genocide”. > broad consensus Unfortunately, the consensus comes from an unreliable narrator. (That doesn’t make it wrong, just untrustworthy.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
conception 1y ago
Definition Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
kennywinker 1y ago
It does meet the legal definition. If the International Criminal Court isn’t qualified to decide what is and isn’t a genocide - who is? Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 when the ICC first spoke on this, and since then there has been another year and a half of ongoing genocidal action - targeting of civilians, denial of aid, deliberate starvation and water depravation. These are facts. They are visible in 4K if you have the stomach to watch them.
- dralley 1y ago
  >Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 They did not. Go read the ruling. They declared the claim "plausible" and ordered Israel to take actions to preserve evidence and take steps to ensure one did not occur. That is not equivalent to declaring that one did occur or was occurring. It was essentially a type of injunction, not a conviction of any kind. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o >> In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” >> This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”. >> This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC. >> In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled. >> Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage. >> The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    So what you’re saying is that you were wrong when you said “it literally doesn't meet the legal definition”? Because you’ve just cited the ICJ saying it was plausible back in january 2024. So, will you be retracting your incorrect statement that it does not meet the legal definition? Meanwhile, a UN special committee, as well as amnesty international, have both concluded it’s a genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investigate_Israeli_Practices_Affecting_the_Human_Rights_of_the_Palestinian_People https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investi... But you got me, the ICJ hasn’t concluded it’s DEFINITELY a genocide. Just that if the actions alleged are true, it’s a genocide. In the mean time, 80% of homes in gaza have been destroyed. Uncountable war crimes have been documented. The ICJ ordered the halt of the rafah offensive and israel ignored that order. Refugee camps were bombed. People seek aid and are shot. People are killed for delivering aid. Water is withheld. If by some technicality it does not get ruled as a genocide by the ICJ, it hardly matters. It’s an atrocity of genocidal proportions and that is why people keep calling it a genocide. Oh, and because it’s also a literal genocide.

cookiengineer 1y ago

[flagged]

ipv6ipv4 1y ago
Even the Irish, who can’t be accused of being pro-Israel, recognize that the genocide accusation is bunk. The Irish solution is to try to redefine the term to fit their agenda. About par for the course. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-wants-expansion-of-the-definition-of-genocide-under-the-geneva-convention-says-taoiseach/a1112529887.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-wants-expansio...
- kennywinker 1y ago
  The irish literally call it genocide. They want an expansion to include blocking aid as genocide, so that deniers like yourself can’t deny so flippantly
  - ipv6ipv4 1y ago
    The Irish call it genocide, but find that nobody agrees with them. Well, because the definition doesn’t agree with them. So they want to change the definition. As you yourself just admitted, it’s not a genocide as per the definition. Otherwise, there would be no need to change it so that “I can’t be flippant”
dralley 1y ago
>If four ICC judges are sanctioned by the corrupt Trump administration because of their rulings that it is a genocide They have done no such thing. The only ruling thus far was basically equivalent to a grand jury indictment. There has been no ruling that the Gaza conflict is or was a genocide, only that the claim was plausible enough to proceed through the legal process. It came with an order to preserve evidence and produce reports for the court and take steps to ensure a genocide did not occur. There was no ruling that a genocide is or was occurring. That is false. I expect you to retract your claim. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cookiengineer 1y ago
  > There was no ruling that a genocide is or was occurring. That is false. I expect you to retract your claim. The ICC specifically ordered Israel to introduce immediate measures to prevent genocide. That is the exact wording of the order. [1] A trial will happen once the president and/or generals of the IDF set foot on European land, or once they are extradited, which they likely will never do. Both the ICC and the ICJ came to the same conclusion that the blockades of humanitarian aids, the destruction of religious and medical institutions, combined with military rocket strikes against civilians are evidence that Israel is "destroying Palestinians in Gaza", and that it is genocide. Additionally, multiple NGOs have come to the same conclusion, including Amnesty International [2] and the ECCHR [3] [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/0902ebd1809a40bf.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/090... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter... [3] https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Q_As/ECCHR_Q_A__Gaza_and_Genocide_20241210.pdf https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Q_As/ECCHR_Q_A__Gaza_and_Geno...
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    > The ICC specifically ordered Israel to introduce immediate measures to prevent genocide. Can you quote the order you're referring to? That doesn't sound right, ICC would have no authority (under its own rules) to issue injunctive orders of that sort. > Both the ICC and the ICJ came to the same conclusion ... that it is genocide. ICJ made no such finding (so far) - the finding at this stage was that Palestinians had a "plausible right" to be protected from genocide, not that one is occurring. This doesn't sound right for the ICC either, since it's at the pre-trial stage where they don't make such findings of fact.

vFunct 1y ago

[flagged]

dralley 1y ago
I mean, that's pretty clearly false. Very recently, a certain orange man and his (until this past week) peppy sidekick have been referring to the predicament of Afrikaner farmers as genocide - I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that that isn't the case in actual reality. Therefore, I'm pretty sure you would agree there are some claims of genocide that are in fact false and made for cynical political reasons. Was dropping the atomic bomb on Japan "genocide"? Was firebombing Dresden "genocide"? We could probably even agree that these were ethically wrong, even perhaps war crimes, but nobody calls them genocide, because they aren't.
- vFunct 1y ago
  Correct. The public consensus doesn't call them genocides, while calling other events as genocides. The only people going against the public consensus are this seeking to commit genocide.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> The only people that say something isn't genocide are those that support genocide. I don’t think you meant to phrase it this way. The point in the sibling comment is spot on. If I may, I suspect you want to replace the word “something” with “a credible genocide”. > broad consensus Unfortunately, the consensus comes from an unreliable narrator. (That doesn’t make it wrong, just untrustworthy.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

conception 1y ago

Definition Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

kennywinker 1y ago

It does meet the legal definition. If the International Criminal Court isn’t qualified to decide what is and isn’t a genocide - who is? Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 when the ICC first spoke on this, and since then there has been another year and a half of ongoing genocidal action - targeting of civilians, denial of aid, deliberate starvation and water depravation. These are facts. They are visible in 4K if you have the stomach to watch them.

dralley 1y ago
>Because they have called it a genocide. It was a genocide back in January 2024 They did not. Go read the ruling. They declared the claim "plausible" and ordered Israel to take actions to preserve evidence and take steps to ensure one did not occur. That is not equivalent to declaring that one did occur or was occurring. It was essentially a type of injunction, not a conviction of any kind. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o >> In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.” >> This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”. >> This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC. >> In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled. >> Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage. >> The judges had stressed they did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred but concluded that some of the acts South Africa complained about, if they were proven, could fall under the United Nations’ Convention on Genocide.
- kennywinker 1y ago
  So what you’re saying is that you were wrong when you said “it literally doesn't meet the legal definition”? Because you’ve just cited the ICJ saying it was plausible back in january 2024. So, will you be retracting your incorrect statement that it does not meet the legal definition? Meanwhile, a UN special committee, as well as amnesty international, have both concluded it’s a genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investigate_Israeli_Practices_Affecting_the_Human_Rights_of_the_Palestinian_People https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Committee_to_Investi... But you got me, the ICJ hasn’t concluded it’s DEFINITELY a genocide. Just that if the actions alleged are true, it’s a genocide. In the mean time, 80% of homes in gaza have been destroyed. Uncountable war crimes have been documented. The ICJ ordered the halt of the rafah offensive and israel ignored that order. Refugee camps were bombed. People seek aid and are shot. People are killed for delivering aid. Water is withheld. If by some technicality it does not get ruled as a genocide by the ICJ, it hardly matters. It’s an atrocity of genocidal proportions and that is why people keep calling it a genocide. Oh, and because it’s also a literal genocide.