4 ms·

It makes sense that people don't want to become citizens and legitimise the entity occupying their country and committing genocide, no? > In cases where civili

It makes sense that people don't want to become citizens and legitimise the entity occupying their country and committing genocide, no? > In cases where civilians are shot (what Israel defines to be civilians), there are investigations and sometimes even punishments for the perpetrators. Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gd01g1gxro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gd01g1gxro

sva_ 1y ago
> committing genocide I've been hearing this for as long as I can remember, yet the population numbers tell a completely different story. It makes no sense to speak of a genocide if the birthrate far outpaces any casualties. In fact, the Palestinian population has been growing at a faster pace than Israeli over the past 35 years (that's how far the chart goes on Google)
- McDyver 1y ago
  Ah, OK. So, in that case they can be killed, but just in a culling kind of way, is that it? Your children can be killed as long as you keep making them?
  - tim333 1y ago
    It tends to be in a defensive or retaliatory way rather than culling. Like things largely peaceful October 6th Hamas kill 1200 Israelis, rape, hostages etc. Israels amazingly enough hits back. Hamas: "help! genocide!"
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    How do you propose to fight an asymmetric war? Genocide requires intent, not just a number of dead. If you judge by the numbers only, then US committed many genocides in the past 50 years.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  So genocide hasn’t happened if the population grows? ‘Just adjust the frame of measurement. With this one simple trick, you can remove any genocide.’
  - thyristan 1y ago
    https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/v78.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/v78... PDF page 289ff (numbered 277). > 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: > (a) Killing members of the group; > (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The tricky part isn't about (a) to (e), it is in "intent to destroy".
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      "Intent to destroy" is usually difficult to prove, but in this case, it's the easiest part to prove. Israeli leaders (including the President, Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and other ministers), politicians, generals, soldiers and TV commentators (not to mention opinion polling of the general population) have made so many genocidal statements that it's difficult to keep track.
      - reliabilityguy 1y ago
        > "Intent to destroy" is usually difficult to prove, but in this case, it's the easiest part to prove. Israeli leaders (including the President, Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and other ministers), politicians, generals, soldiers and TV commentators (not to mention opinion polling of the general population) have made so many genocidal statements that it's difficult to keep track. So, if you can’t prove the intent, you are saying it’s enough to use “polling”, TV interviews, and what the politicians had to say? I guess it’s bad news for the Palestinians, then. With Palestinians we have official policy that pays money to kill Israelis regardless of their status and political views. Way more convincing than “polling”.
reliabilityguy 1y ago
> legitimise the entity occupying their country What’s country? Palestine never existed as independent country.
- McDyver 1y ago
  Exactly, what's a country? Israel never existed either, until it was administratively created in 1948. Maybe it shouldn't have been created where other people were already living?
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    You started with “occupying their country”. Can you tell me what country is that?
    - thyristan 1y ago
      Phrase it "occupy their land", then it will certainly be correct.
      - reliabilityguy 1y ago
        What about the Jewish people of the land? Do they have a say?
        thyristan 1y ago
        In the most extreme case, you get a village-by-village, street-by-street or house-by-house subdivision of the resulting countries. Of course this doesn't really work very well, see Bosnia.
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        No. I would say that the most extreme case would be just 0 Jews. We in fact saw it across Middle East already.
thyristan 1y ago
> It makes sense that people don't want to become citizens and legitimise the entity occupying their country and committing genocide, no? I can accept not wanting to be part of that. But in that case, whining about missing democratic representation is just silly, of course you won't be represented if you chose not to be, no matter the reason. > Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians You seem to assume that all children are always civilians, but that is wrong. The articles of war don't put an age limit on being an enemy combatant. If you take up arms, you are a legitimate target, no matter your age. Many armies use child soldiers, and it is totally OK to shoot those child soldiers in a war.
- McDyver 1y ago
  I assume children queuing for food are not soldiers. Yes, yes I do. If they are killed while they are in uniform and holding a gun during a gunfight, then they are soldiers.

sva_ 1y ago

> committing genocide I've been hearing this for as long as I can remember, yet the population numbers tell a completely different story. It makes no sense to speak of a genocide if the birthrate far outpaces any casualties. In fact, the Palestinian population has been growing at a faster pace than Israeli over the past 35 years (that's how far the chart goes on Google)

McDyver 1y ago
Ah, OK. So, in that case they can be killed, but just in a culling kind of way, is that it? Your children can be killed as long as you keep making them?
- tim333 1y ago
  It tends to be in a defensive or retaliatory way rather than culling. Like things largely peaceful October 6th Hamas kill 1200 Israelis, rape, hostages etc. Israels amazingly enough hits back. Hamas: "help! genocide!"
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  How do you propose to fight an asymmetric war? Genocide requires intent, not just a number of dead. If you judge by the numbers only, then US committed many genocides in the past 50 years.
lostlogin 1y ago
So genocide hasn’t happened if the population grows? ‘Just adjust the frame of measurement. With this one simple trick, you can remove any genocide.’
- thyristan 1y ago
  https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/v78.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/v78... PDF page 289ff (numbered 277). > 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: > (a) Killing members of the group; > (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The tricky part isn't about (a) to (e), it is in "intent to destroy".
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    "Intent to destroy" is usually difficult to prove, but in this case, it's the easiest part to prove. Israeli leaders (including the President, Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and other ministers), politicians, generals, soldiers and TV commentators (not to mention opinion polling of the general population) have made so many genocidal statements that it's difficult to keep track.
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      > "Intent to destroy" is usually difficult to prove, but in this case, it's the easiest part to prove. Israeli leaders (including the President, Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and other ministers), politicians, generals, soldiers and TV commentators (not to mention opinion polling of the general population) have made so many genocidal statements that it's difficult to keep track. So, if you can’t prove the intent, you are saying it’s enough to use “polling”, TV interviews, and what the politicians had to say? I guess it’s bad news for the Palestinians, then. With Palestinians we have official policy that pays money to kill Israelis regardless of their status and political views. Way more convincing than “polling”.

reliabilityguy 1y ago

> legitimise the entity occupying their country What’s country? Palestine never existed as independent country.

McDyver 1y ago
Exactly, what's a country? Israel never existed either, until it was administratively created in 1948. Maybe it shouldn't have been created where other people were already living?
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  You started with “occupying their country”. Can you tell me what country is that?
  - thyristan 1y ago
    Phrase it "occupy their land", then it will certainly be correct.
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      What about the Jewish people of the land? Do they have a say?
      - thyristan 1y ago
        In the most extreme case, you get a village-by-village, street-by-street or house-by-house subdivision of the resulting countries. Of course this doesn't really work very well, see Bosnia.
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        No. I would say that the most extreme case would be just 0 Jews. We in fact saw it across Middle East already.

thyristan 1y ago

> It makes sense that people don't want to become citizens and legitimise the entity occupying their country and committing genocide, no? I can accept not wanting to be part of that. But in that case, whining about missing democratic representation is just silly, of course you won't be represented if you chose not to be, no matter the reason. > Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians You seem to assume that all children are always civilians, but that is wrong. The articles of war don't put an age limit on being an enemy combatant. If you take up arms, you are a legitimate target, no matter your age. Many armies use child soldiers, and it is totally OK to shoot those child soldiers in a war.

McDyver 1y ago
I assume children queuing for food are not soldiers. Yes, yes I do. If they are killed while they are in uniform and holding a gun during a gunfight, then they are soldiers.