3 ms·

> if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany? The jews in n

> if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany? The jews in nazi germany were not threatening to annihilate the state and all the aryans. The palestinian leadership is threatening to do that to the zionists. The jews were not a perceived danger to the germans. Whether that makes genocide justified is certainly up for debate but it is very different from the justification for the holocaust.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
The matter is complicated by the fact that the israeli leadership is, in equal measure, threatening to annihilate the palestinian state and all the palestinians, and is, even at this moment, actively doing so.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  Any genocide threatens to annihilate the state and all its people. Certainly the nazis were attempting to do this to the jews. Not sure how that complicates anything. The question is if there is any situation where genocide is justified.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > The question is if there is any situation where genocide is justified. And the answer is: no, there is not any situation where israel's genocide of Palestinians is justified. Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide would like you to believe that is up for debate, but it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate. Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      so Israel just has to live with terrorist attacks until the end of time? I dont see how else they can ensure their own safety from rockets. At the end of the day everything is up for debate. I tend to agree with you that the answer is "yes, israel has to live terrorist attacks until the end of time", but to say that it isnt even up for debate is crazy.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Your question is flawed in that it assumes that israel deserves security from Palestine in greater measure than Palestine deserves security from israel, which it does not. They are two co-equal countries, equally deserving of existence, with both the countries and their citizens possessing equal rights equally deserving of respect and consideration. Neither can justifiably commit genocide, but only israel is doing so. Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide (along with their supporters) would like you to believe that 'at the end of the day, anything is up for debate', including whether literal *genocide* is ok, but of course, it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate (and are thus the judge of whether it is debatable). Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative. Like, that tiny minority with a vested interest in it being up for debate *would* claim that it's up for debate, wouldn't they? But at the end of the day, the debates were already had, and the outcome is the international laws against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all of which israel is perpetrating. Thus, there is no plausible justification. If there was, then as mentioned above, Germany would have had the same right of action in perpetrating the holocaust. Of course, that is despicable to imagine, just as it is despicable to hear israel echo nazi rhetoric: when explaining how their genocide is righteous because they are the chosen people; and their victims deserve it because they're lesser, they're not even people, they're "animals"; and certainly they must protect themselves from animals, and of course that means cleansing the land of the animals and availing themselves of their god-given right to rule over it in ethno-religious supremacy forever. Yeah, it was gross when nazi germany asserted it and it's gross that israel asserts the exact same thing. Never again means never again.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

The matter is complicated by the fact that the israeli leadership is, in equal measure, threatening to annihilate the palestinian state and all the palestinians, and is, even at this moment, actively doing so.

HDThoreaun 1y ago
Any genocide threatens to annihilate the state and all its people. Certainly the nazis were attempting to do this to the jews. Not sure how that complicates anything. The question is if there is any situation where genocide is justified.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > The question is if there is any situation where genocide is justified. And the answer is: no, there is not any situation where israel's genocide of Palestinians is justified. Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide would like you to believe that is up for debate, but it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate. Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    so Israel just has to live with terrorist attacks until the end of time? I dont see how else they can ensure their own safety from rockets. At the end of the day everything is up for debate. I tend to agree with you that the answer is "yes, israel has to live terrorist attacks until the end of time", but to say that it isnt even up for debate is crazy.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      Your question is flawed in that it assumes that israel deserves security from Palestine in greater measure than Palestine deserves security from israel, which it does not. They are two co-equal countries, equally deserving of existence, with both the countries and their citizens possessing equal rights equally deserving of respect and consideration. Neither can justifiably commit genocide, but only israel is doing so. Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide (along with their supporters) would like you to believe that 'at the end of the day, anything is up for debate', including whether literal *genocide* is ok, but of course, it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate (and are thus the judge of whether it is debatable). Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative. Like, that tiny minority with a vested interest in it being up for debate *would* claim that it's up for debate, wouldn't they? But at the end of the day, the debates were already had, and the outcome is the international laws against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all of which israel is perpetrating. Thus, there is no plausible justification. If there was, then as mentioned above, Germany would have had the same right of action in perpetrating the holocaust. Of course, that is despicable to imagine, just as it is despicable to hear israel echo nazi rhetoric: when explaining how their genocide is righteous because they are the chosen people; and their victims deserve it because they're lesser, they're not even people, they're "animals"; and certainly they must protect themselves from animals, and of course that means cleansing the land of the animals and availing themselves of their god-given right to rule over it in ethno-religious supremacy forever. Yeah, it was gross when nazi germany asserted it and it's gross that israel asserts the exact same thing. Never again means never again.