4 ms·

I think the more interesting thing here is the ability to fantasize categories such as genocide where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like

by breppp 11mo ago

I think the more interesting thing here is the ability to fantasize categories such as genocide where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like the winner, and the genocidal act that has started said war (classic genocide mass killings of civilians by death squads) is appropriated by the perpetrators turned victims

netsharc 11mo ago
I guess "genocide" is also defined by the winners, or their defenders. And if it's not a genocide, then it's just mass killing of innocents, and that's... fine! Wonko the Sane is right.
- breppp 11mo ago
  do you define the dresden firebombings or the hiroshima nuclear attack as genocide?
  - forgetfulness 11mo ago
    Israel hasn’t gotten fire bombed or nuked. What’s the parallel with the WW2 Axis Powers here?
    - breppp 11mo ago
      Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is thought by some to be "genocide", though it was far less destructive, more precise and not aimed at a civilian population as compared to the above
  - netsharc 11mo ago
    Is this how you win the arguments in your head? Your opponent uses the word "genocide", you concluded turning Gaza into rubble with kids and many more innocents underneath them doesn't fit the term "genocide", and you further conclude whatever claim your opponent is trying to make is wrong, and therefore there aren't a few hundred thousand dead civilians, ah the whole accusation is just fictional, they all actually lived happily ever after in peace and harmony (in your head). Yeah yeah, people are still dying, and we're arguing about the definitions of words. How convenient. Whatever distraction helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
    - breppp 11mo ago
      no, I am saying war is not genocide. And protecting your own civilians from very real death squads going on executing rampage is not "genocide" it's called war, which might be terrible but sometimes you can't evade
      - immibis 11mo ago
        You're talking about Hamas, right? hamas are the ones who tried to fight back against death squads and are now suffering the consequences of that?
        breppp 11mo ago
        The death squads are Hamas, that went on mass executions around Israeli towns, including rapes, looting, baby kidnappings, etc
        immibis 11mo ago
        what do we say of the israeli squads that did the same thing? do we say they don't count because only brown people can do bad things?
        breppp 11mo ago
        There were no such death squads. Hamas killed a thousand Israeli civilians in 12 hours, if Israel used the same tactics (mass civilian executions by gun fire, einsatzgruppen style), most of the Gaza population would be killed by now (millions)
        immibis 11mo ago
        Okay? Most of the Gaza population has been killed by now.
  - watwut 11mo ago
    Neither was genocide, neither in outcome nor in intention. You could argue about "mass killing" or some such. Dresden firebombings did not attempted to eliminate German nation as such. It does not matter how actual nazi try to frame it as similar to holocaust, it was not nearly close. And same goes for Hiroshima. It was not an attempt to eliminate Japanese people out of existence.
    - breppp 11mo ago
      yes, that is my point. Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population also the population was warned to evacuate in advance, nothing that the germans or japanese had the benefit of
      - watwut 11mo ago
        > Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers. The attempt to starve them was intentional too. There was even open rhetoric about that.
        breppp 11mo ago
        > They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers no, they were directed at the militant organizations in Gaza while the civilian population was warned to evacuate in advance. the only thing you can base this on is the fact hamas intentionally does not publish its dead, all of the casualties are "civilians", and Hamas was caught either converting dead militants to "journalists" and such or completely inflating its statistics such as the 500 false dead in the hospital "attack". if you compare this to a similar contemporary war with reliable statistics like the war against hezbollah, you can see Israel was clearly able and successful in targeting militants. regarding "starvation" even according to unreliable Hamas statistics these are minuscule, while if you will look at instagram there was actually a restaurant and food blogging scene in gaza throughout the war which is very inconsistent with mass famine
7952 11mo ago
Its all abstractions that help justify ethno-nationalism at the expense of concern about individual tragedy.
- breppp 11mo ago
  most of the wars in history were fought by empires that were the exact opposite of ethnic-nationalism, and also most genocides. it is completely unrelated
  - 7952 11mo ago
    Ethno-nationalism seems to be a strong factor in both Israeli and Palestinian politics. I can't think of a more direct example of ethno-nationalism than the Jewish state. Also, my point was more about how conflict is perceived and litigated in politics and threads like this. Factoids about history are completely irrelevant to that. Its just another abstraction.
    - breppp 11mo ago
      > can't think of a more direct example of ethno-nationalism than the Jewish state. It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist? I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA. Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation, and the ethnic part is debatable if you ever seen Israelis, unlike the Palestinian national movement which is ethnic-nationalist
      - dragonwriter 11mo ago
        > It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist? Most nationalism either is based around an established ancestry-derived ethnic identity (which is what “ethno-nationalism” usually refers to), or seeks to construct a new identity (which itself can be viewed as ethnic) transcending existing ethnic lines within the population of a state (the PRM regime in Mexico is an example of this); you might call this cosmopolitan nationalism. > I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA. States often contain multiple different kinds of nationalism in their population, and may even contain different kinds in their governments. The USA definitely has nationalist factions of both the ethnonationalist (specifically White nationalist) and cosmopolitan nationalist kind. > Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation, The Israeli state is possibly the only strongly ethnoreligious state. Ethnoreligious nationalism is a large subset of ethno-nationalism, but states in places with strong ethnoreligious nationalism don’t always build both ethnic and religious character into their state structure.
kombine 11mo ago
This is demagoguery. There is ample evidencence that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Historians who study genocide all their careers, including Israeli Jewish ones, concluded it a long time ago. There is 100 pages with references in the application by South Africa to the ICJ. If you intend to take the same route as the Holocaust denialists, the burden is on you to disprove all the evidence.
- ta20240528 11mo ago
  To be clear, South Africa didn't present any of their OWN evidence to the ICJ of Israeli genocide. Rather, they carefully and methodically presented hundreds of reports made by OTHER UN agencies which reported on the genocidal behaviour. This left the ICJ in a pickle: as a UN body itself, it had to either find for 'probably genocide' or publicly state that every other UN body was either in a grand conspiracy or was incompetent. A very smart legal strategy.
- breppp 11mo ago
  last time I checked a basic part of a trial is the mere existence of it is not a proof of guilt.. While most of your argument is the fact that because South Africa has sued Israel in international court then it is somehow proof of genocide. Regarding scholars, again not enough I am sorry. In reality after more than two years the Gazan population hasn't even declined in size, which makes the entire case for genocide mostly a political joke on people who were mostly systematically exterminated like the Jews, Armenians and Tutsi. Generally this is so far from a real genocide killing rates, reasons and methods that the only explanation is that some regimes have an interest at removing the substance out of the definition of genocide
  - kombine 11mo ago
    I repeat, the evidence that South Africa submitted in this application spans 100 pages with reference. You are not disproving that but instead throwing ridiculous claims that Gazan population hasn't declined in size.

by breppp 11mo ago

netsharc 11mo ago

I guess "genocide" is also defined by the winners, or their defenders. And if it's not a genocide, then it's just mass killing of innocents, and that's... fine! Wonko the Sane is right.

breppp 11mo ago
do you define the dresden firebombings or the hiroshima nuclear attack as genocide?
- forgetfulness 11mo ago
  Israel hasn’t gotten fire bombed or nuked. What’s the parallel with the WW2 Axis Powers here?
  - breppp 11mo ago
    Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is thought by some to be "genocide", though it was far less destructive, more precise and not aimed at a civilian population as compared to the above
- netsharc 11mo ago
  Is this how you win the arguments in your head? Your opponent uses the word "genocide", you concluded turning Gaza into rubble with kids and many more innocents underneath them doesn't fit the term "genocide", and you further conclude whatever claim your opponent is trying to make is wrong, and therefore there aren't a few hundred thousand dead civilians, ah the whole accusation is just fictional, they all actually lived happily ever after in peace and harmony (in your head). Yeah yeah, people are still dying, and we're arguing about the definitions of words. How convenient. Whatever distraction helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
  - breppp 11mo ago
    no, I am saying war is not genocide. And protecting your own civilians from very real death squads going on executing rampage is not "genocide" it's called war, which might be terrible but sometimes you can't evade
    - immibis 11mo ago
      You're talking about Hamas, right? hamas are the ones who tried to fight back against death squads and are now suffering the consequences of that?
      - breppp 11mo ago
        The death squads are Hamas, that went on mass executions around Israeli towns, including rapes, looting, baby kidnappings, etc
        immibis 11mo ago
        what do we say of the israeli squads that did the same thing? do we say they don't count because only brown people can do bad things?
        breppp 11mo ago
        There were no such death squads. Hamas killed a thousand Israeli civilians in 12 hours, if Israel used the same tactics (mass civilian executions by gun fire, einsatzgruppen style), most of the Gaza population would be killed by now (millions)
        immibis 11mo ago
        Okay? Most of the Gaza population has been killed by now.
- watwut 11mo ago
  Neither was genocide, neither in outcome nor in intention. You could argue about "mass killing" or some such. Dresden firebombings did not attempted to eliminate German nation as such. It does not matter how actual nazi try to frame it as similar to holocaust, it was not nearly close. And same goes for Hiroshima. It was not an attempt to eliminate Japanese people out of existence.
  - breppp 11mo ago
    yes, that is my point. Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population also the population was warned to evacuate in advance, nothing that the germans or japanese had the benefit of
    - watwut 11mo ago
      > Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers. The attempt to starve them was intentional too. There was even open rhetoric about that.
      - breppp 11mo ago
        > They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers no, they were directed at the militant organizations in Gaza while the civilian population was warned to evacuate in advance. the only thing you can base this on is the fact hamas intentionally does not publish its dead, all of the casualties are "civilians", and Hamas was caught either converting dead militants to "journalists" and such or completely inflating its statistics such as the 500 false dead in the hospital "attack". if you compare this to a similar contemporary war with reliable statistics like the war against hezbollah, you can see Israel was clearly able and successful in targeting militants. regarding "starvation" even according to unreliable Hamas statistics these are minuscule, while if you will look at instagram there was actually a restaurant and food blogging scene in gaza throughout the war which is very inconsistent with mass famine

7952 11mo ago

Its all abstractions that help justify ethno-nationalism at the expense of concern about individual tragedy.

breppp 11mo ago
most of the wars in history were fought by empires that were the exact opposite of ethnic-nationalism, and also most genocides. it is completely unrelated
- 7952 11mo ago
  Ethno-nationalism seems to be a strong factor in both Israeli and Palestinian politics. I can't think of a more direct example of ethno-nationalism than the Jewish state. Also, my point was more about how conflict is perceived and litigated in politics and threads like this. Factoids about history are completely irrelevant to that. Its just another abstraction.
  - breppp 11mo ago
    > can't think of a more direct example of ethno-nationalism than the Jewish state. It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist? I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA. Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation, and the ethnic part is debatable if you ever seen Israelis, unlike the Palestinian national movement which is ethnic-nationalist
    - dragonwriter 11mo ago
      > It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist? Most nationalism either is based around an established ancestry-derived ethnic identity (which is what “ethno-nationalism” usually refers to), or seeks to construct a new identity (which itself can be viewed as ethnic) transcending existing ethnic lines within the population of a state (the PRM regime in Mexico is an example of this); you might call this cosmopolitan nationalism. > I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA. States often contain multiple different kinds of nationalism in their population, and may even contain different kinds in their governments. The USA definitely has nationalist factions of both the ethnonationalist (specifically White nationalist) and cosmopolitan nationalist kind. > Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation, The Israeli state is possibly the only strongly ethnoreligious state. Ethnoreligious nationalism is a large subset of ethno-nationalism, but states in places with strong ethnoreligious nationalism don’t always build both ethnic and religious character into their state structure.

kombine 11mo ago

This is demagoguery. There is ample evidencence that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Historians who study genocide all their careers, including Israeli Jewish ones, concluded it a long time ago. There is 100 pages with references in the application by South Africa to the ICJ. If you intend to take the same route as the Holocaust denialists, the burden is on you to disprove all the evidence.

ta20240528 11mo ago
To be clear, South Africa didn't present any of their OWN evidence to the ICJ of Israeli genocide. Rather, they carefully and methodically presented hundreds of reports made by OTHER UN agencies which reported on the genocidal behaviour. This left the ICJ in a pickle: as a UN body itself, it had to either find for 'probably genocide' or publicly state that every other UN body was either in a grand conspiracy or was incompetent. A very smart legal strategy.
breppp 11mo ago
last time I checked a basic part of a trial is the mere existence of it is not a proof of guilt.. While most of your argument is the fact that because South Africa has sued Israel in international court then it is somehow proof of genocide. Regarding scholars, again not enough I am sorry. In reality after more than two years the Gazan population hasn't even declined in size, which makes the entire case for genocide mostly a political joke on people who were mostly systematically exterminated like the Jews, Armenians and Tutsi. Generally this is so far from a real genocide killing rates, reasons and methods that the only explanation is that some regimes have an interest at removing the substance out of the definition of genocide
- kombine 11mo ago
  I repeat, the evidence that South Africa submitted in this application spans 100 pages with reference. You are not disproving that but instead throwing ridiculous claims that Gazan population hasn't declined in size.