4 ms·

> Not at all obviously. Israel is committing a genocide. This is not really a matter of discussion... you think several parts of the UN, Amnesty International,

> Not at all obviously. Israel is committing a genocide. This is not really a matter of discussion... you think several parts of the UN, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the international association of genocide scholars, the international federation for human rights, Human Rights Watch, the Hague Group, the governments of Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, China, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Ireland, (and dozens of others), the African Union, the Jewish voice for peace, and dozens of small orgs just all... got it wrong? I could list organizations with the opposite view as well, but I don't really consider arguments from authority to be all that strong. > the international association of genocide scholars They have certainly had some interesting members[0]. > China Because they would be the ones to know?[1] > all... got it wrong? Obviously. > Why should I believe a random HN comment warrior over literally hundreds of organizations and governments whose jobs include identifying genocide when it happens? Facts actually do matter and when you look into the details it's clear that the claims of genocide are simply not backed up by the evidence. > What makes your case so compelling it stands up against all that and what my own eyes see? My case is simply that the evidence is insufficient to support the claim. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250903112024/https://genocidescholars.org/author/dolfy/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250903112024/https://genocides... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...

manyaoman 2mo ago
>> China > Because they would be the ones to know?[1] > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin... Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide?
- jameshilliard 2mo ago
  > Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide? Based on the publicly available evidence I would consider it to potentially be genocide, certainly it's more plausible than the accusations against Israel since China isn't at war with the Uyghurs from my understanding. However keep in mind International law requires Dolus Specialis(special intent) for something to be considered Genocide which is a very high bar. Note that war crimes or crimes against humanity alone would be insufficient to reach that bar.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent
  - forestrywat 2mo ago
    One, China is also committing genocide. Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir.
    - jameshilliard 2mo ago
      > Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir. Saying Ben-Gvir has genocidal intent(which I'd probably largely agree with) is not remotely the same as saying Israel has genocidal intent. The power dynamics in Israel are much more complicated and one should not conflate things said by the most extreme ministers as actual policy.
      - manyaoman 2mo ago
        What would you count as sufficient evidence of genocidal intent, then?
        jameshilliard 2mo ago
        In terms of an individual or a state itself?
        manyaoman 2mo ago
        The state of Israel.
        jameshilliard 2mo ago
        > The state of Israel. Just as an example hypothetical, if there were evidence that the Israeli government was implementing as a clear matter of top down government policy the deliberate extermination/targeting of Palestinian civilians with no plausible military/security justification then that would probably be considered genocidal intent by a state. I think such a policy would also then have to be successfully implemented for it to be considered an actual genocide. Merely being say careless when it comes to civilian casualties in a war would not reach the bar of genocide by itself(although that could still be a war crime). The evidence I've seen so far indicates Israel operates with reasonable care to avoid civilian casualties where feasible(similar if not better than United States when say the United States fought ISIS). Genocide in international law is an extremely high bar. Wars(even ones with many war crimes) generally do not reach that threshold.

manyaoman 2mo ago

>> China > Because they would be the ones to know?[1] > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin... Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide?

jameshilliard 2mo ago
> Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide? Based on the publicly available evidence I would consider it to potentially be genocide, certainly it's more plausible than the accusations against Israel since China isn't at war with the Uyghurs from my understanding. However keep in mind International law requires Dolus Specialis(special intent) for something to be considered Genocide which is a very high bar. Note that war crimes or crimes against humanity alone would be insufficient to reach that bar.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent
- forestrywat 2mo ago
  One, China is also committing genocide. Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir.
  - jameshilliard 2mo ago
    > Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir. Saying Ben-Gvir has genocidal intent(which I'd probably largely agree with) is not remotely the same as saying Israel has genocidal intent. The power dynamics in Israel are much more complicated and one should not conflate things said by the most extreme ministers as actual policy.
    - manyaoman 2mo ago
      What would you count as sufficient evidence of genocidal intent, then?
      - jameshilliard 2mo ago
        In terms of an individual or a state itself?
        manyaoman 2mo ago
        The state of Israel.
        jameshilliard 2mo ago
        > The state of Israel. Just as an example hypothetical, if there were evidence that the Israeli government was implementing as a clear matter of top down government policy the deliberate extermination/targeting of Palestinian civilians with no plausible military/security justification then that would probably be considered genocidal intent by a state. I think such a policy would also then have to be successfully implemented for it to be considered an actual genocide. Merely being say careless when it comes to civilian casualties in a war would not reach the bar of genocide by itself(although that could still be a war crime). The evidence I've seen so far indicates Israel operates with reasonable care to avoid civilian casualties where feasible(similar if not better than United States when say the United States fought ISIS). Genocide in international law is an extremely high bar. Wars(even ones with many war crimes) generally do not reach that threshold.