• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    This thread was about whether or not it’s “fair or accurate” to call them “genocidal”. The word, “literally” taken down to its roots, does mean “geno” (people) “cide” (killing), but actual definitions in use are more nuanced. From the UN “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, for instance:

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 months ago

      The UN’s historically been an apologist for atrocities whenever the power benefits afford the defense of the reprehensible. Pulling out a UN Convention definition when politically convenient is a disgrace, much like the UN’s history of confronting atrocities for the past 40 years.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        That’s basically an ad hominem. That’s a commonly accepted definition, address the content specifically if you have an issue with it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          They literally are not. What you’re missing is that shooting someone in combat scenarios is not “killing members of the group/causing serious bodily/mental harm to members of the group” as genocide is defined. Murdering them wholesale is. Intentionally starving them, as with the Holodomor, is.

          None of the rest is even arguably happening at all. There is no way to construe their relationship as genocidal.

          The reason why is right there in the opening: with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

          Are Israel’s policies discriminatory? Yes. Oppressive? Hell yes. Poorly conceived, authoritarian bullshit? I’m right there with you. Genocide? No.

          Things can be wrong and need changing without being literally the worst thing.

          • Sybil
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            Intentionally starving them

            None of the rest is even arguably happening

            they literally said they’re cutting off food.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              No, they’re blockading food imports. By forming an absolute blockade, they prevent/significantly reduce weapons and personnel trafficking.

              If civilians start starving en masse, you will absolutely see international calls of genocide.i will be among the first to the podium on that one.

              • Sybil
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                you will absolutely see international calls of genocide.

                we already are, and you’re saying it’s a lie. i have no reason to think you’ll ever change your tune.

          • Sybil
            link
            fedilink
            09 months ago

            What you’re missing is that shooting someone in combat scenarios

            this same reasoning would mean the nazis were justified in violently suppressing ghetto uprisings.