"Article II
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."
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:
Your defence amounts to no more than that only because Israel is not killing them fast enough to keep up with the birth rate it's not genocide — Benkei
Ben Dahan has made controversial remarks about Palestinians. While discussing the resumption of peace talks in a radio interview in 2013, Ben Dahan said that “To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.” — https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-deputy-defense-minister-called-palestinians-animals/
I think you are unfortunately playing the same weird equivalence game the 'other side' does here. That's not what the defence amounts to, whatsoever. It is a fact that a genocide isn't occurring when a culture has retained its status and grown in population. — AmadeusD
If all those countries would just opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck, why did they end up in this clusterfuck in the first place? — neomac
One reason, which should be trendy, old white European men with moustaches:
Misters Sykes and Picot:
the-skyes-picot-agreement-was-concluded-in-london--1436469334493.jpg
Mr Balfour:
1025371-271125035.jpg?itok=4vDl7FtY
Or perhaps WW1 in general and it's aftermath, which basically started modern Zionism and the inherent instability of countries like Iraq etc. — ssu
Indeed, why would Iran even care about the fate of Palestinians? — neomac
It is as interesting question like as why is US treating Israel so differently than any other of it's allies. (No wait, Israel isn't actually an ally of the US, meaning there is no actual defense treaty, hence Israel doesn't have to come to the aid of the US.) — ssu
Well, it maybe hard for Christians to understand that the Muslim community, the Ummah, means a lot for Muslims if Christendom is now days totally meaningless for us. That's the first reason. — ssu
Secondly, not only is the cause of Palestine popular in the Arab street (remember Pan-Arabism etc), but also there are the Shiias in Lebanon, which formed and fought against Israel after it attacked and occupied Southern Lebanon. Not only are they defending Muslims, but also fellow Shiites. And since Iran is an revolutionary state that wants to promote it's Islamic revolution and islamic values like revolutionary states typically do (just like, well, the US), this is a perfect way for Iran to show it's the vanguard of the Ummah against the West and that all these Monarchies or Arab republics close to the West and US aren't doing anything about the genocide against Palestinians. — ssu
Thirdly, when the US has made Iran part of the Axis of Evil and Americans talk of attacking Iran and how a threat it is to everybody, then it's far more better to have the conflict been played out somewhere else than in Iran. Far more better to have the fight somewhere else, like in Lebanon, Yemen or Iraq and Syria. — ssu
Trump's Abraham records was basically an attempt to bribe the countries in normalizing relations with Israel and simply to sideline the troublesome question of the Palestinians. — ssu
I’m afraid the is no recipe to get out of this mess, which nobody fully understand or dominate. — neomac
Actually, you can understand it. And the more you understand it, the less hopeful you are of a negotiated peace deal. — ssu
I find it very hard to be optimistic about it, though. — neomac
I feel the same way. What would be the reason why a two state solution would be reached? Perhaps that Bibi really fucks up and we aren't going to be talking about tens of thousands of killed Palestinians, but perhaps a hundred thousand killed. Or two hundred thousand. When does Israel loose the "beacon of democracy" role in the eyes of Americans. And how after will gentile Americans and Europeans feels towards Jews in general when Israel is in the international arena like white South Africa?
Hamas has actually come out and admitted that things got a bit out of control in October 7th:
The group said that avoiding harming civilians “is a religious and moral commitment” by fighters of Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. “If there was any case of targeting civilians; it happened accidentally and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces,” read the report.
It added that “maybe some faults happened” during the attack “due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the areas near Gaza.
(See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’
Well, I guess that statement of "Oops, partly sorry about that!" above puts Hamas in the same category of the "most moral" army in the Middle East, the IDF. — ssu
Maybe states can’t easily skip historical stages: Nordic countries evolved to nation-state status through all the bloody wars of the Middle Ages. — neomac
Actually the last war between the Nordic states happened between Sweden and Norway in 1814, which was the last war Sweden has fought (and actually was victorious). And just think what needed to happen in Europe for Europeans to want integrate and be so peaceful. We had to have WW1 and WW2 where millions of died.
So perhaps both sides have to have the Polish experience of WW2, a war where at least EVERY SIXTH POLISH DIED. After that kind of Holocaust/Nakba, I think the survivors won't in order care a fuck about who controls the Temple Mount and just where the border goes, but want peace. — ssu
The displacement and destruction of an entire regional culture or people is genocide. — Benkei
It's not a grievance: WW1 happened and the Ottoman Empire took part. It wasn't the only Empire to be cut into pieces, Austria-Hungary was also chopped and fell in bits too (Russia before that).Yet, I’m not sure what we have to do with such information. — neomac
What peace and prosperity was there to pursue when Mandate Palestine ended? The British had been fighting the Zionist terrorists already and the Zionists and the Palestinians were already engaged in hostilities. The end was just the Brits pulling out and leaving the locals to fight, which then invited neighbors to join in.And when it ended, did the Palestinians/Arabs pursue peace, stability and prosperity? — neomac
This is the strategic containment bullshit that just wrecks everything. At least Russia is one state and actually a real former empire, but what is then this Arab-Muslim entity to be confined? What just is wanted to be "contained"?And I’m certainly not underestimating or dodging the issue of American historical hegemonic ambitions: the very existence of Israel can be a way of containing regional powers to become more ambitious in a very strategic place for world balance, as much as an independent and military strong Ukraine (with which he US has no military alliance either) can support the containment of Russian imperial ambitions. — neomac
Which principle distinction? Of Bibi's reference to Amalek? Well, if Hamas was OK with 1967 border some time ago, perhaps the principle is different from Bibi's principles...If we are talking about civilian casualties, as far as I’ve understood, IDF can still play the card of proportionality of their military operation over collateral civilian casualties because they still can claim to follow the principle of distinction which Hamas doesn’t — neomac
It's usually the other way around: those people who think some culture is so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed... deserve to be destroyed themselves, or at least contained so not to spread their vitriol.Do you think a culture can ever be so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed? — BitconnectCarlos
Do you think a culture can ever be so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed? — BitconnectCarlos
There is a community in Jerusalem slowly being evicted. A few more decades and there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. — Benkei
When the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues everybody was shocked. — Benkei
Yet, I’m not sure what we have to do with such information. — neomac
It's not a grievance: WW1 happened and the Ottoman Empire took part. It wasn't the only Empire to be cut into pieces, Austria-Hungary was also chopped and fell in bits too (Russia before that). — ssu
And when it ended, did the Palestinians/Arabs pursue peace, stability and prosperity? — neomac
What peace and prosperity was there to pursue when Mandate Palestine ended? The British had been fighting the Zionist terrorists already and the Zionists and the Palestinians were already engaged in hostilities. The end was just the Brits pulling out and leaving the locals to fight, which then invited neighbors to join in. — ssu
And I’m certainly not underestimating or dodging the issue of American historical hegemonic ambitions: the very existence of Israel can be a way of containing regional powers to become more ambitious in a very strategic place for world balance, as much as an independent and military strong Ukraine (with which he US has no military alliance either) can support the containment of Russian imperial ambitions. — neomac
This is the strategic containment bullshit that just wrecks everything. At least Russia is one state and actually a real former empire, but what is then this Arab-Muslim entity to be confined? What just is wanted to be “contained”? — ssu
If we are talking about civilian casualties, as far as I’ve understood, IDF can still play the card of proportionality of their military operation over collateral civilian casualties because they still can claim to follow the principle of distinction which Hamas doesn’t — neomac
Which principle distinction? Of Bibi's reference to Amalek? Well, if Hamas was OK with 1967 border some time ago, perhaps the principle is different from Bibi's principles...
Nope sorry, both Hamas and IDF have done what earlier were called warcrimes. But that's now something irrelevant, I guess. — ssu
All the statements i've seen from Israeli officials, while uncomfortable to me, appear to be sane, if heavy handed, responses to a terrorist attack aimed at maiming your population and geopolitical stability. — AmadeusD
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
“there are no innocents”
"Tally Gotlib, from Likud, has called for “merciless bombing from the air” so as not to endanger the soldiers and to stop “feeling sorry for the uninvolved Gazans” because “there are none.”"
If Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, they're remarkably bad at it. — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.