On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) over comments she made advocating for Palestinians to be free.
Do you have a problem with the elimination of a genocidal fascist state? If you’re not conflating Jews and Israel then I don’t see why you’d have an issue with the words “death to Israel” unless you support their fascism or their genocide.
So tell me, what do you call the bombardment, forced displacement, limiting of Water, removal of communication for everyone in the area, bombing of refugee came, hospitals, ambulances sent by red cross, etc etc Israel has been doing in Gaza?
…not genocide? Go, read the legal definition of genocide, and show me the mens rea element. Compare it to the Armenian genocide. Compare it to the Holocaust. Compare it to what China is doing to the Uyghurs. People screaming genocide only make themselves look foolish right now.
Does that look like targeted bombings to you? To me it like like they’re bombing anything and everything. And with the missiles they have you know they could pick out exact targets if they wanted to. (like that ambulance red cross told them was transporting critically injured before they bombed it)
Please tell me how them purposefully leveling a city is not a deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular Nation. Or bombing the injured, cutting off their communication THEN telling them they have 24 hours to leave before soldiers march in and treat everyone there as Hamas members. Do you really not see genocidal intent?
Also legal definitions aren’t the end-all be-all. Legally a man could not rape his wife until the 90s. He force himself on her as much as he wanted and it was not rape. Does that mean wives were never raped? Think past laws and look at the situation, look at what Israel is doing, the words they’re using to justify it and how those words dehumanizing words are the same ones used by other groups before/during their genocides. They intend on killing Palestinians and are doing it en masse as the world stands by. They are committing a genocide and just because worse things have happened to other groups doesn’t mean the bad shit isn’t happening to this group.
Is a woman who was coerced into sex while drunk any less of a rape victim than the woman who was beaten an inch away from death during her rape? What about the wife who was raped by her husband in 1980 when the law didn’t recognize it?
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:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
“With intent to destroy” is the key part here. Throwing around “genocide” using a dictionary term is meaningless. Genocide is a legal concept. Use the legal definition.
To be 100% clear, I am now quoting from the UN:
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” […]
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Fucking liberals. You care so much about law and decoram that you will argue a mass killing done by a state isn’t a genocide because of “legal definitions”. I can’t imagine caring that much about what a bunch of suits and papers say when people are being slaughtered for living in the place they and their parents have lived for generations.
Btw Rape is as much a legal term as genocide. So those 1960s housewives whose husbands forced themselves on did not get raped by your logic, making you a rape apologist.
You either believe this is a genocide and that’s rape or you believe it’s not genocide and not rape because they’re both “legal concepts”
What is different? What is different between the slow encroachment on land, the starvation of resources, and the disproportionate violent response to raids that kill settlers?
Do you have a problem with the elimination of a genocidal fascist state? If you’re not conflating Jews and Israel then I don’t see why you’d have an issue with the words “death to Israel” unless you support their fascism or their genocide.
lol. “Genocidal”. I’ve been loving reading all the international law analysis from people who couldn’t even get into law school.
So tell me, what do you call the bombardment, forced displacement, limiting of Water, removal of communication for everyone in the area, bombing of refugee came, hospitals, ambulances sent by red cross, etc etc Israel has been doing in Gaza?
…not genocide? Go, read the legal definition of genocide, and show me the mens rea element. Compare it to the Armenian genocide. Compare it to the Holocaust. Compare it to what China is doing to the Uyghurs. People screaming genocide only make themselves look foolish right now.
War crimes? Possibly. Genocide?! No.
Definition of Genocide from Oxford:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/satellite-images-gaza-destruction/index.html
Does that look like targeted bombings to you? To me it like like they’re bombing anything and everything. And with the missiles they have you know they could pick out exact targets if they wanted to. (like that ambulance red cross told them was transporting critically injured before they bombed it)
Please tell me how them purposefully leveling a city is not a deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular Nation. Or bombing the injured, cutting off their communication THEN telling them they have 24 hours to leave before soldiers march in and treat everyone there as Hamas members. Do you really not see genocidal intent?
Also legal definitions aren’t the end-all be-all. Legally a man could not rape his wife until the 90s. He force himself on her as much as he wanted and it was not rape. Does that mean wives were never raped? Think past laws and look at the situation, look at what Israel is doing, the words they’re using to justify it and how those words dehumanizing words are the same ones used by other groups before/during their genocides. They intend on killing Palestinians and are doing it en masse as the world stands by. They are committing a genocide and just because worse things have happened to other groups doesn’t mean the bad shit isn’t happening to this group.
Is a woman who was coerced into sex while drunk any less of a rape victim than the woman who was beaten an inch away from death during her rape? What about the wife who was raped by her husband in 1980 when the law didn’t recognize it?
They’re all rape
It’s all genocide
It’s all wrong
Wrong.
From the Geneva Convention:
“With intent to destroy” is the key part here. Throwing around “genocide” using a dictionary term is meaningless. Genocide is a legal concept. Use the legal definition.
To be 100% clear, I am now quoting from the UN:
Source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention
Fucking liberals. You care so much about law and decoram that you will argue a mass killing done by a state isn’t a genocide because of “legal definitions”. I can’t imagine caring that much about what a bunch of suits and papers say when people are being slaughtered for living in the place they and their parents have lived for generations.
Btw Rape is as much a legal term as genocide. So those 1960s housewives whose husbands forced themselves on did not get raped by your logic, making you a rape apologist.
You either believe this is a genocide and that’s rape or you believe it’s not genocide and not rape because they’re both “legal concepts”
It’s not genocide, but OK, buddy.
Can’t confront your own inconsistencies can you. Disappointing, but not surprising
You’d be defending the genocide of indigenous people as “just warcrimes” under the same logic.
No, I wouldn’t be. But thanks for making things up.
What is different? What is different between the slow encroachment on land, the starvation of resources, and the disproportionate violent response to raids that kill settlers?