Israeli-Palestinian conflict (97 Viewers)

[Post Ironic]

48 establishes intent. Had the arabs won and killed off jews and drove em away that too would be a genocide. The reaction to nakba in arab countries was different from one country to another, some actually outlawed the exit of jews altogether and had to be paid off to let jews go on aliyah. But if you have numbers on how many were killed in each arab countries following the nakba please share them.

Highest estimated for Palestinian deaths, military plus civilian for the 1948 war plus Naqba are around 15,000, and for Jewish Israelis are around 6000. Hardly some one-sided genocide. It was a war, the Palestinians and their allies lost. Forcible expulsion is not genocide. Ethnic cleansing may not have a legal definition, but that doesn’t make it genocide.

Regardless, I can provide a very long list of Arab massacres of Jewish civilians during the events of 1948. It was a war.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

Yes, I did read it carefully.

It is not tied to a territory. It just isn't.

Destroy in part a national/ethnic group through

(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;

That's Gaza

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Highest estimated for Palestinian deaths, military plus civilian for the 1948 war plus Naqba are around 15,000, and for Jewish Israelis are around 6000. Hardly some one-sided genocide. It was a war, the Palestinians and their allies lost. Forcible expulsion is not genocide. Ethnic cleansing may not have a legal definition, but that doesn’t make it genocide.

Regardless, I can provide a very long list of Arab massacres of Jewish civilians during the events of 1948. It was a war.

Well according to the definition seven posted it is.

 

[Seven]

Destroy in part a national/ethnic group through

(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;

That's Gaza

Yes, you could make that argument. Definitely. That's why I said it would not be easy. But there is something to be said that the living conditions in particular constitute genocide.

But a couple of posts before you said that forcing them to move is also genocide. And that's not true though. That's not what genocide is.

- - - Updated - - -

Well according to the definition seven posted it is.

I disagree, but you could make a case. I don't believe most prosecutors would go for genocide though. It seems unlikely you could convince a court and there are other easier options.

 

[Post Ironic]

Destroy in part a national/ethnic group through

(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;

That's Gaza

Gaza population increased x8 since 1960. The death toll outside war time has been a couple hundred a year between Gaza and West Bank. That’s not genocide any way you slice it lol

If this current campaign continues like this and the IDF intentionally targets civilians on a large scale, I’ll be right there with you calling it genocide. But I’m not there yet, and no international criminal court would be either imo

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Gaza population increased x8 since 1960. The death toll outside war time has been a couple hundred a year between Gaza and West Bank. That’s not genocide any way you slice it lol

If this current campaign continues like this and the IDF intentionally targets civilians on a large scale, I’ll be right there with you calling it genocide. But I’m not there yet, and no international criminal court would be either imo

The point is with genocide it's only determined so after the fact. My point is, based on precedent and the pattern it is taking, it should be called so. So that maybe just maybe it could be stopped.

 

[Tomice]

Destroy in part a national/ethnic group through

(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;

That's Gaza

You removed the explicit intent part. Without it what you provide here is the definition of every war ever fought.

 

[Post Ironic]

The point is with genocide it's only determined so after the fact. My point is, based on precedent and the pattern it is taking, it should be called so. So that maybe just maybe it could be stopped.

I don’t think it needs to be called genocide for this. Nor do I think people calling it genocide is going to help this happen. The US needs to come down hard on Israel for the actual war crimes being committed during this conflict if it’s going to stop. And tell Israel that continued American support is contingent on a two state plan being brought to fruition post-war.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

You removed the explicit intent part. Without it what you provide here is the definition of every war ever fought.

I made the case for intent. Recidivism.

 

[Tomice]

Driving people out of a country is not necessarily a genocide no.

But maybe we are getting too caught up in legal definitions, while the debate among laypeople should be more about morality.

- - - Updated - - -



You could make a case for some aspects that appear to be somewhat genocidal.

But to be honest I don't think it would hold up in court. And genocide, like it or not, is still a legal definition.

While I agree the problem with using the word genocide incorrectly is the skewing of the morallty debate.

 

[U Picciriddu]

Show me one document that says Hitler wanted to eradicate jews. Also read carefully what you posted.

It exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

 

[Tomice]

I made the case for intent. Recidivism.

It is not a case for genocide, no

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It exists: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

"No written evidence of Hitler ordering the Final Solution has ever been found to serve as a "smoking gun", and therefore, this one particular question remains unanswered"

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It is not a case for genocide, no

If after this operation gaza is cleared off is it genocide?

 

[Tomice]

If after this operation gaza is cleared off is it genocide?

Cleared off what? People? Sure.

Never ever going to happen though

- - - Updated - - -

"No written evidence of Hitler ordering the Final Solution has ever been found to serve as a "smoking gun", and therefore, this one particular question remains unanswered"

No need for absurdity. Death camps with gas Chambers are not a spontaneous occurrence

 

[Post Ironic]

"No written evidence of Hitler ordering the Final Solution has ever been found to serve as a "smoking gun", and therefore, this one particular question remains unanswered"

While this is true, it has little to do with the well-established and documented fact with a preponderance of evidence that Nazi Germany carried out a mass genocide of the Jewish population of Europe. Hitler personally ordering it or not is kinda meaningless in the debate as to whether Nazi germany carried out a campaign to exterminate the Jews. It did.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

[

Cleared off what? People? Sure.

Never ever going to happen though

- - - Updated - - -



No need for absurdity. Death camps with gas Chambers are not a spontaneous occurrence

While this is true, it has little to do with the well-established and documented fact with a preponderance of evidence that Nazi Germany carried out a mass genocide of the Jewish population of Europe. Hitler personally ordering it or not is kinda meaningless in the debate as to whether Nazi germany carried out a campaign to exterminate the Jews. It did.

So you agree intent can inferred post facto without it being said. Good that's my point.

 

[U Picciriddu]

"No written evidence of Hitler ordering the Final Solution has ever been found to serve as a "smoking gun", and therefore, this one particular question remains unanswered"

Damn. T4 program maybe? Or authorisation of the SS dead squads, don’t have the time to read everything

 

[Tomice]

[



So you agree intent can inferred post facto without it being said. Good that's my point.

Not neccesserily.

Even if we agree you still have to show explicit intent in actions. Number of deaths in of itself is not a prof, unless we are talking demonstrably large numbers I don't think will ever happen in this conflict.

 

[Post Ironic]

[



So you agree intent can inferred post facto without it being said. Good that's my point.

That still doesn’t make the Naqba a genocide. Again, forcible expulsion is not a genocide. Ethnic cleansing may not have a legal definition, but that still doesn’t make it genocide. Nor are a smattering of isolated massacres perpetrated by both sides during a war enough evidence to claim genocide.