Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

Why would I have to agree with the Harvard president or not, though? She can say that and I make an independent decision. That wouldn't make racism not exist or change the definition, I can just decide if it is an honest reason or not, whether I'm correct or wrong.

[scriver]

There's two "main" definitions of genocide, which both origins with Raphael Lemkin, the author and activist who made it his life's work to cement it as a concept in law and morality:

1. The UN Genocide resolution definition; which is a limited vision of Lemkin's ideas mainly encompassing actions with murderous intent. This is also the internationally acknowledged legal definition of genocide as a crime.

2. Lemkin's full vision of what encompassed genocide, which aside from mass murder of people and similar also included cultural side of genocide, the targeting of "national identity cornerstones, the oppression of languages, and similar. The part that makes genocide a murder of the genos, the concept of a people, as opposed to a straight mass murder of persons. Lemkin felt that the UN had failed to take this part seriously and often cited the Holodomor as a genocide that went beyond simply the killing of Ukrainians but a direct attack on the Ukrainian identity, the Ukrainian genos, and the ability of the Ukrainian people to continue being Ukrainian. To directly quote the wikipedia article on the Holodomor rather than blather on myself:

According to Lemkin, Ukraine was "perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification – the destruction of the Ukrainian nation". Lemkin stated that, because Ukrainians were very sensitive to the racial murder of its people and way too populous, the Soviet regime could not follow a pattern of total extermination (as in the Holocaust). Instead the genocidal effort consisted of four steps: 1) extermination of the Ukrainian national elite, 2) liquidation of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, 3) extermination of a significant part of the Ukrainian peasantry as "custodians of traditions, folklore and music, national language and literature", and 4) populating the territory with other nationalities with intent of mixing Ukrainians with them, which would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Ukrainian nation.[147][148] The "rediscovery" of Lemkin's 1953 address about the Holodomor has influenced Holodomor scholars, especially his view of genocide as a complex process targeting institutions, culture, and economic existence of a group and not necessarily meaning its "immediate destruction".

It is likely that you can sense from how much more I lingered on it that, yes, I feel definition 2 and Lemkin's full design to be the most complete definition of the term.

"Ethnical cleansing" through deportation or coerced eviction, is not an outright part of definition 1, but it is part of definition 2. In my mind, Israel's settlement policies is a case of ethnical cleansing, and thus genocide.

When it comes to the deliberate targeting of the places they told civillians to go, I so find this to be a breach of even definition 1, however (Disclaimer: I only read the headlines of the article). In my mind, this is even more a case of definition 1 than it would have been if they had not told people to go there and then killed the same people or even more civillians in their bombing of the places they came from, specifically because the order of civillians to seek shelter in these places.

[Bumber]

here's an idea

don't use civilians as shields

don't use heritage sites to launch rockets

[Il Palazzo]

here's an idea

don't use civilians as shields

don't use heritage sites to launch rockets

- Sir, they've taken hostages!
- Alright, let's bomb them.
- But, sir, the hostages.
- I know. It's ok, though, because they've taken hostages.
- What?
- What?

[Strongpoint]

With the seemingly constant changing of the definition of genocide it really has lost a lot of meaning over the years, it also doesn't help that people are constantly throwing the word around like a ball in a playground.

Spoiler: offtopic but a bright illustration (click to show/hide)

https://twitter.com/LisaforDenver/status/1742569254484865514

accusing political opponents of plagiarism = genocide

here's an idea

don't use civilians as shields

don't use heritage sites to launch rockets

It is pointless. You are quoting a person who declares that warning civilians is proof of genocide.

There are many rational positions to be taken. That those warnings are inadequate. That they are hypocritical. That they would be unnecessary if Israel hadn't started a war, etc.  But no, warnings themselves are "forced deportation".

There is no slightest desire for truth or objectivity, only a quest for affirmation for the ideological belief that Israel is EVIL. Whatever Israel does will be twisted as a war crime and genocide. Not only actions usual for any country at war but even stuff like informing your enemy about your military plans by warning civilians will be declared criminal.

The sad part is when actual war crimes are committed many people, including the Israeli public, don't believe it because they are used to every Israeli breath being declared a war crime.

[None]

here's an idea

don't use civilians as shields

don't use heritage sites to launch rockets

civilians are not hamas

palestine is not hamas

this is not justification to murder civilians and destroy heritage sites

there are not 200 rocket launching sites at heritage sites

don't go 'they deserved it' on innocent people

It is pointless. You are quoting a person who declares that warning civilians is proof of genocide.

Of all the ways to interpret what I said, this is probably both the most comic and the most malevolent. They dropped bombs where they told civilians to extract to. I'm not talking about the goddamn warning, you ass clown, I'm talking about they dropped bombs on civilians.

I also didn't say Israel is evil, I said they're doing genocide. I am talking about the actions of a nation, not making an emotional generalization about the nation. Don't pull this shit with me.

[MorleyDev]

I'm talking about they dropped bombs on civilians.

You know what, let's go to a different moral/philosophical question to get at the fundementals: If Ukraine drone striked a school in Russia because they knew a key Russian General was picking up their child there, would that be acceptable collatoral?

In a hypothetical, when there is no other possible way to get that general - yes. Borderline yes but yes nevertheless.

You're arguing with someone who'd answer yes to that question. Dropping bombs on large numbers of civilians to acquire a singular military target is something Strongpoint has thus stated they find an 'acceptable' method for waging war.

[ChairmanPoo]

... I mean, he already got banned 8 years ago for 'repeatedly advocating violence'. What did you expect?

[Bumber]

here's an idea

don't use civilians as shields

don't use heritage sites to launch rockets

- Sir, they've taken hostages!
- Alright, let's bomb them.
- But, sir, the hostages.
- I know. It's ok, though, because they've taken hostages.
- What?
- What?

Not talking about hostages:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-tells-gaza-residents-stay-home-israel-ground-offensive-looms-2023-10-13/

[Strongpoint]

Strongpoint has thus stated they find an 'acceptable' method for waging war.

If there is no alternative and no reasonable way to avoid the collateral. You missed that part. You are also ignoring the enemy because believe it or not, what the enemy does changes what becomes acceptable. Also, in your example it was a drone not flattening a district with bombs.

[MorleyDev]

a) A drone strike on a school would likely wipe out a good chunk of people at the school. That's the moral quantry posed.
b) The altermative in that scenario is to wait and try and find a future oppurtunity that currently isn't available, and that's to my mind the only reasonable option flag.
c) No, there are lines that are not to be crossed no-matter the opposition those civilians happen to live under.

The alternative for Israel is stickinbg to using soldiers to clear things out slowly and procedurally, rather than wiping city blocks off the map. If they can't do that, then see b and find ways to work within the constraints.

[anewaname]

Rolling Stone did the contextualizing well, making it look like Dershowitz was switching from the conversation he is afraid to argue because he still doesn't know who knows the full Epstein story, to the conversation where he can righteously attack others from the Jewish-victimhood pulpit.

[The_Explorer]

I mean...I don't think it matters whose side its on (or the reason), whether its gaza, israel, ukraine or russia...bombing civilian areas is just desperation and disgusting.

When russia does it, its still just as bad if ukraine does it. If gaza does it, its still just as bad if israel does it

If US does it, it doesn't change its the US doing it suddenly makes it good (baghad probably being a good example for me, that was pretty disgusting). Its still just as disgusting and bad

[Strongpoint]

The alternative for Israel is using soldiers to clear things out slowly and procedurally

Aka increasing the number of killed Israeli soldiers by an order of magnitude or two. You are demanding saving enemy civilians for the cost of your own soldiers against the enemy who will never return the favor.

It will also prolong the war and may increase, not decrease the number of civilians killed.

No army in the world would try to take a heavily fortified urban environment without using airforce or artillery. Also, Israel is showing restraint, see Mariupol on what happens when there is none. Gaza would see hundreds of thousands dead on the first few weeks if Israel would indeed have no care for limiting civilian casualties or had an intention to kill as many Palestinians as possible

No, there are lines that are not to be crossed no-matter the opposition those civilians happen to live under.

Rules of war have a purpose to make war less horrible. The idea of them is that both countries agree to make their armed forces less effective to reduce overall suffering. If only one side follows the rules it equals to aiding your enemy at the expense of the lives of your soldiers AND civilians. A nation may choose to do so and it is a noble thing to do. But in no way shape or form it is something mandatory, especially when we are talking about Ukraine fighting a war of survival. USA or Israel when fighting a technologically inferior enemy have the luxury of being more picky.

Lines to not cross are killing civilians with little or no military value. Those are crimes against humanity no matter what the enemy does.

[None]

so they're taking a heavily fortified urban environment in their defensive war which justifies airforce and artillery

they're taking the city in self defense

and they'll just give back the rubble?

they're not going to kill the civilians outright when they can tell them to go to Egypt, get turned away because Egypt won't let them in, and then get bombed on the way there anyways- the outcome for the palestinian people is the same, which is genocide, since their homes, their culture, and their lives are all getting crushed

and by the way, absolutely yes you demand the saving of enemy civilians for the cost of your own soldiers, because civilians have no military value and they did not choose to be victims or perpetrators in war, unlike soldiers, who are to fight and perhaps die for their cause or country

and if that cost is too high, then maybe don't wage a defensive war into a heavily fortified urban location