I’m not sure what your point is, here. If the bombing was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a bombing campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?
I would also consider those acts of bombing to be absolutely unjustified, evil, crimes against humanity and wholly deplorable. I’ve even spoken out against the bombings of civilians on this very account.
In order to consider it genocide I would say there has to be a risk of actually finishing genocide.
Do you consider palestine’s attack against civilians on oct 7th genocide?
If the attack against the music festival was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a murder campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?
Uh, sorry, I didn’t realise we could just come up with our own “considerations” of words with meanings which are widely acknowledged under international law.
Here’s the basic criteria: State killing, maiming, attempted reduction of the birth rate, forcibly transferring children, or inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.
For the October 7 attacks to be acknowledged as a genocide, firstly, the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country. Then we could discuss what the potential intent of the attacks were, but I don’t think that it would be a stretch to consider Hamas a genocidal organisation, or to consider the October 7 attacks genocidal in that case. These attacks, no matter how deplorable, do not justify genocide as a response.
Are you willing to acknowledge Israel as genocidal under the same framework?
the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country.
The State of Palestine is acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country, by 145 states - more nations recognize Palestine then Taiwan.
If October 7 was indeed a genocidal attack (as it clearly was under international law) then the israel’s actions are not genocide, they are a response to genocide, as the intent of the Israel-Hamas war is not the destruction of palestine but the destruction of the genocidal organisation Hamas.
Look, it’s obvious that you either can’t, or don’t want to, have a good-faith open discussion about Israel’s genocide. Either way, you’re wasting my time.
None of what you’ve said changes anything. If a French guy committed genocide, that wouldn’t justify a genocide against all French people.
Likewise, as I already established with my first comment, Israel definitely has demonstrated genocidal intent, very very clearly. There are a number of Israeli politicians who have openly stated in public that they want to push all Arabs out of the region. They’re taking pretty much every genocidal action categorised.
You are behaving as though you are literally incapable of considering whether you could be wrong.
I’m not sure what your point is, here. If the bombing was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a bombing campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?
I would also consider those acts of bombing to be absolutely unjustified, evil, crimes against humanity and wholly deplorable. I’ve even spoken out against the bombings of civilians on this very account.
In order to consider it genocide I would say there has to be a risk of actually finishing genocide.
Do you consider palestine’s attack against civilians on oct 7th genocide?
If the attack against the music festival was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a murder campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?
Uh, sorry, I didn’t realise we could just come up with our own “considerations” of words with meanings which are widely acknowledged under international law.
Here’s the basic criteria: State killing, maiming, attempted reduction of the birth rate, forcibly transferring children, or inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.
For the October 7 attacks to be acknowledged as a genocide, firstly, the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country. Then we could discuss what the potential intent of the attacks were, but I don’t think that it would be a stretch to consider Hamas a genocidal organisation, or to consider the October 7 attacks genocidal in that case. These attacks, no matter how deplorable, do not justify genocide as a response.
Are you willing to acknowledge Israel as genocidal under the same framework?
The State of Palestine is acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country, by 145 states - more nations recognize Palestine then Taiwan.
If October 7 was indeed a genocidal attack (as it clearly was under international law) then the israel’s actions are not genocide, they are a response to genocide, as the intent of the Israel-Hamas war is not the destruction of palestine but the destruction of the genocidal organisation Hamas.
Look, it’s obvious that you either can’t, or don’t want to, have a good-faith open discussion about Israel’s genocide. Either way, you’re wasting my time.
None of what you’ve said changes anything. If a French guy committed genocide, that wouldn’t justify a genocide against all French people.
Likewise, as I already established with my first comment, Israel definitely has demonstrated genocidal intent, very very clearly. There are a number of Israeli politicians who have openly stated in public that they want to push all Arabs out of the region. They’re taking pretty much every genocidal action categorised.
You are behaving as though you are literally incapable of considering whether you could be wrong.