Re: Your country is complicit of Genocide
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:17 pm
Fine, have it your way. I'm done.
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5052
Thanks for defining them. I just wanted to make sure we are all on the same track.principians wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:56 pmI'll go with ICJ definition:What is your definition of "Genocide"?
genocide is a crime that can take place both in time of war as well as in time of peace. The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.An awful crime that intends to terrify civils to influence on political situations (mainly aiming civil lives). Let me repeat myself: I KNOW HAMAS HAS DONE HORRIBLE THINGS. This is not even the discussion I'm interested in.What is your definition of "Terrorism"?
Before answering the third questions I'd like you to answer at least this:
Do you consider terrorism is worse than genocide?
I agree wholeheartedly. But how does that change the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization? Sure, Mexican cartels are too, and the US is thus complicit of terrorism in Mexico.principians wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:13 pmAnd if you want to know more about why my uncertainty about the lightness (not the correctness) of the 'terrorism' labeling I'll give you this:
I think mexican cartels are terrorism, I could provide evidence about that, however they have not been labeled as that oficially by the US. You know why? Because that would make the mexican - US relations very akward. In the case of hamas, however, that seems to justify genocide so nicely
He made the claims, so let's let him tell us what he means by them. If we find that what he defines as "genocide" really means "kicking puppies" then we can correct his initial claim to really mean that our nations are complicit of kicking puppies.learnedSloth wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:56 pmDo we really want to let him define these concepts so he can say that he was right all along?CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:30 pmBefore we continue this, let's define what we are talking about.
Seeing as principians made the initial post, I ask principians:
What is your definition of "Genocide"?
What is your definition of "Terrorism"?
What is your definition of "Complicit"?
Well ICJ definition came up precisely with the holocaust as precedent (btw nazis didn't just tried to finish jews, but gypsies too).The ICJ definition of genocide seems rather broad. The word makes me think of something like the holocaust, which it was coined to describe, but apparently killing any fraction of a recognizable "national, ethnic, racial or religious group" would count. It makes accusing easy.
Here we can see an interesting example of what I said in my previous post. While it's true that when hamas was created they talked about the destruction of Israel, in 2017 they published another declaration where they say they're fine with a 2 states solution, so how would you really prove that the today's hamas intention is genocidal?Per your definitions, Hamas is a terrorist genocidal organization,
The problem here is that one of those genocidal israeli leaders is the very prime minister, the chief of the state, as one may infer from his declaration from november 3, where he referenced the Amalek biblical passage that literally reads:I also believe that some Israeli leaders are genocidal (every country has their share of genocidal leaders).
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants
So, when trying to justify a genocide against the palestinian people you use hamas as if hamas and the palestinian people were the same thing. If you say hamas is terrorist and Israel is doing as hamas would do, what does it convert Israel into?I'll put it this way: Hamas wants Israel gone, and are willing to act terroristically and genocidally. Israel doesn't like that. Israel has thus overreacted in a manner that is exactly what Hamas wants, killing more civilians than necessary.
Really? okI don't think that either is "worse" than the other
From Hamas' 2017 Charter:principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:19 amHere we can see an interesting example of what I said in my previous post. While it's true that when hamas was created they talked about the destruction of Israel, in 2017 they published another declaration where they say they're fine with a 2 states solution, so how would you really prove that the today's hamas intention is genocidal?
I agree. I am not claiming that you believe this, but I am claiming that you are misguided if you claim that Hamas is not a terroristic genocidal organization when they claim that they are just that.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:19 amNow, before people starts suggesting that I'm trying to defend or support hamas in any way, I'd like to state this clearly: I think hamas is a NOT DEFENSIBLE foundamentalist group that has actually brought nothing but tragedy to the palestinian people.
Again, Israel has their share of genocidal politicians. Thus far, they have only been genocidal in word, and have not been wiping mass amounts of Gazans of the face of the Earth for fun as a genocidal politician would do in deed. Sure, more civilians have been killed than necessary. You seemed to miss my point about war crimes.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:19 amThe problem here is that one of those genocidal israeli leaders is the very prime minister, the chief of the state, as one may infer from his declaration from november 3, where he referenced the Amalek biblical passage that literally reads:
A) I am not justifying the unnecessary killing of civilians. Again, see my point about war crimes.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:19 amSo, when trying to justify a genocide against the palestinian people you use hamas as if hamas and the palestinian people were the same thing. If you say hamas is terrorist and Israel is doing as hamas would do, what does it convert Israel into?
Israel knows that if they do what they've done in the past, and assassinate a few leaders and do a few airstrikes, they will not have solved the problem. This is what they've tried in the past, and it didn't work. Also, again, see my point about war crimes.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:19 amI don't deny the right of Israel to defend itself or to try to avoid something like October 7 to repeat. But to punish the assassination of 1200, you proceed to an operation that takes lives of 33000 and makes the live of hundreds of thousands more miserable to point of starvation. And you refuse to stop even when number 1 adn number 2 of hamas already fell and you have virtual control of the north of Gaza, because you want to 'totally anihilate hamas'. To be honest I'm amazed how there's people that seems unable to see the lack of proportion here.
Neither is inherently worse than the other. Terrorism can be genocide, and vice versa. You may kill 100 million people in a terrorist attack without the purpose of targeting a specific ethnic, national, or religious group, or you may kill 10 people with genocidal intent. Neither terrorism or genocide inherently kills more than the other, nor is either inherently more evil than the other. They're both disgusting, horrific things, and they're both evil.
I just want to say that Sout Africa case has provided arguments that would back up this one."The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression."
Since I don't plan to read the full document, which is reportedly ambiguous, I'll just admit that I was not accurately informed about it. Still I see adifference when comparing thisI don't know who told you that Hamas is in favor of a two state solution, but whoever it is lied.
withHamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea
Which, btw, is far from being the only similar declaration by members of the government and idf, that not only use political terms like 'liberation' but seem blatantly aiming to dehumanize palestinian people. Just a couple of days ago, Netanyahu said, for instance: "This is a war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness".Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants
Quite honestly, that's rather lazy. If you are going to make claims like "Hamas is in favor of a two state solution," at least know what you are talking about. It's not a long read, and to me it just demonstrates your lack of real knowledge on the subject. It is very clear about the fact that Hamas does not want a two state solution, so whoever reported that it is ambiguous, again, lied to you.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:14 pmSince I don't plan to read the full document, which is reportedly ambiguous, I'll just admit that I was not accurately informed about it. Still I see adifference when comparing this
Churchill said that all Germans are Nazis in WW2, and used that as a propaganda tactic. This dehumanized the Germans and made the public more supportive of the war.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:14 pmWhich, btw, is far from being the only similar declaration by members of the government and idf, that not only use political terms like 'liberation' but seem blatantly aiming to dehumanize palestinian people. Just a couple of days ago, Netanyahu said, for instance: "This is a war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness".
That still doesn't make one as an idea any more inherently evil than the other. Typically, yes, genocides usually kill more people. In that sense, genocide is worse, because it has historically been used for more harm. Conceptually, they are both just as evil as each other.principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:14 pmAnd you know why I have a particular problem with genocide vs. terrorism (though of couse I won't deny there can be genocidal terrorism). When there's a political intention of erasing a people, the leader usually won't say "let's kill the frenchmen, I so command you". There's always a previous dehumanization process, which history shows us tends to create mass murders much easier than just terrorism.
The fact of the matter is that both sides claim the land for their own, and both sides are willing to kill for it. I personally don't think a two state solution is feasible, so it comes down to a question of - which side has historically taken care of their citizens better? If one side has to win, which is better to their people?principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:19 pmJust one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times
Which side was living peacefully there in the fucking first place?CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:44 pmThe fact of the matter is that both sides claim the land for their own, and both sides are willing to kill for it. I personally don't think a two state solution is feasible, so it comes down to a question of - which side has historically taken care of their citizens better? If one side has to win, which is better to their people?principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:19 pmJust one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times
Put simply, history shows it to be Israel. I'm certainly not saying that Israel is by any means perfect, but what I am saying is that the governments that the Palestinians have chosen for themselves have been far worse than Israeli governments.
One side has to win. There really can't be a long term two state solution. Looking at the way Hamas treats their people and the way that Israel treats their people (even the Arabs), we see that Israel's government is by far the better choice.
Are colonizers forever deserving of violence against them until they leave?Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:09 amWhich side was living peacefully there in the fucking first place?CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:44 pmThe fact of the matter is that both sides claim the land for their own, and both sides are willing to kill for it. I personally don't think a two state solution is feasible, so it comes down to a question of - which side has historically taken care of their citizens better? If one side has to win, which is better to their people?principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:19 pmJust one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times
Put simply, history shows it to be Israel. I'm certainly not saying that Israel is by any means perfect, but what I am saying is that the governments that the Palestinians have chosen for themselves have been far worse than Israeli governments.
One side has to win. There really can't be a long term two state solution. Looking at the way Hamas treats their people and the way that Israel treats their people (even the Arabs), we see that Israel's government is by far the better choice.
Was it the Zionists?
No it fucking was not. The Zionists arrived and forced the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint. How can you fucking reconcile the morality of that action, please?? This is the basic injustice that you ignore.
Do you really want to go back in time? How about the Ottoman Empire, which oppressed Jews in Israel for centuries, or the Romans, who initially gave the land the name "Palestine"? Do you not realize that the very name of Palestine is a symbol of oppression against Jews, albeit by an empire long gone?Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:09 amWhich side was living peacefully there in the fucking first place?CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:44 pmThe fact of the matter is that both sides claim the land for their own, and both sides are willing to kill for it. I personally don't think a two state solution is feasible, so it comes down to a question of - which side has historically taken care of their citizens better? If one side has to win, which is better to their people?principians wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 2:19 pmJust one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times
Put simply, history shows it to be Israel. I'm certainly not saying that Israel is by any means perfect, but what I am saying is that the governments that the Palestinians have chosen for themselves have been far worse than Israeli governments.
One side has to win. There really can't be a long term two state solution. Looking at the way Hamas treats their people and the way that Israel treats their people (even the Arabs), we see that Israel's government is by far the better choice.
Was it the Zionists?
No it fucking was not. The Zionists arrived and forced the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint. How can you fucking reconcile the morality of that action, please?? This is the basic injustice that you ignore.