So under this ridiculously broad definition any war whatsoever is genocide.
We both know that’s not a good definition nor is it really an accurate one historically. Nor is it what the vast overwhelming majority of people think genocide means.
And if the vast overall majority of people think one thing of a word that it doesn’t matter that a book says this is the actual meaning because people collectively decide what the meaning of words are.
Either way even this broad approach fails anyway because Israel is not trying to destroy Palestinians They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
Ok. Do you think after this bombing campaign - one of the most intense in modern history - in your judgement if you look at what the 1.5 million Palestinians are going through: Do you think there are now more or less of them wanting to fight for Hamas?
Hyperbole. Why don’t you stick to the actual facts? It’s okay to be wrong. In fact being wrong is an opportunity! It’s an opportunity for growth and improvement! You literally cannot do either of those things unless you acknowledge that you’re wrong at times.
No I’m genuinely curious. If those are the state goals of the campaign that justify all this slaughter, you must think this is eventually going to stop before it becomes a genocide? You must think eventually “oh we got the last hamas fighter, now we can leave!”.
If you don’t think that, honestly to yourself, then you must agree that at best the motivation is blind raging hatred (racism) or vengeance or political opportunism, or at worse the motivation is a “final solution” for the palestinian question.
I think the solution is a permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza using this as a pretext. This is something that I support because a two-state solution is not practical considering the geography of Israel and turns Israel into Swiss cheese when you look at the borders on a map.
Israel holds the high ground morally ever since they were attacked during the wars of the 20th century. There’s not a shred of religious influence in my support. It’s purely the fact that they’ve been the underdog throughout the 20th century and attacked endlessly by their neighbors yet they have been gracious to them in victory and yet all it has inspired is further enmity and war. That is why I side with Israel. When Egypt attacked them in the 1960s they took the entire Sinai peninsula and they gave it back out of Goodwill. How have they been repaid for their generosity in victory? They were attacked in a defensive war and then took enemy territory and then gave it back out of generosity. And what was the reward? Terrorist attacks and more war of aggression. Israel has made some mistakes in the way they’ve handled the Palestinian situation. There have been times when they have unnecessarily harm civilians and they certainly don’t have blood free hands. But they are light years cleaner than all their neighbors. They are absolutely 100% the lesser of all evils in that area.
So I support the occupation of Gaza and I support the permanent annexation of Gaza. Its very clear to me that that’s what this is about. But annexation and occupation do not equate to genocide. You can annex a territory and give it citizens civil rights. Over time they become more like the original state. They become israelized. Romanized. Americanized. Etc.
When Israel controls all of the territories within its borders including the West Bank then there will be peace. And they should give civil rights to those conquered peoples and treat them with respect.
So under this ridiculously broad definition any war whatsoever is genocide.
We both know that’s not a good definition nor is it really an accurate one historically. Nor is it what the vast overwhelming majority of people think genocide means.
And if the vast overall majority of people think one thing of a word that it doesn’t matter that a book says this is the actual meaning because people collectively decide what the meaning of words are.
Either way even this broad approach fails anyway because Israel is not trying to destroy Palestinians They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
Ok. Do you think after this bombing campaign - one of the most intense in modern history - in your judgement if you look at what the 1.5 million Palestinians are going through: Do you think there are now more or less of them wanting to fight for Hamas?
Hyperbole. Why don’t you stick to the actual facts? It’s okay to be wrong. In fact being wrong is an opportunity! It’s an opportunity for growth and improvement! You literally cannot do either of those things unless you acknowledge that you’re wrong at times.
No I’m genuinely curious. If those are the state goals of the campaign that justify all this slaughter, you must think this is eventually going to stop before it becomes a genocide? You must think eventually “oh we got the last hamas fighter, now we can leave!”.
If you don’t think that, honestly to yourself, then you must agree that at best the motivation is blind raging hatred (racism) or vengeance or political opportunism, or at worse the motivation is a “final solution” for the palestinian question.
I think the solution is a permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza using this as a pretext. This is something that I support because a two-state solution is not practical considering the geography of Israel and turns Israel into Swiss cheese when you look at the borders on a map.
Israel holds the high ground morally ever since they were attacked during the wars of the 20th century. There’s not a shred of religious influence in my support. It’s purely the fact that they’ve been the underdog throughout the 20th century and attacked endlessly by their neighbors yet they have been gracious to them in victory and yet all it has inspired is further enmity and war. That is why I side with Israel. When Egypt attacked them in the 1960s they took the entire Sinai peninsula and they gave it back out of Goodwill. How have they been repaid for their generosity in victory? They were attacked in a defensive war and then took enemy territory and then gave it back out of generosity. And what was the reward? Terrorist attacks and more war of aggression. Israel has made some mistakes in the way they’ve handled the Palestinian situation. There have been times when they have unnecessarily harm civilians and they certainly don’t have blood free hands. But they are light years cleaner than all their neighbors. They are absolutely 100% the lesser of all evils in that area.
So I support the occupation of Gaza and I support the permanent annexation of Gaza. Its very clear to me that that’s what this is about. But annexation and occupation do not equate to genocide. You can annex a territory and give it citizens civil rights. Over time they become more like the original state. They become israelized. Romanized. Americanized. Etc.
When Israel controls all of the territories within its borders including the West Bank then there will be peace. And they should give civil rights to those conquered peoples and treat them with respect.