There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

xc2215x ,

I could see it happening. Both sides want to continue.

FarraigePlaisteach ,

war genocide

ahornsirup , (edited )
@ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

War. It’s a conflict in a highly urbanised area with one side (hint: not Israel) actively using civilians as human shields. Of course there’s civilian casualties, that simply can’t be prevented in war, they can’t even be minimised if one side actively prevents it.

If you care about Palestinian lives then you want Hamas to surrender or to be destroyed. If you don’t then all you really want is to prolong the conflict, because Hamas has made it abundantly clear that they will not stop attacking Israeli civilians, forcing retaliation, and that they do not care one bit how many Palestinians die in that retaliation. They cannot be negotiated with.

Edit - it’s remarkable how hard y’all are ignoring who started this escalation with an utterly and inexcusably barbaric attack on innocent civilians.

NoIWontPickaName ,

In 2023 we have missiles that are so accurate we can arm them with swords instead of explosives.

Almost half of the missiles Israel has used were unguided

sailingbythelee ,

Yes, it’s too bad they don’t have more of the high tech ones. I guess we’ll have to give them more military aid so they can afford them.

NoIWontPickaName ,

Man you really worked to miss the point there.

Impressive!

sailingbythelee ,

Thanks!

OccamsTeapot ,

Genocide. Can you provide any other explanation for cutting off food and water to the civilian population? This is indefensible. There is no purpose other than to kill or harm the innocent, and they cannot claim this was “unintentional” in any way. Even before we get into the various statements from Israeli officials.

Here is the relevant part of the definition of genocide:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

You only need to do one of these things with the intent to destroy for it to be genocide. Israel has done these 3 out of 5 total. Support them if you want but let’s be clear about what is actually happening here.

ahornsirup ,
@ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

How do you propose the logistics of providing supplies to Hamas-controlled areas should work?

OccamsTeapot ,

If you don’t respond to my point why should I respond to yours?

Oh yeah, because I have self respect: not sure about the specifics, but maybe don’t cut off food and water to civilians? You know, if you lock down an area and control the water supply, maybe don’t use this as leverage? There are also many aid trucks Israel could simply allow in from Rafah. I really don’t see your point here, other than a pathetic attempt to avoid admitting this is obviously genocide.

ahornsirup ,
@ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

Charming. And no, Isreal cannot simply allow in supplies because it would also be suppling Hamas, and it would potentially open a route for the smuggling of actual military supplies.

OccamsTeapot ,

You are totally ignoring my point because you don’t want to admit to what is obviously a genocide.

Good luck with that! But clearly you aren’t capable of having an honest conversation so I’m out. Hope you feel good about starving innocent civilians.

ahornsirup , (edited )
@ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

I’m not, I simply disagree with you.

But if you are unable to understand that, bye, blocked ya, since that’s apparently what you want. Hope you can sleep with the knowledge that you’re supporting a group that proudly parades stripped, raped and broken women through the streets.

OccamsTeapot ,

Not really. I wanted you to explain to me why you think that cutting off food and water to 2.3 million people doesn’t meet the definition of genocide. But you just want to talk about Hamas. I didn’t even mention them.

I shouldn’t have said you aren’t capable of it. You are, I’m sure. You just don’t want to for some reason.

galloog1 ,

You cannot prove a negative and it is really hard to prove intent. You both disagree on the intent. All he has to do is show military purpose. Your burden of proof is much higher.

OccamsTeapot ,

I’m not sure what else the intent could be. If I lock someone in a room and eventually stop pushing food and water under the door for them what else am I doing but killing them on purpose? I honestly don’t understand how else this can be interpreted. I don’t even think this is really a matter of opinion.

galloog1 ,

Is it really that inconceivable to you that a blockaid had a military purpose? Were all the blockaids in history considered genocide?

OccamsTeapot , (edited )

Gaza has been blockaded for almost 20 years. It’s the complete stopping of food and water for months that makes it genocide, yeah. Combined with all the bombing etc. Are you being serious?

If you show me any analogous situation to Gaza then yes you will show me another genocide. Feel free to give an example you think is similar but widely accepted as fine.

Edit: still absolutely reeling over this: “Oh so you’re saying that every case of mass civilian starvation is genocide?!” Err… yeah?

sailingbythelee ,

The word genocide has been over-used and diluted. It should only be used sparingly if you want it to retain any meaning at all. Hitler actually attempted to exterminate the Jews. That is the modern canonical example for genocide, but there are many historical examples as well (Carthage, etc.). Israel isn’t doing anything like that. You are just playing word games with an ambiguous definition.

OccamsTeapot ,

I literally gave the official UN definition and argued a specific point regarding it.

sailingbythelee ,

Yes, I know. I’m saying that the definition can be read expansively or narrowly, and when it is read expansively, it loses some of its impact. To my mind, putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same category as Nazi death camps is somewhat problematic. Do you disagree?

BassTurd ,

I disagree. Genocide doesn’t list a minimum number of causalities to be considered genocide. If I go out and kill one person, that makes me a murderer. If I kill a couple of people, that makes me a serial killer. If I kill less people than John Wayne Gacy, does that suddenly mean I’m not a serial killer, because his serial killing was worse?

Just because the atrocities committed in Israel aren’t as significant as those in Nazi Germany doesn’t mean it’s not a genocide.

sailingbythelee ,

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Obviously, the UN has had a hard time coming up with a definition of genocide that is both inclusive and impactful. I think your counter-examples actually underscore my point that there are some concepts that are hard to adequately capture under a single category. That’s why, for example, we have different categories for different types of homicide: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, felony murder, manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, etc.

Definitions are hard and somewhat arbitrary, but we all have an intuitive sense of degree. My point is that the expansive definition dilutes it’s effect.

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

My point is that the expansive definition dilutes it’s effect.

Are you sure that that’s your point? Because to me it sounds like you nitpicked this one genocide here (maybe because it’s painful to believe) and decided it can be excluded from a definition over a self-proclaimed technicality that you just came up with?

It feels like everything you are saying is just because it rubs you wrong to say the Jewish state of Israel is committing a genocide and a continued ethnic cleansing. I am not saying that this is your argument, I’m just saying that that is how you come off.

sailingbythelee ,

Yes, it does rub me the wrong way when we classify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “genocide”. That’s why I’m arguing about it.

In another part of this thread, myself and another commenter went back and forth with a bunch of other examples of mass killings in the past, and I think it shows that it isn’t so easy to define what is genocide and what isn’t. Using the UN definition, could you, for example, classify what Hamas did on October 7 as genocide? I wouldn’t, but read the definition again and ask yourself whether it fits.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, I don’t believe that Israel intends to wipe out the Palestinian people. Maybe Netanyahu and his right-wing cronies would if they could, but the Israeli population doesn’t want that. Hamas also wants to wipe out Israel, but I doubt the Palestinian people as a whole would support that.

The Israelis have negotiated with Palestinian governments, turned over land to them, provided them with aid and utilities and even included them at all levels of Israeli government. That doesn’t sound like genocide. Now, it is true that Palestinians don’t have equal rights in Israel, but there is a big difference between that and actual genocide. I don’t understand where this impulse for exaggeration comes from. It is very short-sighted.

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t believe that Israel intends to wipe out the Palestinian people

Right. I think it takes a special kind of blindness to not see the collective punishment and attempt to kill Palestinians. Just today they intentionally prevented an ambulance from reaching an Al Jazeera journalist and he eventually died, his colleague was injured from an Israeli attack. Why? Why does Israel ALWAYS prevent ambulances and ALWAYS bombs schools sheltering thousands of civilians? It’s because they want them to die. On top of that, they say it in the Knesset and on the street and in private and public and you still don’t believe them.

I think there’s more to it with you. It’s not normal to deny a genocide like that.

It’s nice that you claim to be neutral and just someone having a “disagreement” but you don’t look like that at all, sorry.

sailingbythelee ,

Why are you even here if you don’t want to have a good faith debate and perhaps hear another perspective? Do you think shouting “genocide” into the ether will change anything? You are making assumptions about me and basing your points on that rather than engaging with the actual issues. That is simply bad faith argument.

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Do you think shouting “genocide” into the ether will change anything?

Pointing out the compelling evidence of the genocide of Palestinians ≠ shouting “genocide”

I think you’re dishonest. Have a nice evening!

sailingbythelee ,

Thanks for reinforcing my point about you!

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I really don’t care

OccamsTeapot ,

Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.

The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.

To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.

sailingbythelee ,

Okay, let’s set aside magnitude then. Definition of genocide includes the aspect of intent. Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”. Do you?

OccamsTeapot ,

Yeah I do! In fact that’s why I started this discussion with the example of the purposeful starvation and cutting off of water to Gaza. In my opinion this is an example of intentionality. This is not an accident or just a “side effect” or something. It is done purposefully. In the UN’s language, it is “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”

You say…

Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”

But the reality is that it’s “In whole or in part,” and Gaza is part of the Palestinian people. The important part isn’t the % intended to be killed. It’s primarily why they’re killed, and more specifically, if they are killed because they are members of a group. This is unavoidably true in Gaza.

You can see the issues with your take in other cases. The Cambodian genocide is a widely recognized genocide. They killed 25% of the pop and probably always intended to keep enough alive to run the farms. So not “The Cambodian people,” as a whole, but it doesn’t really matter.

sailingbythelee ,

That’s a good point about Cambodia, actually. Hmmm, so what is the difference between mass killing of political opponents like Stalin did, or mass killing for the sake creating terror and holding on to power like Mao did, or whatever it was that Papa Doc was up to in Haiti, and genocide? Or are all of those genocide according to this definition?

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems more complicated than genocide. On the one hand, Israel has negotiated with moderate Palestinian governments for a two-state solution and various other aspects of self-government, including the provision of utilities, and they include Palestinians in all levels of government in Israel. On the other hand, at the moment they also oppress the Palestinian people and are in the process of trying to completely destroy Hamas in a pretty horribel way in Gaza. If it is actual “genocide” that Israel is after, they are pretty inconsistent about it.

If we go with your expansive interpretation of genocide, would you consider what Hamas did on October 7 to be genocide? I mean, they did “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” for the people on the affected kibbutzim and the music festival, and Hamas has as its declared intent the destruction of the state of Israel. Does the fact that Hamas lacks the means to kill all Jews make the massacre they were able to inflict any less genocidal? I don’t know, I haven’t classified Hamas’s Oct 7 action as “genocide” previously, but your more expansive definition and all of the analogies we are both using makes me wonder where the boundaries of genocide are, compared to other forms of mass killing.

OccamsTeapot ,

Yeah I’m not sure about the exact details of international law and the ins and outs of all of the examples. But for example Stalin’s purges vs Pol Pot’ s killings seem very similar in a way. But maybe Holodomor is a pretty interesting case for our purposes. First off, starvation was the method of killing, second, “only” 10% of Ukranians died. There is dispute about intent, but the EU Parliament and 34 countries consider it genocide, according to Wikipedia.

I will say that you describe my definition as “expansive” but it is the definition of the UN and international law. I am just trying to use the standard definition. Do you have an alternative suggestion?

For the points about Hamas I guess that would take some discussion. What was the purpose of the attack, for instance? I would say it was to create discord and fear, and likely to goad Israel into responding in this way and ruin their efforts at normalization of relations (e.g. with Saudi). Not so much to kill Israelis, although obviously that is a “tool” to use to them, being pieces of shit and all.

I guess my point is that we could make this determination based on the definitions of international law and our take on what’s going on. We should do the same with Israel, openly and honestly.

Although I will also say, I think you might be right about having the means being important. Hamas could not cut off food and water to Israel even if it wanted to. What if a child tried to kill a whole country? Surely that couldn’t be considered attempted genocide? But then intent is obviously also important. The finer details would take some working out.

But in Israel’s case they have the means, are at over 18k dead and still going, and politicians have said and done enough things to make intent clear, to me at least. Honestly the intentional starvation is enough evidence of intent from my perspective.

NoIWontPickaName ,

Yes friend, Hamas is attempting genocide.

They are fucking terrorists, the reason we expect more from Israel is they are claiming to be the good guys.

sailingbythelee ,

You’re right. We should expect more from Israel.

NoIWontPickaName ,

Sure seems that way.

But I am sure all of those innocent children and babies are Hamas

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Ah yes 18,000 civilian dead bodies, all just playing word games in their mass graves.

sailingbythelee ,

Ah yes, comparing 18,000 people dead as the result of collateral damage in dense urban warfare to the systematic round-up and extermination of 6 million Jews by Hitler. Makes perfect sense. What was I thinking?

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

We’re on our way to get to 6 million. This is the world failing to stop a full blown genocide from resuming.

Imagine yourself saying that at the beginning of the holocaust when the humber of casualties was only 18k.

That would be disgusting wouldn’t it?

I think no one except for supporters of Israel would dub this was “collateral damage”. Literally no one else agrees.

Disturbing.

IchNichtenLichten ,
@IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

You’re wrong, please educate yourself.

jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

OccamsTeapot ,

I hope they read it. This post was what made me start openly calling it genocide. It’s a weighty word to use but that’s why it’s important to do so when it is actually happening. You can’t promise “never again” if you don’t remember what it even is.

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

A military blockade on a civilian area?

People detained in unknown locations?

Constant shelling of schools and hospitals?

Withholding medical supplies?

People left to die from preventable diseases in a preventable siege?

153:10 at the UNGA, with only ten countries (including the US and Israel, or “Azrael” as my grandma liked to call them) standing in the way of a humanitarian ceasefire?

Sounds like a pretense to genocide to me.

galloog1 ,

Literally all of this was happening in Ukraine and nobody serious was calling it a genocide. It is just urban warfare. It sucks but it is not genocide.

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Putin isn’t trying to “genocide” Ukrainians…

Are you sure you understand what genocide means? It doesn’t mean “any bad war thing”

galloog1 ,

You are so close. So very close.

gregorum , (edited )

oh, so you do acknowledge that Putin’s actions have also been called genocidal, you’re just also being consistent at refusing to acknowledge genocide at all. well, at least you’re willing to acknowledge consistency in genocide, even if you’re unwilling to call it that.

still, you’d also have to say that if I don’t know what genocide means, then the UN also doesn’t know what genocide means when they accuse Putin of genocide in Ukraine (source) as they have of Israel in Palestine (source)…

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    gregorum ,

    What are you, 12?

    snek , (edited )
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    Edit: before you read this, it’s worth noting the following:

    you’d also have to say that if I don’t know what genocide means,

    I wasn’t replying to you… I was replying to @galloog1, so not sure why you took it as a response to you? Maybe a technical error? In any case I don’t agree.

    You said:

    oh, so you do acknowledge that Putin’s actions have also been called genocidal,

    My conclusion is that you must have been sniffing glue because how else would you “read” this in my comments above… Then you do some more analysis of what I mean and believe, but all of it is bullshit standing on the one-legged “conclusion” that you made.

    Now to your links…

    The first is titled something completely unrelated to start with: UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine finds continued systematic and widespread use of torture and indiscriminate attacks harming civilians. No one denies this.

    It goes on to read:

    “The Commission is also concerned about allegations of genocide in Ukraine. For instance, some of the rhetoric transmitted in Russian state and other media may constitute incitement to genocide. The Commission is continuing its investigations on such issues.”

    Good, there we have it then. Putin is bad, etc, but there doesn’t seem to be much that that commission has found except for rhetoric in Russia, but generally Putin’s actions are those of an invader, and if more inquiries are made about genocide in Ukraine, I would be an idiot to deny that.

    The second link is an entire document dedicated to genocide against Palestinians. Something that has been ongoing for over 7 decades. The title reads “Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people”

    Not an inquiry. Not based on “rhetoric in the media”, but based on Israel’s continued aggression.

    In any case, it seems that Russia is only brought to comparison here just to make Israel look like a “poor victim of double standards”. You know, not from your genuine interest in human lives or anything… just the genuine interest to make Israel’s actions acceptable.

    gregorum ,

    So you admit that UN calls what’s happening in Palestine and in Ukraine a genocide. It seems that I’m right, and then comment is wrong and you’re arguing against the evidence.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah okay.

    galloog1 ,

    My interest is in the correct classification of war crimes to ensure they are less likely to happen. I have met very few people in this community who understand what war crimes are and how they differ from general warfare. If all warfare constitutes war crimes, then war crimes have no meaning and you enable them to happen.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    If all warfare constitutes war crimes, then war crimes have no meaning and you enable them to happen.

    So, do you mean that the casualties of Israeli aggression all fall under “general warfare”? Is this your argument? Just so I understand.

    galloog1 ,

    Largely, however every military conflict includes war crimes at some level on all sides if the factions are large enough. This is countered by a process of military justice in which is just as hard to overcome the burden of proof as criminal law is within the United States judicial system.

    Anyone who makes universal claims for or against one side in a conflict and does not caveat with an understanding of how imperfect any justice system is would be a sign that they are simple propaganda.

    You can make ethical distinctions between factions in the application of military justice internally, how complicit command decisions are in war crimes committed, and most importantly by not lumping politicians, military, and random citizens together in their actions and narratives. When I speak of actions and war crimes(especially in terms of genocide), I refer solely to the IDF. There are many unethical hotshot politicians out there. There is no separating President Putin from policies in Ukraine though so you can make a distinction there easily.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    Largely

    So yes, largely but not fully I guess. Thanks.

    galloog1 ,

    Putin’s actions have not been found to be genocide by anyone reputable. I can say that while being vehemently against the invasion and all it stands for and additionally supporting Ukraine in every capacity.

    Words matter. They are important to understand.

    You have not gotten me in any logical inconsistency despite thinking you have. Genocide is an important concept to understand so you do not water it down when it actually happens. If every action in war is considered a war crime, no actions are war crimes and people will not believe your claims when you make them.

    gregorum ,

    Nice whataboutism, but people are absolutely calling what Putin is doing a genocide against Ukrainians (and have been all along) because it is.

    galloog1 ,

    Well, at least you are consistent about not understanding the differences between war and genocide.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    Can you really be happy with yourself supporting someone who is the cause of the tens of thousands of innocent dead who have nothing to do with 10/7?

    ahornsirup ,
    @ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

    No. Which is why I don’t support Hamas or anything that helps them.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    Say whatever you want, at the end of the day, the IDF is the one to pull the trigger and fire missiles that eventually killed thousands of children. About 7k now?

    ahornsirup ,
    @ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

    And it would be zero had Hamas not started the war by raping, abducting and murdering random Israelis, including children. Also, this war would end today if Hamas surrendered. I’m not blaming the IDF for striking at Hamas, I’m blaming Hamas for starting this war. I’m blaming Hamas for hiding in Gaza’s civilian population. I’m blaming Hamas for every single death in this pointless war.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    Still IDF pulling the trigger and firing all those dumb weapons on civilian areas and hospitals.

    If you shoot through a baby to kill a terrorist, you still shot through a baby.

    But what you’re saying is not true. Israel has been killing Palestinians heavily in the west bank prior to this. Not to mention every day.

    ahornsirup ,
    @ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

    It’s really very telling that you seem to think Hamas deliberately murdering random Israelis in alleged (and I don’t believe Hamas for a second here) response to the actions of Israel in the West Bank is somehow justified, but that Israel striking at actual terrorists and in the process unintentionally killing some of the civilians the terrorists hide behind is not.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    “Justified”

    Right…

    Unintentionally killing 18k people in their homes or in shelters and then doing a big Oops!, that’s what you think is happening?

    I never said what Hamas did was justified, I’m saying it’s the inevitable result of oppressing a peopöe this long under conditions that break international law and are often considered crimes against humanity and apartheid. 😊

    Sadly it seems that the IDF’s incompetence may have caused a number of the deaths of October 7th, so I hope you blame them too when they drove tanks into houses or when witnesses say the IDF came in and shot both Hamas fighters and hostages. The hannibal detective, and all… Israel is blaming Hamas for it not only killing a another nation, but also their own.

    I feel bad for all the teens in the IDF that get caught up in this tragedy. And I feel bad for you for not being able to take a stand against this atrocity. If you condemn Hamas, be brave and honest enough to condemn Israel. Israel keeps killing Palestinians every single day, more than ever before in the past two months, and we need to have the guts to look passed our biases and expose it and stop it.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    So if you shoot a hostage to get to the person behind them it is not your fault?

    ahornsirup ,
    @ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

    If the person behind the hostage is a serial killer who is certain to keep killing, yes. We’re talking about an organisation which has broken every ceasefire Israel has ever made with it.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    And the cutting off of water and food?

    Considering the whole OCCUPATION AND BLOCKADE they are responsible for providing those things.

    Tying people up in the streets, destroying toys and other items, burning a trailer with food and water in it, killing journalists, not allowing independent investigators in to see anything.

    I’ll tell you what I’ll start believing Israel actually cares about anyone but themselves when you can show me the decapitated babies they said they had

    BartsBigBugBag ,

    Except hundreds of Palestinians were already killed by Israel before 10/7, and thousands were/are held in military courts without any charges for months at a time.

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    I noticed that pro Zionists always just jump to talking about Hamas as a way to “win” any argument.

    they bombed a hospital? Hamas was there

    a child was shot in the head? The child was having Hamas thoughts

    There’s a genocide? Nope, just Hamas

    dragonflyteaparty ,

    So you simply think they can starve however many civilians they want, most of whom are children, because it hurts Hamas?

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    No, Israel cannot possibly allow these civilians to eat.

    They must starve until the last Qassam Brigade fighter is dead alongside the whole 2.3 million.

    Maggoty ,

    Instead they sent Hamas money. God forbid we let people eat and have economic activity. But it’s perfectly okay to fund Hamas.

    The mask is fully off, how can you still support this?

    snek ,
    @snek@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Rediphile ,

    By this definition nearly everything the Allies did in WWII was genocide. To name just a few:

    -firebombing of German cities (such as Dresden)

    -unrestricted submarine warfare

    -bombing of Tokyo

    -Hiroshima/Nagasaki

    OccamsTeapot ,

    This is the UN dude, I didn’t write it. What’s your definition?

    -Hiroshima/Nagasaki

    I mean… This may not be the fantastic point you think it is.

    Rediphile ,

    In regards to nuclear weapons use in WWII, the dominant narrative is that the alternative is a ground invasion with greater loss of life. I guess the Allies just surrendering was an option to… but that’s would have lead to more genocide, no?

    And while I know that’s the UN definition. I’m saying I disagree with it for being too broad and including most forms of warfare. I think actually planned slaughter of an entire group with the attempt of elimination is worth keeping a separate (and worse) category.

    Most accept that the horrors of WWII committed by the Allies were ‘worth it’ to stop the more evil Axis. But if it actually was worth it is perhaps worth debating, I don’t disagree.

    OccamsTeapot ,

    I guess the Allies just surrendering was an option to… but that’s would have lead to more genocide, no?

    Yeah I mean there were probably options between surrender and nuclear warfare, but I think this is beside the point. Clearly it was at least collective punishment and a war crime, that’s how I would describe it.

    And while I know that’s the UN definition. I’m saying I disagree with it for being too broad and including most forms of warfare.

    It doesn’t include most forms of warfare because it has to be, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” So the US in Afghanistan, despite being shitty, were not doing genocide. For example. The allied liberation of France? Fine. The goal was not to kill Germans, even though it was a necessary component.

    I think actually planned slaughter of an entire group with the attempt of elimination is worth keeping a separate (and worse) category.

    Yeah I mean obviously putting people in extermination camps is worse than starving them, in a way, but also, if the numbers were the same, does it matter? Is the Holodomor “not as bad” as Pol Pot’s genocide?

    What would you call this category you propose? And what word would you use for what Israel is doing?

    Rediphile ,

    probably options between surrender and nuclear warfare

    Yes, a ground invasion. Which was mentioned in the previous comment. And no, I don’t think it was intended to ‘punish’ civilians, but rather to make clear that the Japanese empire could not win. A common claim is that it actually saved civilian lives.

    the US in Afghanistan, despite being shitty, were not doing genocide

    Agreed. But they were killing a part of an ethnic group in the process. And it included civilians at times. Doesn’t seem vastly dissimilar. And the goal in the fire bombings of Germany was absolutely to kill German civilians and it was explicitly stated as such.

    if the numbers were the same, does it matter?

    Yes, very much so. The intent and methods absolutely matter. 9/11 killed thousands of civilians, but it would absurd to consider it genocide.

    Is the Holodomor “not as bad” as Pol Pot’s genocide?

    Simply put, yes. But more importantly, they are fundamentally different things, which is what I’m pointing out.

    What would you call this category you propose?

    Doesn’t matter to me as long as it’s agreed upon.

    what word would you use for what Israel is doing?

    I’d probably just stick with warfare. Brutal and horrible warfare. They are waging war to destroy an enemy that attacked them, and in doing so are killing a fuck load of civilians in the process. Sort of like Britain in WWII.

    I’ll pose a question back, how many civilian deaths/collateral damage does it take for it to be genocide in your eyes? What if the Israeli’s only killed 1 single civilian as collateral damage? 10? 100? 1000?

    To me, genocide requires intentional effort to end a group of people and/or their culture through specific and measurable actions. Some definitions agree with me, others don’t.

    OccamsTeapot ,

    if the numbers were the same, does it matter?

    Yes, very much so. The intent and methods absolutely matter. 9/11 killed thousands of civilians, but it would absurd to consider it genocide.

    Here I was talking about intentional starvation vs just straight up killing. So of course this wouldn’t mean 9/11 was genocide. But intentional starvation could still be a method of genocide if that was the intent.

    Simply put, yes. But more importantly, they are fundamentally different things, which is what I’m pointing out.

    Saying one is worse is a bit of a hot take. But sure. But the “fundamental difference” doesn’t seem so important to me, it’s just a matter of approach. If you choose to use starvation instead of shooting them in a mass grave is it really so different? Like choosing a different weapon. Would you ever consider a mass starvation to be a genocide?

    I’d probably just stick with warfare. Brutal and horrible warfare. They are waging war to destroy an enemy that attacked them, and in doing so are killing a fuck load of civilians in the process. Sort of like Britain in WWII.

    Just regular old warfare. I see.

    I’ll pose a question back, how many civilian deaths/collateral damage does it take for it to be genocide in your eyes? What if the Israeli’s only killed 1 single civilian as collateral damage? 10? 100? 1000?

    I don’t think you can put a number on it. Hitler would have still done a genocide if he only killed 1000 Jews. It’s about intent. His goal was to kill Jews because they were Jews. Just like Israel cut off water and food to Gazans because they were Gazans. But I mean of course there must be some minimum value, I guess only 1 dead could never really be a genocide. But if Hitler had only killed 100 but had done so because of their Jewish heritage and his final solution? I guess I would have to say it’s just an ineffective genocide. Or an “attempted” genocide.

    To me, genocide requires intentional effort to end a group of people and/or their culture through specific and measurable actions. Some definitions agree with me, others don’t.

    Pretty good. As I said I would add that it doesn’t have to be ending the group in whole, but that it has to be because of their membership of the group.

    Intentional effort to end a group of people through specific and measurable actions… how about: bombing civilian areas and cutting off the necessities of life. Bombing areas you told civilians to move to. Bombing UN schools being used as shelter. Attacking hospitals housing the sick and injured. Killing journalists. Not allowing them to escape from this horror. Doesn’t this meet your definition perfectly?

    BartsBigBugBag ,

    No, that’s the dominant narrative in the US, but the data, even the US government then-contemporary data, doesn’t support that narrative in the slightest.

    WldFyre ,

    Any sources for that? I’ve never seen anything that indicated that Japan was going to surrender, just philosophizing about if it was justified to drop the bombs.

    Keeponstalin , (edited )

    thenation.com/…/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshim…

    www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-05/…/6672616

    Here’s a few

    libcom.org/…/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hir…

    "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

    • U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey’s 1946 Study

    "It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

    • General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces Under President Truman

    "Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

    • J. Samuel Walker Chief Historian U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    WldFyre ,

    Just some speculation and philosophizing, like I said. It’s not even a consensus with historians.

    Thanks for offering some links at least, though.

    Keeponstalin ,

    Personally, hearing that the actual generals that took part in that theater did not think it was necessary and that victory was assured as soon as a blockade was possible. That’s enough for me to believe the bombs being dropped were for other reasons other than for a surrender. Like a show of strength to the rest of the world. But that’s my own conclusion. It’s always important to hold some skepticism and seek out more sources imo

    Maggoty ,

    Yeah that was American propaganda at the time. Actual studies on Okinawa fighting suggest far fewer troop losses. The Japanese leadership themselves said the bombs were impressive but conventional bombing raids weren’t far off in power. They were far more scared of still being at war when Russia reached them.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    So maybe, just maybe, as ridiculous as this sounds, maybe we should learn from the past, instead of repeating it.

    Rediphile ,

    I’m much more worried about a future where we would not be willing to repeat doing whatever is required to stop a fundamentally evil empire that is actively committing actual genocide.

    What would have been a better course of action for the Allies that wouldn’t result in greater death and suffering? I can’t think of anything myself… but perhaps you have some ideas beyond surrendering?

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    For them? Idk.

    For today, with fucking sword missiles? A little more precision guided weaponry, a lot less dumb bombs.

    But what with Israeli soldiers, burning food and water, destroying toys, cutting off food and water, and killing the Israeli hostages, and straight up admitting that they are keeping Gaza and that a two state solution will not happen?

    I figure there will be a lot more innocent children killed.

    BOYCOTT, DIVEST, SANCTION!

    Fuck Hamas and fuck Israel!

    Maggoty ,

    That’s a false choice if I ever saw one, either commit war crimes or surrender? Lmao

    OccamsTeapot ,

    The only way to stop Hamas is to kill all of the innocent children. If you kill 10k I heard you officially have beaten terrorism and they all just quit.

    rivermonster ,

    Out of curiosity, what do you think is the right thing to do? Ignore the terrorist attack by the legitimately elected Gaza government? Why wouldn’t they keep doing it if you did that?

    They’ve done that for a long time with rockets fired at (and killing civilians) in terrorist attacks that NO other country on earth would tolerate.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    Negotiate for your hostages, cede a mile or two of Israel in a perimeter around Gaza as a DMZ, and ask for a UN peackeeping service.

    Maybe mine the everloving fucking hell out of the DMZ as well

    rivermonster ,

    Eww mines are such a horrible problem worldwide. I get the intent, though.

    They’ve done permiter security at crazy levels already. Hamas with the help of Quatar, Iran, Iraq, Hezbolla, etc… they have failed. To a spectacular degree. October’s attack makes trying to build a better wall or mined areas not likely as an effective solution.

    Plus, then you get all the recriminations Bout racist apartheid, and nothing gets better.

    There have been negotiations. But negotiating with terrorists is a debatable strategy, at the very least, right? Don’t have to disagree or agree, I’m just saying we are both aware that’s a strategy that has proponents and opponents for a reason.

    The UN has had decades to inject a peacekeeping force. But the sad truth is that UN peacekeeping missions have a terrible failure rate, for many reasons, and I’m not just throwing stones at the UN here. But the reality is the outcomes from their deployment have been wanting.

    That said, I’d love Israel to pull put and have an UN force in there instead. Even with the UN schools having taught anti-Israel sentiments and militarism in the UN printed text books.

    Even with the UNs hostility towards Israel, I definitely would prefer them there. With the responsibility for preventing further attacks on Israel and Gaza and real repercussions for failure.

    But no more mines. I wish mines were banned. I know they won’t ever be… but so awful.

    I’ll say I appreciate your sincerity and taking the time to answer. And just because I disagree that this would help, doesn’t mean I don’t respect your position. We just disagree. I do sincerely want to find a convincing alternative to the current state of affairs as well. And know that my position is what it is because I don’t see a clear alternative atm. I’d love for that to change.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    I agree on the mines, that’s why I put it under the maybe qualifier.

    I think if you laid them out in only that area, and then just surround the whole thing with steel plate reinforced concrete walls, like a giant hollow Tetris L piece, we could all live with it.

    The problem with mine fields is when they are unmarked or in an area with unrestricted access.

    No one is going to accidentally stumble through a 20 ft tall and 4?( I don’t know the physics of how wide it would have to be compared to tall to be an effective wall here. Leverage is a bitch like that) ft wide wall.

    That would have to be an intentional incursion.

    That stops all of 10/7, except the paragliders, and they wouldn’t stand a chance without ground troops.

    Air support can not hold ground, that requires boots on the ground.

    Shit, we could even get a UN fund to build the wall, and the U.S. to supply the land mines, I think it is just us and North Korea that even have a good stockpile after russia used all of theirs.

    Glytch ,

    Atrocities of the past don’t excuse modern day atrocities. Your whataboutism is meaningless.

    dragonflyteaparty ,

    So you ignore the question?

    Rediphile ,

    Which question?

    rivermonster ,

    They’ve done it to Hamas, yes, and Hamas has done it to the civilian population of Gaza who latest poll still has 57% majority support of the population.

    Proving war crimes and genocide is way more nuanced than a 5 minute internet armchair google might lead you to believe.

    If Hamas was NOT hiding amongst the civilians who majority support them, it’d be MUCH easier to prove your assertion.

    OccamsTeapot ,

    Proving war crimes is super easy when Israel announces them. E.g. cutting off food and water to Gaza? Collective punishment aka a war crime.

    You might want to think it’s all so complicated so Israel doesn’t look like an irredeemable piece of shit country, but it’s not and everybody watching what is happening objectively can see it all perfectly clearly.

    rivermonster ,

    You wouldn’t be able to prove war crimes there u less you could prove the absence of Hamas. And then you’d be right if that were the case.

    Cutting off supplies to Hamas is what’s happening. Hamas is choosing to force the civilians to suffer. You’re right. We should condem Hamas and get rid of those monsters for what they’re doing.

    OccamsTeapot ,

    Never mind. I’m not sure you’re willing to listen.

    small44 ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    jalda ,

    No. It’s a conflict in a highly urbanised area with one side (hint: Israel) deliberately bombing targets to cause as many civilian casualties as they can

    www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-…

    sailingbythelee ,

    You aren’t very up-to-date on modern warfare if you think Israel is trying to cause as many civilian casualties as possible.

    Fareed Zakaria reported this past weekend that Israel has the dropped the equivalent tonnage of two nuclear bombs on Gaza and 18,000 people have died. Yes, of course that’s bad, but two actual nuclear bombs, or the equivalent tonnage dropped indiscriminately, would probably have killed hundreds of thousands. They obviously aren’t trying to kill as many civilians as possible. The hyperbole isn’t helpful.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    Because if you do it slow, people like you won’t notice, until it’s too late, and then you’ll just say that we should forgive them because it’s in the past

    They said they’re keeping Gaza.

    rivermonster ,

    No, he’s saying they could have removed ALL of Gaza without any invasion, IF they didn’t care about avoiding civilian casualties.

    Pretending they’re intentionally trying to murder civilians like the elected government of Gaza did in October is disingenuous.

    If Israel were intentionally targeting civilians, they’d have killed WAY more than 18,000–by literally magnitudes.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    Because if you do it slow, people like you won’t notice, until it’s too late, and then you’ll just say that we should forgive them because it’s in the past

    rivermonster ,

    The faster we can kill every member of Hamas, the better. The sooner we can ease the suffering of the Palestinians being used by Hamas, the better.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    Would you say the same if your mother or child was one of those people killed in collateral damage to something they had nothing to do with?

    rivermonster ,

    If someone pulled an October attack on me and killed my family, there would be no safe haven for them anywhere.

    If someone pulled a Hamas on my family intentionally drawing fire to them and getting them killed, same thing. No safe haven.

    NoIWontPickaName ,

    That’s not what I asked.

    I asked how you would feel if your mother or child, who had nothing to do with it; got killed because of someone else’s hard on for revenge.

    So, I ask you again, if your family has nothing to do with the situation, but gets killed anyway, you would be OK with that because someone else is getting their revenge right?

    rivermonster ,

    I hope the attached link helps you to learn to debate in good faith instead. Have a great day!

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Rediphile ,

    Doesn’t seem vastly different from the firebombing of German cities by the Allies.

    War is horrible. But it isn’t always genocide.

    Glytch ,

    Atrocities of the past don’t excuse modern day atrocities. Your whataboutism is meaningless.

    Rediphile ,

    Many would argue those atrocities of the past were justified.

    Do evil things to prevent greater evil. If you disagree with that, that’s totally ok too. But what would you have had the Allies do in WWII? Just like, lose?

    Rediphile ,

    I literally said war is horrible. I’m not at all saying it’s a happy fun thing we should strive towards.

    Maggoty ,

    War is horrible enough without war crimes. We don’t need to juice it

    rivermonster ,

    This is not a popular opinion around worldnews where even in this thread there’s apologists trying to justify the initial terrorist attack by Gaza’s elected Hamas group.

    wewbull ,

    Those are all war crimes by today’s standards. We looked at what we’d done and realised it was wrong.

    Rediphile ,

    So then the bombing of Dresden was genocide?

    wewbull ,

    Certainly a war crime. Yes.

    Rediphile ,

    So then it isn’t vastly different. Yes?

    rivermonster ,

    One of the worst war crimes of all this has been Hamas operating from civilian areas and buildings. Co-locations strip locations of their protected status and make them legitimate targets by international law.

    One of the worst crimes that can be committed is co-location. The CIA has done it too with medical groups around the world… and those agents and anyone in that chain of command should also be charged with war crimes.

    rivermonster ,

    No, it’s a response to the elected and majority supported government of Gaza’s war crimes in the horrible October terrorists attacks. It’s unfortunate for the 43% who don’t support hamas that the rest of Gaza shelters and supports them.

    Leaving Gaza’s government’s attack unanswered would have just encouraged them more. Now, they will be wiped out as they should be.

    reverendsteveii ,

    who started this escalation

    that’s a very careful phrase, that. “this escalation” as though everything was fine back when millions of people were living in an open air prison and the flow of food, water and people was controlled by an adversarial foreign power that was denying them basic human rights, and the problem only started when someone who isn’t any of them committed a terrorist attack. “Look what they made me do to you” is the language of a narcissistic abuser.

    rivermonster ,

    When you justify a deliberate war crime by the Gaza government, when you align yourself with terrorists and apologize for them and grasp for justifcations… that’s a VERY bad place to be.

    It’s good that people who are being radicalized and express support for terrorists are being tracked.

    chitak166 ,

    🥱

    The problem with the word ‘terrorism’ is it makes you seem like you’re immediately the good guy and anyone who disagrees with you is a bad guy. Even if the “good guys” are killing 10x as many civilians as the “terrorists.”

    More people are waking up to these tactics, so they are becoming less effective. You’re going to have to come up with a new strategy in the future.

    rivermonster ,

    A lot of people need to wake up and realize that evaluating conflicts based on uneven casuality numbers is super sick and poorly thought out.

    That it’s the driver for so much mistaken hostility speaks volumes.

    chitak166 ,

    So… the numbers don’t matter.

    Are you a Zionist by any chance?

    rivermonster ,

    The logical corollary to “oh this is awful, one side is taking way more casualties,” is to say “it’s much more acceptable now that both sides are more even casualties.”

    Do you understand why this is morally and ethically bankrupt?

    chitak166 ,

    I’m sorry, I’m not going to indulge your mental gymnastics just so you can avoid holding the IDF accountable.

    Rooskie91 ,

    How does it feel to be a modern day Holocaust denier? I’m sure the Germans felt they were only waging war against minorities as well.

    rivermonster ,

    The downvotes from the Hamas supporters are a badge of honor. It’s Gaza’s elected terrorist government and has 57% support from Gaza residents according to the latest pole.

    Always be a threat to Nazis and terrorists, and wear downvotes and bans with honor!

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Sure, casualities can’t be avoided in war, but why in this particular war have there been literally thousands of children killed in a matter of two months? Innocent people killed at a rate unimaginable when compared to any conflict currently.

    chitak166 ,

    ignoring who started this escalation

    Israel has killed more civilians in Gaza every year before the Hamas attack.

    utterly and inexcusably barbaric attack on innocent civilians.

    Israel has killed at least 10x as many civilians as Hamas since the beginning of the attacks.

    Slotos ,

    “Who started it” might work in kindergarten. Might.

    Israel response is disproportional. It is also a single leaked document or an accidentally honest statement away from showing a clear genocidal intent. For now you could argue that it’s a sparkling ethnic cleansing.

    Hamas being open about its genocidal intentions doesn’t render Israel indisputably good.

    dpkonofa ,

    How exactly do you determine “who started it”? Is it based on who attacked first? Is it based on who killed the most people? How are you determining who started this escalation to be so sure?

    cyborganism ,

    I think they’re this close from losing support from every western nation. Keep protesting. Let your representatives know you don’t support this genocidal aggression against Palestine.

    nova_ad_vitum ,

    Israel can never really lose US government support. It’s too well entrenched. The most they’ll ever get is lukewarm support instead of full throated support (while military and financial aid is unimpeded in either case) and even that Israel will call antisemitic.

    cyborganism ,

    Of course. But they might stop sending military equipment until Israel gets its act together. At least I hope.

    sailingbythelee ,

    I think you are over-estimating the anger at Israel in the West. Sure, polls show that a majority of people want a ceasefire. And, of course, people want Israel to minimize civilian casualties. That’s just common human decency.

    But war is basically entertainment when you are watching it on TV from thousands of miles away and it isn’t personallly costing you anything. It has always been that way. Therefore, in reality, the average work-a-day adult in the vast majority of the world doesn’t give a shit about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in the most abstract way.

    It comes down to media and drama, I think. Everybody supported Ukraine when the conflict was fresh and dramatic and the Russians were on the run. Most people still support Ukraine, of course, but now that the conflict has bogged down and is getting less interesting media coverage, people are less interested. Israel and Palestine have captured the media’s interest now and there are lots of human interest stories to mine for clicks, but that will die down soon enough. All the drama of the Trump situation and the 2024 election season is just around the corner. Plus, some other conflict may grab our attention. China is getting pretty aggressive with the Philipinnes. Venezuela might invade Guyana, right in the US’s backyard. So many potentially dramatic events could draw media attention away.

    As long as Israel mouths the right platitudes about minimizing civilian casualties and rooting out Hamas terrorists, they’ll be fine with the vast, vast majority of adults, not just in the West, but world-wide.

    Linkerbaan ,
    @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    BNE ,
    @BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    If this weren’t a global moment of systemic realization - sure. From a cynical, “always bet on the null” perspective, sure, but I can’t agree it boils down to drama.

    Something deeper is happening. I’m seeing people who I know for certain wouldn’t know the context of/around settler-colonialism start to synthesize that information into their own national and local contexts.

    Something is happening. People are learning - I don’t think the genie is going back in the bottle. Thank god. All that’s left is for people to learn how simple individual praxis can be to start doing and suddenly we’re looking at something very, very wide.

    sailingbythelee ,

    I do agree that there is a major change happening. In my own culture, the former British colonies of Canada, USA, Australia, and New Zealand are all engaging in various forms of truth and reconciliation with their indigenous populations, and that coming-to-terms affects how we perceive the rest of the world. I’m sure this is true in other countries as well.

    I would note, however, that this may be closer to the end of a process than the beginning. I don’t know that for a certainty, but I think back on the post-WW2 era when America refused to support efforts by Europeans to maintain control of British, Dutch and French overseas colonies. The anti-colonialist project has been underwayfor some time. One can’t help but wonder if the self-reflection required to address problems at home comes only after criticizing others, and that’s what I mean by being possibly closer to the end of a process. Anyway, that’s a tangent.

    Back to current events. As you say, I certainly felt like something was happening during the Arab Spring. I certainly felt like something was happening when we all rallied behind Ukraine after being invaded by imperialist Russia. I felt like something was happening when the Hong Kong democracy protests were in full swing and the world was interested. In all of those cases, autocracy has the upper hand again and the support of Western democracies is cooling off. Also, technology may be favoring the authoritarians rather than the democrats.

    I agree with you that the genie doesn’t go back in the bottle with regard to awareness of injustice. That is a major achievement that I do not wish to downplay. But the examples above and the waning of enthusiasm to support these causes once they start to falter is what makes me a bit cynical about what we call people’s “attention span”. There does seem to be a pattern to these events similar to a dramatic arc. If the novel gets bogged down in the middle and we don’t reach the climax in a reasonable amount of time, our attention wanders and we look for a new book, so to speak. Yes, that’s cynical when applied to real events and I hope I’m wrong, but you probably see where I’m coming from.

    Israel-Palestine is just not clear cut enough for most people and there is no realistic solution. Israelis and Palestinians appear to be locked in a perpetual conflict and, morally, they trade sides as to who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy.”

    In terms of force, Palestine can’t end it because they lack the means. Israel can’t end it because they can’t get away with mass killing or deportation for too long. As they say, the world opinion clock is always ticking once Israel launches a new offensive. In terms of diplomacy, it always comes back to the two-state solution. Maybe that will work out someday but no one is holding their breath.

    In the meantime, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that the governments of the world, and the vast, vast majority of their people, watch Israel-Palestine mostly with a view towards containment and not letting an actual gas-chamber level genocide happen. Outside of that, we all know that injustice happens every day all over the world (see my examples above), and there is apparently little we can (or will) do about it. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a classic and proven quagmire with no realistic solution unless the Israeli and Palestinian populations want one enough to make major compromises. They aren’t in that state now and haven’t been for at least 15 years (some would say they have never been in that state). Thus, I predict that the world will do little, little will change in terms of the fundamental dynamics of the conflict, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will go back to more-or-less the status quo. I am happy to hear counter-arguments.

    ghostdoggtv ,

    Wym, it’s only getting worse in Gaza day after day. Israel have totally fucked themselves.

    Rapidcreek ,

    Betcha they draw down in a matter of weeks, not months

    lnxtx ,
    @lnxtx@feddit.nl avatar

    Goals must be achievable.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •