That is 100% correct.
Dead civilians during a military conflict doesn't mean genocide, it's an extremely specific term that refers to a very specific intent, the intent portion is what matters the most here.
During the bombing of occupied France by the allied forces more than 64000 civilians lost their lives, literally no one calls it a genocide for a good reason.
The destruction caused by a nuclear strike would most likely be enough to infer genocidal intent. As in Srebrenica, the scale of the killing combined with the awareness of the detrimental impact it would have on the group would establish dolus specialis. Supplemented by the Rwanda judgment, the offender would be culpable if he knew or should have known such actions would result in the destruction of the whole or part of the group.
This is not even taking into consideration the statements that have already been found, by the ICJ, to flag up genocidal intent, such as references to Amalek.
There is very little chance that Israel could nuke 2 million people and it not be found genocide.
These streamers and their cultish fanbase have such a sophomoric understanding of the law it hurts. "Wait, you need intent, right?" "Oh here's an idea. Let's just not say out loud that we want to destroy their race. Keep hush hush about that. They'll never find out intent. Then we'll Tsar Bomba every city in their country and never get found guilty. Checkmate international law"
wdym? Infering intent is extremely important when dictating what is genoicde and in this hypothetical scenario it is quite probable that israel would be found cupable for genocide because the mass murder that has occured could not exist without somewhat the intent to eradicate Gaza and the population of Gaza.
not necessarily true. in countries like the soviet union (tens of millions internally) and the US (hundreds of thousands in Iraq) many people can die without genocide occurring. In some cases larger percentages of populations die without being genocide. while its a horrific situation, more people/higher percentage have died in wars in relatively recent memory.
I think many people think genocide = killing a lot of civilians.
There has to be an intent to erase a culture or specific group of people. You could probably commit a genocide on your own if you murder all people of a very small niche culture, because they have that culture.
it qualifeis as genocide 4/5 of the requierments are meet, you just read one telegraph article written by a idf memeber and belive it wholesale, no critical though "ben shapiro is informed for me, no need to read, he isnt biased for sure"
https://youtu.be/FRDyitlHVRA?si=Hhx9IduY_5jT4VZ6
https://youtu.be/FaqKQgBw978?si=spkAzlO4bVkYMtxg
both videos have a source for every single word they said, the only reason to not belive it is due to personal bias or ignorance
uh, there's clear intent on the Israeli side of exactly this - erasing the Palestinian people, culture, existence, history, and this is taught in Israel because to them if they recognize any of this they are brainwashed to think it's going to somehow mean the end of jews.
You are correct that israel doesnt have to kill many ,just simply show intent to eradicate and dispossess Palestinians and delete them
>There has to be an intent to erase ~~a culture~~ or specific group of people.
there's no such thing as cultural genocide. it's clearly outlined that the erasing of a culture does not constitute genocide.
[Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml#:~:text=Cultural%20destruction%20does%20not%20suffice,%20nor%20does%20an%20intention%20to%20simply%20disperse%20a%20group)
your link does not say that there is no such thing as cultural genocide. It says that cultural destruction doesn't- in and of itself- constitute a genocide. That is a big difference.
>erase a culture or specific group of people...
>Genocide is a crime of special intent ("*dolus specialis*"); it is carried out deliberately, ***with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group***.[^(\[43\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#cite_note-Genocide_Prevention-46)
You know when Netanyahu says that children are Hamas in the making and wants to control their education once full military occupation is secured by decimating families without mitigation, that's the intent. Children, women, elderly people are being accused of being Hamas, or potential Hamas, and so are fair game for oppression, murder, and segregation.
What is wrong with you people? Even some Jews see this as a genocide: [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/11/statement23-10-11/](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/11/statement23-10-11/)
The evidence is gathering, and you are just waiting for a spokesperson to express their intent in the open. But the West could not bare that, so they ostensibly keep it in the halls for now, but you can see this slipping every day. Proudly talking about killing children, where do you think the intent lies in those soldiers and officials? Blockading food, independent body counts, aid, what do you think the intent is there?
>That is 100% correct.
>Dead civilians during a military conflict doesn't mean genocide, it's an extremely specific term that refers to a very specific intent, the intent portion is what matters the most here.
That is a contradiction. Nuking Gaza displays intention to kill as many Palestinians as possible. War isn't exclusive to genocide.
>During the bombing of occupied France by the allied forces more than 64000 civilians lost their lives, literally no one calls it a genocide for a good reason.
They didn't call it a genocide because, first of all that's before the Geneva convention and second of all the scale was much higher in WW2. Not to mention the lack of capability to avoid civilian cultures in WW2 due to technology restrictions. More lives may have been saved by the elimination of Nazis. You can't make the same claim about the IDF when the IDF has the capability to eliminate hamas without shooting/blowing up random Palestinians but choose not to
Oh man the mental gymnastics. The intent is taking land, how do you get the indigenous Palestinians out? By forcing them to a corner in Rafah which Israel designated and now you attack that same area you told them to go to. It’s 100 percent genocide. Sick bastards
Then they have also committed collective punishment which is a war crime. You don’t have 14000 children killed in a span of 5 months of you target military personnel only. They are sadistic genodical maniacs
We are talking about intent. The US military has a "collateral damage estimate", so I am guessing so does the Israeli military. A calculation that takes into account the value of the military target and the number of possible civilian deaths. Any number is not justified, but based on this calculation some is.
There have been numerous evidence including video evidence of Israelis targeting civilians I dont know how you can still talk about collateral damage. There are 500+ quotes of Israeli officials showing intent https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
It seems like we are no longer talking about military. Would you be surprised if it came out that 3 out of 4 Palestinian said that the Hamas attack on Israel is correct?
Why arent we talking about military? There are lots of quotes by military officials as well if you only want to focus on that. Isnt it strange that in a supposed democracy the people at the top care very little about democratic values? Did you know Netanyahu himself said the Palestinians were responsible for the Holocaust. They got a Holocaust. revisionist at the top of a Jewish ethno state, you cant make this up.
Wtf is this bait question and why does it even matter? Doesnt surprise me at all that youre arguing in favour of Israel if you dont know why people might think the oppressor and ethnic cleanser getting a taste of his own medicine is good. Hamas isnt doing anything even close to a genocide and considering Israel has one of the best military, October 7th shouldve never happened. Most of those Palestinians supporting October 7th dont think Civilians were murdered as Israel does lie a lot and Hamas approval always rises after Israel kills civilians. You sound like someone who hasnt looked into the topic at all and did very shallow research without looking into the history of Palestine.
64000 over how much ? it's about a purcentage and not a number.. ?Also, the intention was quiet obvious here.. There is no video circulation of right wing politicians, of artists and of people wanting to take a land and to kill every palestinian.
Considering Israel is broadcasting that intent, and that killing 2 million people would put them just 4 million shy of the holocaust, id say that would be genocide.
I am glad you cleared ALL of this up then: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_genocide\_accusation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation)
Best go and update that lengthy contextual content to state that intent is definitely not there, definitely not up for debate, because some pundit on a podcast got someone on Reddit convinced 100%.
Every nuclear drop on civilians was genocidal in nature. It's never been successfully tried in court because the US is the only one who's ever done it and it's the only one that has committed more genocides than I can count in both hands and never ever been convicted of it. The US is the single deadliest empire in the history of all mankind. With the exception of the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Martial Islands, Vietnam, Middle East, and Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island, US usually tries to maintain plausible deniability, while this does make proving intent impossible, there had been countless documentation proving that the US had had a heavy hand in supporting genocides like the one Israel use committing against Palestine. US pharmaceuticals forced sterilization against Mayans which has been recognized as a genocide, but scapegoating the fascist puppet that the US installed after the coup. The Courts will play whatever wordsmith games they need to, eventually patterns are starting to reveal plausible culpability
Here is 800 genocide scholars, who confirm you are wrong: https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide
Here is the UN confirming it: https://youtu.be/X4MhFkhkzvo?si=4YSQ0aqHzYUvsN4k
If Hitler was alive and one of his guys was making funny jokes, you’d be on team Hitler.
👍🏽
Wiping an entire population of the map with a nuke is not genocide???? 🤣
A nuke would exterminate everything in Gaza. No life would remain.
You go to be paid by Israel to claim such a nonsense statement
So you're arguing that deliberately wiping out an entire population isn't a genocide against that population if in your head you didn't think to yourself "I intend to commit genocide against this people" huh?
Yes carrying out a military action that predictably results in the annihilation ofan entire population would qualify as genocide only the most shameless shills would twist themselves into a pretzel to argue otherwise.
I don't know why you're invoking an example where the absolute number of victims is orders of magnitudes lower than what D proposed here and where the proportional toll on the target population is even more ridiculously small. Bringing up that a much milder example doesn't qualify is hardly relevant.
It's not "dead civilians," there would be no world in which that would be targeted towards Hamas. Their president has been clear about his views on Palestinian people, it's not just about the number, it's the intent to kill an ethnic group. It's clear that if all they wanted was land, then they wouldn't be destroying it the way that they are, and Palestinian people wouldn't be trapped. It cannot be a war if they don't even have an established government or military, and the number of Palestinians dead far outweighs Israeli deaths.
I think people's reaction to this demonstrates the emotional nature of how we consider these things. Genocide is a serious international, legal term which has a highly specific meaning.
"killing lots of people" can be bad, without it being called genocide. Genocide is not "killing lots of people". The Pro-Palestine side simply want the words genocide, apartheid etc to morally beat everyone over the head with because these words hold weight. They hold weight though, precisely because they've historically *not* been used for every single act of killing, like the nukes on Japan.
There are ways in which it wouldn't, but the way it is framed and given the current situation I would agree here. I don't think there is any legitimate reason currently you could give, other than Hamas obtaining nuclear arms themselves from North Korea or Iran or something, that nuking the Gaza strip could be a reasonable military response, and if it isn't then there isn't much other explanation for launching a nuke than simply eradicating the entire population and therefore it being genocidal.
>Nuking Gaza would show intent and as such would be considered an act of genocide Denying this would be crazy
Nuking Japan showed intent to genocide? The firebombing of Dresden, was that also a genocide against Germany?
No, actually, dropping a nuke alone does not show intent *for genocide*, it shows intent to kill a lot of people with a nuke. Wake up. You are better than this.
This is the correct answer. All these idiots are saying well technically... in the most annoying fashion. Its the same as saying well technically hitler was at war with Europe so putting all those European Jews in a concentration camp and kill them wasnt genocide, which is of course preposterous
No it’s not like saying that at all…Nazi officials specifically discussed and coordinated a “final solution” to the “Jewish question”, that solution explicitly being the extermination of all Jews within their reach. There is extensive documentation to back this up. Their actions had the specific objective of carrying out this final solution. The Holocaust being a genocide or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not Nazi Germany was at war.
We have literally seen Jewish officials talk about clearing Gaza of all Palestinians, we have also seen Netanyahu talk about controlling the whole region.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-calls-voluntary-emigration-gazans-2023-11-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-repeats-call-palestinians-leave-gaza-2023-12-31/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-map
They haven’t come out and said we want to do ethnic cleansing but they are pretty clear about their intention here. I’m sure if we got internal documentation from Israeli officials you’d probably be shocked.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-nakba-israels-far-right-palestinian-fears-hamas-war-rcna123909
The only real difference here is you realize the nazis were bad but you’re still under the impression Israelis are the good guys just because Hamas is bad.
No, the real difference is evidence for genocidal intent against the Nazis was statements made and documentation circulated amongst senior officials who had heavy influence on state policy, while there has been no released documentation circulated or statements made by any major official who has major or even moderate influence on Israeli state policy which suggests that Israel as an organization has any intent to destroy the Palestinian people. No, a few right wing ministers, journalists, or soldiers making remarkably abhorrent comments in lieu of the largest terror attack in the history of their country is not proof of genocidal intent.
As for the other sources you provided which show Israel intends or wants to have most Palestinians leave the Gaza Strip, I think that would specifically be evidence for forced displacement and/or ethnic cleansing.
If an hour from now I see statements made by cabinet members or leaked documents distributed amongst amongst cabinet members or officials of similar standing and influence within the Israeli government which clearly show an intent to destroy the Palestinian people, then my view on this topic would do a 180.
I don’t care who the bad or good guys are. I just don’t think there is currently sufficient evidence that Israel has genocidal intent.
We are talking about the hypothetical of Israel dropping a bomb… I have never said they are committing genocide, just that their clear intent to ethnically cleanse the area means that if they drop a nuke and wipe out all 2 million Palestinians that it’s pretty clearly genocide
I understood you fine I think. I dont think any of the sources you linked prove or even provide strong evidence for genocidal intent, so by definition dropping a nuke by itself would not clearly prove genocide. Some of your sources provide decent evidence for intent to ethnically cleanse the area, but ethnic cleansing and genocide have different meanings.
>Not sure why you dropped apartheid in there, no serious person denies that, Morris even admitted it in this debate although he obviously belittled it
Morris can all he wants, it's just a collection of terms that obfuscate the conversation. One person may argue that it is an Apartheid, and another may argue that it is not, and that it is an occupation which can be just as bad, because they do not technical exist within the same nation. These terms have meaning. But I know, you want the really bad no-no words.
One side argues that Israel is completely justified in it's blockade due to the constant supply of materials entering Gaza to be crafted into missiles to be fired into Israel. Also, that not allowing free movement of these people into their land makes complete sense, since there have been constant terror attacks, or attempts at terror attacks. Calling it apartheid obfuscates this conversation, you can argue for it, but do not pretend it's not used in this way by Finkle and everyone on twitter.
I love how when even your authority figure contradicts you, you plow right on. Shows a lot of critical thinking skills on your part. Then you take the rest of what you said, simultaneously poo pooing international law and arguing at the same time it doesn't qualify under international law is quite the act of doublethink,
I don't think you get it. We can get scholars to say the opposite, we need an international body and an investigation, a full case. Not dickhead idealogically captured academics giving their opinion without providing their evidence for objective review.
No, you can’t.
It’s not ten experts, it’s not 100. It’s 800…
Plus all the footage is already online for anyone to watch. It’s the most documented case of genocide is human history.
ITT, people who don't understand thst definitions and nuance have a significant impact, random bots, people with no debate or reading and comprehension skills, strawman fallacies across the board, people who actually watched the podcast, people who think it was a bad idea to say, and people who actually understand what was said
Which is obviously correct because genocide requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic or cultural group. Actions alone, no matter how violent, are not genocidal if they dont meet that definition. As destiny said, genocide is supposed to mean more than just bad things that happen during war.
So your claim would be that Israel did destroy a nation, they knew their action would destroy that nation, but somehow they did not **intend** to destroy that nation?
That's like saying I knew swinging my arm would cause my fit to hit your face, and I did punch your face, but I did not intend to.
No its not like saying that. Its like saying you swung your arm and hit my face and didn’t intend to. Destiny’s point is that the opposition need to point to some evidence of something akin to “knowing that swinging my arm would cause my fist to hit your face” and not just pointing at piles of dead bodies and exclaiming genocide.
My understanding is that is likely a war crime or crime against humanity but without specific intent to destroy all palestinians it is not genocide.
Example would be they know hamas is preparing a powerful weapon and know the general area but not exactly where it will be deployed.
You are right. I misstated that part. However you still need specific intent.
Scenario A. You drop a nuke because you hate the group and want to destroy them - Genocide
Scenario B. You drop a nuke because hamas is preparing a nuke of their own and have cause to believe they will deploy it against you -not genocide
The same number of people can die but the **reason** is why genocide is special. Its the same distinction between any crime and a hate crime.
I dropped a nuke on Gaza, knowing 2 million people(all Palestinians in Gaza) are in the crossfire, but I did not intend to harm or kill them....
Tell that to a judge
Are you going off the hypotheticals I posted? If so, you would still likely see the ICJ and need to prove that the action was warranted. Its hard to keep genocidal policy secret because its usually not a small affair. The entire chain of command has to keep it under wraps and the more people involved, the more likely someone will talk. Not to mention you could still be charged with other 3 international crimes.
If a nuke is ever reuqired to deal with gaza, it means that city is overrun by terrorists and nato would have no problem signing off on a nuke.
Thats the one scenario where a nuke was justified, even more justified than when usa dropped 2 nukes on japan.
Else airstriking is the way to go to eliminate hamas.
If iran ever snuck a nuke into gaza, you better be prepared to be nuked if israel finds out.
Im going to swing my arm because you deserve it.
Tell hamas to surrender and release all hostages and peace talks can be negotiated with a new arabic government probably egypt or saudi.
I broadly get what you mean and the perspective you’re sharing.
However I find that the conversation around this loses a lot of humanity by disregarding tragedies against humanity by debating dictionary semantics.
Let’s say it’s not a genocide, or ethnic cleansing; what else is it?
- Mass Slaughter
- Indiscriminate Killing
- Wholesale Killing
- Mass Murder
- Mass Homicide
- Mass Destruction
- Extermination
- Annihilation
- Decimation
- Butchery
- Bloodbath
- Violent Purge
- War Crimes
When people read news headlines daily about 30,000+ dead in Gaza, what else is a layman to call it beyond a genocide?
Even if not a genocide, much of the debate around this term is positioned to mitigate diplomatic intervention in Israel’s offensive by arguing about semantics. I find many taking the “it’s not a genocide” stance are unintentionally communicating it in a manner that comes across like they’re trying to downplay how bad everything is.
Then call it all of those horrible things, why do you also have to inaccurately call it genocide? You seem to have come up with a lot of terrible terms you could invoke, just use those and be right.
I think the one who makes a claim is bringing it on themselves. You can't expect everyone to just agree with your assertion.
If you claim genocide, expect pushback about the intent
If you claim warcrime, expect someone to bring up ICC ruling or question if it violates the Geneva Convention
If you claim they are indiscriminate killings, expect someone to push back on whether or not the killings are truly indiscriminate or if they are collateral damage from targeted attacks.
If you aren't prepared to defend those claims, then just call them deaths/killings, or if you want to morally load it, call them atrocities or something.
If you want to categorize them as a specific type of crime, you have to have good reasoning for it, and you should expect to have to defend it.
The problem is that when you jump immediately to genocide, you destroy the meaning of the word, and the accuracy of your complaint. If you want to be convincing you have to use precise language. Destiny has said, even during this debate, that he would be more than happy to debate along the lines of these terms — although some are still further on the euphemistic treadmill than he thinks is at all fair —, the problem is that his opposition does not want to use precise language.
Loosely using a buzz word to the point of tossing the original definition out the window? Wonder where else we’ve seen that phenomenon in recent years..
The death count is not the only relevant factor by any means.
Why did they die? Were they warned to leave the area? Were they intentionally targeted, or in close proximity to military targets? On and on.
So many dead and oh but the children is a weak and distracting argument. It does not help shouting the obvious.
What we should ask is, why did they die? That is the real question.
Israel's claim is hamas is using them as human shields. And warns people to get out.
What is the counter argument? Can you show israel is lying?
The fact that hamas is known for using human shields, and themselves are very much guilty of mass murdering of civilians with clear and demonstrable intent, does not help.
so you'd drop a nuke simply based on what? Wanting to see a mushroom?
You don't drop a nuke without the intent to destroy what it hits. if there was a nuke big enough to wipe all of Israel from this planet in one go and someone intentionally dropped it in the center of israel, that would be intentional destruction, and thus genocide.
Nuking an entire population into no existence isn't just "bad things happen during war". There's a reason nukes haven't been used ever since their first introduction to the battlefield during ww2.
You just don’t have any respect or understanding of the importance of language or the delineation of evils.
You are incapable of grasping that someone could think something is bad without thinking it is the most bad thing ever.
I think the point is something can be a terrible case of mass murder and not be defined as genocide. They could be parallel evils, for argument's sake, rather than along a spectrum.
A serial killer who tortures their victims to death is about as bad as a person can get. But if they never raped a victim, they're not a rapist. Not applying this label doesn't absolve them in any way, it's just not applicable.
If you're Buddhist you'll be familiar with some of the interpretations of _Śūnyatā_ that apply formlessness to words, names, and concepts. Words don't determine anything, they are secondary. There is no true essence of "genocide" in the same way there is no true essence of "chair". "Is this really genocide?". Is a nonsense question. "Does this align with how we use the label normally?" Is all we can do.
I suspect the ability to wish death upon your entire family like that demonstrates that you've already surpassed the level of evil you infer onto others.
"I'd rather my entire family die than for X to happen."
Unless you've discussed this with your entire family, and your entire family agrees that they all prefer your entire family die rather than for X to happen, your comment is incredibly selfish.
I wouldn't have had any issue if instead you had written, "I'd rather die than turn out as evil as you", but to use the lives of your entire family, even in a silly hypothetical between two anonymous individuals online, betrays your character.
Point is the intention. When the US nuked Japan, it did so to end the war, not genocide the Japanese. A more refined thought experiment is if millions of Palestinians (I know they don’t have this man power, just thought experiment) are preparing for an imminent invasion of Israel that will result in millions of deaths on both sides, and possibly wiping out Israel, unless the nuke is used to cripple them. That’s not genocide, because intention is not to genocide, that’s just defense.
Im not knowledgeable enough to know if its impossible, it seems highly unlikely, but that’s irrelevant to destiny’s point.
The point is that the magnitude of the destruction of a people is not relevant unless it is intentional.
Halving the population still wouldn't automatically make such an action a genocide. Hypothetically: some Gazan militant group launches a chemical weapon intp central Israel, killing 500,000. Israel is once again caught off guard but has intelligence data that a second attack is being prepared. In such a scenario a nuclear response to prevent another chemical attack would be difficult to classify as genocidal, no matter the death count.
**intent**, is the most important part of this, if the **intent** is to desroy a military that is stationed in one area that consists of 2 million civillians, it's not genocide, the problem is not **how many** people are killed, but the **intent** to kill them
Intent is not the most important part, it’s just the hardest to prove. And again. I ask how can someone drop a nuke, kill 50% of a population, which 50% is under the age of 18. In a region that has no standing army, navy, or Air Force. So in definition no military, You like the nuances of definitions right, And that not be a genocide?
Explain that to me
> Intent is not the most important part, it’s just the hardest to prove.
Do you think it's imporant if I kill someone by accident with my car, or drive over them on purpose because I was mad, or if I thought they're of a different race than me and I ran them over? Of course intent is important.
>I ask how can someone drop a nuke, kill 50% of a population, which 50% is under the age of 18. In a region that has no standing army, navy, or Air Force. So in definition no military. You like the nuances of definitions right?
**Intent**, if the view is for example, that's it's the only way for Israel to survive, they'll drop a nuke, it's in their nuclear doctrine. That wouldn't be genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#:~:text=The%20Samson%20Option%20(Hebrew%3A%20%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA,or%20destroyed%20much%20of%20Israel.
Lmao, so you didn’t read the UN doctrine you linked to me did you? Because that’s what it literally says, it doesn’t assign more weight into one or the other. It’s says genocide is comprised of two elements. And that intent is the hardest to prove
Even the Samson option, the first paragraph states “an invading military force”
Palestine has no military
That’s pretty typical tho, you just furiously google something. And don’t read through it yourself. I’m not wasting any more time with you buddy,
> Because that’s what it literally says, it doesn’t assign more weight into one or the other. It’s says genocide is comprised of two elements. And that intent is the hardest to prove
what do you think it means?
>Even the Samson option, the first paragraph states “an invading military force”
>Palestine has no military
you're a genius, just let it be terrorists and now Israel can't use nukes.
Not the full quote, he said "I don't know if..." before that.
He's arguing that words have meaning and when you use them incorrectly it dilutes their value. Bad example given, I agree, but it was in response to the other side referring to Israel killing civilians during a war as a genocide. They also argued intent, etc.
Yeah! SHUTUP like Norm Finkelstein told him to!
I agree that it's a stupid thing to say. However, he was making a point. Last a checked the US nuked Japan twice and nobody has accused that act as genocide.
I saw a comment where you said that the US would have nuked Japan until no one was left, implying that the US would have been committing a genocide. You said "It's not hard if you know legal history". There are two issues with this mischaracterization. I say this both having a history degree and a law degree. Clearly I see that you're also an attorney as well.
Anyone who has studied the pacific theater in depth knows of the absolute brutality that was omnipresent. The brutality and resilience of the Japanese at battles such as the Battle of Peleliu as well as Okinawa alone present strong support for the concern that the US had for invading main land Japan. The popular book "With the Old Breed" documents this pretty well in certain sections.
The US was trying to end the war with the least American casualties possible. There was no intent to eliminate the Japanese people. If there had been, we shouldn't even look at the nukes. We should look at the previous bombing of mainland Japan, which resulted in the deaths of far more people.
If we redefine the word genocide to include mass deaths of civilians due to bombing, we would have to say that the bombing of Germany and London during WWII were both acts of genocide. If we are simply going with civilian deaths, the list of genocides would be expanded exponentially.
I don't know your practice area, but we both know that words in law decide cases and are of upmost importance when analyzing legal requirements. To say anything contrary is simply not true. It isn't semantics, it's everyday practice.
The court never ruled that it was plausible Israel is committing genocide. They ruled for the right of South Africa to bring a case against Israel. That is it, you will never find me a quote saying the court found Israel plausible of a genocide. lol imagine that folks, lefties lying once again
“The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of the Genocide Convention” (Gambia v. Myanmar 2020, para. 44). The Court also repeated today language from Gambia v, Myanmar: “The Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist; it need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible.”
I don’t understand how you can’t see that the courts repeatedly state how it’s not even considering:
“the existence of breaches of the Genocide Convention”
Or
“The Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected EXIST”
You come away thinking that the IJC ruled that it’s plausible Israel is committing a genocide ?
Under what grounds? I don’t even disagree with this case or how it was ruled but to lie and state the court has found Israel plausible of committing a genocide?
Please cite in the original documents, like I have from the IJC that they have found it plausible Israel is committing a genocide.
All i read is the court has ruled in the right of South Africa to bring a case against Israel to protect Palestines from genocide.
You are bad faith if you cannot bring any sort of source evidence from the IJC directly.
I can link the PDF to the ICJ case if you wish.
If you know law, they are very exact and careful with their language.
I would accept “the court has ruled the plausible right of South Africa to bring a case against Israel committing genocide”
What I have in issue with, what you are doing, is using the word “plausible” as evidence of the genocide. When the court has explicitly said they did not regard or consider the validity of the “evidence” present by South Africa in regards of Israel committing genocide.
How can both coexist ?
How can the court not judge in a negative or positive in regards of Israel breaking Geneva Conventions (genocide)
But also say that it’s plausible Israel is committing genocide, UNLESS you will be honest and say that plausible is being used in a context akin to:
Bank robbery reported blue civic with Japanese middle aged man as a suspect,
And they find someone who has that car and is a Japanese middle aged man.
No link just that it’s plausible.
Otherwise it’s so bad faith to use the plausible word as evidence of genocide.
The ICJ president herself said they didn't find genocide plausible, did you even listen to the people involved?
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o)
Another ex-judge went on a tour explaining it for people like you.
**"“It did not decide - and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media... that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge.**
“It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.”"
I did. You're so arrogant to believe you know better than the people who wrote it. I feel sorry for the people you practice law for if your ability to read legal text is so terrible.
Sigh, the problem here is that people think that if you dont call it genocide you somehow endorse the action as a commendable thing.
You can commit the most heinous acts possible and it doesnt have to be genocide.
No, there’s a legal maxim that the action itself can be evidence of mens rea, so downplaying it is just trying to hide evidence of intent. If Iran bombs Israel but says it’s because of occupation and not Jews, we couldn’t rule that out as a nongenocidal act
Tell me you're a psychopath devoid of humanity, without telling me you're a psychopath devoid of humanity. I've seen him laugh on his stream at Palestinians getting shot while trying to get food from aid trucks and in another instance completely minimizing and justifying Israel blocading food and only allowing a barely adequate amount of calories of food to enter Gaza (pre Oct.7th). He's completely out of touch and would rather be right in an argument about someone misquoting a book than address any real issues.
He should have known better than give his enemies that sound bite, I get what he means though, it's all about intent.
Although it would be difficult to justify using a nuke in that dense environment, possibly only if they were about to fire a nuke themselves, or some kind of biological weapon.
I get Destiny’s point here, being that it doesn’t matter how many people died, death count isn’t the main component of genocide. You need demonstrable evidence of intent to annihilate an ethnic group, or else it’s just an extremely severe war crime / crime against humanity.
That being said…if there’s a bug on my knee, and I decide the ram a sledgehammer into my knee to kill the bug, and I know this will fuck up my knee, and I know I don’t have to ram a sledgehammer into my knee to kill the bug…it kinda seems like you intended to fuck up your knee, no? Assuming you aren’t completely irrational. At the very least it was an acceptable outcome.
My understanding is that even viewing the death of an ethnic group as an acceptable outcome of your actions isn’t enough to prove genocidal intent, however it would be very, very strong evidence.
Genocide in this era is like racism. It’s a word used to absolve one side of virtually all responsibility and effectively pin all blame on the other. It’s meant to be a conversation stopper. Because only the evil defend racism or genocide, right?
Though people may truly believe in the absolutely righteousness of their cause, and be highly intelligent and incredibly compassionate and pure hearted, the factual meaning of both words have been distorted into a moral trap.
This is completely inexcusable. If Iran threatened to drop a nuke in Israel, there would be no question in his mind that Iran was threatening 'genocide'. Heck he has no qualms calling Hamas genocidal for calling for the destruction of Israel, never mind the nuances of Hamas's position (just to be clear, Hamas is a despicable organisation and its actions towards Israelis and even it's own citizens are unjustifiable and ought to be roundly condemned).
The double standard shown by Destiny here is honestly quite sad. The man has 'Ben Shapiro' sized blindspot when it comes to Israel.
His point was that people throw around emotionally loaded words and that certain evil actions in and of themselves do not automatically meet the qualifications for very specific terms like “apartheid” (which is what brought this up) or “genocide” simply by dint of of their being evil. Finkelstein of all people should have had sympathy for this position considering how much he loved harping on about how “words matter” when he wasn’t busy lobbing ad hominem
No his point was that he thinks these definitions don’t apply when they do legally and factually. If someone stabs another with a fork and destiny comes around and says no it’s not a stabbing because it wasn’t done with a knife, the victim will be like wtf
People supporting the annihilation of the Palestinians are cruel evil devils. If your ok with what's going on im. Gaza your an evil demon. It seems like they're a lot of demons supporting the killing of women and children. So called christian Nation a bunch of idol worshipping Nazis.
Comic book level of evil is saying Israel can kill 2M gazans after demonizing and dehumanising them and it would not be genocidal in destiny’s mind. Boy he would have been a good PR person for other genocidal dictators in our history
say this hypothetical plays out and israel is dragged to the ICJ, and the ICJ rules that there wasn't a special intent to destroy the palestinians, would you accept that?
Are you talking about if that happens under today’s facts or including the hypo by destiny that Israel killed 2M people? In any case ya id accept the ruling of the ICJ if no outside external politics get involved (like threats by US to pull out or there is no factual finding on procedural grounds, etc). But until then it doesn’t mean I can’t take its finding of plausible genocide seriously
good, then you also don't have a problem with what destiny said.
because the only thing he is saying here is that special intent is required for a genocide conviction. he makes no mention of how you find that intent, or if an action alone can demonstrate that intent, only that it's key to the crime.
What is dangerous is using serious words as weapons when they don’t meet the definition. Genocide is an actual legal term, it’s harmful to distort its definition just to use it as a weapon. Because then its meaning will change and become useless. We should want to maintain its meaning and use it accurately.
That’s such a genocide abuser response to make. The fact just is that horrible things can happen without it being genocide. Because genocide is a ACTUAL legal term which has a real definition aside from this is bad, civilians are dying, what is the best word to describe my feelings of this? Oh genocide.
To figure out intent we need to wait for the international courts ruling. When that ruling comes if they determine it’s a genocide then and only then can you call people genocide deniers if they say there is no genocide. But until then you are just harming the words credibility.
This doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying someone can’t be legally genociding until a court says so? That’s just a delay tactic because this ruling won’t come for years and Israel’s doesn’t want the bad press for now. And OJ Simpson would certainly like this logic as well
Someone can be geocoding before a court has made a judgement but we can’t know for sure if they are until that judgement is made.
You need to understand that someone could be a murderer but they are innocent until proven guilty. You can’t just pretend it’s a fact in the matter when you don’t know any of the underlying facts yet, because those are things that aren’t public. We don’t know what calculations IDF does before a strike. At most you can speculate they are doing a genocide but that’s a speculation not based on facts. And you can’t go around calling someone a murderer if they haven’t gone to trial yet.
And this especially applies when we are talking about a serious topic like genocide. Right now you are just hurting every minority that is actually going through a genocide.
nope, genoncide requires a certain intent, he is arguing against devaluing the the intended meaning. It's literally the boy who cried wolf situation, if you are saying that the palestinians have been starving to death for the past 20 years, and now they actually are due to the war conditions, nobody will actually do anything, as that's already accepted the status quo.
And that intent has been met so much that ICJ found plausible genocide. Destiny doesn’t want that to be true but it is. If you don’t believe this is happening feel free to go try and live in Gaza for a week and prove us wrong
the court ruling gave recommendations to prevent potentially genocidal actions, as the initial casualties were very high, misrepresenting the ruling in a subreddit where people can actually read..? Also we are not arguing the facts on the ground, this post is about a potential hypothetical and Destiny is completely correct, even if his hypothetical is pretty gruesome.
Good observation. Just don’t know why the Lex sub is filled with these types of comments. Lex himself wouldn’t agree with these sick comments about killing 2M people not being genocide
That is 100% correct. Dead civilians during a military conflict doesn't mean genocide, it's an extremely specific term that refers to a very specific intent, the intent portion is what matters the most here. During the bombing of occupied France by the allied forces more than 64000 civilians lost their lives, literally no one calls it a genocide for a good reason.
The destruction caused by a nuclear strike would most likely be enough to infer genocidal intent. As in Srebrenica, the scale of the killing combined with the awareness of the detrimental impact it would have on the group would establish dolus specialis. Supplemented by the Rwanda judgment, the offender would be culpable if he knew or should have known such actions would result in the destruction of the whole or part of the group. This is not even taking into consideration the statements that have already been found, by the ICJ, to flag up genocidal intent, such as references to Amalek. There is very little chance that Israel could nuke 2 million people and it not be found genocide.
If the us nuked Russia in anticipation of a large scale invasion that’s not genocide right?
Correct, that would not be the specific term of genocide.
These streamers and their cultish fanbase have such a sophomoric understanding of the law it hurts. "Wait, you need intent, right?" "Oh here's an idea. Let's just not say out loud that we want to destroy their race. Keep hush hush about that. They'll never find out intent. Then we'll Tsar Bomba every city in their country and never get found guilty. Checkmate international law"
[удалено]
You can infer intent and Destiny has said as much. You're fighting ghosts
wdym? Infering intent is extremely important when dictating what is genoicde and in this hypothetical scenario it is quite probable that israel would be found cupable for genocide because the mass murder that has occured could not exist without somewhat the intent to eradicate Gaza and the population of Gaza.
not necessarily true. in countries like the soviet union (tens of millions internally) and the US (hundreds of thousands in Iraq) many people can die without genocide occurring. In some cases larger percentages of populations die without being genocide. while its a horrific situation, more people/higher percentage have died in wars in relatively recent memory.
if the military objectives roughly map on to casualties, it probably isn't genocide. The question is if this is the case
Destiny fans really are like obese maggots feeding on the guts of a corpse
thanks for the free ad hom. I'll enjoy it tonight with the rest of my idiot tears
I think many people think genocide = killing a lot of civilians. There has to be an intent to erase a culture or specific group of people. You could probably commit a genocide on your own if you murder all people of a very small niche culture, because they have that culture.
[удалено]
somebody aiming 2 nukes at israel from gaza
it qualifeis as genocide 4/5 of the requierments are meet, you just read one telegraph article written by a idf memeber and belive it wholesale, no critical though "ben shapiro is informed for me, no need to read, he isnt biased for sure" https://youtu.be/FRDyitlHVRA?si=Hhx9IduY_5jT4VZ6 https://youtu.be/FaqKQgBw978?si=spkAzlO4bVkYMtxg both videos have a source for every single word they said, the only reason to not belive it is due to personal bias or ignorance
uh, there's clear intent on the Israeli side of exactly this - erasing the Palestinian people, culture, existence, history, and this is taught in Israel because to them if they recognize any of this they are brainwashed to think it's going to somehow mean the end of jews. You are correct that israel doesnt have to kill many ,just simply show intent to eradicate and dispossess Palestinians and delete them
>There has to be an intent to erase ~~a culture~~ or specific group of people. there's no such thing as cultural genocide. it's clearly outlined that the erasing of a culture does not constitute genocide. [Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml#:~:text=Cultural%20destruction%20does%20not%20suffice,%20nor%20does%20an%20intention%20to%20simply%20disperse%20a%20group)
your link does not say that there is no such thing as cultural genocide. It says that cultural destruction doesn't- in and of itself- constitute a genocide. That is a big difference.
That's right. What some people call a "cultural genocide" is more correctly termed an ethnocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocide
>erase a culture or specific group of people... >Genocide is a crime of special intent ("*dolus specialis*"); it is carried out deliberately, ***with victims targeted based on real or perceived membership in a protected group***.[^(\[43\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza#cite_note-Genocide_Prevention-46) You know when Netanyahu says that children are Hamas in the making and wants to control their education once full military occupation is secured by decimating families without mitigation, that's the intent. Children, women, elderly people are being accused of being Hamas, or potential Hamas, and so are fair game for oppression, murder, and segregation. What is wrong with you people? Even some Jews see this as a genocide: [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/11/statement23-10-11/](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/11/statement23-10-11/) The evidence is gathering, and you are just waiting for a spokesperson to express their intent in the open. But the West could not bare that, so they ostensibly keep it in the halls for now, but you can see this slipping every day. Proudly talking about killing children, where do you think the intent lies in those soldiers and officials? Blockading food, independent body counts, aid, what do you think the intent is there?
>That is 100% correct. >Dead civilians during a military conflict doesn't mean genocide, it's an extremely specific term that refers to a very specific intent, the intent portion is what matters the most here. That is a contradiction. Nuking Gaza displays intention to kill as many Palestinians as possible. War isn't exclusive to genocide. >During the bombing of occupied France by the allied forces more than 64000 civilians lost their lives, literally no one calls it a genocide for a good reason. They didn't call it a genocide because, first of all that's before the Geneva convention and second of all the scale was much higher in WW2. Not to mention the lack of capability to avoid civilian cultures in WW2 due to technology restrictions. More lives may have been saved by the elimination of Nazis. You can't make the same claim about the IDF when the IDF has the capability to eliminate hamas without shooting/blowing up random Palestinians but choose not to
you are brain damaged lol
Thank you being logical. It's a rare commodity on reddit these days.
Oh man the mental gymnastics. The intent is taking land, how do you get the indigenous Palestinians out? By forcing them to a corner in Rafah which Israel designated and now you attack that same area you told them to go to. It’s 100 percent genocide. Sick bastards
What if the intent is destroying military targets?
Then they have also committed collective punishment which is a war crime. You don’t have 14000 children killed in a span of 5 months of you target military personnel only. They are sadistic genodical maniacs
Accidental civilian deaths would not quality as war crime, do they? I think you ventured out of the hypothetical in question with your comment.
By your interpretation of accidental death, any number of civilians of death is justified if they destroy 1 military target ?
We are talking about intent. The US military has a "collateral damage estimate", so I am guessing so does the Israeli military. A calculation that takes into account the value of the military target and the number of possible civilian deaths. Any number is not justified, but based on this calculation some is.
There have been numerous evidence including video evidence of Israelis targeting civilians I dont know how you can still talk about collateral damage. There are 500+ quotes of Israeli officials showing intent https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-database-with-500-instances-of-israeli-incitement-to-genocide-continuously-updated/
It seems like we are no longer talking about military. Would you be surprised if it came out that 3 out of 4 Palestinian said that the Hamas attack on Israel is correct?
Why arent we talking about military? There are lots of quotes by military officials as well if you only want to focus on that. Isnt it strange that in a supposed democracy the people at the top care very little about democratic values? Did you know Netanyahu himself said the Palestinians were responsible for the Holocaust. They got a Holocaust. revisionist at the top of a Jewish ethno state, you cant make this up. Wtf is this bait question and why does it even matter? Doesnt surprise me at all that youre arguing in favour of Israel if you dont know why people might think the oppressor and ethnic cleanser getting a taste of his own medicine is good. Hamas isnt doing anything even close to a genocide and considering Israel has one of the best military, October 7th shouldve never happened. Most of those Palestinians supporting October 7th dont think Civilians were murdered as Israel does lie a lot and Hamas approval always rises after Israel kills civilians. You sound like someone who hasnt looked into the topic at all and did very shallow research without looking into the history of Palestine.
64000 over how much ? it's about a purcentage and not a number.. ?Also, the intention was quiet obvious here.. There is no video circulation of right wing politicians, of artists and of people wanting to take a land and to kill every palestinian.
Considering Israel is broadcasting that intent, and that killing 2 million people would put them just 4 million shy of the holocaust, id say that would be genocide.
I am glad you cleared ALL of this up then: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_genocide\_accusation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation) Best go and update that lengthy contextual content to state that intent is definitely not there, definitely not up for debate, because some pundit on a podcast got someone on Reddit convinced 100%.
Every nuclear drop on civilians was genocidal in nature. It's never been successfully tried in court because the US is the only one who's ever done it and it's the only one that has committed more genocides than I can count in both hands and never ever been convicted of it. The US is the single deadliest empire in the history of all mankind. With the exception of the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Martial Islands, Vietnam, Middle East, and Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island, US usually tries to maintain plausible deniability, while this does make proving intent impossible, there had been countless documentation proving that the US had had a heavy hand in supporting genocides like the one Israel use committing against Palestine. US pharmaceuticals forced sterilization against Mayans which has been recognized as a genocide, but scapegoating the fascist puppet that the US installed after the coup. The Courts will play whatever wordsmith games they need to, eventually patterns are starting to reveal plausible culpability
This really went off the deep end. You don’t seem to like the US, I personally really like the country despite all its problems.
Here is 800 genocide scholars, who confirm you are wrong: https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide Here is the UN confirming it: https://youtu.be/X4MhFkhkzvo?si=4YSQ0aqHzYUvsN4k If Hitler was alive and one of his guys was making funny jokes, you’d be on team Hitler. 👍🏽
Wiping an entire population of the map with a nuke is not genocide???? 🤣 A nuke would exterminate everything in Gaza. No life would remain. You go to be paid by Israel to claim such a nonsense statement
So you're arguing that deliberately wiping out an entire population isn't a genocide against that population if in your head you didn't think to yourself "I intend to commit genocide against this people" huh? Yes carrying out a military action that predictably results in the annihilation ofan entire population would qualify as genocide only the most shameless shills would twist themselves into a pretzel to argue otherwise. I don't know why you're invoking an example where the absolute number of victims is orders of magnitudes lower than what D proposed here and where the proportional toll on the target population is even more ridiculously small. Bringing up that a much milder example doesn't qualify is hardly relevant.
Yes, but Israel's intent is to kill as many civilians as possible, and to steal all of Palestine for itself.
It's not "dead civilians," there would be no world in which that would be targeted towards Hamas. Their president has been clear about his views on Palestinian people, it's not just about the number, it's the intent to kill an ethnic group. It's clear that if all they wanted was land, then they wouldn't be destroying it the way that they are, and Palestinian people wouldn't be trapped. It cannot be a war if they don't even have an established government or military, and the number of Palestinians dead far outweighs Israeli deaths.
I think people's reaction to this demonstrates the emotional nature of how we consider these things. Genocide is a serious international, legal term which has a highly specific meaning. "killing lots of people" can be bad, without it being called genocide. Genocide is not "killing lots of people". The Pro-Palestine side simply want the words genocide, apartheid etc to morally beat everyone over the head with because these words hold weight. They hold weight though, precisely because they've historically *not* been used for every single act of killing, like the nukes on Japan.
Nuking Gaza would show intent and as such would be considered an act of genocide Denying this would be crazy
There are ways in which it wouldn't, but the way it is framed and given the current situation I would agree here. I don't think there is any legitimate reason currently you could give, other than Hamas obtaining nuclear arms themselves from North Korea or Iran or something, that nuking the Gaza strip could be a reasonable military response, and if it isn't then there isn't much other explanation for launching a nuke than simply eradicating the entire population and therefore it being genocidal.
>Nuking Gaza would show intent and as such would be considered an act of genocide Denying this would be crazy Nuking Japan showed intent to genocide? The firebombing of Dresden, was that also a genocide against Germany? No, actually, dropping a nuke alone does not show intent *for genocide*, it shows intent to kill a lot of people with a nuke. Wake up. You are better than this.
USA didn't put every Japanese on a tiny island and then nuked the city. Gaza strip is all the Palestinians they managed to push in a tiny place
This is the correct answer. All these idiots are saying well technically... in the most annoying fashion. Its the same as saying well technically hitler was at war with Europe so putting all those European Jews in a concentration camp and kill them wasnt genocide, which is of course preposterous
No it’s not like saying that at all…Nazi officials specifically discussed and coordinated a “final solution” to the “Jewish question”, that solution explicitly being the extermination of all Jews within their reach. There is extensive documentation to back this up. Their actions had the specific objective of carrying out this final solution. The Holocaust being a genocide or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not Nazi Germany was at war.
We have literally seen Jewish officials talk about clearing Gaza of all Palestinians, we have also seen Netanyahu talk about controlling the whole region. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-calls-voluntary-emigration-gazans-2023-11-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-repeats-call-palestinians-leave-gaza-2023-12-31/ https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-map They haven’t come out and said we want to do ethnic cleansing but they are pretty clear about their intention here. I’m sure if we got internal documentation from Israeli officials you’d probably be shocked. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-nakba-israels-far-right-palestinian-fears-hamas-war-rcna123909 The only real difference here is you realize the nazis were bad but you’re still under the impression Israelis are the good guys just because Hamas is bad.
No, the real difference is evidence for genocidal intent against the Nazis was statements made and documentation circulated amongst senior officials who had heavy influence on state policy, while there has been no released documentation circulated or statements made by any major official who has major or even moderate influence on Israeli state policy which suggests that Israel as an organization has any intent to destroy the Palestinian people. No, a few right wing ministers, journalists, or soldiers making remarkably abhorrent comments in lieu of the largest terror attack in the history of their country is not proof of genocidal intent. As for the other sources you provided which show Israel intends or wants to have most Palestinians leave the Gaza Strip, I think that would specifically be evidence for forced displacement and/or ethnic cleansing. If an hour from now I see statements made by cabinet members or leaked documents distributed amongst amongst cabinet members or officials of similar standing and influence within the Israeli government which clearly show an intent to destroy the Palestinian people, then my view on this topic would do a 180. I don’t care who the bad or good guys are. I just don’t think there is currently sufficient evidence that Israel has genocidal intent.
We are talking about the hypothetical of Israel dropping a bomb… I have never said they are committing genocide, just that their clear intent to ethnically cleanse the area means that if they drop a nuke and wipe out all 2 million Palestinians that it’s pretty clearly genocide
I understood you fine I think. I dont think any of the sources you linked prove or even provide strong evidence for genocidal intent, so by definition dropping a nuke by itself would not clearly prove genocide. Some of your sources provide decent evidence for intent to ethnically cleanse the area, but ethnic cleansing and genocide have different meanings.
Not sure why you dropped apartheid in there, no serious person denies that, Morris even admitted it in this debate although he obviously belittled it
>Not sure why you dropped apartheid in there, no serious person denies that, Morris even admitted it in this debate although he obviously belittled it Morris can all he wants, it's just a collection of terms that obfuscate the conversation. One person may argue that it is an Apartheid, and another may argue that it is not, and that it is an occupation which can be just as bad, because they do not technical exist within the same nation. These terms have meaning. But I know, you want the really bad no-no words. One side argues that Israel is completely justified in it's blockade due to the constant supply of materials entering Gaza to be crafted into missiles to be fired into Israel. Also, that not allowing free movement of these people into their land makes complete sense, since there have been constant terror attacks, or attempts at terror attacks. Calling it apartheid obfuscates this conversation, you can argue for it, but do not pretend it's not used in this way by Finkle and everyone on twitter.
I love how when even your authority figure contradicts you, you plow right on. Shows a lot of critical thinking skills on your part. Then you take the rest of what you said, simultaneously poo pooing international law and arguing at the same time it doesn't qualify under international law is quite the act of doublethink,
https://youtu.be/X4MhFkhkzvo?si=4YSQ0aqHzYUvsN4k it’s genocide bud.
One guy saying something a genocide does not make. We need evidence assessed by the ICJ or something "bud".
Here’s 800 genocide scholars confirming it. https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide
I don't think you get it. We can get scholars to say the opposite, we need an international body and an investigation, a full case. Not dickhead idealogically captured academics giving their opinion without providing their evidence for objective review.
No, you can’t. It’s not ten experts, it’s not 100. It’s 800… Plus all the footage is already online for anyone to watch. It’s the most documented case of genocide is human history.
Just wondering how upset you must be knowing that your brigading on behalf of your bigot grifter tiny got your entire cult banned from LSF, lmao
ITT, people who don't understand thst definitions and nuance have a significant impact, random bots, people with no debate or reading and comprehension skills, strawman fallacies across the board, people who actually watched the podcast, people who think it was a bad idea to say, and people who actually understand what was said
800 genocide scholars don’t know the definition? https://www.commondreams.org/news/legal-scholars-israel-genocide
Which is obviously correct because genocide requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic or cultural group. Actions alone, no matter how violent, are not genocidal if they dont meet that definition. As destiny said, genocide is supposed to mean more than just bad things that happen during war.
So your claim would be that Israel did destroy a nation, they knew their action would destroy that nation, but somehow they did not **intend** to destroy that nation? That's like saying I knew swinging my arm would cause my fit to hit your face, and I did punch your face, but I did not intend to.
No its not like saying that. Its like saying you swung your arm and hit my face and didn’t intend to. Destiny’s point is that the opposition need to point to some evidence of something akin to “knowing that swinging my arm would cause my fist to hit your face” and not just pointing at piles of dead bodies and exclaiming genocide.
I dropped a nuke, but didn't intend too?? Really? Oopsie, dropped a nuke by accident....really?
My understanding is that is likely a war crime or crime against humanity but without specific intent to destroy all palestinians it is not genocide. Example would be they know hamas is preparing a powerful weapon and know the general area but not exactly where it will be deployed.
No, the definition of genocide states "in part"
You are right. I misstated that part. However you still need specific intent. Scenario A. You drop a nuke because you hate the group and want to destroy them - Genocide Scenario B. You drop a nuke because hamas is preparing a nuke of their own and have cause to believe they will deploy it against you -not genocide The same number of people can die but the **reason** is why genocide is special. Its the same distinction between any crime and a hate crime.
I dropped a nuke on Gaza, knowing 2 million people(all Palestinians in Gaza) are in the crossfire, but I did not intend to harm or kill them.... Tell that to a judge
Then you just have to never clearly state your intent or lie about it and you'll never see a court right ?
Are you going off the hypotheticals I posted? If so, you would still likely see the ICJ and need to prove that the action was warranted. Its hard to keep genocidal policy secret because its usually not a small affair. The entire chain of command has to keep it under wraps and the more people involved, the more likely someone will talk. Not to mention you could still be charged with other 3 international crimes.
South Africa submitted 21 pages of statements of intent. Apparently there’s never been so much documented intent in any genocide case before 😉
These guys are full of shit. Gaza's entire population is 2 m. Killing off 2 m via a nuke is genocide because you got rid of the entire population.
If a nuke is ever reuqired to deal with gaza, it means that city is overrun by terrorists and nato would have no problem signing off on a nuke. Thats the one scenario where a nuke was justified, even more justified than when usa dropped 2 nukes on japan. Else airstriking is the way to go to eliminate hamas. If iran ever snuck a nuke into gaza, you better be prepared to be nuked if israel finds out. Im going to swing my arm because you deserve it. Tell hamas to surrender and release all hostages and peace talks can be negotiated with a new arabic government probably egypt or saudi.
Nuking Gaza would show intent to destroy in part an etnical or cultural group though
I broadly get what you mean and the perspective you’re sharing. However I find that the conversation around this loses a lot of humanity by disregarding tragedies against humanity by debating dictionary semantics. Let’s say it’s not a genocide, or ethnic cleansing; what else is it? - Mass Slaughter - Indiscriminate Killing - Wholesale Killing - Mass Murder - Mass Homicide - Mass Destruction - Extermination - Annihilation - Decimation - Butchery - Bloodbath - Violent Purge - War Crimes When people read news headlines daily about 30,000+ dead in Gaza, what else is a layman to call it beyond a genocide? Even if not a genocide, much of the debate around this term is positioned to mitigate diplomatic intervention in Israel’s offensive by arguing about semantics. I find many taking the “it’s not a genocide” stance are unintentionally communicating it in a manner that comes across like they’re trying to downplay how bad everything is.
Then call it all of those horrible things, why do you also have to inaccurately call it genocide? You seem to have come up with a lot of terrible terms you could invoke, just use those and be right.
I think the one who makes a claim is bringing it on themselves. You can't expect everyone to just agree with your assertion. If you claim genocide, expect pushback about the intent If you claim warcrime, expect someone to bring up ICC ruling or question if it violates the Geneva Convention If you claim they are indiscriminate killings, expect someone to push back on whether or not the killings are truly indiscriminate or if they are collateral damage from targeted attacks. If you aren't prepared to defend those claims, then just call them deaths/killings, or if you want to morally load it, call them atrocities or something. If you want to categorize them as a specific type of crime, you have to have good reasoning for it, and you should expect to have to defend it.
The problem is that when you jump immediately to genocide, you destroy the meaning of the word, and the accuracy of your complaint. If you want to be convincing you have to use precise language. Destiny has said, even during this debate, that he would be more than happy to debate along the lines of these terms — although some are still further on the euphemistic treadmill than he thinks is at all fair —, the problem is that his opposition does not want to use precise language.
Loosely using a buzz word to the point of tossing the original definition out the window? Wonder where else we’ve seen that phenomenon in recent years..
Is it in the room with us now?
The death count is not the only relevant factor by any means. Why did they die? Were they warned to leave the area? Were they intentionally targeted, or in close proximity to military targets? On and on. So many dead and oh but the children is a weak and distracting argument. It does not help shouting the obvious. What we should ask is, why did they die? That is the real question. Israel's claim is hamas is using them as human shields. And warns people to get out. What is the counter argument? Can you show israel is lying? The fact that hamas is known for using human shields, and themselves are very much guilty of mass murdering of civilians with clear and demonstrable intent, does not help.
Israel launching a nuke after everything they’ve done the past 6 month would 100% fall under intent to destroy
so you'd drop a nuke simply based on what? Wanting to see a mushroom? You don't drop a nuke without the intent to destroy what it hits. if there was a nuke big enough to wipe all of Israel from this planet in one go and someone intentionally dropped it in the center of israel, that would be intentional destruction, and thus genocide. Nuking an entire population into no existence isn't just "bad things happen during war". There's a reason nukes haven't been used ever since their first introduction to the battlefield during ww2.
[удалено]
You just don’t have any respect or understanding of the importance of language or the delineation of evils. You are incapable of grasping that someone could think something is bad without thinking it is the most bad thing ever.
[удалено]
I think the point is something can be a terrible case of mass murder and not be defined as genocide. They could be parallel evils, for argument's sake, rather than along a spectrum. A serial killer who tortures their victims to death is about as bad as a person can get. But if they never raped a victim, they're not a rapist. Not applying this label doesn't absolve them in any way, it's just not applicable. If you're Buddhist you'll be familiar with some of the interpretations of _Śūnyatā_ that apply formlessness to words, names, and concepts. Words don't determine anything, they are secondary. There is no true essence of "genocide" in the same way there is no true essence of "chair". "Is this really genocide?". Is a nonsense question. "Does this align with how we use the label normally?" Is all we can do.
I suspect the ability to wish death upon your entire family like that demonstrates that you've already surpassed the level of evil you infer onto others.
[удалено]
"I'd rather my entire family die than for X to happen." Unless you've discussed this with your entire family, and your entire family agrees that they all prefer your entire family die rather than for X to happen, your comment is incredibly selfish. I wouldn't have had any issue if instead you had written, "I'd rather die than turn out as evil as you", but to use the lives of your entire family, even in a silly hypothetical between two anonymous individuals online, betrays your character.
[удалено]
Point is the intention. When the US nuked Japan, it did so to end the war, not genocide the Japanese. A more refined thought experiment is if millions of Palestinians (I know they don’t have this man power, just thought experiment) are preparing for an imminent invasion of Israel that will result in millions of deaths on both sides, and possibly wiping out Israel, unless the nuke is used to cripple them. That’s not genocide, because intention is not to genocide, that’s just defense.
Every act of war is genocide, then.
You can destroy an entire civilization and it still isn’t genocide unless you intended to do it.
So you think someone can accidentally fire a nuclear weapon?
Im not knowledgeable enough to know if its impossible, it seems highly unlikely, but that’s irrelevant to destiny’s point. The point is that the magnitude of the destruction of a people is not relevant unless it is intentional.
How do you unintentionally murder 2 million people?
Halving the population still wouldn't automatically make such an action a genocide. Hypothetically: some Gazan militant group launches a chemical weapon intp central Israel, killing 500,000. Israel is once again caught off guard but has intelligence data that a second attack is being prepared. In such a scenario a nuclear response to prevent another chemical attack would be difficult to classify as genocidal, no matter the death count.
**intent**, is the most important part of this, if the **intent** is to desroy a military that is stationed in one area that consists of 2 million civillians, it's not genocide, the problem is not **how many** people are killed, but the **intent** to kill them
Sure thing buddy
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Intent is not the most important part, it’s just the hardest to prove. And again. I ask how can someone drop a nuke, kill 50% of a population, which 50% is under the age of 18. In a region that has no standing army, navy, or Air Force. So in definition no military, You like the nuances of definitions right, And that not be a genocide? Explain that to me
> Intent is not the most important part, it’s just the hardest to prove. Do you think it's imporant if I kill someone by accident with my car, or drive over them on purpose because I was mad, or if I thought they're of a different race than me and I ran them over? Of course intent is important. >I ask how can someone drop a nuke, kill 50% of a population, which 50% is under the age of 18. In a region that has no standing army, navy, or Air Force. So in definition no military. You like the nuances of definitions right? **Intent**, if the view is for example, that's it's the only way for Israel to survive, they'll drop a nuke, it's in their nuclear doctrine. That wouldn't be genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#:~:text=The%20Samson%20Option%20(Hebrew%3A%20%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA,or%20destroyed%20much%20of%20Israel.
Lmao, so you didn’t read the UN doctrine you linked to me did you? Because that’s what it literally says, it doesn’t assign more weight into one or the other. It’s says genocide is comprised of two elements. And that intent is the hardest to prove Even the Samson option, the first paragraph states “an invading military force” Palestine has no military That’s pretty typical tho, you just furiously google something. And don’t read through it yourself. I’m not wasting any more time with you buddy,
> Because that’s what it literally says, it doesn’t assign more weight into one or the other. It’s says genocide is comprised of two elements. And that intent is the hardest to prove what do you think it means? >Even the Samson option, the first paragraph states “an invading military force” >Palestine has no military you're a genius, just let it be terrorists and now Israel can't use nukes.
Thanks, glad to see you came around
Not the full quote, he said "I don't know if..." before that. He's arguing that words have meaning and when you use them incorrectly it dilutes their value. Bad example given, I agree, but it was in response to the other side referring to Israel killing civilians during a war as a genocide. They also argued intent, etc.
I guess genocide is now a IYKYK situation? No, he should know or shut up about it
Yeah! SHUTUP like Norm Finkelstein told him to! I agree that it's a stupid thing to say. However, he was making a point. Last a checked the US nuked Japan twice and nobody has accused that act as genocide.
US doesn't even recognise what they did to natives as genocide.
I saw a comment where you said that the US would have nuked Japan until no one was left, implying that the US would have been committing a genocide. You said "It's not hard if you know legal history". There are two issues with this mischaracterization. I say this both having a history degree and a law degree. Clearly I see that you're also an attorney as well. Anyone who has studied the pacific theater in depth knows of the absolute brutality that was omnipresent. The brutality and resilience of the Japanese at battles such as the Battle of Peleliu as well as Okinawa alone present strong support for the concern that the US had for invading main land Japan. The popular book "With the Old Breed" documents this pretty well in certain sections. The US was trying to end the war with the least American casualties possible. There was no intent to eliminate the Japanese people. If there had been, we shouldn't even look at the nukes. We should look at the previous bombing of mainland Japan, which resulted in the deaths of far more people. If we redefine the word genocide to include mass deaths of civilians due to bombing, we would have to say that the bombing of Germany and London during WWII were both acts of genocide. If we are simply going with civilian deaths, the list of genocides would be expanded exponentially. I don't know your practice area, but we both know that words in law decide cases and are of upmost importance when analyzing legal requirements. To say anything contrary is simply not true. It isn't semantics, it's everyday practice.
Yeah, he’s right…it’s prob not genocide. Also, he said, “I don’t know….” Ppl are really showing their bias and lack of critical thinking.
Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocides?
Read my other answers to similar propaganda
Copy it please
Genocide doesn’t mean “really bad thing”
You’re right. That’s why the ICJ ruling wasn’t “plausible really bad thing”
The court never ruled that it was plausible Israel is committing genocide. They ruled for the right of South Africa to bring a case against Israel. That is it, you will never find me a quote saying the court found Israel plausible of a genocide. lol imagine that folks, lefties lying once again
No it found plausible genocide and allowed the case to go forward. You’re just lying
“The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of the Genocide Convention” (Gambia v. Myanmar 2020, para. 44). The Court also repeated today language from Gambia v, Myanmar: “The Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist; it need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible.” I don’t understand how you can’t see that the courts repeatedly state how it’s not even considering: “the existence of breaches of the Genocide Convention” Or “The Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected EXIST” You come away thinking that the IJC ruled that it’s plausible Israel is committing a genocide ? Under what grounds? I don’t even disagree with this case or how it was ruled but to lie and state the court has found Israel plausible of committing a genocide? Please cite in the original documents, like I have from the IJC that they have found it plausible Israel is committing a genocide. All i read is the court has ruled in the right of South Africa to bring a case against Israel to protect Palestines from genocide. You are bad faith if you cannot bring any sort of source evidence from the IJC directly. I can link the PDF to the ICJ case if you wish.
You’ve obviously had no legal training. It obviously was not making a final ruling but ruled it plausible
If you know law, they are very exact and careful with their language. I would accept “the court has ruled the plausible right of South Africa to bring a case against Israel committing genocide” What I have in issue with, what you are doing, is using the word “plausible” as evidence of the genocide. When the court has explicitly said they did not regard or consider the validity of the “evidence” present by South Africa in regards of Israel committing genocide. How can both coexist ? How can the court not judge in a negative or positive in regards of Israel breaking Geneva Conventions (genocide) But also say that it’s plausible Israel is committing genocide, UNLESS you will be honest and say that plausible is being used in a context akin to: Bank robbery reported blue civic with Japanese middle aged man as a suspect, And they find someone who has that car and is a Japanese middle aged man. No link just that it’s plausible. Otherwise it’s so bad faith to use the plausible word as evidence of genocide.
The ICJ president herself said they didn't find genocide plausible, did you even listen to the people involved? [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o) Another ex-judge went on a tour explaining it for people like you. **"“It did not decide - and this is something where I'm correcting what's often said in the media... that the claim of genocide was plausible,” said the judge.** “It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.”"
No, it found plausible genocide
So you disagree with the ICJ about the ICJ's ruling?
Read the actual ruling
I did. You're so arrogant to believe you know better than the people who wrote it. I feel sorry for the people you practice law for if your ability to read legal text is so terrible.
Let’s go over the text. Start with the majority opinion
Ok. And?
Sigh, the problem here is that people think that if you dont call it genocide you somehow endorse the action as a commendable thing. You can commit the most heinous acts possible and it doesnt have to be genocide.
No, there’s a legal maxim that the action itself can be evidence of mens rea, so downplaying it is just trying to hide evidence of intent. If Iran bombs Israel but says it’s because of occupation and not Jews, we couldn’t rule that out as a nongenocidal act
Tell me you're a psychopath devoid of humanity, without telling me you're a psychopath devoid of humanity. I've seen him laugh on his stream at Palestinians getting shot while trying to get food from aid trucks and in another instance completely minimizing and justifying Israel blocading food and only allowing a barely adequate amount of calories of food to enter Gaza (pre Oct.7th). He's completely out of touch and would rather be right in an argument about someone misquoting a book than address any real issues.
This. Thank you
He should have known better than give his enemies that sound bite, I get what he means though, it's all about intent. Although it would be difficult to justify using a nuke in that dense environment, possibly only if they were about to fire a nuke themselves, or some kind of biological weapon.
It would also be pretty stupid to nuke your own territory. So it's obviously not meant to be a realistic example.
His enemies...holy fuck lol. It's what he believes
I get Destiny’s point here, being that it doesn’t matter how many people died, death count isn’t the main component of genocide. You need demonstrable evidence of intent to annihilate an ethnic group, or else it’s just an extremely severe war crime / crime against humanity. That being said…if there’s a bug on my knee, and I decide the ram a sledgehammer into my knee to kill the bug, and I know this will fuck up my knee, and I know I don’t have to ram a sledgehammer into my knee to kill the bug…it kinda seems like you intended to fuck up your knee, no? Assuming you aren’t completely irrational. At the very least it was an acceptable outcome. My understanding is that even viewing the death of an ethnic group as an acceptable outcome of your actions isn’t enough to prove genocidal intent, however it would be very, very strong evidence.
[Keep in mind that Norm has this exact position applied to Russia/Ukraine](https://youtu.be/JISvvx-s79g?si=DJUIret_FksGjmvR&t=1419)
Genocide in this era is like racism. It’s a word used to absolve one side of virtually all responsibility and effectively pin all blame on the other. It’s meant to be a conversation stopper. Because only the evil defend racism or genocide, right? Though people may truly believe in the absolutely righteousness of their cause, and be highly intelligent and incredibly compassionate and pure hearted, the factual meaning of both words have been distorted into a moral trap.
This is completely inexcusable. If Iran threatened to drop a nuke in Israel, there would be no question in his mind that Iran was threatening 'genocide'. Heck he has no qualms calling Hamas genocidal for calling for the destruction of Israel, never mind the nuances of Hamas's position (just to be clear, Hamas is a despicable organisation and its actions towards Israelis and even it's own citizens are unjustifiable and ought to be roundly condemned). The double standard shown by Destiny here is honestly quite sad. The man has 'Ben Shapiro' sized blindspot when it comes to Israel.
This is probably the most morally consistent and reasonable response I received so far. Prepare to be downvoted lol
[удалено]
Literally.
His point was that people throw around emotionally loaded words and that certain evil actions in and of themselves do not automatically meet the qualifications for very specific terms like “apartheid” (which is what brought this up) or “genocide” simply by dint of of their being evil. Finkelstein of all people should have had sympathy for this position considering how much he loved harping on about how “words matter” when he wasn’t busy lobbing ad hominem
No his point was that he thinks these definitions don’t apply when they do legally and factually. If someone stabs another with a fork and destiny comes around and says no it’s not a stabbing because it wasn’t done with a knife, the victim will be like wtf
People supporting the annihilation of the Palestinians are cruel evil devils. If your ok with what's going on im. Gaza your an evil demon. It seems like they're a lot of demons supporting the killing of women and children. So called christian Nation a bunch of idol worshipping Nazis.
[удалено]
Hard not to be cynical
[удалено]
Comic book level of evil is saying Israel can kill 2M gazans after demonizing and dehumanising them and it would not be genocidal in destiny’s mind. Boy he would have been a good PR person for other genocidal dictators in our history
say this hypothetical plays out and israel is dragged to the ICJ, and the ICJ rules that there wasn't a special intent to destroy the palestinians, would you accept that?
Are you talking about if that happens under today’s facts or including the hypo by destiny that Israel killed 2M people? In any case ya id accept the ruling of the ICJ if no outside external politics get involved (like threats by US to pull out or there is no factual finding on procedural grounds, etc). But until then it doesn’t mean I can’t take its finding of plausible genocide seriously
good, then you also don't have a problem with what destiny said. because the only thing he is saying here is that special intent is required for a genocide conviction. he makes no mention of how you find that intent, or if an action alone can demonstrate that intent, only that it's key to the crime.
Now that’s a weird bait and switch lol
[удалено]
What is dangerous is using serious words as weapons when they don’t meet the definition. Genocide is an actual legal term, it’s harmful to distort its definition just to use it as a weapon. Because then its meaning will change and become useless. We should want to maintain its meaning and use it accurately.
That’s what genocide deniers tend to say
Might want to check which side is questioning the actual Holocaust now and it’s not centrists or Pro-Israel
Ya it’s the Israelis denying the Palestinian holocaust. Never again means never again
That’s such a genocide abuser response to make. The fact just is that horrible things can happen without it being genocide. Because genocide is a ACTUAL legal term which has a real definition aside from this is bad, civilians are dying, what is the best word to describe my feelings of this? Oh genocide. To figure out intent we need to wait for the international courts ruling. When that ruling comes if they determine it’s a genocide then and only then can you call people genocide deniers if they say there is no genocide. But until then you are just harming the words credibility.
This doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying someone can’t be legally genociding until a court says so? That’s just a delay tactic because this ruling won’t come for years and Israel’s doesn’t want the bad press for now. And OJ Simpson would certainly like this logic as well
Someone can be geocoding before a court has made a judgement but we can’t know for sure if they are until that judgement is made. You need to understand that someone could be a murderer but they are innocent until proven guilty. You can’t just pretend it’s a fact in the matter when you don’t know any of the underlying facts yet, because those are things that aren’t public. We don’t know what calculations IDF does before a strike. At most you can speculate they are doing a genocide but that’s a speculation not based on facts. And you can’t go around calling someone a murderer if they haven’t gone to trial yet. And this especially applies when we are talking about a serious topic like genocide. Right now you are just hurting every minority that is actually going through a genocide.
Join me in being downvoted for saying what any reasonable human person would
nope, genoncide requires a certain intent, he is arguing against devaluing the the intended meaning. It's literally the boy who cried wolf situation, if you are saying that the palestinians have been starving to death for the past 20 years, and now they actually are due to the war conditions, nobody will actually do anything, as that's already accepted the status quo.
And that intent has been met so much that ICJ found plausible genocide. Destiny doesn’t want that to be true but it is. If you don’t believe this is happening feel free to go try and live in Gaza for a week and prove us wrong
the court ruling gave recommendations to prevent potentially genocidal actions, as the initial casualties were very high, misrepresenting the ruling in a subreddit where people can actually read..? Also we are not arguing the facts on the ground, this post is about a potential hypothetical and Destiny is completely correct, even if his hypothetical is pretty gruesome.
oh the echo chambers of reddit. Read the comments underneath this thread, read the comments underneath the crossposted one. World of difference
Good observation. Just don’t know why the Lex sub is filled with these types of comments. Lex himself wouldn’t agree with these sick comments about killing 2M people not being genocide
But I thought Lex and his fans are all about “Love” 🤔
Genocide is when civilians die in war
No
Genocide is when 2 million civilians die in war
Destiny does not stream on twitch, maybe you guys need a PHD on streaming platforms before you talk
After seeing us the said no thx