| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 29 2026 03:18 WombaT wrote: Because people can’t say “it’s not grand” without the compulsion to say “it’s genocide,” apparently. I hate to break it to you about war, but they are generally not “totally grand.”Nah it’s just totally grand to kill tens of thousands of civilians, nothing to see here… | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 03:44 dyhb wrote: Because people can’t say “it’s not grand” without the compulsion to say “it’s genocide,” apparently. I hate to break it to you about war, but they are generally not “totally grand.” Glad we were able to confirm in this post that you're denying the idea that it's genocide in general, and not specifically to criticize Jankisa's ukrainian analogy. So, with that in mind, any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with WombaT and not you? | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 29 2026 05:49 Nebuchad wrote: What survey or analysis are you referring to? I’ve seen specific cases that appear to be motivated by bias and activism. For instance, the divorce in Amnesty International’s Israel chapter, and altering the definition of genocide among some groups. There’s longer articles of criticism if you’re interested. Glad we were able to confirm in this post that you're denying the idea that it's genocide in general, and not specifically to criticize Jankisa's ukrainian analogy. So, with that in mind, any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with WombaT and not you? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 06:22 dyhb wrote: What survey or analysis are you referring to? I’ve seen specific cases that appear to be motivated by bias and activism. For instance, the divorce in Amnesty International’s Israel chapter, and altering the definition of genocide among some groups. There’s longer articles of criticism if you’re interested. I'm refering to a site called google.com where I prompt searches like "opinion of genocide scholars on Gaza" and I get a pretty clear picture of where those opinions lean in return. Here are some examples: https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-finds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocide What are you refering to? | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 29 2026 07:13 Nebuchad wrote: I won’t take the nature of what Google displays to you as a good structure for debate. If you refer to something like the results specifying the IAGS study, then count me sympathetic to the ~70% that didn’t vote. I'm refering to a site called google.com where I prompt searches like "opinion of genocide scholars on Gaza" and I get a pretty clear picture of where those opinions lean in return. Here are some examples: https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-finds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocide What are you refering to? I was reading the nature of the claims when this news story surfaced and resurfaced in 2023-2025. Amnesty International altered its definition to pursue the assignment. Scholarly surveys had a lack of original research. The activist anti-Israel groups leveled claims that were simply cited and repeated. Reliance on poor sources results in poor value. Those are what popped up to me when I examined the why and how of various surveys (as well as aforementioned poor participation.) I don’t think the research is sufficiently developed either to the claim, or to the reason behind the poor state of academic treatment of the subject. Maybe in 5-10 years I’ll know more beyond the obvious bias and activism and rush to judgment. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 08:49 dyhb wrote: I won’t take the nature of what Google displays to you as a good structure for debate. If you refer to something like the results specifying the IAGS study, then count me sympathetic to the ~70% that didn’t vote. I was reading the nature of the claims when this news story surfaced and resurfaced in 2023-2025. Amnesty International altered its definition to pursue the assignment. Scholarly surveys had a lack of original research. The activist anti-Israel groups leveled claims that were simply cited and repeated. Reliance on poor sources results in poor value. Those are what popped up to me when I examined the why and how of various surveys (as well as aforementioned poor participation.) I don’t think the research is sufficiently developed either to the claim, or to the reason behind the poor state of academic treatment of the subject. Maybe in 5-10 years I’ll know more beyond the obvious bias and activism and rush to judgment. Is there something somewhere that leads you to believe that most genocide scholars do not think it's genocide? And if yes, why is that thing in your mind a stronger agregate, and a better structure for debate on the specific question of which way the genocide scholars lean, than Google (and the links you get from Google) is? | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 29 2026 09:00 Nebuchad wrote: Let’s back up a bit. Have you read and understood my criticism of low response rate, missing original research, and over-reliance on claims made by activist organizations? I think the more important aspect is to look at the claims evidence and reasoning, rather than reduce it to some dumb aggregate poll. It’s not like they polled responses on the strength of the available evidence, it was a simple up-down on a proposition. Low response rates skew towards the strongly opinionated, and especially towards the positive statement polled instead of a proper contrasting statement. Is there something somewhere that leads you to believe that most genocide scholars do not think it's genocide? And if yes, why is that thing in your mind a stronger agregate, and a better structure for debate on the specific question of which way the genocide scholars lean, than Google (and the links you get from Google) is? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 09:26 dyhb wrote: Let’s back up a bit. Have you read and understood my criticism of low response rate, missing original research, and over-reliance on claims made by activist organizations? I think the more important aspect is to look at the claims evidence and reasoning, rather than reduce it to some dumb aggregate poll. It’s not like they polled responses on the strength of the available evidence, it was a simple up-down on a proposition. Low response rates skew towards the strongly opinionated, and especially towards the positive statement polled instead of a proper contrasting statement. I'm having trouble parsing your argument. Do you believe that it is wrong to state that the majority of genocide scholars think it is a genocide, or do you believe that the statement is correct, but the genocide scholars are wrong because unlike you their mind is tainted by activism. Those two claims are clashing with each other, and it gives the impression that you want to argue against what I said no matter which logic you have to use, which to me is a sign of dishonest tactics. | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 29 2026 09:51 Nebuchad wrote: I think it’s too early to seek a consensus on strength of evidence and the added value of an academic on genocide sociology and law. The quality of existing polling (within academics) and research (academics prior to quality research has its own issues) is too poor. Yes, it’s a very nuanced opinion and maybe you’ve heard absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm having trouble parsing your argument. Do you believe that it is wrong to state that the majority of genocide scholars think it is a genocide, or do you believe that the statement is correct, but the genocide scholars are wrong because unlike you their mind is tainted by activism. Those two claims are clashing with each other, and it gives the impression that you want to argue against what I said no matter which logic you have to use, which to me is a sign of dishonest tactics. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
On August 29 2026 10:38 dyhb wrote: I think it’s too early to seek a consensus on strength of evidence and the added value of an academic on genocide sociology and law. The quality of existing polling (within academics) and research (academics prior to quality research has its own issues) is too poor. Yes, it’s a very nuanced opinion and maybe you’ve heard absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Well, it was a small sample size and in the poll 72% were missing out. I don't wanna jump to conclusions but I think many people simply don't want to attract the political fire that a "no genocide"-vote could lead to. On August 29 2026 00:18 Jankisa wrote: At this point, any ruling that ICC makes is absolutely tainted by the relentless campaign by Israel and US to discredit it, sanction its judges and attack it and them at every turn. This "analysis" is weird, why would you go over cases which were not ruled Genocide but skip the one that started this thread back up where Mladić was convicted? You go ahead and talk about every crime except the one that actually got a genocide conviction, and then go on to talk about intent, when the intent of Israeli generals and politicians has been very well documented. Yoav Gallant (Former Defense Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister) Isaac Herzog (President) Itamar Ben-Gvir, (National security minister): And those are the prominent ones with cabinet positions, there are many, many much worse ones from Knesset members and other politicians and influential people form Israel. Ah yes, of course, when the ICJ doesn't rule like you expected, it can only mean outside pressure... sure  Mladić is actually a useful example of the A/B -> C distinction: the ICTY found that the Bosnian Serb forces committed mass killings, persecution and forced displacement in numerous municipalities, but did not find genocidal intent there. At Srebrenica, however, the evidence established a specific operation aimed at eliminating the Bosnian Muslim community there, including the systematic separation and execution of men and boys, and the Tribunal concluded that the only reasonable inference was genocidal intent. So the same war, the same perpetrators and enormous atrocities did not automatically equal genocide everywhere; what crossed the threshold at Srebrenica was the additional evidence establishing the specific intent to physically destroy a substantial part of the protected group. That's essentially the point I'm making with A/B -> C: terrible crimes and even mass killing establish neither genocide nor genocidal intent by themselves -the additional mental element has to be demonstrated. This is actually a pretty good example for this important distinction which I don't see in the Gazan conflict. I am not sure if the ICJ will be convinced by these quotes. Gallant's quote was directly following the attacks. As pointed out before, collective punishment does constitute a war crime, not directly genocidal intent. The quote's context was military in fighting Hamas. How do you figure that Netanyahu meant Palestinians as a whole and not only Hamas? If the answer is "I don't know", I am not so sure how you'd want to use it before court. Herzog: Which is true, but doesn't call for an elemination of that group. Ben-Gvir: He also was talking about Hamas and other enemies of Israel. This is how Israel will argue against these quotes or how it already did. I'm not saying these statements are irrelevant. They are potentially important circumstantial evidence, and the Court would have to consider them together rather than individually. My question is whether, taken together with the operational evidence, they establish the specific intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group, rather than an intent to destroy Hamas combined with extraordinarily reckless, disproportionate or unlawful treatment of civilians. You further would need to answer: How much percent of the Knesset is represented by these quotes? Did other politicians condemn these quotes or are they homogenous government policy? Didn't Gallant have significant disagreements with Netanyahu over the conduct of war and post-war governance of Gaza? Why would you even discuss this if your goal was the complete destruction? Are they all from the same time-line? Perhaps post-October 7th, which would add important context? Are these people still in charge or did they have a fall-out? Couldn't any whistleblower in the chain of command leak directives to wipe out entire cities or kill all Palestinians in certain areas? “I absolutely don't give a fuck what happens to civilians while we take out Hamas and heavy atrocities towards civilians are perpetrated” may describe an appalling, reckless and potentially criminal attitude toward civilian life - but it is not genocidal intent. And Israel is even challenging this take, as they have issued warnings, provided aid, etc. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 10:38 dyhb wrote: I think it’s too early to seek a consensus on strength of evidence and the added value of an academic on genocide sociology and law. The quality of existing polling (within academics) and research (academics prior to quality research has its own issues) is too poor. Yes, it’s a very nuanced opinion and maybe you’ve heard absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But we do not have an absence of evidence, actually. We have a bunch of evidence, all pointing in one specific direction. And then we have you on the other side, coming to a different conclusion on where the genocide scholars lean based on, seemingly, nothing at all. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
Is it evidence directed at the government / state or simply individual cases? How many are there? We also have a lot counter-evidence, as I laid out, so no, not everything is pointing in one direction. I mean 72% absentees at the vote you were referencing shouldn't be ignored either. That said, this could ultimately be a dispute between two different concepts: legal genocide and genocide more as a moral institution. Given that genocide was established as the gravest crime under international law, however, I think it's important to clarify whether you (or the people you are referencing) are actually making a claim about the legal classification. If so, could you clarify what specific evidence you consider sufficient to establish that legal conclusion? As so far, I haven't seen you provide anything except 3rd party opinions that haven't been detailed either. I just figured a clarification could potentially solve this exchange, hence another reply. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1842 Posts
I believe it's self evident that the project that Mladić led in Bosnia and the one that IDF is executing in Gaza and West bank has the same underlying malice, it's motivated by hatred and it's goal is to brutalize the Palestinian population. Anyone who is interested and still has an ounce of humanity can see that what Israel is doing is wrong, I guess you guys are more comfortable with calling it a series of crimes against humanity, so sure, it's not the text book definition of genocide. It is morally abhorrent, and the defense of "well, if you really squint at it and give them every benefit of the doubt maybe they just mean Hamas" just goes to show to me that you decided that Israel is morally right so you will play defense for them no matter what they do. Every escalation, every blown up refugee tent or 8 year old boy, every ambulance, every tank shoot at a camera crew, every prison rape, every law that would be illegal anywhere else, it's all justified, or if it's not "they are looking into it so case closed", and it all never, somehow amounts to a call to stop this or condemn Israel for it. 9/10 investigations either get buried or "exonerates" IDF: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/02/idf-no-fault-conclusion-alleged-war-abuse-cases-report The "Hamas ministry" casualty numbers Israel called lies and propaganda for the first few years are now accepted by IDF and everyone understands that even those are more then likely big undercounts. You don't need a 3rd party opinion, you don't need a court to tell you that this shit is fucking wrong, it's self evident. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 18:45 PremoBeats wrote: What exactly is the evidence provided? As I said, I wrote to these people and most of their answers were not addressing the legality aspect. Is it evidence directed at the government / state or simply individual cases? How many are there? If you were able to write to them to tell them that you think killing muslims is not genocide, that's further evidence that they were, in fact, disagreeing with you, and thought it was genocide. So, you know, you're agreeing with me that they think that. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On August 29 2026 19:27 Jankisa wrote: As I mentioned many times, this pedantry over intent and definition of genocide is not something I'm interested in. I believe it's self evident that the project that Mladić led in Bosnia and the one that IDF is executing in Gaza and West bank has the same underlying malice, it's motivated by hatred and it's goal is to brutalize the Palestinian population. Anyone who is interested and still has an ounce of humanity can see that what Israel is doing is wrong, I guess you guys are more comfortable with calling it a series of crimes against humanity, so sure, it's not the text book definition of genocide. It is morally abhorrent, and the defense of "well, if you really squint at it and give them every benefit of the doubt maybe they just mean Hamas" just goes to show to me that you decided that Israel is morally right so you will play defense for them no matter what they do. Every escalation, every blown up refugee tent or 8 year old boy, every ambulance, every tank shoot at a camera crew, every prison rape, every law that would be illegal anywhere else, it's all justified, or if it's not "they are looking into it so case closed", and it all never, somehow amounts to a call to stop this or condemn Israel for it. 9/10 investigations either get buried or "exonerates" IDF: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/02/idf-no-fault-conclusion-alleged-war-abuse-cases-report The "Hamas ministry" casualty numbers Israel called lies and propaganda for the first few years are now accepted by IDF and everyone understands that even those are more then likely big undercounts. You don't need a 3rd party opinion, you don't need a court to tell you that this shit is fucking wrong, it's self evident. Yeah, forest for the trees and all that. If one wishes to set the bar at the ‘it’s not x because y hasn’t tried to wipe out everyone in population z’, I mean one can do so. I’m not really sure what purpose it serves, tens of thousands of civilians are dead, many more live in atrocious conditions. I studiously avoid using the ‘G word’ for this exact reason because it ends up being an angle to push conversations into debates over whether or not it’s that, and away from well, how shitty things are. I can see cogent arguments in either direction on the former, but the latter is much less debatable IMO. I don’t think like, 70ish thousand people being dead, but at least Israel didn’t try to kill everyone is a remotely defensible position, but one somehow ends up there when the genocide word is invoked Also happy cake day Neb, hope you have a good one! | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
On August 29 2026 19:27 Jankisa wrote: As I mentioned many times, this pedantry over intent and definition of genocide is not something I'm interested in. I believe it's self evident that the project that Mladić led in Bosnia and the one that IDF is executing in Gaza and West bank has the same underlying malice, it's motivated by hatred and it's goal is to brutalize the Palestinian population. Anyone who is interested and still has an ounce of humanity can see that what Israel is doing is wrong, I guess you guys are more comfortable with calling it a series of crimes against humanity, so sure, it's not the text book definition of genocide. It is morally abhorrent, and the defense of "well, if you really squint at it and give them every benefit of the doubt maybe they just mean Hamas" just goes to show to me that you decided that Israel is morally right so you will play defense for them no matter what they do. It's also a misunderstanding of what terms like "ethnic cleansing" or "war crimes based on ethnicity" or whatever other euphemism you want to put in there are meant to represent in discourse. It isn't a lesser kind of crime, where genocide is the ultimate evil and those are like a lesser evil, it's literally the opposite: we want to be able to say that people who were engaged in things that looked like genocides but fit only 90% of the definition instead of 100% were still the same kind of people. The origin of "ethnic cleansing" is I believe in the balkans, where officials engaged in genocidal activities needed a euphemism for their actions, so they said they were merely "ethnically cleansing" the place. We take that and adopt it, it's not because we agree with them that they're doing something less reprehensible than genocide, it's because we want to be able to describe a larger proportion of genocide-adjacent people as genocidal trash, which they are. Nobody who is engaged in an ethnic cleansing campaing will ever go "Okay, this is fine, but I draw the line at genocide, genocide is something I can't support", that is not a mindset that exists in nature. Before all of this nonsense, we had the armenian genocide... which is more of an ethnic cleansing than a genocide, if you go into definitions. But people don't go into definitions, actually, because the line between an ethnic cleansing and a genocide is by nature blurry and going into definitions about any of that is extremely weird Thanks Wombat  | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1842 Posts
I have family members who served in the units that were among the accused, and no one claims that the Croatian army, despite being mostly professional and showing restraint was free of sin, no one tries to call them "the most moral army" or accuses people criticizing them of "anti-Croatism". That is the major difference, our generals and political leaders were tried in the international court of justice, some of them were imprisoned for committing war crimes, some were acquitted, and despite Croatia fighting a clear war of liberation against an occupying force I have no issues saying that there was a huge amount of issues on how the war was prosecuted and how Serbs, especially civilians living in enclaves all across Croatia were treated. And this was a 5+ year war with a lot of cruelty and dehumanization, for reference, around 6 thousand Croatian civilians and a bit under 3 thousand Serbian ones were killed. Trying to justify figures an order of magnitude larger then that in a shorter war is bonkers. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
On August 29 2026 19:27 Jankisa wrote: As I mentioned many times, this pedantry over intent and definition of genocide is not something I'm interested in. I believe it's self evident that the project that Mladić led in Bosnia and the one that IDF is executing in Gaza and West bank has the same underlying malice, it's motivated by hatred and it's goal is to brutalize the Palestinian population. Anyone who is interested and still has an ounce of humanity can see that what Israel is doing is wrong, I guess you guys are more comfortable with calling it a series of crimes against humanity, so sure, it's not the text book definition of genocide. It is morally abhorrent, and the defense of "well, if you really squint at it and give them every benefit of the doubt maybe they just mean Hamas" just goes to show to me that you decided that Israel is morally right so you will play defense for them no matter what they do. Every escalation, every blown up refugee tent or 8 year old boy, every ambulance, every tank shoot at a camera crew, every prison rape, every law that would be illegal anywhere else, it's all justified, or if it's not "they are looking into it so case closed", and it all never, somehow amounts to a call to stop this or condemn Israel for it. 9/10 investigations either get buried or "exonerates" IDF: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/02/idf-no-fault-conclusion-alleged-war-abuse-cases-report The "Hamas ministry" casualty numbers Israel called lies and propaganda for the first few years are now accepted by IDF and everyone understands that even those are more then likely big undercounts. You don't need a 3rd party opinion, you don't need a court to tell you that this shit is fucking wrong, it's self evident. Well, if you don't want to talk about this issue, then it probably would be best to not address it. You basically dropped in and asked me specifics about one jurisprudence cased and dropped out, when you didn't like the answer I gave. The sentences "I believe it is self evident that the project (...) has the same underlying malice." and "Anyone who (...) can se that what Israel is doing is wrong" are completely besides the point. I have already conceded several in this times that Israel has committed war crimes and that many of the state's and individual's actions are egregious. But I don't have to defend Israel's conduct to distinguish war crimes / crimes against humanity from genocide. Once again: I am not arguing that the conduct is acceptable because it isn't genocidee. I am arguing that "the conduct in some cases is atrocious" and "this sate intends to physically destroy this protected group" are two separate posittions. Especially legally. Coming back to Mladić: If you think that Mladić's case and Gaza are comparable, then you have to detail out what the Gazan equivalent of the additional Srebenica evidence is. You merely say that you don't see a distinction / you see the same "underlying malice". But that is simply an assertion. You are asserting the very position that needs to be demonstrated. The ICTY didn't reason "there were enormous atrocities, thus genocide." It identified additional evidence showing that the Srebrenica operation was specifically aimed at physically destryoing the Bosnian Muslim community there. That is the A/B -> C distinction I was talking about. If you don't want to do that, fine by me... but the timing seems weird, after the point you yourself raised basically perfectly demonstrates what I am talking about this entire time. On August 29 2026 21:20 Nebuchad wrote: If you were able to write to them to tell them that you think killing muslims is not genocide, that's further evidence that they were, in fact, disagreeing with you, and thought it was genocide. So, you know, you're agreeing with me that they think that. I asked questions, I didn't make statements. The identity of a certain group should have no sway in determining crimes against them. Wasn't it me who brought up atrocities against Muslims by Goaran Jelišić in this very thread? On August 29 2026 23:17 WombaT wrote: Yeah, forest for the trees and all that. If one wishes to set the bar at the ‘it’s not x because y hasn’t tried to wipe out everyone in population z’, I mean one can do so. I’m not really sure what purpose it serves, tens of thousands of civilians are dead, many more live in atrocious conditions. I studiously avoid using the ‘G word’ for this exact reason because it ends up being an angle to push conversations into debates over whether or not it’s that, and away from well, how shitty things are. I can see cogent arguments in either direction on the former, but the latter is much less debatable IMO. I don’t think like, 70ish thousand people being dead, but at least Israel didn’t try to kill everyone is a remotely defensible position, but one somehow ends up there when the genocide word is invoked Also happy cake day Neb, hope you have a good one! And imo you are right to avoid it. Genocide is a specific legal term with a specific mental element, and its legal classification isn't simply a function of the scale of the suffering. No one here is defending Palestinians being pushed into potentially booby trapped Hamas tunnels. No one is defending collective punishment against civilians. No one is defending any war crime in this thread (at least not that I have read it). I don't need to minimize or deny that to argue that genocide requires an additional mental element. The question is whether these acts demonstrate an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a protected group, rather than demonstrating extreme disregard for Palestinian civilian life, unlawful military methods, collective punishment, or other war crimes. If that specific intent has not been demonstrated, then the term genocide simply isn't adequate to describe the disaster that Gaza is - regardless of how horrific the underlying conduct may be. On August 30 2026 01:09 Jankisa wrote: Trying to justify figures an order of magnitude larger then that in a shorter war is bonkers. I don't disagree with the broader point that a much higher civilian death toll demands much greater scrutiny, and I certainly don't think Israel should get a moral or legal pass simply because it is fighting a war it considers justified. But I don't think the comparison with Croatia establishes what you seem to think it establishes. The wars were very different in duration, population density, geography, military technology, intensity of combat and the circumstances in which civilians were killed, so “ten times as many deaths in a shorter war” doesn't by itself tell us whether the conduct was proportionate, criminal, or genocidal. A higher death toll can be evidence that something went terribly wrong; it doesn't tell us why those people died or what the perpetrators intended. And that's precisely why I keep separating the questions. If Israel's conduct resulted in vastly more civilian deaths than Croatia's war, that may be extremely strong evidence of catastrophic civilian harm and potentially extensive war crimes. But it still doesn't eliminate the need to establish the additional element that distinguishes genocide from those crimes: the specific intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a protected group, in whole or in substantial part. So I don't think the answer to “how can you justify ten times as many deaths?” is “the deaths are justified.” My answer is: I don't have to (and don't want to) justify them in order to argue that they do not, by themselves, establish genocide. If the evidence establishes war crimes or crimes against humanity, then those should be prosecuted on their own terms. The genocide question is a separate - and deliberately very demanding - legal question. That's the distinction I've been trying to make throughout this discussion. If we can't agree on that distinction, then we're ultimately arguing about different questions, which is fine by me. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2907 Posts
On August 30 2026 15:00 PremoBeats wrote: Well, if you don't want to talk about this issue, then it probably would be best to not address it. You basically dropped in and asked me specifics about one jurisprudence cased and dropped out, when you didn't like the answer I gave. The sentences "I believe it is self evident that the project (...) has the same underlying malice." and "Anyone who (...) can se that what Israel is doing is wrong" are completely besides the point. I have already conceded several in this times that Israel has committed war crimes and that many of the state's and individual's actions are egregious. But I don't have to defend Israel's conduct to distinguish war crimes / crimes against humanity from genocide. Once again: I am not arguing that the conduct is acceptable because it isn't genocidee. I am arguing that "the conduct in some cases is atrocious" and "this sate intends to physically destroy this protected group" are two separate posittions. Especially legally. Coming back to Mladić: If you think that Mladić's case and Gaza are comparable, then you have to detail out what the Gazan equivalent of the additional Srebenica evidence is. You merely say that you don't see a distinction / you see the same "underlying malice". But that is simply an assertion. You are asserting the very position that needs to be demonstrated. The ICTY didn't reason "there were enormous atrocities, thus genocide." It identified additional evidence showing that the Srebrenica operation was specifically aimed at physically destryoing the Bosnian Muslim community there. That is the A/B -> C distinction I was talking about. If you don't want to do that, fine by me... but the timing seems weird, after the point you yourself raised basically perfectly demonstrates what I am talking about this entire time. I asked questions, I didn't make statements. The identity of a certain group should have no sway in determining crimes against them. Wasn't it me who brought up atrocities against Muslims by Goaran Jelišić in this very thread? And imo you are right to avoid it. Genocide is a specific legal term with a specific mental element, and its legal classification isn't simply a function of the scale of the suffering. No one here is defending Palestinians being pushed into potentially booby trapped Hamas tunnels. No one is defending collective punishment against civilians. No one is defending any war crime in this thread (at least not that I have read it). I don't need to minimize or deny that to argue that genocide requires an additional mental element. The question is whether these acts demonstrate an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a protected group, rather than demonstrating extreme disregard for Palestinian civilian life, unlawful military methods, collective punishment, or other war crimes. If that specific intent has not been demonstrated, then the term genocide simply isn't adequate to describe the disaster that Gaza is - regardless of how horrific the underlying conduct may be. I don't disagree with the broader point that a much higher civilian death toll demands much greater scrutiny, and I certainly don't think Israel should get a moral or legal pass simply because it is fighting a war it considers justified. But I don't think the comparison with Croatia establishes what you seem to think it establishes. The wars were very different in duration, population density, geography, military technology, intensity of combat and the circumstances in which civilians were killed, so “ten times as many deaths in a shorter war” doesn't by itself tell us whether the conduct was proportionate, criminal, or genocidal. A higher death toll can be evidence that something went terribly wrong; it doesn't tell us why those people died or what the perpetrators intended. And that's precisely why I keep separating the questions. If Israel's conduct resulted in vastly more civilian deaths than Croatia's war, that may be extremely strong evidence of catastrophic civilian harm and potentially extensive war crimes. But it still doesn't eliminate the need to establish the additional element that distinguishes genocide from those crimes: the specific intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a protected group, in whole or in substantial part. So I don't think the answer to “how can you justify ten times as many deaths?” is “the deaths are justified.” My answer is: I don't have to (and don't want to) justify them in order to argue that they do not, by themselves, establish genocide. If the evidence establishes war crimes or crimes against humanity, then those should be prosecuted on their own terms. The genocide question is a separate - and deliberately very demanding - legal question. That's the distinction I've been trying to make throughout this discussion. If we can't agree on that distinction, then we're ultimately arguing about different questions, which is fine by me. The rest of the world just sees tens of thousands of dead and people living in ruins. All the while Palestinians (and Arabs in general) being displaced and a history of settlements and eventually annexation in many areas. Arguing over semantics is one way of handling this I guess. It's interesting because the world is at multiple inflection points right now. It's easy to see timelines with nuclear proliferation and the US going on a path where it will lose global superpower status in decades. Meanwhile Israel is dubbling down on this policy and alienating the rest of the world. And Israeli citizens seems to be lukewarm about it at best looking at the chances for real political change. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
But calling the legal distinction “semantics” is precisely where I disagree. Genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes are not interchangeable words; they describe different crimes with different legal elements and, importantly, different requirements concerning intent. If we're discussing whether Israel has committed genocide, then asking whether the evidence establishes the specific intent required for genocide isn't semantics - it's literally THE central legal question. And I don't think anyone needs to deny the broader pattern you describe to reach my position. You can believe that Israel's conduct is morally abhorrent, that Palestinians have suffered catastrophically, that war crimes and crimes against humanity have occurred, that settlements and displacement are unacceptable, and that Israel's current policies are politically disastrous, while still asking whether the evidence establishes genocidal intent. That's also why I keep coming back to other genocide cases. The courts didn't simply look at the destruction and say “this is horrific, therefore genocide.” They examined whether the evidence established the additional intent required for that particular crime. That's the question I'm interested in, and so far I'm not convinced that it has been demonstrated to the required legal standard. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g4338 FrodaN827 fl0m538 ToD288 C9.Mang0175 JuggernautJason59 QueenE49 NeuroSwarm43 ViBE32 shahzam2 |
|
OSC
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Harstem vs Zoun
Harstem vs GgMaChine
GgMaChine vs Lambo
Harstem vs Lambo
GgMaChine vs Zoun
Lambo vs Zoun
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
FEL
Patches Events
AI Arena Tournament
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
