Genocide is a claim of intent, which is not established via casualties. Israel claims they intend to hit Hamas targets and defend themselves, not destroy Palestinians as a group. If true, this is not genocide.
With means it has to meet both criteria. Work on your reading comprehension.
Israel says they do not intend to destroy the Palestinians, the ethnic group of Arabs, (who are 20% of Israeli citizens,) or Islamic people in whole or in part. Rather, if they are defending themselves against a belligerent hostile nation next door and intending to attack its militants, i.e., Hamas, these attacks are legal and not genocide, even if they cause significant collateral damage killing civilians.
Neither should we presume they are lying. Healthy suspicion, trust yet verify, etc., seems like a better course of action. Israel seems to go to great lengths to legally justify their attacks and they are generally a trustworthy actor, with a few notable exceptions. I’d say they behave better than most nation-states would in their position, they offer more evidence to justify their attacks than most countries do, and they are held to a higher standard regarding humanitarianism in war than other nations generally are. I can’t think of any other nation that would historically call people to warn them there is an air strike incoming.
Genocide.
Genocide is a claim of intent, which is not established via casualties. Israel claims they intend to hit Hamas targets and defend themselves, not destroy Palestinians as a group. If true, this is not genocide.
It’s only genocide if it comes from the Munich area of Germany, otherwise it’s just sparkling mass murder
Can’t address my argument? Pretend I’m making a different, absurd one! Reasonable people hate this one trick!
I don’t have to pretend, your “argument” is based on the definist fallacy
Ah yes, the fallacy of words meaning things. I have not redefined genocide, I have pointed out its current definition.
From your link, emphasis mine:
With means it has to meet both criteria. Work on your reading comprehension.
Israel says they do not intend to destroy the Palestinians, the ethnic group of Arabs, (who are 20% of Israeli citizens,) or Islamic people in whole or in part. Rather, if they are defending themselves against a belligerent hostile nation next door and intending to attack its militants, i.e., Hamas, these attacks are legal and not genocide, even if they cause significant collateral damage killing civilians.
I have literally no idea what you’re talking about
Big “if” there. Should we really just trust the people doing the killing to tell us their intent?
Neither should we presume they are lying. Healthy suspicion, trust yet verify, etc., seems like a better course of action. Israel seems to go to great lengths to legally justify their attacks and they are generally a trustworthy actor, with a few notable exceptions. I’d say they behave better than most nation-states would in their position, they offer more evidence to justify their attacks than most countries do, and they are held to a higher standard regarding humanitarianism in war than other nations generally are. I can’t think of any other nation that would historically call people to warn them there is an air strike incoming.