• SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    It would be genocide if they were targeting a particular ethnic group. And please remind me why it’s more important to spend UN session time trying to decide whether it it genocide and not, idk, actually taking actions to stopping the war?

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They have tried to stop the war… With Ceasefire votes… That even the US no longer vetoes…

      … Russia and China vetoed. Blame them:

      Reuters - “Russia, China veto US-led UN resolution on Gaza ceasefire”

      AP - “Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease-fire in Gaza”

      The next best thing is that UN committees can investigate and identify genocide without it necessarily being vetoed. Once the UN and especially ICJ identify such genocide, that adds global pressure; such global pressure leads to supporters of Israel to reconsider holding Israel’s hands; hence why the US in an unprecedented move has stepped further away from Israel than it has for decades. People don’t understand just how closely-linked Israel and US have been. I never would’ve thought a sitting US President would say a bad word about Israel/Bibi without fear of major backlash. We’re certainly at an inflection point — and it’s about fucking time.

      Edit: Also, let’s not all pretend we’re human rights lawyers who can definitively define what is and what isn’t genocide. If the ICJ took the case up and thought there was merit in the case, then one should probably hold their tongue; after all, according to the ICC:

      First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

      Note: National; note religious; note “whole OR in part” On the flip-side, then we’d have to say Hamas wasn’t carrying out an attempt of genocide with October 7th, since they killed Palestinian Muslims among the Jewish population.

      It’s kind of a moot point. At this point Israel has committed something around 20 October 7ths in the number of civilian deaths they’ve incurred in Gaza. With an estimated 80:20 civilian-combatant death ratio according to US figures, that’s well-above average. Forgetting the fact that more aid workers have died in this war than any previous one in decades… This is a travesty. So the question remains: If we’re all pro-civilian and anti-terrorist… Even if Israel didn’t do anything in Gaza and just enhanced its border protections, then what are the odds when looking at it from a quantifiable standpoint Hamas would be able to commit another 20 (and counting) October 7ths? (forgetting the fact that even before October 7th the IDF committed the vast-majority of civilian casualties for decades).

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      They are targeting Palestinians, a particular ethnic group. That’s why they are executing unarmed civilians, too bad they got caught when they “felt threatened” by murdering shirtless fleeing Israeli hostages the soldiers thought were Palestinians.

      “Gaza beachfront property” is already being carved up.