I ask again, what is the lowest civilian casualty ratio that suggests genocide to you?
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier. It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
You also said:
How many of the attacked locations have to be civilian targets in which only civilians were killed before you’ll admit that maybe Israel’s response of wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity does not retroactively justify Hamas’s attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
I am yet to see where @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier.
The poster denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas on the grounds of ‘only’ 67% civilian casualties. They’re more of a ‘genocide desire denier’
It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that’s a ridiculous claim. If they claim something lower, they contradict themselves. If they claim something higher, they run the risk of having to answer the question of whether other genocides with that criteria weren’t then, genocides - knowing that the only viable answer is not genocide denial, but acquiescence to the point that that’s a stupid fucking criteria to use.
It lacks a correct answer because the position it is addressing, whether the proportion of soldiers to civilians killed can invalidate genocidal intent, is ridiculous.
Answering does not inherently imply genocide denial.
I am yet to see where @Linkerbaan even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
The commenter literally denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas, and uses Israel’s current genocide as an excuse for that position.
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that’s a ridiculous claim.
At least we agree on the this. This is disingenuous discussion.
In this situation, and given your previous discussion with the person and your general tone? Yes.
Your question itself was meant as an accusation or trap for the other person (I guess by your own admission), and not particulartly meant to enrich the discussion, but rather to “win” the discussion and “reveal” how “ridiculous” the other person is. Sure, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, but this one isn’t super effective.
Also, I believe the problematic part that your answer above didn’t address is that you jumped from “so are you denying a genocide” to “why are you excusing Hamas’ actions”? Which @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world never does, at least not in this discussion. This seems to show (to me at least) that you have painted a different picture of @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world in your head… And I think that’s worth reconsidering.
I think it helps to know that given 75 years of colonial history and the unspeakable pain and horror that Palestinians are going through, it’s a little more complicated to discuss genocidal intent and actions. Granted, maybe your point is that we shouldn’t consider all these details when determining whether or not a massacre is part of a genocide campaign, but it’s generally a bad idea to ignore context.
On a different note:
I wanted to as about this part of your question
Hamas’s attempts at the wholesale slaughter of civilians based on ethnicity?
But is it solely based on ethnicity (I’m not denying it’s genocidal, but gotta add this here just in case)? Or is there more to it? Would a Hamas fighter be interested in killing an American Jew who never stepped foot in Palestine? or do they seem to be focused entirely on the Jews in the self-declared Jewish Ethnostate of Israel?
Your question itself was meant as an accusation or trap for the other person (I guess by your own admission), and not particulartly meant to enrich the discussion, but rather to “win” the discussion and “reveal” how “ridiculous” the other person is. Sure, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, but this one isn’t super effective.
Ah, I think I see. You think I was entering into the discussion to sit down and have a metaphorical cup of tea and a chat. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it was clearly not my intent from the start here, and I never pretended otherwise. This was always a challenge to the assumptions and statements made by Linkerbaan in this comment section.
It’s the same as one might challenge someone who makes some dumb fucking comment like “The freer the market, the freer the people!” Such dreck cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and treating ridiculous positions with respect legitimizes them, both in the minds of others as well as the holder. Ridiculous positions must be deconstructed without room for ambiguity.
I think it helps to know that given 75 years of colonial history and the unspeakable pain and horror that Palestinians are going through, it’s a little more complicated to discuss genocidal intent and actions. Granted, maybe your point is that we shouldn’t consider all these details when determining whether or not a massacre is part of a genocide campaign, but it’s generally a bad idea to ignore context.
I don’t know if I’ve said it in this thread or not, but I’m getting real fucking tired of repeating this in general.
It. Does. Not. Excuse. Genocide.
Israeli apologists would gleefully bring up “Oh, well, you have to consider the history of the persecution and genocide of the Jewish people”
No. Full fucking stop.
As you grant, my argument very much is that we shouldn’t consider those details when determining whether or not a massacre is part of a genocide campaign, because “The genociders are despereate and in a lot of pain” doesn’t make something not fucking genocide.
But is it solely based on ethnicity (I’m not denying it’s genocidal, but gotta add this here just in case)? Or is there more to it? Would a Hamas fighter be interested in killing an American Jew who never stepped foot in Palestine? or do they seem to be focused entirely on the Jews in the self-declared Jewish Ethnostate of Israel?
If you will remember the collection of quotes I posted from Hamas officials, there is certainly some amount of glee at the idea of murdering Jews in general, but more pertinently, Israeli (and Jewish Israeli) is very much an ethnicity. If someone’s argument is “If they murdered every Jew in Israel it wouldn’t be genocide because they spared Jews outside of Israel”, then they’re really no better than the Israel apologists talking about how Palestinian Arabs aren’t a ‘real’ ethnicity and that since Israel doesn’t have genocidal claims on non-Palestinian Arabs, it’s actually all kosher (forgive the pun) to murder Palestinians and not genocide at all.
Gonna be honest here, I think this sounds disingenuous.
Considering they said
I really don’t think it’s a disingenuous question to ask what the lowest civilian casualty ratio they’d accept for genocide was
Your question (at least to me as a reader) seems to imply that you regard that person as a genocide-denier. It doesn’t sound like a question based on good faith, more like a question that would have an incorrect answer no matter what they say because the implication seems to be that they are a genocide-denier, not that you are actually trying to understand their point better.
You also said:
I am yet to see where @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world even does that in the slightest… It’s almost like with this question, the discussion shifts from “can we identify this as a genocide” to “Ahh, so you seem to think this is an excuse for Hamas’ actions!”
The poster denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas on the grounds of ‘only’ 67% civilian casualties. They’re more of a ‘genocide desire denier’
It does lack a correct answer. By claiming 33% military casualties is too few for genocide, any answer they give can be used against them, because that’s a ridiculous claim. If they claim something lower, they contradict themselves. If they claim something higher, they run the risk of having to answer the question of whether other genocides with that criteria weren’t then, genocides - knowing that the only viable answer is not genocide denial, but acquiescence to the point that that’s a stupid fucking criteria to use.
It lacks a correct answer because the position it is addressing, whether the proportion of soldiers to civilians killed can invalidate genocidal intent, is ridiculous.
Answering does not inherently imply genocide denial.
The commenter literally denies genocidal intent on the part of Hamas, and uses Israel’s current genocide as an excuse for that position.
At least we agree on the this. This is disingenuous discussion.
If I ask a question, in which any answer points out the ridiculousness of the claim, that’s disingenuous?
In an isolated incident? Yes/No/Maybe.
In this situation, and given your previous discussion with the person and your general tone? Yes.
Your question itself was meant as an accusation or trap for the other person (I guess by your own admission), and not particulartly meant to enrich the discussion, but rather to “win” the discussion and “reveal” how “ridiculous” the other person is. Sure, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, but this one isn’t super effective.
Also, I believe the problematic part that your answer above didn’t address is that you jumped from “so are you denying a genocide” to “why are you excusing Hamas’ actions”? Which @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world never does, at least not in this discussion. This seems to show (to me at least) that you have painted a different picture of @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world in your head… And I think that’s worth reconsidering.
I think it helps to know that given 75 years of colonial history and the unspeakable pain and horror that Palestinians are going through, it’s a little more complicated to discuss genocidal intent and actions. Granted, maybe your point is that we shouldn’t consider all these details when determining whether or not a massacre is part of a genocide campaign, but it’s generally a bad idea to ignore context.
On a different note:
I wanted to as about this part of your question
But is it solely based on ethnicity (I’m not denying it’s genocidal, but gotta add this here just in case)? Or is there more to it? Would a Hamas fighter be interested in killing an American Jew who never stepped foot in Palestine? or do they seem to be focused entirely on the Jews in the self-declared Jewish Ethnostate of Israel?
Ah, I think I see. You think I was entering into the discussion to sit down and have a metaphorical cup of tea and a chat. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it was clearly not my intent from the start here, and I never pretended otherwise. This was always a challenge to the assumptions and statements made by Linkerbaan in this comment section.
It’s the same as one might challenge someone who makes some dumb fucking comment like “The freer the market, the freer the people!” Such dreck cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and treating ridiculous positions with respect legitimizes them, both in the minds of others as well as the holder. Ridiculous positions must be deconstructed without room for ambiguity.
I don’t know if I’ve said it in this thread or not, but I’m getting real fucking tired of repeating this in general.
It. Does. Not. Excuse. Genocide.
Israeli apologists would gleefully bring up “Oh, well, you have to consider the history of the persecution and genocide of the Jewish people”
No. Full fucking stop.
As you grant, my argument very much is that we shouldn’t consider those details when determining whether or not a massacre is part of a genocide campaign, because “The genociders are despereate and in a lot of pain” doesn’t make something not fucking genocide.
If you will remember the collection of quotes I posted from Hamas officials, there is certainly some amount of glee at the idea of murdering Jews in general, but more pertinently, Israeli (and Jewish Israeli) is very much an ethnicity. If someone’s argument is “If they murdered every Jew in Israel it wouldn’t be genocide because they spared Jews outside of Israel”, then they’re really no better than the Israel apologists talking about how Palestinian Arabs aren’t a ‘real’ ethnicity and that since Israel doesn’t have genocidal claims on non-Palestinian Arabs, it’s actually all kosher (forgive the pun) to murder Palestinians and not genocide at all.
It wouldn’t hurt you to be nice.
There’s a difference between committing a War Crime and committing Genocide get over it already.
Genocide is not a label you can just stick on everything. It’s reserved only for absolute terror nations such as Nazi Germany and israel.