Yes.
I will accept that you think otherwise and that the legal definition is the correct one.
The long struggle over the meaning of "genocide"
- Thread starter Valcazar
- Start date
I will accept that you think otherwise and that the legal definition is the correct one.
Still not believable.
This rings like you want to argue that genocide isn't really genocide this time because Lemkin once had a donut or wanted the legal terms stronger.
I expect that you want this discussion because the honeymoon ended at the DNC and we are on round 2 of protests.
Thanks for agreeing with my statement, Geno.
shack said:
Obviously the UNGA and UNSC also agree as evidenced by the the fact that no resolutions have been passed in terms of condemning Israel for genocide. That's a bit of a problem for you.
Be sure to let us know when that changes. Until then, your point moot.
You can imagine whatever you want.
I trust you haven't actually read it if that's your conclusion, since you don't seem to like reading things that are posted.
I don't even know what "discussion" you think I want here.
Unless you mean just the campus protests, which will obviously start up again when school is back in session, I don't know why you are referring to these as "round 2". I would have thought us well past round 2 already by now.
I do like that the Abandon Biden/Abandon Harris people are very clear that their goal is for the Democrats to lose and explicit that "punishing Biden" (now Harris) is the point.
Better than obfuscation.
At this point it appears the two of you agree on what defines a genocide, which surprises me.
That corner you keep painting yourself into gets smaller and smaller.
First the news didn't count, then the HRW, Amnesty type reports.
Then the UN reports didn't count.
Next you say the ICJ Provisional Measures don't count.
Now its the ICC upcoming warrants that count.
Your hill is now entirely UN resolutions, but not any of the 62 previous resolutions including the UNSC resolutions demanding a ceasefire.
Yes. Geno agreed with my statement that neither the UNGA nor the UNSC have passed any resolutions on the topic of Israel committing genocide. My belief is that as such and until such time, it is evidence that Israel has not done so. Do you think that he agrees with that?
First you say HRW reports must always accepted. Then you say you do NOT accept the HRW report of July 27. That is your corner that you can not get out of.
My point has been consistent. A UN resolution is the gold standard. We have not seen one on Israeli genocide or apartheid. I'm ready to step out of the entrance to that room.
No, I don't think he agrees with that.
I think (based on his pushback on the article) that he thinks the legal definition is the proper definition. (Which I think you do as well.)
But I don't think he believes that until a legal body renders a decision, you have to assume the evidence is that a genocide wasn't done.
I think he disagrees with you on that and also on whether the current evidence available is enough to say it meets the legal definition or not. (He says yes, you say no.)
I've read it.
I've also read your points and the reason you posted it is more clear than you think.
I think you want a discussion about how charges of genocide are somehow meaningless because of Lemkin's frustration with the definition and laws that were passed. I think you want to find a way to make it more pragmatic to support the ongoing genocide.
Ah, you're back to this claim that votes were promised and its just mean or punishment to choose to vote for someone else or not at all.
Back to your very first criticism and argument.
Harris has chosen the 'most lethal army' over human rights and social services. You seem fine with that choice and think its wrong not to back it.
Harris and you should both be fine with her losing votes over her choices. You can't argue that she doesn't know about the protests or how popular this position is. If voters won't vote for her this is on her, not on the voters.
If you want to spend your time whining that's it not really genocide because Lemkin wanted changes to the law or that voters don't understand the system as well as you or that those voters are being mean and withholding what is owed to the dems that's your choice.
You are choosing to support 'the most lethal army' backing genocide.
Don't try to belittle those who won't.
This internal monologue about HRW reports is boring. Hamas committed some war crimes on Oct 7, they should be held to the law as Israel should be for everything they've done in the 300 days since.
Your point is your own idiotic and wrong claim about my position.
How many times have I said take both Hamas and Israel to trial over all war crimes reported by HRW, Amnesty and others?
Way too many times, Shazi, too many times.
Find something new to whine about.
It's not that it's boring. It's that you painted yourself into a corner. You say that we must always accept the judgement of an organization like HRW, but when they issue a statement like they did on July 17, condemning Hamas actions, including the taking of hostages on Oct.7 that you are unable to issue an opinion on, all of a sudden it becomes boring.
Once again you are exposed as either a hypocrite or that you admit to shitposting.
We can resolve this if you simply respond to the question of your opinion of HRW's statement.
October 7 Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes by Hamas-led Groups | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)
October 7 Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes by Hamas-led Groups
Armed Groups Holding Hostages Should Free Them Immediately
- Hamas-led armed groups committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians during the October 7 assault on southern Israel.
- Palestinian fighters committed summary killings, hostage-taking and other war crimes, and the crimes against humanity of murder and wrongful imprisonment.
- Governments with influence over the Palestinian armed groups should press for the urgent release of all civilian hostages.
What is your comment, Geno, on this report?
'The proper definition'.
There are issues with all laws, courts and how they are implemented and interpreted. None are perfect or 'the proper definition'.
There are major issues with the ICJ and the ICC as well with the UN, just as there are even bigger issues with US democracy and its legal system.
But its what we've got and we need to work with it, just as we should be working to get the dems to represent voters and not AIPAC.
That's not what this discussion is about. You haven't raised any specific issues with the law or the definition, you just posted this article to try to lay the ground that the UN definition isn't the 'proper definition' so its ok to support the Israeli genocide because you'll find a reason that makes it not fit whatever you think really is the 'proper definition'.
You'll declare its therefore 'pragmatic' and that everyone should not withhold their votes as its mean to punish politicians for being corrupt, backing murder or even the not properly defined 'genocide'. When they won't go along you'll tell yourself that they just don't understand politics as well as you do and the issue is with them. You won't consider aiding genocide to be a problem.
I expect you won't respond to this post or declare that I don't understand or something rather than respond directly.
Shazi, I will repeat myself again.
You will ignore and then lie about what I said.
Its time for me to copy and paste this response for every time you bring up HRW.
Hamas committed some war crimes on Oct 7, they should be taken to court of those allegations. Israel has committed way more war crimes before Oct 7 and since, they should also be taken to court over those war crimes.
Treat Hamas and Israel equally before the law, charge them for all crimes based on HRW, Amnesty and other reports.
Just as Palestinians should be treated equally as long as they are under Israeli rule, full citizenship and full voting rights.
So you think the Africans in Darfur and the Tutsi in Rwanda are also manipulating the world?
You obviously don't believe in honest discussions so have to pretend everything is because Jews.
The IRA were considered terrorists.Yep, no one considered the IRA/UDF to be terrorists.
Mandela was listed as a terrorist until 2008 by the US.
Why do I think your definition of terrorist is based on skin colour/religion?
Unlikely. He has a well established pattern of basing his conclusions solely on who's being blamed and not on the law or the group quoting that law.
Stop pushing that antisemitic trope that its 'antisemitic' to be against genocide.
Only 40% of US Jews identify as zionists.
Stop trying to tar them all as supporting genocide.
