• lugal@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Believe it or not but the word “genocide” does have a meaning and different definitions for sure which doesn’t make it arbitrary. If the accusation was far fetched, the case brought forth by South Africa, I’m sure you heard of, would just have been dismissed.

    But if it were a genocide neither I nor any Palestinians in Gaza would still be alive.

    You think genocide means that the whole populations is killed? As said, there are different definitions of genocide but afaik none goes that far. Has there ever been a genocide under this strict definition? If you are interested in real definitions, here is a video about the topic which doesn’t ignore the broader context.

    And even if you disagree, which is your right obviously, the matter isn’t settled, but putting off an accusation that the International Court of Justice takes seriously as victim blaming or antisemitic should be below journalistic standards.

      • lugal@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not that this was a real answer to my comment but by your criteria, was there ever a genocide? US did a lot to unexist the indigenous peoples (boarding schools count as well by the way because that also eliminates the cultural identity) but they still exist and so it was no genocide or did they try and didn’tsucceed? Neither was the Shoa? Or the nazis didn’t have the time? And the Israeli state could have be done by now but the fact that the genocide is still going on is proof that there is no intent to be faster?

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        That is just factually wrong. The legal definition, as is in the UN convention on the prevention of genocide defines “in whole or in part”. If you watch the trial the judges repeat it multiple times and show why they see the case by South Africa as plausible