Calling the Israel govt “genocidal” is not fair or accurate. Israel has had military superiority over Gaza every day since it was captured in 1967. If they were genocidal, they could’ve slaughtered all the people in Gaza at any time. Instead, the population of Gaza has doubled since 1967. If you want to know what a real genocidal regime looks like, imagine the situation were reversed and Hamas had overwhelming military superiority over Israel. Imagine Hamas had tanks, F-16s, F-35s, and Apache helicopters. What would happen? The genocide would start immediately. Hamas would be slaughtering civilians en masse. No restraint. No negotiations. True Genocide.
Before you ask, I’m not Jewish and I’m not defending Israeli atrocities. I just think this is an extremely simplistic and unfair characterization of Israel.
Genocide isn’t about just slaughtering people, it is also about removing and displacing a people from a region, something which Israel policy definitely and inarguably has systematically been.
Genocide is slaughtering people, there is no other meaning. You can call removing and displacing people something else, which doesn’t change how bad they are.
I think that’s why often genocide is used for the former and ethnic cleansing for the latter, which makes some form of sense since, as you said, there appears to be a difference.
I’m not trying to lessen the evil of what either is because I don’t believe in ‘which is more evil’ contests, just that, for categorization purposes, maybe that is needed.
If a bunch of refugees flee roaming Jewish folk running around trying to murder them (like Muslims fled India and Hindus fled Pakistan during Partition as folks of each religion roamed around trying to murder people of the minority faith) in 1948 and refugees flee the 1967 war, fearing for their safety, and then they’re not allowed to return to their homes, that’s ethnic cleansing. If you’re constantly being pushed off your land and your home in order to be replaced by settlers of another faith, that’s also ethnic cleansing.
UN convention on Genocide: “Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part.”
I think it’s reasonable to argue that applies to Istael’s treatment of Palestine.
Gee do you think the population may have doubled partially because of all the ethnic cleansing that the Israeli gov (or settlers with the gov’s implicit support) have done in places those people used to live?
Calling the Israel govt “genocidal” is not fair or accurate. Israel has had military superiority over Gaza every day since it was captured in 1967. If they were genocidal, they could’ve slaughtered all the people in Gaza at any time. Instead, the population of Gaza has doubled since 1967. If you want to know what a real genocidal regime looks like, imagine the situation were reversed and Hamas had overwhelming military superiority over Israel. Imagine Hamas had tanks, F-16s, F-35s, and Apache helicopters. What would happen? The genocide would start immediately. Hamas would be slaughtering civilians en masse. No restraint. No negotiations. True Genocide.
Before you ask, I’m not Jewish and I’m not defending Israeli atrocities. I just think this is an extremely simplistic and unfair characterization of Israel.
Genocide isn’t about just slaughtering people, it is also about removing and displacing a people from a region, something which Israel policy definitely and inarguably has systematically been.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/genocide
Genocide is slaughtering people, there is no other meaning. You can call removing and displacing people something else, which doesn’t change how bad they are.
The language lacks a nuance in between “intentional mass slaughter” and “systematic eradication and displacement of ethnic group.”
Both are classed as genocide by international conventions, even if in our heads they seem very different.
I think that’s why often genocide is used for the former and ethnic cleansing for the latter, which makes some form of sense since, as you said, there appears to be a difference.
I’m not trying to lessen the evil of what either is because I don’t believe in ‘which is more evil’ contests, just that, for categorization purposes, maybe that is needed.
If a bunch of refugees flee roaming Jewish folk running around trying to murder them (like Muslims fled India and Hindus fled Pakistan during Partition as folks of each religion roamed around trying to murder people of the minority faith) in 1948 and refugees flee the 1967 war, fearing for their safety, and then they’re not allowed to return to their homes, that’s ethnic cleansing. If you’re constantly being pushed off your land and your home in order to be replaced by settlers of another faith, that’s also ethnic cleansing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Palestinian_exodus
P.S. Fuck the British (of that time) and their fucking imperialism.
And fuck the Hindus and Muslims and Jews who participated in the ethnic cleansing.
UN convention on Genocide: “Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part.” I think it’s reasonable to argue that applies to Istael’s treatment of Palestine.
deleted by creator
Gee do you think the population may have doubled partially because of all the ethnic cleansing that the Israeli gov (or settlers with the gov’s implicit support) have done in places those people used to live?
No, those people simply had kids.
You haven’t heard of the illegal Israeli settlements? You haven’t heard about the forced removal of Palestinian homes?