• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



    1. Intent, which is what I’ve been trying to explain. “Kill the buffalo, kill the Indian”.
    2. Population has dramatically increased since ‘67. Hard to argue that it’s “destr[uction]” when the population is markedly higher. Compare that to the plains Indians after the deliberate destruction of the buffalo.

    Denial of national aspirations is not the same thing as genocide, and to conflate the two does the Palestinian cause no favors.




  • That’s like saying if the US collapsed that the existence of former states of Washington, Oregon and half of a state called California proves that there is now a country called “Washoregfornia” even though nobody ever called themselves Washoregfornians when the US existed and nobody governed themselves according to those borders. You’re inverting your logic.





  • There was no “literal pre mandatory Palestine border.” Under the Ottomans it was multiple sanjaks under the vilayet of Damascus.

    What you call “from the river to the sea” did not exist as an administrative boundary until Winston Churchill created it in 1922 by splitting Mandate Palestine into Transjordan and a new, smaller Mandate Palestine.

    Does nobody study history before spouting off?




  • Wrong.

    From the Geneva Convention:

    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    Killing members of the group; 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; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

    “With intent to destroy” is the key part here. Throwing around “genocide” using a dictionary term is meaningless. Genocide is a legal concept. Use the legal definition.

    To be 100% clear, I am now quoting from the UN:

    The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

    A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” […]

    The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

    Source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention