this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
320 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
61227 readers
4338 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Israel Palestine isn’t contentious when discussing the fact that Israel is genocidal. It is universally agreed by genocide scholars and frankly anyone who has seen what Israel is doing to Palestinians (if one believes Palestinians are people that is).
The only thing that is contentious is that Israel and its supporters don’t like it when people state facts about them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#International_law_scholars
The article has of course other voices as well.
The article also cites people with „danger of genocide“ or war crimes. Neither of which is actually genocide.
For something to qualify as genocide, the special intent „dolus specialis“ is a key requirement. Killing people is not sufficient.
An issue is that Amnesty International and Ireland expanded the definition of genocide for the case of Gaza specifically.
Regardless if it qualifies as genocide or not, the situation is terrible.
You can look up South Africa's case at the ICJ for instances of said intent. That North Gaza starvation/extermination plan on its own qualifies as genocidal intent.
People defending Israel are claiming that; why are you stating it as fact?
Israel/Palestine is truly a conflict where no matter what argument you raise (on either side), there is a counterargument.
The argument against yours, for example, is here: https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2024/05/a-really-strange-genocide.html
I am generally very sympathetic to the Palestinians and think the immediate root cause of the present situation is the fact that Israel has been blockading Gaza for more than a decade, not allowing movement in or out of it, which I do not think can be justified by anything. I regularly read the blog I linked to above (yes, I consciously read things I don't agree with), its author would probably say that the immediate root cause is something Hamas did in October of 2023. Difficult to say how to "neutrally" present that, right?
Being "neutral" doesn't mean agreeing with everyone. Some people are wrong.
Just because a counterargument exists does not mean it is meaningful.
"Nuh-uh" is a counterargument. It's just one relegated to grade school playgrounds and internet discussions.
The response to your link would be: Are Palestinians allowed to use those hospitals in any significant numbers?
This guy also considers the second intifada to be a genocidal campaign (lol what???) so they're too detached from reality to be taken seriously either way.
To commmit a genocide, one needs motive, opportunity and the means to carry out the crime. Hamas has repeatedly stated that killing all the Jews is an objective of theirs. But objectively, they have neither opportunity nor means. Israel, in particular the ruling Likud Party, has satisfied all three preconditions, though.
They haven't though. They consider the destruction of Israel an objective of theirs, but at least as of 2017 they officially don't want the extermination of Jews.
There’s a problem when pro-Palestinian editors start adding terms like “apartheid regime” and “settler colonialism“ which don’t have a formal academic definition. Then the other side can fairly claim they’re pushing personal opinions.
It’s tough to maintain academic detachment when writing about an ongoing genocide.
Apartheid does have a definition, though.
Sure, but what is an “apartheid regime”?
I mean I know what it is, but can you cite reliable sources to meet Wikipedia’s standard under this sort of scrutiny? Sounds difficult.
Fine, then let's rephrase it as "Israel subjects Palestinians to Apartheid", which is just a fact and there's really no way to get around it.
When South Africa calls it an apartheid, it's probably an apartheid
Either that or posturing. South Africa has its fair share of skeletons in its closet.
It’s not a skeleton in their closet, they had an apartheid so are fully qualified to call other states apartheid.
What I'm saying is they swapped apartheid for a lot of racism and racially backed violence. Check out this Wikipedia article:
And:
These are prominent community members calling for overt violence against the white minority, and they merely get a slap on the wrist.
It's not just white minorities:
There's also racism directly against Jewish people:
So I really don't trust a country's statements on racism when there's such systemic racism throughout the community and government. They are hardly an authority and certainly don't have the moral high ground.
I'll instead trust disinterested parties' opinions on the matter, along with the relevant facts.