Yes yes Grandpa, everything is genocide, pumping sea water is genocide, defending yourself against a monocultural nation that constantly attacks you and murders your civilians is genocide…
I guess they should just… do nothing? Let Hamas keep the tunnels? Send in soldiers to the tunnels to die? Evidently you have don't have any better ideas but you're sure keen on criticizing.
Genocide is a claim of intent. That's only if israel intends to eradicate them in whole or in part which has not been established, there have been a few troubling comments from Israeli government officials but not from those in charge.
Hamas and other Palestinian groups are quite explicit about their intention to commit genocide. It's in Hamas' original charter. They seem to be the ones you're concerned about protecting by binding Israel's hands.
The UN treats national groups like ethnic groups for their definition, which I don't think is appropriate. If retaliating against a hostile nation in war with intention to destroy them at whole or in part, is genocide, this implies that October 7th was also an act of genocide, and every chant of, "from the river to the sea," is a call for genocide.
It seems like you approve of genocide, just by the other party. You're certainly going to great lengths to generate outrage about Israel defending themselves against a genocidal opponent.
I think it's clear you're just throwing around the words you think are most outrage generating, regardless of whether they actually are applicable here.
Genocide is a claim of intent, not ability. One can commit a shitty, ineffective genocide. One can kill a lot of civilians as collateral damage without it being a genocide.
Israel claims destroying Palestine is not their intent. Hamas says destroying Israel is their intent. Only one of these sides is explicitly genocidal by the UN definition.
Describing what Israel is doing as “high collateral damage” is like describing the US dropping its atomic bombs on Japan as “a tough negotiation tactic”.
Israel goes to great lengths to ensure they attack legal military targets.
So are you suggesting they’ve got bad aim or something? Or is it a “happy accident”?
I think they are lying, and intent not being explicitly declared is weak ground to stand on when you consider what is being done.
So now it sounds to me like Israel is committing what a layperson would consider genocide, but it isn’t “technically genocide” because they are being dishonest about their intent.
I'm suggesting they don't care much about collateral damage provided they have legal military targets. They know their enemy uses human shields and they're not going to let that be an effective tactic.
I think they are lying, and intent not being explicitly declared is weak ground to stand on when you consider what is being done. So now it sounds to me like Israel is committing what a layperson would consider genocide, but it isn’t “technically genocide” because they are being dishonest about their intent.
That's a far more compelling argument, but I haven't seen any proof of this. If it is a genocide it isn't a very effective one but I suppose that could be because they are manufacturing plausible deniability. They certainly have the means to level Gaza in a day were they so inclined but that would validate such accusations.
Given Israel's history, however, I find that very unlikely.
I suspect it's easier to acquire large amounts of sea water than pure nitrogen, and sea water will presumably drive them out rather than just killing them. You're right, if they have air traps where the tunnels go up and down it will limit the effectiveness of this approach, I wonder if they do.
Add comment