this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024

76 points (92.2% liked)

World News

32317 readers

872 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

France Rejects Genocide Accusations Against Israel in Gaza (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

You know? Honestly, genocide doesn't actually exactly fit with what Israel is doing. Mass murder of civilians, starvation, attacks on journalists and aid workers, denial of medical care, theft of people's homes and theft of their property... they're doing virtually every type of war crime, now including the use of chemical weapons apparently, but (edit: ~~they're not literally trying to exterminate the Palestinians as a genotype~~ I misunderstood genocide) they could claim without obviously being full of shit that they're not trying to destroy the nation of Palestine completely. I think they are trying to, but it's not as clear-as-day as lot of their crimes which are on video and in the present/past, instead of the future.

Almost any type of war crime case could have been mounted against them, and it would have been a more solid case at the ICJ. There wouldn't have been room for all this semantic wiggling in the press over whether it's actually genocide, or merely mass murder and war criminality.

It almost makes me think that there was some sort of deliberate effort to bring over-the-top charges that would leave that wiggle room, instead of more conservative charges. Prosecutors will sometimes do this when they want to kill a case without showing any appearance of other than a vigorous prosecution. You bring murder 1 when you can't prove it, and give the defense something to work with, instead of charging second-degree murder and having a slam dunk.

I have no reason to think they might have done that, but I do wonder about it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You really need to look up the legal definition of genocide. No. I will not provide a link. Put as much effort into research as you put into writing from the perspective of ignorance. I'll get you started. Genocide is not defined as the intent to exterminate a genotype.

[+] [email protected] -14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

I'm gonna look past your totally unnecessary hostility and just say I looked it up and you're 100% right. Trying to eradicate Palestine as a nation is genocide, even if they don't literally kill all the ethnic Palestinians. And yeah, that undercuts what I was saying a little bit... IDK, maybe you could argue that by couching it in terms that could be debated instead of "simpler" war crimes they were still trying to overcharge the offense, but it's a lot shakier.

(Edit: Actually, wait, no. It's debatable on the world stage whether they're literally trying to eradicate the nation of Palestine. They can claim that they're "only reacting to terrorism" or etc. I think that's bullshit and they are trying to eradicate Palestine, but I still think that charging them with the simple war crimes that no one can with a straight face deny that they're doing would still be a much stronger case.)

I think the hostility is especially silly since on this topic I'm obviously on your side and opposed to the slaughter of Palestinians by the Israelis.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Genocide denier complains about hostility.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Still not got it right:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Article II

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.

Netanyahu literally just said Israel will stretch from the river to the sea. Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical group by killing them, causing serious bodily and mental harm to them, deliberately imprisoning them, poisoning them, occupying them, killing them.

My hostility stems from the fact that you have no excuse for not knowing this at this late stage of the conflict if you're on the same side of the issue as me. No investigation, no right to speak.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

You don’t have to try to eradicate an entire nation to commit genocide, either. There’s a convention on this thing, you know..

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

It’s debatable on the world stage whether they’re literally trying to eradicate the nation of Palestine.

Nah. It's really not.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[+] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeah the fact that you're calling a genocide a fucking conspiracy tell me everything there is to know on wether your opinion on genocide is valid or trustworthy

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Li Jingjing: Why the US wants to separate #Xinjiang from China? (cited 2003 report)

The Grayzone has been covering the story for about five years: https://thegrayzone.com/page/2/?s=xinjiang

ProleWiki: Uyghur genocide allegations

Critical Resist: The blueprint of regime change operations

We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.

Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany (from the same town the CIA-owned Radio Free Europe operates). From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.

The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.

Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.

Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).

Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.

But it fell on deaf ears. The sentiment at the time was that the Arab League wanted better relations with China and so they lied and said everything was fine.

Everything the target country does to prove its innocence is a lie. Only we profess the truth.

We suddenly stopped hearing about the ‘genocide’ as the world moved on to the war in Ukraine and now the October 7 operation in Palestine. These last two events were not controlled by Washington, and so they had to take precedence over the ‘genocide’. But it’s not over yet; they’ll find something else to pin on China eventually, and when they do, they’ll want you to remember all they’ve said about China in the past. They’ll want you to remember Tian’anmen (another mostly fabricated event), they’ll want you to remember the Uyghur ‘genocide’. They’ll want you to remember Tibet (for which they try to find stories, but they don’t tend to stick for very long).

All so that when they make up more ludicrous stories about China, you’ll think they’re true, because you’ve been conditioned to believe more and more outrageous stories with time.

When we finally declare war on China (if the NATO bloc ever gets to find a way to win that war), you’ll do the legwork of justifying this invasion yourself. We hope you’ll have been properly subdued by then and will happily cheer for the bombs. And if we install a US comprador government in China, we hope you won’t ask too many questions as it starts privatizing everything, reversing social welfare policies, jailing opponents, plummeting quality of life, destroying jobs and houses… and will just happily accept it as the right legitimate government — because it’s Western-backed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

the Grayzone consider Gonzalo Lira a "commentator" They also try to explain to me that NATO was in fact allied with Serbia. The only thing differentiating them from pure propaganda is that propaganda is suppsoed to be coherent with itself

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Your source are a fucking blog by a random, and a propagandist clone of wikipedia. "Hey nazis are cool, this film from Ufa proves it"

Oh and for the first line, it is perfectly common for expert to not speak the language of a country they study as the concept of translation exist, let alone diplomatic institutions of countries you are studying do those translation themselves lol.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Thank you. You better tell the rest of the people in this thread, because they seem hell bent on thinking that I am somehow pro-Israel and they need to aggressively lecture me at length on how Israel actually is committing genocide no matter how many time I say yes, they are. IDK, maybe people got hung up on my one initial statement before I read up and amended it, or maybe me saying that not all the people in the world believe Israel is committing genocide is still too "pro-Israel" a statement, and I'm obviously an enemy.

I've basically concluded at this point that lemmy.ml is a very silly place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You just praised someone who thinks Israel is not committing genocide ("I’d disagree on the will to actually genocide" is genocide denial, because intent is literally part of the definition). You then complain that people don't think you're for real when you say "yes, they are".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

happened to me too. People just make shit up based on what they think a comment and build you an opinion they then debunk without asking what your opinion actually is. Best is to do what I do : return to meme making

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Absolutely man. My new philosophy is to engage in a conversation whether I agree or disagree with the person, but then to use "block" and "unsubscribe" pretty liberally if it seems like people are more interested in giving abuse and "winning" than they are in engaging with what I'm saying.