I don’t know if it counts as a genocide. I’ve heard both sides of the equation. I’m split down the middle.
And the comparative statements made by people don’t help.
Without trying to go into the history and politics of it all. Media portrays that only one side wants to commit ‘genocide’ and that everyone associated on either side is inline with that policy. There are innocent and peaceful people on both sides.
That’s a dodge.
Does it or does it not fulfil the criteria set out to be a genocide?
Is this question to me?
No, @Sithbare’s reply above mine.
1 Like
Let’s be clear. The factions that hold the power on both sides want to commit genocide. Only one side has the power to do so, and is actively doing so.
Caught in the middle are innocent people who want to live ordinary lives, but are also brainwashed by these factions into believing that the “other side” are all evil and must be destroyed.
As I’ve said repeatedly through all of this, lock up the warmongers on either side in a room with each other, fistfight to the bloody end, and forget all about them. Let the civilians live in peace.
I don’t know.
There are certainly a large number of atrocities commited by the Israel Govt that can be termed as genocidal in nature.
But then , if you compare the activites to the other genocides , then the scale comes into picture.
This is exactly why I say that using the term genocide is counterproductive. Because it allows Israel to dictate the response.
Yes, totally agree with there being innocents on both sides, and that the media portray a bias in their coverage, but I was merely pointing out that despite what the media will tell anyone that listens, this goes back way beyond October 7, and has been an issue for coming up close to 80 years, and yet we still haven’t figured out a solution.
Do you see the irony in your post?
No, to be precise, using one genocide to compare to other genocides to say that they shouldn’t be called genocides is counter-productive. You’re essentially saying that because the Holocaust exists, nothing else can ever be a genocide again.
I can’t disagree with that.
What irony is this?
It’s simple. If there are people on each side who want to eradicate those on the other side, then just let them fight each other in a contained space away from everyone else, and leave the others to live with each other in peace.
1 Like
This.
Fistfight to the bloody end. The winners get made to see 36 continuous days of paint drying till they drop dead tol
No, just completely ignore them, forget all about them and never let them out of the locked room. Paint drying, blood drying, bodies rotting, doesn’t matter.
1 Like
I might have referred to the Israeli actions as genocide in the past. But truth be told , I don’t know if their actions can be termed as genocide.
Some of what the Israeli establishment does to the Palestinians borders on that for sure.
But I’m of the opinion that calling out Israel’s actions as genocide allows them to dictate the discourse. It’s probably what they want.
My apologies, I miss read/interpreted part of your post.
I know you posted in Jest, and maybe mine is too, but even if your solution was the right one to save humanity your would have protests opposing it…
I’m not sure there would be that many protests if it was made known in advance to all participants that either they accept peace and coexistence, or they participate in this. If they still participate in this fight to the death, then they already know going into it that the whole point is that all of it is futile, self-defeating, and any victory would be a pyrrhic one, since they’re dead regardless.
It wouldn’t be the fighters protesting in peace, marching as one. I’m pretty sure they would be up for getting it over and done with. But there would definitely be a protest about how there are better ways to create world peace than a punch up.
Yes, I’m directly addressing the latter.
I’m not sure how many protests about humanitarian concerns one can have when it requires the active participation of those involved, despite knowing the inevitable consequences.
Those who desire to live in peace can and will have to commit to resolving the thorny practical issues of doing so peacefully, while those who actively just want to destroy the other people, motivated by their ethnoreligious hatred, well they can in the words beloved by some on these forums, reap what they sow, truly.
The problem with making comparisons to other atrocities is it gives an easy opt out to the perpetrator.
You can say, “government X did Y, which is exactly what the Nazis did.” This may be entirely true, but it will quite often have the response of, “well we haven’t gassed anyone.”
Human rights are universal, and if they are abused then that isn’t a comparative thing. There is no need to say that it’s “a bit like the Nazis” as if they are the only standard by which things can be compared. Call a crime by the name of the crime.
8 Likes