"War crimes are defined by the winners. I'm a winner, so I can make my own definition.".
The whole documentary is worth a watch, IMO. It's an incredible look about how people commit heinous acts and build an imaginary world for 40 years to say what they did was "right and justified". Including a scene where the killers imagine they're being thanked by their victims for taking them from godless communism and bringing them to Heaven.
Maybe in 2065 there'll be a version where we'll need subtitles for the Yiddish dialog.
I think the more interesting thing here is the ability to fantasize categories such as genocide
where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like the winner, and the genocidal act that has started said war (classic genocide mass killings of civilians by death squads) is appropriated by the perpetrators turned victims
most of the wars in history were fought by empires that were the exact opposite of ethnic-nationalism, and also most genocides. it is completely unrelated
Ethno-nationalism seems to be a strong factor in both Israeli and Palestinian politics. I can't think of a more direct example of ethno-nationalism than the Jewish state.
Also, my point was more about how conflict is perceived and litigated in politics and threads like this. Factoids about history are completely irrelevant to that. Its just another abstraction.
> can't think of a more direct example of ethno-nationalism than the Jewish state.
It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist? I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA.
Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation, and the ethnic part is debatable if you ever seen Israelis, unlike the Palestinian national movement which is ethnic-nationalist
> It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist?
Most nationalism either is based around an established ancestry-derived ethnic identity (which is what “ethno-nationalism” usually refers to), or seeks to construct a new identity (which itself can be viewed as ethnic) transcending existing ethnic lines within the population of a state (the PRM regime in Mexico is an example of this); you might call this cosmopolitan nationalism.
> I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA.
States often contain multiple different kinds of nationalism in their population, and may even contain different kinds in their governments. The USA definitely has nationalist factions of both the ethnonationalist (specifically White nationalist) and cosmopolitan nationalist kind.
> Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation,
The Israeli state is possibly the only strongly ethnoreligious state. Ethnoreligious nationalism is a large subset of ethno-nationalism, but states in places with strong ethnoreligious nationalism don’t always build both ethnic and religious character into their state structure.
Yes, it is usually used as a talking point against Israel which seems to indicate Israel is guilty of being the only ethnonationalist nation on earth.
I usually take it as another example of scapegoating Israel for universal concepts like war, which is a cultural tradition dating at least two millennia (scapegoating, not war)
Im not attacking Israeli ethno-nationalism. I am attacking how you see the world so exclusively through that lense. The assumption that the only cause I could care about could be some kind of anti semitic activism. When actually I think this is a problem all over the place and for the most part Israeli's are just another victim of that.
I don't think ethnonationalism is the cause for war, yes it does historically break up when you force two nations speaking different languages and separate communities in one country.
However, there are enough examples to stable nationalism being completely at peace and enough examples for transnational entities trying to aggressively add more nations to their project (USSR, prenational empires)
Perhaps I should have said "exclusive nation state membership abstractions". It makes no difference to the point. That the abstraction subjugates the individual.
And I don't see why American can't be an ethnicity or even religious type all on its own. None of this is static.
This is demagoguery. There is ample evidencence that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Historians who study genocide all their careers, including Israeli Jewish ones, concluded it a long time ago. There is 100 pages with references in the application by South Africa to the ICJ. If you intend to take the same route as the Holocaust denialists, the burden is on you to disprove all the evidence.
last time I checked a basic part of a trial is the mere existence of it is not a proof of guilt..
While most of your argument is the fact that because South Africa has sued Israel in international court then it is somehow proof of genocide.
Regarding scholars, again not enough I am sorry.
In reality after more than two years the Gazan population hasn't even declined in size, which makes the entire case for genocide mostly a political joke on people who were mostly systematically exterminated like the Jews, Armenians and Tutsi.
Generally this is so far from a real genocide killing rates, reasons and methods that the only explanation is that some regimes have an interest at removing the substance out of the definition of genocide
I repeat, the evidence that South Africa submitted in this application spans 100 pages with reference. You are not disproving that but instead throwing ridiculous claims that Gazan population hasn't declined in size.
To be clear, South Africa didn't present any of their OWN evidence to the ICJ of Israeli genocide.
Rather, they carefully and methodically presented hundreds of reports made by OTHER UN agencies which reported on the genocidal behaviour.
This left the ICJ in a pickle: as a UN body itself, it had to either find for 'probably genocide' or publicly state that every other UN body was either in a grand conspiracy or was incompetent.
I guess "genocide" is also defined by the winners, or their defenders. And if it's not a genocide, then it's just mass killing of innocents, and that's... fine!
Neither was genocide, neither in outcome nor in intention.
You could argue about "mass killing" or some such. Dresden firebombings did not attempted to eliminate German nation as such. It does not matter how actual nazi try to frame it as similar to holocaust, it was not nearly close.
And same goes for Hiroshima. It was not an attempt to eliminate Japanese people out of existence.
> Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population
They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers. The attempt to starve them was intentional too.
> They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers
no, they were directed at the militant organizations in Gaza while the civilian population was warned to evacuate in advance.
the only thing you can base this on is the fact hamas intentionally does not publish its dead, all of the casualties are "civilians", and Hamas was caught either converting dead militants to "journalists" and such or completely inflating its statistics such as the 500 false dead in the hospital "attack".
if you compare this to a similar contemporary war with reliable statistics like the war against hezbollah, you can see Israel was clearly able and successful in targeting militants.
regarding "starvation" even according to unreliable Hamas statistics these are minuscule, while if you will look at instagram there was actually a restaurant and food blogging scene in gaza throughout the war which is very inconsistent with mass famine
They just happened to disproportionally kill doctors, first responders and other medical workers. And hospitals. No, they were not focused at militant organization.
And also foreign journalists and workers. No reason for scare quotes, their deaths are well documented.
As for starwation, well documented too. Policy of not allowing food in was going on for months, Israel intentionally creating issues with distribution was going on for months.
Genocidal rhetorics was present too, like you are literally lying here.
Can you explain what happened to Hind Rajab? She was the five year old girl who was the only survivor of a missile attack and managed to call emergency services, and so humanitarians called up Israel and agreed to clear a specific path where they wouldn't be shot so they could save the little girl, and they drove a van with a big red cross painted on top on that exact route, and when they got to the little girl and got out of the ambulance, they were all murdered by a precisely targeted missile aimed at the precise coordinates they gave to Israel, set for the precise time when the ambulance would get there, and there was nobody else around who could be a target since they all died in the first missile attack that only the little girl survived? Can you explain how that is not intentional targeting of civilians and medical personnel?
I suppose you'll just say it didn't happen, but if it did, the medics were Hamas.
I don't know, people are very persistent about this specific incidence. If I understand correctly this is a family that drove around tanks and were shot as something that unfortunately happens around live active war zones. Your depiction of "precise aerial bombing" is wrong
Let's say for the sake of argument the tank crew did not shoot due to fog of war but did out of malice, what would that prove except a single criminal tank crew? and no, I don't think Occam's razor points at that
They were hit by a precision guided missile not a tank. Because it was precision guided, it hit exactly where it was aimed. Which happened to be the exact coordinates Israel was told there would be medics saving a little girl.
Is this how you win the arguments in your head? Your opponent uses the word "genocide", you concluded turning Gaza into rubble with kids and many more innocents underneath them doesn't fit the term "genocide", and you further conclude whatever claim your opponent is trying to make is wrong, and therefore there aren't a few hundred thousand dead civilians, ah the whole accusation is just fictional, they all actually lived happily ever after in peace and harmony (in your head).
Yeah yeah, people are still dying, and we're arguing about the definitions of words. How convenient. Whatever distraction helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
no, I am saying war is not genocide. And protecting your own civilians from very real death squads going on executing rampage is not "genocide" it's called war, which might be terrible but sometimes you can't evade
There were no such death squads. Hamas killed a thousand Israeli civilians in 12 hours, if Israel used the same tactics (mass civilian executions by gun fire, einsatzgruppen style), most of the Gaza population would be killed by now (millions)
Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is thought by some to be "genocide", though it was far less destructive, more precise and not aimed at a civilian population as compared to the above
If by "arbitrary law" you mean "don't snipe babies, journalists and the Red Cross" and by "political influence" you mean "actual psychopaths who want the headshot high score"
