this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1045 points (78.5% liked)
Political Memes
5436 readers
3300 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody expects Kamala to solve it. They do expect her to stop supporting genocide.
i mean, to my knowledge maybe i'm wrong i don't follow this conflict very closely, but so far the only source i've seen for it being genocide was the ICJ ruling that it "might be genocide if this continues getting worse" which i dont believe was followed up on.
A number of history scholars or whoever have claimed that it "amounts to genocide" or is "effectively genocide" (im being really generous with the phrasing here) which people have equated to mean "there is genocide"
The ICC has put out a warrant for the funny israeli guy, doesn't mention genocide.
I don't know if any countries have explicitly called it genocide? Aside from maybe south africa, idk how they raised the case. But if you know of any cases, inform me, i am actually curious about that one.
and if we go with a strict definition of genocide, I.E. "strictly killing related to ethnicity" and extrapolate that to a test of "would the killing stop if the conflict stopped" i personally so no reason why israel would continue to kill people in the same capacity as they are not, or at all, if the conflict magically stopped entirely.
People also point to the UN definition of genocide being incredibly broad. The US bombing japan in WW2 would arguably be genocide under that definition, most wars would constitute genocide. Now to be clear, i don't think it's bad, it's just a legal definition, meant to be held out in a court of law, which usually tend to be pretty vague, until tried.
Frankly, i think it would also be rather unprecedented for someone in a higher position of power to call this a "genocide" as well. Who knows what kind of a mess that would entail. It's certainly not something you want to throw around if you want the rest of the government, and the american public to like you. Which is, the goal of politics.
I don't really see any reasonable expectation for her to call it a genocide. Expectation to callout war crimes and various other wrong doings? As well as retracting support? Absolutely.
Although little fun fact, right now the harris campaign isn't running on policy, as policy gives something for trump to attack, so without policy he can't attack anything she says, aside from her character, so it's pretty likely they're trying to outwit trump in that regard, if you're wondering why she doesn't talk about things like this more specifically.
10% of the Gazan people are injured, missing, or dead within a year. Drag thinks 10% in a year is a large number. Drag thinks Israel wants to destroy Palestine so Israel can have Palestine's land. Drag thinks killing 10% of the Gazan people is an act intended to destroy Palestine.
Drag thinks these are the words of politicians who want to commit genocide.
i assume you're pulling the 200k number? which would be 10% of 2 million. If so it's worth noting that only 40k deaths have been confirmed, which gives us a baseline of 2.5% of the population has been killed for sure. Upwards of 10% using estimations or whatever idk where that number comes from and frankly i don't care enough to look it up, if you would like to elaborate on it feel free.
As far as historical references go, and i'm just pulling these out of my ass (from the internet of course) so take them with a grain of salt. The soviets seem to have lost about 10% of their population during ww2. Citing wikipedia of all sources, for ww1 and ww2
Numbers between 1-5% of the population seems to be about within the range of normalcy, in fact the average of ww1 is about 2% and ww2 is about 3% 10% is high but you would expect that to be seen with smaller populations and less armed populations (for obvious reasons) generally when smaller nations conflict, they tend to have much larger (comparatively) tolls, due to the fact that they don't have as much land, or labor capability.
Larger nations such as the US are able to keep such low numbers primarily because they don't have to invest a significant portion of their population to make a significant troop increase.
is this bad? Probably? But then again war is bad, so... At the end of the day, this is just a risk that you take as a smaller nation, especially going against a much bigger nation.
and honestly. i don't really disagree. I don't think colonization constitutes as genocide per se however.
Maybe, or maybe it's just a result of how the middle eastern warring tends to go. They've never exactly had high standards.
if you want to argue that the politicians are shitheads, sure, i agree, they've definitely said some genocidal esque language, and some really spooky shit. But so have politicians in the US. Does that directly translate? Probably, at least to some degree. But policy is always going to be fundamentally different to rhetoric at the end of the day. Look no further than US domestic politics if you need an example for this.
I came here to argue against the incorrect semantic usage of the term genocide.
Drag disagrees with you characterising the conflict as a war. These are not just military losses.
Here's a list of zero year olds killed by the IDF in the last year. Zero year olds are not soldiers.
https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2024/israel-war-on-gaza-10000-children-killed/
oh well if we're including civilian deaths, and you assume i'm only talking about military deaths (which afaik i wasn't but i didn't look too hard at the data so lmao)
This would actually only bolster my point. As it would increase the stats i've presented, or decrease the ones you've presented.
also to be clear, there's like 300 names on the list.
"When Al Jazeera launched from the Qatari capital, Doha, on Friday, November 1, 1996, it was the first independent news channel in the Arab world." cool source bro.
Shitposting aside, i have nothing to reference this number to. It's probably high, but that's a cost that israel is willing to take, and clearly, it's a cost that palestine is willing to pay. Seems to me that both parties are content with the situation.
Those babies didn't vote for Hamas. Most of the people in Gaza didn't vote for Hamas. The last election was in 2006, and the median age in Gaza is 18. The percentage of currently alive Gazans who participated in that election is tiny. And Israel interfered in that election to help Hamas. Hamas is a puppet of Israel, selling Israel's propaganda that they are at war with Gaza. They are not. They are at war with Hamas. Gaza is not Hamas. Gaza is not at war, it's just being levelled.
In WW1/WW2 those numbers are comparable on both sides. What percentage of the Israeli population has been killed?
Honestly @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz below sums it up. Almost everyone from the region calls it genocide (with the exclusion of some Israelis)
Now you bring up what America did in ww2. And yeah, that actually constitutes a warcrime. But when the Japanese surrendered, that was accepted and people moved on. Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.
It's pretty clear at this point what's happening and that it needs to stop.
you mean the middle east? So arabs? Muslims? The exact group of people that would be vehemently opposed to literally anything slighting them in the least bit? (no shade, i mean catholocism has done about the same)
although tbf, idk much about the middle east, or it's culture, but from what i do understand, it's not the friendliest to people who don't follow expected social norms.
i mean, this specific conflict is close to 100 years old by now. While i'm sure that didn't help, and there are definitely arguments to be made about warcrimes in general. it's pretty hard to have a complete and total view of the war, and every little indiscretion possible.
So i'm not sure that
is being said in good faith here.
Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it's appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.
And a reply like this is why I'd never believe you'd question it in good faith. Cause you say, i dunno about the issue or the circumstances, but it's not genocide.
You don't look, you just say you have a problem with what others say about a topic you admit you don't know about.
Go find out or listen to what others have to say
i mean is this not what i'm currently and actively doing, and have been previously doing? It's not going very well lmao. Can't say i didn't try at least. Not that i'm going to continue doing it, because it doesn't seem to work lol.
🙄, sure. That's what you've been doing.
i'm not sure how much better i could be getting the perspectives and understandings of other people other than talking with them about things, and getting them to speak about them in a productive manner (circle jerking does nothing unfortunately)
so far i haven't seen many if any good propositions surrounding these sorts of things. it's been rather underwhelming to be honest.
perhaps you could guide me on this adventure.
Nah,
That continues to be a waste of time.
Later loser
alright then
Going deep into the legal definition of genocide is missing the point. What category it falls under doesn't change what's happening there and the support the US is giving it
oh ok, so we shouldn't consider the legal definition then, well let's see what the colloquial definition is.
"Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people."
as per the first wiki line. The whole rest of the page provides a more academic definition, and argubaly a very legal one, but we aren't talking about that.
"genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. "
as per brittanica, one of the sources of all time.
well if we're basing this entire feelings thing off of this definition specifically, i see no resemblance to this conflict in significant part. I see no reason to believe that israel is doing this SOLELY because muslims (or arabs or whatever)
and sure, we could consider the academic definition of it. But academics used to believe that the earth was at the center of the solar system, and that plate tectonics, wasn't a thing. And now we do. You shouldn't treat academics as a source of authority (this is a fallacy btw), their works, if tried and tried, proven to hold up against the rigorous test that is the universe, can be said to be, to some extent. When it comes to things like philosophy and sociology, it's literally just write your own story line adventure game. Everyone says different things, and in some capacity, everyone is right.
We could talk about history, which would arguably be more relevant. But considering this is an active conflict, good luck trying to parse that one, you're only going to get historical contexts with that one. Which to be fair, would help a lot.
well yeah no it would, because that's the whole point of the legal definition, is to give it an actual conceptualization that isn't purely based on internet conjecture and shitposting. But again, we're not here to talk about the legal definition.
just to repeat myself here
i guess you forgot to read this part.