You must log in or register to comment.
Its only a genocide if it comes from the third reich. Anything else is just sparkling ethnic cleansing.
Turkey: See I told you guys
Japan, after decimating Ainu people and brutally murdering Chinese and Korean people in the occupied territories: “uwu”
It’s probably all the radiation.
Being on the wrong side of history on the same topic 75 year apart
Genocide, as in the legal definition, requires intent. As far as I see it Germany is not even trying to deny anything Israel did or does, or argue evidence in any other way, all the government is basically doing is saying “Your honour, our client can’t have intent because they’re demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity”. Not in that many words, but to that effect.
And a sane person/nation would willingly engage in genocide? Insanity doesn’t negate intent, only ones ability to distinguish reality or prevent themselves from carrying out actions they know to be immoral. Inb4 India, China, the USA, and Russia of course but you take my point?
With individuals, criminal insanity means that you can’t be held accountable on account of not being able to tell good from wrong: Lacking that ability, you cannot have an intent to do wrong. It’s also not a get out of jail free card, it’s quite often a get locked into a closed institution for an indeterminate amount of time card, until the doctors decide that you’re not a danger to yourself or society. Being judged criminally insane can turn a five-year sentence into de facto life.
And it’s not like I personally agree that the notion is really applicable to a people, or that it should be considered when it comes to the genocide convention, but damn someone has to be their defence lawyer – they certainly aren’t capable of defending themselves, pretty much everything they say just makes people more mad, justifiably so. Given Germany’s history don’t blame us for taking on that role.
The thing about insanity is made up by the person eho posted that comment. What they actually say is that Israel’s intent is to defend themselves against the armed attacks by the Hamas, so self-defense, and not to commit a genocide.
That’s such a weird take. I mean you’re right, that is exactly the argument, but it doesn’t hold any water. To defend against Hamas attacks, Israel would need a huge border fence (check), a vastly superior military (check), constant surveillance on Gaza (check), Iron Dome (check), and even morally questionable methods like full control over the Palestinian population registry to track criminals (check). The fact that they had all those and still failed self-defense just adds to the argument that killing tens of thousands of civilians and destroying the majority of civilian infrastructure (while making the vast majority unusable) and completely debilitating the medical infrastructure and blocking humanitarian aid (also via criminal methods) and
Killing members of the group; (b) 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
is actually genocide.
Your honour, our client can’t have intent because they’re demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity". Not in that many words, but to that effect.
That’s completely made up, either by you or by another person. What they actually say is that Israel’s intent is to defend against the armed attacks of the Hamas, not to commit a genocide.
More like: “Your honor, our client is just trying to defend themselves, they are not doing this to commit a genocide”
Mere defensive intent does not match up with the evidence unless you assume psychosis, and Germany very much is not denying the evidence.
That’s why I said “in not that many words”.
Germany provided Israel with anti-tank weapons and also training muniton. That’s it (according to official statements). Doesn’t sound like something you could commit a genocide with to me…
The insanity started way before Nazi genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzl's_Mauschel_and_Zionist_antisemitism
That’s a spark, not the kindling, much less the oil we poured on top of it. Without that, the “holocaust oil”, Israelis would probably be like French levels of patriotic today: Occasionally annoying but harmless and also mostly charming.
it’s not genocide, it’s war crimes: Germany, 2024
(Preface: I am team genocide. I also live in Germany. Germany’s politics are a disgrace, but I digress.)
What annoys me about this is that this discussion gets so much media attention and focus, while it doesn’t matter in this very moment. I understand that there are implications if it will be defined as a genocide. But right now people are being killed every day en masse and they frankly give a crap about whether they died in a mass murder or terrorist attack or a genocide.
It reminds me of the early days of the Ukraine war when everyone was so obsessed with comparing Putin to Hitler (Putler is still a popular term) and the discussion was high on whether Putins actions amount to fascism or not, with a lot of internet laymen but also experts on that subject chiming in. When I asked a half Russian, half Ukrainian what their opinion was, their reply was something like “who the fuck cares? Call it a chicken pea pie, nobody cares, people are being killed, I don’t give a crap. Somewhen in the future people will be looking back and asking the same question, but it doesn’t matter right now.” And it stuck with me.
If I understand correctly, the ICJ will rule again on the case in a couple of years (?), which obviously isn’t relevant right now. It seems like the ruling would have an aftermath in retrospect but even if they ruled it were a genocide today, nothing much would change directly - but please correct me if I am wrong here.
But what definitely doesn’t matter is what we think. What matters is what is happening. And it doesn’t need a name to be evil and detrimental.
Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they’d have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it’s of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that’s not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.
Ok, this sounds valid. But what would oblige them to stop them from delivering weapons if the ICJ rules it is a genocide? Is there any legal obligation, can they denounce the ruling?
If you mean acknowledge in a sense of civilian/political acknowledgement, then my issue with it is that it shouldn’t be necessary to be this anal about some definition. It’s splitting hairs on cut off heads. Supporting mass murder is wrong in the context of genocide as well as outside of it. It shouldn’t be necessary to convince the governments that it is a genocide to convince them to stop supplying weapons.
Israel already received an ICJ ruling to immediately stop their blocking of aid which they ignored.
It’s safe to say the ICJ is nothing but a feel good tool that everyone including the West ignores when inconvenient.
The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):
“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”
Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.
Thank you, that is a very helpful insight!
crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements
Why do we then seem to hear only about the genocide controversy? Wouldn’t it be easier/faster/more obvious to argue for all the other crimes mentioned above?
That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I’m genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)
terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.
Especially when the terrorists come from an area which the victim has effective control over. It’s a police matter, not a 2,000 pound bomb matter.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?
This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.
Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?
Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.
American companies allegedly kept on working with Nazi Germany after the US entered the war. Therefore, unless Israel gets on the UN stand and says, “Yes, we’re committing genocide and y’all’s are next” no one will let non-white deaths affect the bottom line.
”i am team genocide"
-volvoxvsmarla
I dunno, can we trust them? Agree tho; people are dying and it needs to stop no matter what we call it, even if there were no larger implications; its fucking pointless and needs to stop.
I hope I won’t be remembered for this quote. I’ll choose my phrasing better in the future.
"I (…) won’t be (…) better in the future. "
-volvoxvsmarla
I need to stop digging, my grave is already big enough to fit a walrus
I need to stop ███ing, my ███ is already big enough to f███ a walrus
-volvoxvsmarla
Lol please don’t; it was hilarious to read.
Germany: “Fucking casuals, you call that a genocide!”
Well, he is right, its mass murdering, but not genocide.
Wait until we find his 2012 Twitter handle calling everyone but Titans unnecessary
It’s still genocide if somebody survives. Otherwise Holocaust wouldn’t be a genocide.
If I randomly kill all humans it would be genocide. I absolutely hate the common usage of the word, but killing all humans definitely would be genocide.
Killing 50% of any one people is genocide, right? For example, the Nazis killed up to 50% of European Romani people and it is classified as a genocide.
Let’s assume killing 50% of n peoples is genocide.
Since killing 50% of n peoples is genocide, killing 50% of n+1 peoples must also be genocide, else a number N would exist such that killing 50% of N - 1 peoples is genocide but killing 50% of N peoples is not. The existence of such a number N would be quite contradictory, as it would imply one could undo genocide by killing more people. Additionally, if one were to first kill 50% of N - 1 people and then kill 50% of one more people some time later, both events would be classified as genocide, since killing 50% of one people is assumed to be genocide.
Therefore, Thanos did in fact commit genocide.
Every Jew in modern day Germany…
I as a german asked an expert on that topic. Chatgpt. According to chatGPT there is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So if for example you drop accidentally poison into their water because you mixed the Botox and sugar bottle in the water station then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since chatgpt is infallable this is the only truth.
Good thing then that Israeli politicians haven’t been on record saying that Gaza needs to be “wiped from the face of the Earth”!
Except that basically all Israeli politicians have made statements saying they have genocidal intentions.
All?
The charge document includes quotes of expression of genocidal intent by the following state officials:
- Prime Minister of Israel
- President of Israel
- Israeli Minister of Defence
- Israeli Minister for National Security
- Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure
- Israeli Minister of Finance
- Israeli Minister of Heritage
- Israeli Minister of Agriculture
- Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Member of the Foreign Affairs and Security
Committee - Israeli Army Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (‘COGAT’)
- Israeli Army Reservist Major General, former Head of the Israeli National Security
Council, and adviser to the Defence Minister
You can read the actual quotes in the application document in chapter D.
I know your being sarcastic but I just want to point out that this is incorrect
here is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet
If you plan to cull a demographic by only 10% its still genocide according to the UN. This is the definition that South Africa’s case at the ICJ will be ruled under. Under this definition all ethnic cleansing requires genocide.
Fire Nation: “We never did the Air Nomad genocide. We didn’t intend to kill them all, we only intended to kill one guy”
Upvoted but I wish you would have run your post through ChatGPT as well my friend. That was hard to read.
Comma rule in German is so fucked that normal humans just give up and never use any.
I could use german grammar to set the commas, but then I would have probably 10 to many for English grammar. So I tend to use less in English.
Comma rules in German are logical and follow set rules. When I asked my English teacher about comma rules in English, she said she’s not teaching them cause they’re too complicated.
When I asked my English teacher during my foreign exchange year in the US, she basically said the same.As a native English speaker, I barely understand comma rules either. The only person I know that I would expect to always get commas right has a Master’s degree in English. The extremely oversimplified rule I was taught as a young child was to add a comma anywhere you would naturally pause while speaking. Doesn’t always work, but it works well enough.
Yeah, genocide often requires intent. So I guess this could be more of a massacre than a genocide.
But there’s quite a few different definitions, some are more lax.
Except for all the politicians, from shutzstaffel commanders to the (Hitler apologist) PM’s PR guy saying exactly this, using words like cexterminate’ ‘wipe from the earth’ ‘every last one’ and many individual storm troopers posting on their social media (in videos while doing war crimes), or even their ‘civilians’ frequently saying it
Edit: nevermind. It wasnt a press guy; their pm.said it himself. Of course it did.
I really doubt their aim with this thing is to destroy all the Palestinians, but if you can provide those quotes that show that that’s their stated aim then I’d definitely consider this a genocide.
How many do you need? So we don’t have any more goalpost shifting?
I was thinking the ones in the above reply but it doesn’t have to be very many at all if it’s the top people saying it. PM, DM, generals (that sort of people) saying their goals are extermination of Palestinians seems like it’d make the case pretty clear.
I’m sorry if you see asking for sources as goalpost shifting but my goalpost was that there should be intent shown (because that’s a common genocide definition I think). It hasn’t changed. Asking for source is just basic thing on online discussions. It’s not a personal thing against you.
How many. Give me a number. IMO case is already so obvious you need special glasses to look directly at it and keep your eyes. So tell me how many high level and how many low level (probably nsfl) sources would work.
If Theres a ‘might convince me’ range and a ‘this is so fucking obvious how could I have missed this?’ Range, feel free to include that.
Uhh, let’s say five? Is that alright?
I’m sorry I didn’t first see that you had edited the comment. I don’t know what would be a solid number for “this is obvious”. I guess it would depend on what is said by who. But I guess if you want some sort of hard number then let’s go with five top level comments or something? Would that work?
Teeeeensy nitpick: there are two definitions of genocide that have ever mattered. Two. Not many. Two.
Lemkins original, much much broader, definition, And the one you’re familiar with, adopted by the UN because like everyone on the permanent security council thing had an interest in the definition being a little more narrow. Under which the way the Palestinian people are being exterminated absolutely still counts.
Interestingly, by lemkin’s broader definition, making the shutzstaffel stop killing Palestinians might constitute a genocide of the kapostanis; it would be destroying every trace of their culture, and the means of its reproduction.
I didn’t say there were plenty “that have ever mattered” so it doesn’t seem like a nitpick towards me.
I’m sure your high school had its own? Doesn’t count.
There are plenty of abbreviations. But those aren’t separate content; just condensed versions.
There are two.
Well that’s certainly a view.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I’m going to laugh at it so hard.
Which is probably going to get me kicked out of a lot of ‘stop the genocide’ stuff.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I’m going to laugh at it so hard.
Weird.
To meet the legal definition of genocide, you also have to have the intent to destroy a particular group of people. So, legally speaking, your example isn’t genocide according to any source.
I don’t know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started, but if it doesn’t involve an intent to destroy Palestinians specifically, I guess I could see how GPT’s take is valid. Like, the war in Ukraine is egregious too, but that by itself doesn’t make it a genocide.
Deliberate displacement of particular ethnic or religious groups is also recognized as genocide, in particular because it’s often a pretext. ChatGPT is wrong, and needs to read the UN definition.
How it started: the Ottomans sided with the Nazis, so when they lost, the Ottomans also lost their land and the Allies got it, following the usual war rule where the winner wins the land. Dividing up the land is where the British Mandate for Palestine came from, under which we gave 2/3 of the land to the Arabs (Transjordan) and 1/3 of the land to Israel. But the Arabs refused to accept this and started the first of a series of wars against Israel. The Arabs, now also partially known as Palestinians, have continually refused to accept any peace deal, starting wars whenever possible and so far losing every one of them. Israel has repeatedly accepted peace deals, even at the cost of land, but it only works if both sides agree, which they don’t: the only deal the Arabs want is all the land and no Israel, which also means no Jews (proof: look at the Jewish communities within existing Arab states (TLDR: non-existent or shrinking)), which means the Arabs are hellbent on a genocide of all the Jews, and are determined to achieve that or die trying.
I don’t know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started
Religion
germany really said
I guess they have fairly high standards when it comes to genicide…
In hindsight this should have been posted in the political meme section not here.
My apologies, I’m new to lemmy. Thank you for your patience yall, I’ll do better.
A shitpost’s a shitpost damnit
great meme OP or should i say groß meme!
Germany moment
it took me way too long to figure out the joke on this one.
I’ll see myself out now.
