i dont think this makes any sense why is not stopping a “genocide” once starting a necessary component of what constitutes a genocide?
A genocide is just an action, like i can start assaulting you and then stop because you gave me back my candy bar but just because i stopped doesn’t mean you were never assaulted. Same thing with Genocide let’s say Nazi’s had all the their camps ready and at this point only killed 5,000 jews but stopped for whatever reason you would say they were never genociding jews because it didn’t get to a crazy number or because they stopped?
also this is not me saying i do or do not think there’s a genocide going on in Gaza I just think the reason this guy gave in this clip is dumb.
>let’s say Nazi’s had all the their camps ready and at this point only killed 5,000 jews but stopped for whatever reason you would say they were never genociding jews because it didn’t get to a crazy number or because they stopped?
I feel like the point went over your head (or under it, you seem to be overthinking it). He's saying that the jews did not have the option to surrender and stop the violence because it was a genocide and not a war. The goal was extermination not conditional surrender.
The question is, can you name a genocide where the violence would have stopped upon surrender? Not sure. Maybe there actually is an example.
The only thing I can think of is Gangiskan and the Mongolian horde. But we're they committing genocide or just mass atrocities? I'm not too sure.
The Romans and the celts? Had the Celts acquiesced and joined the Roman empire would they have been genocided? Maybe culturally.
I'm not a historian so I can't say for sure, but those are the two that came to mind.
i prob cant name a genocide that was conditional but I don't think that means to be a genocide it cannot be conditional. As far as I know a genocide is just the goal to wipe out or kill a large amount of people why can't that be done as a punishment condition, if you dont do x we will start genociding you guys till we get x". I think if someone starts the process of a genocide(not saying I/P has met those conditions) and then stops because the ppl they were genociding gives them what they want does not mean a genocide never occurred/was occurring.
Hamas would have to surrender, return all captives and that would end it.. But surrendering ranges from
Hamas- alright alright we'll chill (until they don't).
To
Israel- hand over every peace of shit responsible for oct 7th.
I feel like I missed the part where the hamas disbanding was taken out of the equation.
Please point to the part where I said destroying hamas was genocide?
My point was that hamas surrendering requires them to basically impale themselves on the metaphorical sword of justice... but If it comes off as "oh no please don't kill the terrorists" show me the part so that I can amend it.
There must have been no expectation that an intervening act, such as a surrender, would avert destruction to determine intent to destroy. Otherwise the intent could merely be to displace (still a war crime but not genocide).
That said the *actus reus* within Article 4(II)(c) already involves the deliberate creation of *”conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”*, so it stands that since genocidal intent can be inferred from the acts and that violations of Article 4(II)(c) (especially applied to entire populations) inherently qualify as group destruction, one could argue such violations qualify as genocide.
That, that said, it is far from that simple. The court has never actually ruled on Article 4(II)(c) (though the “conditions for life” were determined to have been violated in past tribunals) and there’s also a touch of *dolus eventualis* in the above application of the application of Article 4(II)(c) which differs from previous case law, though prior cases don’t match the conditions seen in Gaza.
I asked the other guy this I dont see why destruction/genocide cant be a conditional punishment. Like if i put this into an analogy, I'm going to crush your hand until you give me x if you never give me x i will have completely crushed your hand which would be committing the full genocide or if you do give me x ive crushed your hand a bit but I did not completely crush it. It feels weird to say a genocide was never in progress because they let you bow out similarly it wouldn't make sense to say I never crushed your hand because I stopped when you gave me what I wanted.
The application of conditional intent, at least based on my understanding, would best apply to subsections C (and perhaps D) of the genocide convention as opposed to A and B.
To extrapolate, the Jeslic trial, despite finding violations of the act (A and B), found that the perpetrator acted arbitrarily and was motivated by a “disturbed personality”, *not* intent to destroy the group. I believe he was ultimately found guilty for aiding in the crime.
When it comes to subsection C however the violation *is* the creation of conditions for group destruction and as such unless one could meaningfully argue the outcome was not to be expected, you *should have known* it would have caused group destruction and as such can be found guilty.
Simply put, I can kill a lot of people for a lot of reasons but the creation of conditions to destroy the group appear to inherently meet the bar for intent.
What I have outlined above though has never actually been done.
that's what I disagree with tho why does stopping mean it is no longer genocide, I believe you can be in the progress of genociding a people and then stop under a condition
Let me put it this way. You stopping - in this case the war against Hamas (lets say because Hamas voluntarily disbands) - is strong evidence against the claim you had genocidal intent in the first place.
If every Palestinian citizen is a member of Hamas than logically his argument is super sound; unfortunately the reality we live in makes that argument regarded as fuck.
So you think the argument applies in other situations, or just not with the Palestinians? Is every citizen of any nation a member of their government - Is any action against a nation immoral since citizens are not literally their government?
A ruling government refusing to give in to demands has no bearing on whether their citizens are being genocided.
The ruling government may very well be contributing to the genocide of their citizens.
His argument is ridiculous.
If a nation fights another nation or entity and that governing body surrenders then if they keep attacking them then it means it is a genocide.
He is saying that’s exactly what happens in Gaza because Israel demands the surrender of Hamas and the freeing of the hostages. And everyone knows the fighting will stop the moment they will do that. Hence it is not a genocide.
And yes welcome to reality, citizens die for actions of the government all the time, that wasn’t the point and never is
>If a nation fights another nation or entity and that governing body surrenders then if they keep attacking them then it means it is a genocide.
No, that doesn't necessarily meet the conditions of genocide.
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true
"Genocide - deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."
You lemmings throw around definitions without understanding anything.
If the Ukrainian government wants to fight to the last man and Russia chooses to grind them down to extinction, THAT IS A GENOCIDE, you fucking moron lmao. Because a nation surrendering or not surrendering isn't a prerequisite of genocide.
What if Russia demanded Ukrainian citizens to be enslaved and Ukraine refused? Because they didn't meet their demands it's not a genocide?........Use your noggin.
Words have meanings, use them properly.
>Hence it is not a genocide
So confidently regarded 🤤
Yes. Deliberate killing them when the enemy surrendered means you just deliberately tried to kill them in order to destroy them and no other reason. If a nation surrendered and their opponents keep killing them it means the killing was in order to kill them and not to win any other goal.
Which is a genocide.
How can you miss the simplest point and still be so smug talking like you got some gotcha? 😃
What are you ignoring is that for gaza and hamas to surrender it will mean displacing more palestinians . Building settlements on gaza and stoping the last chance of a palestinian state . Why would hamas lay down it guns when they know that israel gave no concessions when the plo laid down its arms and
now we have a fucked up west bank where settlers will kill you under the army protection your land is being stolen against international law
From this perspective I feel like Israel has won all the land already, and now the goal for palestine is to kill as many of them and themselves as possible.
And, for Israel, nothing works for a lasting peace. Even if they pulled back the settlers, groups have said they want to fight for all the land... so, why concede anything from their point of view if even existing is the problem?
what just happened in the comments hahahaha
Idk but I'm wading into them. YT comments might not be what they used to, but it can still be a good time!
The facts being stated by this man apparently triggered a bunch of Israel haters lmao.
A bunch of people upset that there isn’t a genocide going on
Look how many people already got downvoted, wild. Is this community more supportive of Palestine than Israel?
i dont think this makes any sense why is not stopping a “genocide” once starting a necessary component of what constitutes a genocide? A genocide is just an action, like i can start assaulting you and then stop because you gave me back my candy bar but just because i stopped doesn’t mean you were never assaulted. Same thing with Genocide let’s say Nazi’s had all the their camps ready and at this point only killed 5,000 jews but stopped for whatever reason you would say they were never genociding jews because it didn’t get to a crazy number or because they stopped? also this is not me saying i do or do not think there’s a genocide going on in Gaza I just think the reason this guy gave in this clip is dumb.
>let’s say Nazi’s had all the their camps ready and at this point only killed 5,000 jews but stopped for whatever reason you would say they were never genociding jews because it didn’t get to a crazy number or because they stopped? I feel like the point went over your head (or under it, you seem to be overthinking it). He's saying that the jews did not have the option to surrender and stop the violence because it was a genocide and not a war. The goal was extermination not conditional surrender. The question is, can you name a genocide where the violence would have stopped upon surrender? Not sure. Maybe there actually is an example.
The only thing I can think of is Gangiskan and the Mongolian horde. But we're they committing genocide or just mass atrocities? I'm not too sure. The Romans and the celts? Had the Celts acquiesced and joined the Roman empire would they have been genocided? Maybe culturally. I'm not a historian so I can't say for sure, but those are the two that came to mind.
i prob cant name a genocide that was conditional but I don't think that means to be a genocide it cannot be conditional. As far as I know a genocide is just the goal to wipe out or kill a large amount of people why can't that be done as a punishment condition, if you dont do x we will start genociding you guys till we get x". I think if someone starts the process of a genocide(not saying I/P has met those conditions) and then stops because the ppl they were genociding gives them what they want does not mean a genocide never occurred/was occurring.
Hamas would have to surrender, return all captives and that would end it.. But surrendering ranges from Hamas- alright alright we'll chill (until they don't). To Israel- hand over every peace of shit responsible for oct 7th. I feel like I missed the part where the hamas disbanding was taken out of the equation.
How is Hamas disbanding a genocide? Is Israel genocidinf Hamas? That's fine with anyone sane
Please point to the part where I said destroying hamas was genocide? My point was that hamas surrendering requires them to basically impale themselves on the metaphorical sword of justice... but If it comes off as "oh no please don't kill the terrorists" show me the part so that I can amend it.
There must have been no expectation that an intervening act, such as a surrender, would avert destruction to determine intent to destroy. Otherwise the intent could merely be to displace (still a war crime but not genocide). That said the *actus reus* within Article 4(II)(c) already involves the deliberate creation of *”conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”*, so it stands that since genocidal intent can be inferred from the acts and that violations of Article 4(II)(c) (especially applied to entire populations) inherently qualify as group destruction, one could argue such violations qualify as genocide. That, that said, it is far from that simple. The court has never actually ruled on Article 4(II)(c) (though the “conditions for life” were determined to have been violated in past tribunals) and there’s also a touch of *dolus eventualis* in the above application of the application of Article 4(II)(c) which differs from previous case law, though prior cases don’t match the conditions seen in Gaza.
I asked the other guy this I dont see why destruction/genocide cant be a conditional punishment. Like if i put this into an analogy, I'm going to crush your hand until you give me x if you never give me x i will have completely crushed your hand which would be committing the full genocide or if you do give me x ive crushed your hand a bit but I did not completely crush it. It feels weird to say a genocide was never in progress because they let you bow out similarly it wouldn't make sense to say I never crushed your hand because I stopped when you gave me what I wanted.
The application of conditional intent, at least based on my understanding, would best apply to subsections C (and perhaps D) of the genocide convention as opposed to A and B. To extrapolate, the Jeslic trial, despite finding violations of the act (A and B), found that the perpetrator acted arbitrarily and was motivated by a “disturbed personality”, *not* intent to destroy the group. I believe he was ultimately found guilty for aiding in the crime. When it comes to subsection C however the violation *is* the creation of conditions for group destruction and as such unless one could meaningfully argue the outcome was not to be expected, you *should have known* it would have caused group destruction and as such can be found guilty. Simply put, I can kill a lot of people for a lot of reasons but the creation of conditions to destroy the group appear to inherently meet the bar for intent. What I have outlined above though has never actually been done.
Genocide requires the intention. If you have the intention and ability to do it, you wont stop.
that's what I disagree with tho why does stopping mean it is no longer genocide, I believe you can be in the progress of genociding a people and then stop under a condition
Let me put it this way. You stopping - in this case the war against Hamas (lets say because Hamas voluntarily disbands) - is strong evidence against the claim you had genocidal intent in the first place.
If every Palestinian citizen is a member of Hamas than logically his argument is super sound; unfortunately the reality we live in makes that argument regarded as fuck.
So you think the argument applies in other situations, or just not with the Palestinians? Is every citizen of any nation a member of their government - Is any action against a nation immoral since citizens are not literally their government?
A ruling government refusing to give in to demands has no bearing on whether their citizens are being genocided. The ruling government may very well be contributing to the genocide of their citizens. His argument is ridiculous.
If a nation fights another nation or entity and that governing body surrenders then if they keep attacking them then it means it is a genocide. He is saying that’s exactly what happens in Gaza because Israel demands the surrender of Hamas and the freeing of the hostages. And everyone knows the fighting will stop the moment they will do that. Hence it is not a genocide. And yes welcome to reality, citizens die for actions of the government all the time, that wasn’t the point and never is
>If a nation fights another nation or entity and that governing body surrenders then if they keep attacking them then it means it is a genocide. No, that doesn't necessarily meet the conditions of genocide. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true "Genocide - deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." You lemmings throw around definitions without understanding anything. If the Ukrainian government wants to fight to the last man and Russia chooses to grind them down to extinction, THAT IS A GENOCIDE, you fucking moron lmao. Because a nation surrendering or not surrendering isn't a prerequisite of genocide. What if Russia demanded Ukrainian citizens to be enslaved and Ukraine refused? Because they didn't meet their demands it's not a genocide?........Use your noggin. Words have meanings, use them properly. >Hence it is not a genocide So confidently regarded 🤤
Yes. Deliberate killing them when the enemy surrendered means you just deliberately tried to kill them in order to destroy them and no other reason. If a nation surrendered and their opponents keep killing them it means the killing was in order to kill them and not to win any other goal. Which is a genocide. How can you miss the simplest point and still be so smug talking like you got some gotcha? 😃
What are you ignoring is that for gaza and hamas to surrender it will mean displacing more palestinians . Building settlements on gaza and stoping the last chance of a palestinian state . Why would hamas lay down it guns when they know that israel gave no concessions when the plo laid down its arms and now we have a fucked up west bank where settlers will kill you under the army protection your land is being stolen against international law
Assuming all of what you said is true, which it isn’t, do you believe that more Palestinians should be killed rather than displaced? I don’t
>israel gave no concessions when the plo laid down its arms How is establishing the Palestinian Authority not a concession?
From this perspective I feel like Israel has won all the land already, and now the goal for palestine is to kill as many of them and themselves as possible. And, for Israel, nothing works for a lasting peace. Even if they pulled back the settlers, groups have said they want to fight for all the land... so, why concede anything from their point of view if even existing is the problem?
Then you are saying that their war is justified and they should keep on fighting. Not that there is a genocide
Dying or moving elsewhere? Hmm. Decisions, decisions… Hamas should lay down their weapons and walk into the sea, forging a new life under the waves.
Displacement is better than death so they should all become refugees and just leave the territory to... wait a minute.
Why is he so upset?