Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, because they claimed to be aiming for Ukrainian troops hidden underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
Other estimates appear lower, but seem to be sticking with confirmed numbers. Confirming numbers out of a place like Mariupol would presumably be pretty hard.
Also, don't forget about the thousands of children that were kidnapped by the Russians and are currently being raised in Russia. But thanks for making our point. It is funny how much atrocity will be overlooked by the left--Uyghurs, Bangladesh, Yemen, Sudan, etc.--when the Jews cannot be blamed.
Yes. Iran gives money to Hamas to commit terror attacks, and we know they are guilty of these war crimes already: waging offensive war, deliberately murdering civilians, taking hostages, using civilains as human shields, using civilian infrastructure of military purposes, and failing to distinguish themselves from civilians-- and maybe sexual assault.
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, Claiming to be aiming at Ukrainian troops in underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII.
BTW, the US used one 2000 lb bomb in their urban campaign in Fallujah in Iraq. How many 2000 pound bombs have the Israeli troops precision targeted the civilians of Gaza with? Because Jill Biden didn't like that, now the IDF has to use 500 pound bombs. If a 500 pound bomb dropped on your neighborhood, would you feel it was precisely targeted?
"And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII." That cheapens the word. There is a large difference between indiscriminate bombing and the targeted killing of members of an ethnic/racial/religious group with the intent to annihilate the group. So for example, the slaughter of Tutsis by the Hutu in Rwanda was an actual genocide. The targeted killing of Jews in WWII was a genocide. The blitzkrieg of France by Hitler was NOT a genocide. The Russians war crimes in Ukraine do not necessarily constitute a genocide. Genocide is not about waging a war (even a war of conquest) where a disproportionate number of civilians are killed. It's not even about war crimes. It can still be bad and yet not fall under the term "genocide". It's like when the Bush II administration was calling everything 'terrorism'. Or when anti-abortion organizations call abortion a 'holocaust'. It's important to keep definitions rigorous rather than misuse a term just to add impact.
So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse. I'd be happy to give this behavior a new name as long as it is recognized and punished as a war crime.
"So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse". I did not say or imply anything of the sort. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you know that I think things can be bad without being genocide. War crimes are ALREADY prosecuted without being classified as genocide. Slobodan Milosevitch is one example. In fact, the international criminal court already makes the distinction https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc
Well, I hope the pressure is kept on Israel until some of its leaders are successfully prosecuted for war crimes. Israelis have also committed an untold number of crimes on the West Bank.
On one thing we can absolutely agree: Those Israeli criminals in the West Bank need to have the book thown at them, and hard. And I also hold responsible the right wing political leaders who gave a wink and nod permission structure for it. In fact, Netanyahu is the Israeli Donald Trump: It's not clear he is actually trying to win the war or come to a practical agreement. If the war ended, there would be elections and he'd lose. That would mean he'd have to face criminal prosecution for existing cases.
The US dropped over 5,000 2,000 lb bombs in just the early stages f the Iraq war. They dropped one 20,000 lb bomb that was called a bunker buster. It's horrible, but your enthusiasm got away from the facts to heighten the rhetoric on this one. And it's not important, it's only semantics, but if you term every instance of mass killings in extended wars genocide, then the term has no definition other than mass casualties. Genocide is usually used to imply the intent of completely stamping out a given nationality or race or culture using violence, indiscriminately, not even bothering to warn the population of an impending bombing campaign first, as little good that that does.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
They make a solitude and call it peace (often misquoted as they make a desolation and call it peace).
The only way to true peace is through the destruction of the Other and the continued effort to prevent the arise of the Other.
Now, that sounds totally nasty and genocidal, but that is not the necessity of it. It is the way that simple-minded, zero-sum type of people see. Your observation about the winner helping to rebuild the loser is a part of the thing.
The Other is a narrative and sociological/cultural construct that is based upon perceived differences. The tendency to see and prioritize difference versus similarity.
To create a stronger and larger and more powerful society, difference needs to be marginalized in favor of similarity (we are all human, we are all Americans, etc). Ideally preserving and respecting difference while not making it fodder for destructive narratives and actions.
E Pluribus Unam
or the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (yes I am a Star Trek fan)
Building strength thru empasizing difference is weaker than building strength by embracing difference.
Inclusivity is, in the end more powerful than exclusivity. Exclusivity is easier, it's lazy. It appeals to the demons of our nature rather than the angels of our nature... and it tends to end badly.
The Romans succeeded for as long as they did because, in the end, anyone could be Roman.
Israel and the Palestinians have had multiple chances to find prosperous ways to live together, but each time one side seemed open to it, the other shut it down. After a while, the leadership of each side came to depend on that so they could talk peace and know it isn't going to happen. IF, the similarities were emphasized instead of the differences, a Palestinian state could have been a Mediterranean resort , with a Singapore like economy and a mutually beneficial trading relationship with Israel. If everyone spent their money building an economy instead of weapons the entire Middle East may be democratic by now. But, since they have different ways of worshiping, their leaders don't allow that to happen. Power is more important the lives of the citizens.
I think the only actual way forward WRT this issue would be some form of federal state that encompasses both Israelis and Palestinians, that provides solid (and relatively unbiased) protection to both.
The extremists on either side would never let that happen though.
Perhaps. It sure helped that there was a big bad enemy to worry about. With no Soviet Union, the rebuilding doesn't happen, and even if it had, would there be anywhere near the same level of good will between the US/UK and Germany and Japan?
And most changes in human behavior are slow. because humans (en mass) tend towards "conservative" behavior.
it is an evolutionary thing.
Expecting something to happen NOW, is unrealistic. It is very rare.
The Civil Rights movement (for example) didn't start in the 1960s, it started before the Civil War... and the reality is that it still isn't even remotely over.
In my book they are more like PETA...not able to stop themselves from engaging in activity that winds up trashing the cause they believe in.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
That the word "genocide" is again coming up convinces me that they are not serious people. How hard is it to check a dictionary?
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
That said, Netanyahu is slime mold.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
Well said…:)
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, because they claimed to be aiming for Ukrainian troops hidden underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
I wouldn’t, because I know what genocide is.
And they’ve killed more than that.
"an investigation by AP from the end of 2022 gives a number of up to 75,000 killed civilians in Mariupol area alone"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties
That's the first and only time I've heard that and I follow the news from Ukraine very closely.
Other estimates appear lower, but seem to be sticking with confirmed numbers. Confirming numbers out of a place like Mariupol would presumably be pretty hard.
Also, don't forget about the thousands of children that were kidnapped by the Russians and are currently being raised in Russia. But thanks for making our point. It is funny how much atrocity will be overlooked by the left--Uyghurs, Bangladesh, Yemen, Sudan, etc.--when the Jews cannot be blamed.
For everyone claiming reliance on Hamas figures is believing propaganda, there is someone claiming reliance on IDF figures is believing propaganda.
Everyone lies in war.
So then why does anyone rely on statements made by IDF? Simply because the US broadly supports Israel?
No one should believe them without qualification, but it's in their interest to play by the rules of war. Itis far less so in Hamas' case.
Why? Because we consider Hamas to be terrorists?
Yes. Iran gives money to Hamas to commit terror attacks, and we know they are guilty of these war crimes already: waging offensive war, deliberately murdering civilians, taking hostages, using civilains as human shields, using civilian infrastructure of military purposes, and failing to distinguish themselves from civilians-- and maybe sexual assault.
What about the war crimes committed by IDF? Are you arguing they do not commit war crimes?
That is absurd. How many civilians did the US kill in its various wars?
And you know perfectly well the bombing wasn't indiscriminate.
If Israel had wanted to commit actual genocide, it would have killed at least a million Gazans by now.
People like you ignorantly throw around the word "genocide" the way the middle schoolers of my youth threw around the word "faggot."
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, Claiming to be aiming at Ukrainian troops in underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII.
BTW, the US used one 2000 lb bomb in their urban campaign in Fallujah in Iraq. How many 2000 pound bombs have the Israeli troops precision targeted the civilians of Gaza with? Because Jill Biden didn't like that, now the IDF has to use 500 pound bombs. If a 500 pound bomb dropped on your neighborhood, would you feel it was precisely targeted?
"And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII." That cheapens the word. There is a large difference between indiscriminate bombing and the targeted killing of members of an ethnic/racial/religious group with the intent to annihilate the group. So for example, the slaughter of Tutsis by the Hutu in Rwanda was an actual genocide. The targeted killing of Jews in WWII was a genocide. The blitzkrieg of France by Hitler was NOT a genocide. The Russians war crimes in Ukraine do not necessarily constitute a genocide. Genocide is not about waging a war (even a war of conquest) where a disproportionate number of civilians are killed. It's not even about war crimes. It can still be bad and yet not fall under the term "genocide". It's like when the Bush II administration was calling everything 'terrorism'. Or when anti-abortion organizations call abortion a 'holocaust'. It's important to keep definitions rigorous rather than misuse a term just to add impact.
So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse. I'd be happy to give this behavior a new name as long as it is recognized and punished as a war crime.
"So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse". I did not say or imply anything of the sort. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you know that I think things can be bad without being genocide. War crimes are ALREADY prosecuted without being classified as genocide. Slobodan Milosevitch is one example. In fact, the international criminal court already makes the distinction https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc
Well, I hope the pressure is kept on Israel until some of its leaders are successfully prosecuted for war crimes. Israelis have also committed an untold number of crimes on the West Bank.
On one thing we can absolutely agree: Those Israeli criminals in the West Bank need to have the book thown at them, and hard. And I also hold responsible the right wing political leaders who gave a wink and nod permission structure for it. In fact, Netanyahu is the Israeli Donald Trump: It's not clear he is actually trying to win the war or come to a practical agreement. If the war ended, there would be elections and he'd lose. That would mean he'd have to face criminal prosecution for existing cases.
I agree regarding the West Bank, but that does not equate to Gaza war crimes.
The US dropped over 5,000 2,000 lb bombs in just the early stages f the Iraq war. They dropped one 20,000 lb bomb that was called a bunker buster. It's horrible, but your enthusiasm got away from the facts to heighten the rhetoric on this one. And it's not important, it's only semantics, but if you term every instance of mass killings in extended wars genocide, then the term has no definition other than mass casualties. Genocide is usually used to imply the intent of completely stamping out a given nationality or race or culture using violence, indiscriminately, not even bothering to warn the population of an impending bombing campaign first, as little good that that does.
I forgot to add the detail that this was in the US urban campaign in Fallujah.
That’s ridiculous. It’s war.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
There are more Arabs every year.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
I'd be happy to call it mass murder, as long as it's recognized and punished as a war crime.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They make a solitude and call it peace (often misquoted as they make a desolation and call it peace).
The only way to true peace is through the destruction of the Other and the continued effort to prevent the arise of the Other.
Now, that sounds totally nasty and genocidal, but that is not the necessity of it. It is the way that simple-minded, zero-sum type of people see. Your observation about the winner helping to rebuild the loser is a part of the thing.
The Other is a narrative and sociological/cultural construct that is based upon perceived differences. The tendency to see and prioritize difference versus similarity.
To create a stronger and larger and more powerful society, difference needs to be marginalized in favor of similarity (we are all human, we are all Americans, etc). Ideally preserving and respecting difference while not making it fodder for destructive narratives and actions.
E Pluribus Unam
or the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (yes I am a Star Trek fan)
Building strength thru empasizing difference is weaker than building strength by embracing difference.
Inclusivity is, in the end more powerful than exclusivity. Exclusivity is easier, it's lazy. It appeals to the demons of our nature rather than the angels of our nature... and it tends to end badly.
The Romans succeeded for as long as they did because, in the end, anyone could be Roman.
Israel and the Palestinians have had multiple chances to find prosperous ways to live together, but each time one side seemed open to it, the other shut it down. After a while, the leadership of each side came to depend on that so they could talk peace and know it isn't going to happen. IF, the similarities were emphasized instead of the differences, a Palestinian state could have been a Mediterranean resort , with a Singapore like economy and a mutually beneficial trading relationship with Israel. If everyone spent their money building an economy instead of weapons the entire Middle East may be democratic by now. But, since they have different ways of worshiping, their leaders don't allow that to happen. Power is more important the lives of the citizens.
Indeed.
I think the only actual way forward WRT this issue would be some form of federal state that encompasses both Israelis and Palestinians, that provides solid (and relatively unbiased) protection to both.
The extremists on either side would never let that happen though.
Perhaps. It sure helped that there was a big bad enemy to worry about. With no Soviet Union, the rebuilding doesn't happen, and even if it had, would there be anywhere near the same level of good will between the US/UK and Germany and Japan?
Consciousness is the start. the realization that smoking causes lung cancer started a slow revolution.
And most changes in human behavior are slow. because humans (en mass) tend towards "conservative" behavior.
it is an evolutionary thing.
Expecting something to happen NOW, is unrealistic. It is very rare.
The Civil Rights movement (for example) didn't start in the 1960s, it started before the Civil War... and the reality is that it still isn't even remotely over.
Monomaniacal is right. Unfortunately it literally blinds you from assessing the fruits of your labor.
Nothing like pissing people off to their causes whether it is PETA or protests that shutdown hi ways and freeways. :)
Good analogy. I support several animal rights' organizations, none of which is PETA, which often seems to do more harm than good.