this post was submitted on 18 May 2024
1093 points (88.0% liked)
Political Humor
3568 readers
1 users here now
Post politically charged comedy here, but be respectful!
Rules
- Keep this a humor community
- No NSFW content
- No bigotry, hate speech, advocacy or incitement of violence or crime, etc
- No harassment
- Extreme or offensive content are subject to removal at the mods' discretion
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is stupid, because it can be (and probably often is) both, a genocide and a complex issue. acknowledging the complexity of a situation that grew 80 years into this doesn't mean you swipe an ongoing genocide under the rug or have to be complicit.
There was a graph earlier in pdf format that showed the total number of people of killed and it didn't look like an amount of people that would equate to genocide, which does not lessen the tragedy for people affected by it. Is the graph wrong? Does it misrepresent the situation?
Edit: as people have pointed out, this comment made no sense, because the number of deaths have equaled to other events that everyone considers genocide. Sometimes people make logical errors, and the above post was just illogical.
Genocide is not a numbers competition. Fucking get lost with that narrative.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is literally four pages long, with barely 30% fill. It takes less than 10 minutes to read it fully. It takes one minute to get to the part that you directly contradict.
you're right about this, i was wrong. i said early on in my comments i was concerned i may be viewing this with bias and am very ignorant about what is going on, and i'm trying to be open to understanding the situation more and set aside my bias. i was completely wrong earlier when i said the numbers don't line up with genocide and fundamentally just made a large error.
And that’s one of the ways you justify a genocide when it is happening. It is also how you deny that it happened.
Genocide is more than a sudden and total purge like what the nazis did. To set the bar like that allows other forma of genocide, especially doing so at a slow pace, or other forms of ethnic cleansing like mass sterilization.
A similar amount of people died in gaza compared to the bosnian genocide
you're right about this, now that i think about it more. the number is less than the Bosnian genocide and i was looking at it incorrectly. good point
you're right about this, i was wrong
Stopping Israel from doing anything would mean opening them to limitless attacks by the Hamas, who are the whole reason this war is happening in the first place.
Is what Israel doing necessary to stop Hamas from threatening them? Or are they going far beyond what's necessary and they don't actually need to impact civilians to this extent? It seems like a lot of people are not upset about Israel defending themselves as much as random civilians being hurt who really aren't even necessarily political at all and just want to not die. This isn't meant to imply an answer to this. I am very ignorant on this conflict in many ways,
This implies genocide started after October 7th. Please do basic research on the issue and you'll find that's not true. I'm happy to provide you links if you need.
And you are implying that people fighting back against a genocidal aparthied state is equivalent to said genocide.
It does get complicated when Hamas claims to want the death or displacement of all the Jews in Israel. Both peoples have been failed by their leadership. You can't fight back against one genocide with a different genocide and expect anything to improve.
Hamas is a creation of Israel's genocide and aparthied. Eliminate the genocide and aparthied, and Hamas is forced to either change character or crumble.
This is an unequal conflict in every measure, equalizing the sides is genocide denial.
I'm not saying anything is equal, I'm saying it's complicated. Absolutely Israel must end the genocide and apartheid, but I really don't think that's all it would take to end hostilities. There needs to be a rebuilding, both of infrastructure and trust. I don't see how that can happen under Israel or Gaza's governments, they are being failed by their leadership.
Any government of Palestine will be radically against Israel. It doesn't matter who is in charge, the people of Gaza are dying rapidly.
I condemn the genocide. I'm just saying that it's also a complex issue; lasting peace will take positive and nuanced action, simply ending the invasion and apartheid of Gaza is only the beginning.
Yep, a secular one state solution is the only viable long term solution.
I've been thinking a nation of states might work. Like Gaza, West Bank, and Israel could all have their own local governments and constitutions, but the federal government would be made up of representatives from each. With the current populations, Israelis would have a supermajority in any all-in-one state vote, but as a nation of states they would have to compromise.
There would have to be minority protections. Treating it like a group of ethnostates would perpetuate their current issues, it must be an equal state.
Hmm, that's a good point. I was thinking that a unitary government would be paralyzed by conflict around religious laws. A hijab is part of the school uniform for Palestinian girls, but would likely be opposed by large numbers of present day Israelis (just as an example); I was thinking that having states/provinces that could set their own policies could help alleviate some of those pressure points.
Though admittedly as an American I'm sure I have some level of bias for federated states, it just seems natural to me.
Largely, much of this hyper-religious policy comes from a lack of material development and mass industrialization. Advancing mode of production generally results in a more secular society with more progressive laws.
That's true. Though some of the most economically prosperous nations still prefer to live with Islamic laws. The UAE has a higher per capita GDP than the US and still bases their legal system heavily on sharia law. I think sometimes it comes down to cultural differences more than material ones. Oman and Saudi Arabian also score very high on the human development index, but still prefer many 'hyper-religious' policies.
In general I think the trend is towards secular society with improved material conditions, but it can get dicey to try and prescribe a secular state on people who aren't ready for it.
Regardless of the civil structure, if even just a fraction of what is currently spent on the IDF could go towards reparations and reconstruction, it would be amazing to see how quickly material conditions improve.
I wouldn't say GDP per Capita is the measure, but largely Mode of Production, and even then it's a lagging indicator as movements must be had.
I do agree though, more spending on reparations and reconstruction and less on genocide would be amazing.
I'm not sure where you see any evidence of Hamas needing to change if they theoretically won the conflict. They absolutely would inflict a genocide of given the chance. To deny this is naive at best but most certainly just dishonest.
Why do you believe Hamas has this stance?
History.
I would like you to honestly state that you believe Hamas would not delete Israel and all the Jews there if given the chance.
What specifically? "History" is vague as fuck.
I believe that if you gave Hamas a "delete Israel" button right this second they would press it, because Israel is committing a genocide and intends on continuing said genocide with approval from the US.
I believe that if Israel were to cease genocide and reverse their apartheid policies, and Israel were abolished and replaced with a secular democratic state, they would be fine.
Do you think that German Jews after the Holocaust tried to genocide the rest of Germany?
You want it to be complicated given you're citing a claim from the last century that has been withdrawn, and Hamas has undergone a massive shift since. Moreover, no matter how bad Hamas is, it does not excuse genocide. So no, it is not complicated when we identify a genocide.
Oct. 7th happened because there has been a genocide for the last century.
You are conflating a small fringe group with millions of people. You are using this conflation to justify an ongoing conflict that is a genocide.
You are denying this genocide. And now you are saying that we need this genocide to prevent a genocide.
You are either a fascist or unknowingly supporting a fascist ideology. Get help.
I'm differentiating this type of genocide with the type Palestine will undoubtedly perform if the shoe was on the other foot, hence why the issue is not simple.
Lemmy keeps trying to push this idea that if the fighting stopped today and there was a ceasefire or peace, that Oct 7 wouldn't just repeat at a later date. How many decades have we played this same song and yet the small fringe community here wants to pretend it will be different this time?
And no matter how you want to frame that train of thought, or try to label it fascist etc, not agreeing to make peace with Hamas is not the same as condoning genocide. The fringe minority you claim is still in power and they still have hostages. They still enjoy the support of the Palestinians as they did on Oct 7. Hamas made Gaza a war zone, to not be against Israel fighting in said war zone is not supporting genocide.
There's a difference between being a genocide and a complex issue, and using that it's a complex issue to justify/overlook a genocide
U lOvE gEnOcIdE tHeN
-an asshole who would burn down his country to supposedly make a point