You're viewing a single thread.
Don't forget, Germany had the right to defend itself.
Yeah because Poland was launching missiles on German villages behind the border for a full year. Duh.
People hating IL so much that they just leave entire parts of the conflict out and then feel good about "doing the eight thing" are a part of the problem.
"Nazis weren't so bad"
I'm reading this wrong, correct? I have had intoxicating agents.
holy shit this entire fucking thread is brain dead dude.
Im pretty sure the V2 literally didn't exist before they invaded poland. I'm 95% sure that's the joke here.
Uh... Israel was and still is committing genocide. And before that it was Apartheid and slower genocide. Setting aside the idea of refugees and how Lebanon is next after Gaza and the West Bank, every country in the world has a duty under international law to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. The fact that Israel is committing genocide is, in and of itself, is a casus belli. This is the exact same thing the Allies get praised for in WWII. Also you're phrasing it like Israel wasn't responding each of these rockets with a lot more rockets, but even if we ignore all that: Israel made the conscious decision to escalate the conflict with Hezbollah with the pager attack and subsequent airstrikes.
And the paper attacks were targeted mostly at civilians and Healthcare workers. Who use those things the most.
Also that ploy would have taken YEARS to prepare for, given the logistics involved in making the shell companies and finding out how to make sure the bulk of those devices ended up in Lebanon. Meaning nothing that happened in October 2023 had anything to do with that ploy.
The fact that Israel is committing genocide is, in and of itself, is a casus belli. This is the exact same thing the Allies get praised for in WWII.
No, unfortunately not really. The extent of the Holocaust was not uncovered until the Allies moved into Germany and took the concentration camps. Britain was at war due to their guarantee of Polish sovereignty, the US was at war due to Pearl Harbor, and Germany declaring war on them a few days later. Nobody went into WW2 to stop a genocide. China and the USSR were at war due to being invaded.
While some credit is given to stopping the Holocaust, certainly, that was largely a side effect of simply winning WW2.
China and the USSR were at war due to being invaded.
the chinese leg of the conflict is particularly goofy.
China had two, or three parties at one point, all fighting for control over the country. There was the communist party (backed by the soviets) There was the democratic party (backed by the US) and then there was also japan doing it's thing trying to take over china as well.
Prior to this there was the russo japanese war, which was an equally big shitpost, the russians having been fucking broiled by the japanese over it, though a different story.
While some credit is given to stopping the Holocaust, certainly, that was largely a side effect of simply winning WW2.
Yeah, I know. My phrasing was bad. I meant they're being praised for fighting Germany and stopping thr Holocaust, not that they entered WWII to stop the Holocaust. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of criticizing a country trying to stop genocide happening close to it.
Which one? Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation, so Israel is retaliating enough just there won't be significant retaliation.
Which one? Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation
im pretty sure internationally recognized terrorism isn't considered to be justified or retaliation, but it's the middle east, so that's something that sort of just, happens sometimes. That would probably explain why israel is reacting so violently.
Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation
No? They definitely weren't justified in raping and killing civilians in October 7th. However, as an oppressed and occupied people, they have a permanent casus belli against Israel until the latter starts taking serious steps towards peace, so the act of attacking Israel on October 7th (remember that 66% of the dead were military or security targets; they didn't just kill some civilians and leave) itself is a legitimate act of resistance.
This is the weakest slowest genocide ever then
I guess we shouldn't have intervened in the whole Yugoslavia thing then, I mean, clearly we have to wait until like 40% of the ethnic minority is dead!
what are the statistics for ethnic deaths here anyway? How far up the chain have we gotten?
I mean we're looking at at least 10%. That's... Uh... A lot, to say the least.
i mean, up to 10% is quite a bit. That's still 90% of the population existing though, so i'm not sure that's to the levels of genocide, as defined by uh, genocide. Which would be ethnic cleansing.
If we're going by existing figures, that's like what, 2.5% of the population. I feel like famines have probably killed more people, and that war has most definitely contributed more deaths to this as well.
I think you misunderstand something. You don't need to kill everyone for it to be genocide. That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is. The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.
i'm not saying that it has to be either, i just don't think that calling it a genocide, when you could call it literally hundreds of other things that would be so vastly more accurate than this specific statement, would be a lot more responsible.
But even past that, i'm not convinced that this is going to count as genocide, since genocide would traditionally be an ethnic cleansing, and i feel im not being uncharitable here using that as a definition, considering how many times i've seen people call it ethnic cleansing. I have not seen sufficient evidence that demonstrates that as anything more than significant war crimes. Many war crimes even, but not genocide.
That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is.
and to be clear, you aren't wrong here, you're correct, but again, they literally haven't fucking ruled it on it yet (to my knowledge, maybe im dumb and stupid lol) i can't begin to state how concerning it is that you're calling it a genocide before this ruling has even been made, it's SO incredibly presumptuous.
The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.
is this the legal ruling on the cases here? Or are we just making statements here.
Also wiping out the native americans from north america was not a "side effect" that was most definitely a secondary if not primary intention. We literally fought with them over this. That wasn't just an accidental woopsie daisy.
Uh... Did you not hear of that one Lancet study about how it's likely for every documented death there are 5 undocumented deaths? Do you understand how the Gazan healthcare system has already collapsed and they're unable to count the dead? Even just taking the current 41k and multiplying them by 5 gives 205 thousand, or more than 10% of Gaza's population. All of Gaza is in famine, with North Gaza faring the worst, and Israel still refuses to let aid in. How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?
How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?
uh, simple. The definition of genocide as defined in the dictionary is an "ethnic cleansing" and if we assume this to be the "correct" definition, for the sake of argumentative purpose here.
It must follow, as defined that if the conflict were to stop, that israel would stop killing Palestinians. Since this has been going on for like 80 years or something, it's hard to say, but i think it's probably fair to say that israel would stop killing people if they came to a peace agreement.
However, this changes a little bit if we pull into the definition of genocide as defined by the UN or something, which is a lot more broad, likely due to legal deliberation, this is extremely common. Now i don't know of any ruling from the ICC the ICJ, or the UN that classifies this as a "genocide" though i know the ICJ has said that this could very well be genocide. And that the ICC has pushed a warrant containing multiple war crimes for netanyahu.
Though to be fair, i haven't read into anything the UN has said on this conflict specifically, so i could be mistaken there just due to sheer ignorance lol.
I know numerous "countries" have claimed as such, but i believe that very few have specifically stated as such, there has been a lot of public outcry, and im sure a number of politicians against this. But to my knowledge, only south africa has stated that this "is a genocide" however accurate that quote is, though to be fair again, i don't know much about this one either.
I mean take a look at South Africa's case. They have evidence of genocidal acts (causing significant harm to an ethnic group) and genocidal intent (the countless quotes from high ranking Israeli officials calling for genocide). It's genocide; it's just that the case is taking a while.
yeah, and if we take a look at south africas case, it's not "genocide" it appears that it has reasonable extent to be genocide. Which are two different things.
You're doing guilty until proven innocent here, which, is weird. Even weirder, when i see people calling for the literal denazification of israel.
As far as the two requirements go here, those are two very broad, and not very specific statements, genocidal acts is incredibly broad, so broad in fact that the vast majority of things that would apply, are probably not genocide. Intent is a lot clearer, but then you also have to consider military and governmental intent, rather than just personal statements. Civil intent is also a big problem here as well. I'm not convinced that the majority of israel literally wants to ethnically cleanse palestinians. Or that the governmental figures do to begin with, albeit they aren't doing themselves a favor when they say super sus shit like that either.
Though this is also the middle east, and from my knowledge, this kind of death toll and fighting is not unusual? They tend to have very aggressive opinions on this stuff for some reason.
so in summary here, you've basically said, well, it sort of looks like a duck, and the sound it makes is vaugely similar to a duck, so this weird silhouette behind the sheet here must be a duck, there is no possible alternative in this situation.
Also. wouldn't it follow, that if the evidence were SO telling in this case, that this legal case would probably be over a little bit quicker than it seems to be taking right now? It's weird that we're even deliberating on the verdict before it's happened, and it's even weirder that you seem to be 100% confident about it, even though im assuming you have basically the same knowledge level that i do on it.
Maybe i'm wrong, and you've written a PHD dissertation on conflict in the middle east, and have extensively studied israel and it's history, but i'm going to go out on a limb here and say since you're yelling at me on lemmy, you probably haven't.
Notice how im not 100% confident on the statements i make? Even though i'd be pretty willing to bet money on this, i'm still not going to authoritatively state it either. It's not really that hard to just, not be so aggressive about something this vile.
Can't be a genocide, if it's not effective amirite? /s
I agree completely that Hezbollah makes up a huge problem, and after their involvement in Syria there's not a hint of legitimacy left in the organization if there ever was any.
But one would do well that to remember their origins: They are what's left of the resistance from the last time Israel invaded Lebanon. So that's what a great fucking success that was.
And Hezbollah are not Lebanon. They control territory, and they need to be fought, but this in not how one fights terrorist organizations. This is how you create terrorist organizations. Which is exactly what Israel did the last time they invaded.
but that's the point, it keeps their surrounding neighbors destabilized
Just like how israel bombed Gaza for 20 years straight and then Hamas a performed a limited ground operation.
I'm sorry, but "limited ground operation" is the same type of shadowy bullshit language as calling the genocide in Gaza a "strategic operation".
That's the point.
Shoot, you're right. I've seen so many stupid takes in this conflict it has made me dumb.
Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Since when is Hizbollah Palestine?
I admit, I thought I was in a different thread.
Lebanese have the right to defend themselves, and Palestinians.
The iron dome is defense. Actively bombing outside of ones borders, in my opinion, is fucked up, no matter what "side." It's like all these country's leaders are acting off PTSD responses and escalating more and more, no one attempting to deescalate. Idk what the answer is, honestly.
My ridiculous attempt to make light of the situation is to childishly wish Mr. Rogers were still alive to help us all get through this.
No, actually, occupiers have no right to defend themselves.
I agree on the premise that occupation is not a defensive strategy. The degree to how fucked up it is in comparison to actively bombing depends. The food, water, and informative (shutting down access to Internet) blockades are horrific, on par with bombing imo. The casualties in Gaza are inexcusable.
Trust me, we have common grounds of disgust here. I don't believe we can expect to see a path toward peace if we can't demonstrate healthy conflict management ourselves, though. Israel has been established and deserves self determination without constant threat of external anhilitation as much as any of their neighboring countries. Palestine needs to be formally recognized, as well.
I agree on the premise that occupation is not a defensive strategy.
Even if it is. If their defense requires them to turn another people into second class citizens in their own lands, then fuck them.
you know, bomber Harris famously said: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation."
but to the IDF? this is no mere delusion, they do have a guarantee that they won't be bombed, because they have the iron dome, they can do what they want.
so I'll pass on the notion that iron dome being "defensive" somehow stops its existence from emboldening the vile actions of the literal terrorist Regime that is the current Israeli government (yes, several top ministers of the Israeli government are internationally wanted terrorists, only taken off said lists because they became part of an official government)
but to the IDF? this is no mere delusion, they do have a guarantee that they won’t be bombed, because they have the iron dome, they can do what they want.
the iron dome is literally not a guarantee that you can't be bombed, i think the iron dome has had a 90% effectiveness thus far, but don't quote me on it.
And besides, if you destroy the anti air, like we did in operation sandstorm, you can't exactly stop it.
Or better yet, pull a hopeless diamond and simply fly stealth bombers over. (assuming that works of course)
if you want to argue that they don't have these capabilities, sure, that's literally how asymmetrical warfare works though.
The iron dome didn't protect them on October 7th. It didn't protect them completely today. I have friends that grew up there with the reality of seeking out bomb shelters constantly. Without, they'd be glassed by now. I agree they probably feel emboldened, but not without good reason. Should we compare surrounding regimes on the amount of internationally recognized terrorists in positions of dictatorship? At least Israeli citizens have some level of recourse if they're dissatisfied. I think all individuals deserve the same level of self determination, along with Palestinians, Iranians, etc.
I know there's nuance in how Israel and the US have played roles actively discouraging or even overthrowing democratic regimes, but I want to be careful not to take accountability away from each individual that has contributed to the suffering of innocent people. Abuse always has precursors.
Iean ya failed history of you think these things are even remotely similar
Hezbollah has been launching rockets daily. Hardly the same as a false flag fire
Why is the first part of October missing data?
The strikes began on the 8th, but no casualties. That's when the data for the chart begins
The next day, Hezbollah fired at Israel in response to Israel killing 3 Hezbollah members from bombardment of Southern Lebanon
The Lebanese armed group Hezbollah has fired a barrage of rockets into Israel after at least three of its members were killed during an Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon amid soaring tensions on Israel’s northern border.
Previous strikes in October were in retaliation to assassination
Before the assassination,
Until recently, the border had been relatively quiet. Occasional rockets or drones crossed from Lebanon into Israel without leading to serious escalation, while Israel violated Lebanese airspace more than 22,000 times from 2007 to 2022.
Are you attempting to justify genocide?
hezbollah is related to palestine now? Or have they killed like 10000 Lebanese people already?
The modern shit show between the brothers, Isaac and Ishmael, started in 1882. It's about time for the insane family blood feud to end.