How is it a genocide?

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

For example:
"Oh no, look! The population growth rate will start declining according to theglobalgraph, it must be that the Palestinians are being prevented from having children!"

I can just use this singular statistic to try and draw whatever image I want to draw. By itself this is of little meaning, because it completely ignores how the future of this conflict might affect the future of the graph. If Palestine "won", maybe we would start to see this figure rising? This is obviously concerned with the future of the population growth, while the graph the op provided shows us the past total population, but my point isn't concerned with the content of this particular graph, it just serves as an example.

Edited April 11 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Vrubel]

@DefinitelyNotARobot The Palestinian growth rate is definitely nowhere near zero. Having lots of children is a subconscious reaction to a perilous environment. Even modern secular Israelis have visibly more children than Westerners due to mandatory military service and terrorism. The champions of babymaking are orthodox Jews and Bedouin who have multiple wives. 

[Karmadhi]

8 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Don't play the extremely redundant numbers game with me. Stuff like mass rape, (sex) slavery and ethnic cleansing happing there. In neighboring countries there are refugee camps of over a million people of mostly only women and girls. An indication that the men have been targeted for extermination. Of course, a lot remains unclear because no journalists can go there and the territory is so massive, remote and underdeveloped that it's not really overseeable, those numbers might not be accurate. Also, the harsh truth is that most people don't really care. Western People don't care but also Muslim and African people don't care. Because again, no Jews. Where is the South Africa genocide case against the Sudan for their fellow Africans?

So you are saying we do not really know what is going on there since people cannot go there.

Therefore you do not know whether there is genocide or not.

It may be or may not.

 

[Vrubel]

@Karmadhi The point is that we don't care.

Once in a while there come a report of the situation there by first-hand accounts and international monitors and we all kind of shrug it off. The massive refugee camps filled with women and girls in neighboring Chad are definitely real and where much of the information comes from. Definitely mass rape and murder going on, nobody knows how much. 

[bebotalk]

 

Note Morris is a "pro-Israeli" historian, so it's debatable how objective he his. 

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@Vrubel Of course. The amount of children a couple will have depends on factors such as education, access to birth control, your socioeconomic status, religious beliefs and dogma.

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

The champions of babymaking are orthodox Jews

Is this true? I believe the Jewish population has increased only by like 5-6 million people since WW2, which is not that much considering that 11 million Jews survived. In fact, the global Jewish population has only recently hit a level similar to pre-WW2, which was around 16-17 million Jews. They are yet to fully recover their numbers. Contrast that with the Palestinian population which has grown almost 30 times its size in the same period.

Edited April 11 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Vrubel]

17 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

@Vrubel Of course. The amount of children a couple will have depends on factors such as education, access to birth control, your socioeconomic status, religious beliefs and dogma.

Is this true? I believe the Jewish population has increased only by like 5-6 million people since WW2, which is not that much considering that 11 million Jews survived. In fact, the global Jewish population has only recently hit a level similar to pre-WW2, which was around 16-17 million Jews. They are yet to fully recover their numbers. Contrast that with the Palestinian population which has grown almost 30 times in the same period.

Orthodox Judaism was decimated in the Holocaust. Secular people who have few children, survived at a slightly higher rate because before the war they were more prone to emigrate to America or become Zionists and settle in Palestine. Also many lost their religion, secularized through generations or were forcefully secularized like in the Soviet Union. 

But high birth rates are exponential, so the few orthodox Jews that survived are now a substantial part of the Jewish population and continue to grow exponentially. In a sense, it does represent a beautiful rebound and victory over the Nazis. 

Edited April 11 by Vrubel

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

For example:
"Oh no, look! The population growth rate will start declining according to theglobalgraph, it must be that the Palestinians are being prevented from having children!"

I can just use this singular statistic to try and draw whatever image I want to draw. By itself this is of little meaning, because it completely ignores how the future of this conflict might affect the future of the graph. If Palestine "won", maybe we would start to see this figure rising? This is obviously concerned with the future of the population growth, while the graph the op provided shows us the past total population, but my point isn't concerned with the content of this particular graph, it just serves as an example.

Sure, the burden of proof is on the people who assert this is a genocide. No such proof was provided.

[Vrubel]

31 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Ironic considering most of the world is calling them Nazis and saying the script has been reversed. Countless comparisons and comments about this. Even from head of states of big countries like Brazil.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68332821

Sad that Jews are again the most hated group in the world.

This time however it is Israel's fault for it.

Every Jew that supports Israel, especially modern Israel would have probably supported the Nazis if they happened to be a pure German in the 1930s. Just like Israel and Zionism is seen as the salvation of the Jews against the injustices inflicted on them, Nazis were seen as the salvation of the German people against the injustices inflected on them.

The only difference is that the world is more evolved now so they cannot go unchecked without blowback on the atrocities.

Also now they use AI for genocide instead of paper death lists.

Now they are AI algorithsm.

 

Nice lash out. A bit inappropriate as a reaction to an apolitical post with just informed insights on Jewish demographic with somebody who had a genuine question. 

Edited April 11 by Vrubel

[Karmadhi]

6 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Nice lash out. A bit inappropriate as a reaction to a post with just informed insights on Jewish demographic with somebody who had a genuine question. 

The post is proapganda showing old data before 2023. It deserves a lash out. This was addressed to the opener.

But yeah, sorry.

I will hide it.

Edited April 11 by Karmadhi

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Sure, the burden of proof is on the people who assert this is a genocide. No such proof was provided.

That's fair. I think one of the problems is that there is no universal definition of what a "genocide" is. There are definitions in the dictionary, there are legislative definitions, but people are unable to find any common ground. So it's not simply about finding proof of a genocide, but also about understanding how people define this word and what points they can make to support their definition/what points could be made in the favor of other definitions.

Different definitions will have different degrees of truthfulness, but generally speaking, it's possible for multiple definitions to hold some degree of truth simultaneously. So it doesn't necessarily have to be a genocide or NOT be a genocide, but it could fall into a spectrum in between.

At that point we run into a similar problem as the word "rape", as "rape" can mean "Someone jumped out of a bush and hit a woman with a rock and assaulted her", but it can also mean "Some guy forced himself on his wife when she didn't feel comfortable with him doing so". These cases are obviously different in their degree of "bad", but we still apply the same word, which comes with its own faults.

Edited April 11 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

2 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Orthodox Judaism was decimated in the Holocaust.

My bad, I didn't get the "orthodox" part.

[Heaven]

14 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

I wasn't triggered. Okay he's not an idiot but he definitely isn't smart 

Stop trolling me and everyone in this forum.

@Thought Art He doesn’t seem to learn. The above wasn’t his first time. I think we should have an appropriate conversation here. The toxicity on other forums are in all time high. 
Please let’s lead by being a good example.

[aurum]

10 hours ago, Heaven said:

Ironically, the source for 30,000 deaths since the beginning of the war among the Palestinians side is also the same source who built its terrorist infrastructure inside hospitals, schools and civilian areas.

These are facts and I suggest you check them rather than feeding your brain with propaganda.

If we can't agree on ~33,000 deaths, which is the estimate I've seen from every reputable source, then this discussion will not go very far. We are not even relying on the same basic information.

[Twentyfirst]

6 hours ago, Heaven said:

Stop trolling me and everyone in this forum.

@Thought Art He doesn’t seem to learn. The above wasn’t his first time. I think we should have an appropriate conversation here. The toxicity on other forums are in all time high. 
Please let’s lead by being a good example.

Im not trolling. You are an idiot! Smarten up 

[BlueOak]

In war, surviving is more important than having families. Fear and bombs don't motivate people to have kids, generally speaking, except just having comfort in their partner's arms. Outside of war in poor environments, children are more common, and there are many varied reasons for this.

Ethnic cleansing is where you remove a local population from an area, usually to resettle, but it's the removal that is the point. This happened in northern Gaza, that's a fact.

Genocide is the systematic killing of a culture or population, which through starvation Israel has been edging closer to but I've tried to generally steer clear of calling it a genocide due to the numbers involved. Ethnic cleansing fits the current war more, it's not much better, and both are as far-right and insane as it gets.

Same as Russia, they have moved out, or conscripted to kill off Ukrainians from the eastern occupied regions, that's ethnic cleansing of a civilian population, and it's been normalized by Russia and especially China, now Israel. Unless people start developing respect for or care for human life it's only going to get worse until they do. People need to call out Russia, China, and Israel for ethnic cleansing, just like they do America and Russia for getting rich off weapon sales. 

It's lunacy that I have to tell people ethnic cleansing is not something you should be defending, but it shows how extreme right the world has tilted. It also shows how people's bias gets them to attempt to justify Russia or Israel in their ethnic cleansing actions, while hating seeing it happen in the other country.

Edited April 12 by BlueOak

[Nivsch]

11 hours ago, bebotalk said:

 

Note Morris is a "pro-Israeli" historian, so it's debatable how objective he his. 

Its ok, neither side talks from an "objective" position.

Euqally the pro and the anti Israelis.

Edited April 12 by Nivsch

[Scholar]

10 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

So it's not simply about finding proof of a genocide, but also about understanding how people define this word and what points they can make to support their definition/what points could be made in the favor of other definitions.

I don't think this is true. The word genocide had a clear meaning, namely, to attempt to eradicate (or remove) a certain population based on certain traits, intentionally. This is, more or less, what our understanding of genocide has been in the past an present.

As far as I know, as defined by the UN, intentionality is key here, and that is what needs to be proven.

 

I don't agree that leftists call this a genocide because they have an idiosyncratic understanding of genocide. In my view there are three main reasons why they use the most morally loaded word possible:

1) So they can frame anyone who disagrees with them as genocide denialists or supporters, and therefore dismiss and shame them.

2) So they can enforce ingroup compliance, given that individuals who might not totally fall in line with their views would fall risk to be viewed as denying or downplaying the probably greatest moral atrocity mankind is capable of committing.

3) So they can justify radical actions that otherwise would be unjustifiable or viewed as dysfunctional.

 

To frame this as if it was a nuanced difference in viewpoints or positions on genocide is inappropriate. There is no discussion on the essence of genocide, the word is used solely because of it's moral weight.

When they use this words, they clearly ascribe intent to the Israeli government. This is essential to their narrative, and this narrative falls apart because they cannot actually make a reasonable case for this.

Edited April 12 by Scholar

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

The word genocide had a clear meaning, namely, to attempt to eradicate (or remove) a certain population based on certain traits, intentionally. This is, more or less, what our understanding of genocide has been in the past an present.

As far as I know, as defined by the UN, intentionality is key here, and that is what needs to be proven.

That's the definition YOU accept. Someone could say that the "intentionality" part is limiting, because an "atrocity is an atrocity independent of whether it is intentional or not". Actions or policies may lead to devastating consequences for certain populations, regardless of explicit intent. That's one way to disagree with the official definition.

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

I don't agree that leftists call this a genocide because they have an idiosyncratic understanding of genocide. In my view there are three main reasons why they use the most morally loaded word possible:

I generally agree that this these talking points are being weaponized, however, dismissing all uses of "genocide" as purely manipulative might oversimplify the complexities of these view points.

Is part of the reason some Israelis want to paint the image of "the Jewish state", because it allows them to call their opposition anti-Semitic? Sure. However, that isn't to dismiss the majority of Israelis, who will say this not in an attempt to manipulate anyone, but simply because they believe it to be true.

Edited April 12 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

That's the definition YOU accept. Someone could say that the "intentionality" part is limiting, because an "atrocity is an atrocity independent of whether it is intentional or not". Actions or policies may lead to devastating consequences for certain populations, regardless of explicit intent. That's one way to disagree with the official definition.

But that is the whole point. Not everything that is in atrocity or bad equals a genocide. That's just incredibly stupid, and it has nothing to do with "accepting" certain definitions. These words have meanings, they aren't to be used arbitrarily. There are other words that describe various forms of mistreatment, you don't have to use the most morally loaded word, that we specifically have to describe the basically worst type of thing a nation can do, so that you get your political brownie points for being such a victim. That's not how it works, and it just delegitimizes the concept of genocide.

 

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

I generally agree that this these talking points are being weaponized, however, dismissing all uses of "genocide" as purely manipulative might oversimplify the complexities of these view points.

Is part of the reason some Israelis want to paint the image of "the Jewish state", because it allows them to call their opposition anti-Semitic? Sure. However, that isn't to dismiss the majority of Israelis, who will say this not in an attempt to manipulate anyone, but simply because they believe it to be true.

I don't see how your example connects here. It is, defacto, a jewist state. It was created for the jews, by the jews and is maintained by the jews. There is nothing idiosyncratic about it.

Using genocide to describe everything you don't like, however, is just assinine.

Also, I never dismissed "all usages", just virtually 99.9% of these usages. If there are some scholars who discuss the nature of genicide, that is different. But this isn't what we are discussing here.

Edited April 12 by Scholar