• emmy67@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Honestly @dragonfucker@lemmy.nz below sums it up. Almost everyone from the region calls it genocide (with the exclusion of some Israelis)

    Now you bring up what America did in ww2. And yeah, that actually constitutes a warcrime. But when the Japanese surrendered, that was accepted and people moved on. Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.

    It’s pretty clear at this point what’s happening and that it needs to stop.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      54 minutes ago

      Almost everyone from the region

      you mean the middle east? So arabs? Muslims? The exact group of people that would be vehemently opposed to literally anything slighting them in the least bit? (no shade, i mean catholocism has done about the same)

      although tbf, idk much about the middle east, or it’s culture, but from what i do understand, it’s not the friendliest to people who don’t follow expected social norms.

      Here, they reached settlement and then Israel assassinated the leader they reached the ceasefire agreement with.

      i mean, this specific conflict is close to 100 years old by now. While i’m sure that didn’t help, and there are definitely arguments to be made about warcrimes in general. it’s pretty hard to have a complete and total view of the war, and every little indiscretion possible.

      So i’m not sure that

      It’s pretty clear at this point

      is being said in good faith here.

      Like to be clear, i agree with about 90-95% of the shit you have problems with, the one bone i have to pick is whether or not this counts as genocide, and given the loaded usage of the word, i feel like it’s appropriate to expect a reasonable basis of proof/evidence, or even a legal ruling on the matter in order to claim as such.