@flipper1966 False equivalency means you are striking a comparison that is invalid. Not every conflict is a genocide. It'd be like saying WWII was a genocide of Russians - no just a lot of them died in military conflict.
The US invasion of Afghanistan was with the goal of regime change, and was done in partnership with many Afghanis hostile to the Taliban. There was no attempt to rid Afghanistan of Afghanis.
Israel's invasion of Gaza is being called genocidal because the killings and potential mass expulsion of people are [i]entirely among ethnic lines[/i]. Some settlers in West Bank are just shooting Palestinians for sport. A potential end game here is the complete removal of Palestinians from their homeland, likely through forced relocation and exterminating anyone who remains. That's genocidal.
@CountScrofula Israel's military operation in Gaza is with the goal of eliminating Hamas. It's about regime change.
Distinguish, if you will, the following two situations.
1. Genocide
2. War with the aim of regime change in which the defender regime makes extensive use of human shields against the attacker, which results in high civilian casualties.
@flipper1966 Genocide also refers to trying to eliminate an ethnic, religious or racial group wholly or in part.
I could argue wantonly bombing Gaza without respect for civilian lives, as well as shutting off vital aid, electricity, water, etc. are acts of genocide.
At the very least, the proposed plan to deport all Gazans to Egypt is ethnic cleansing. However, genocidal language has been used against Palestinians such as comparisons to the Amalekites and dehumanising them by calling them animals.
Most genocides and acts of genocides happen during war time. See WW1 and the Armenian Genocide, WW2 and the Holocaust, the Rwandan Civil War and the Tutsi Genocide.
@CountScrofula[quote] False equivalency means you are striking a comparison that is invalid. Not every conflict is a genocide. It'd be like saying WWII was a genocide of Russians - no just a lot of them died in military conflict.
The US invasion of Afghanistan was with the goal of regime change, and was done in partnership with many Afghanis hostile to the Taliban. There was no attempt to rid Afghanistan of Afghanis.[/quote]
Comparing the U.S. in Afghanistan and Israel is Gaza is not false equivalency. There have been arguments made that the U.S. committed genocide in Afghanistan. But where were the protests that the U.S. was committing genocide in Afghanistan? The issue is not false equivalency. The issue is a double standard between the way Israel's military operation in Gaza is depicted versus how the American operation in Afghanistan is depicted.
@CountScrofula [quote]False equivalency means you are striking a comparison that is invalid. Not every conflict is a genocide. It'd be like saying WWII was a genocide of Russians - no just a lot of them died in military conflict.[/quote]
According to the Russian government, Germany committed genocide of Russians in World War 2.
This discussion reminds me of Humpty Dumpty: Genocide means what I say it means.
@flipper1966 Okay fine for the purpose of getting to the point of all this, let's agree that every military conflict is a genocide and the US invasion of Afghanistan and Israel's invasion of Gaza are the same thing.
What now? I don't understand the point of this post.
@CountScrofula My point is that there can be an ulterior motive in claiming that a certain situation is genocide. That's all. The question of ulterior motives is apparent for example in racism and anti-Semitism. It's a fact that African Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of prison populations, that African American children do not do as well on standardized testing and so forth. Pointing out these facts is not racist. But racists will use those facts to establish that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. The actual statements of non-racists and racists can cite the very same facts, but the racist has an ulterior motive in citing these facts and that ulterior motive is not always clear.
The historian Richard Hofstadter has some interesting observations about the use of facts to support paranoia.
[quote]One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is precisely the elaborate concern with demonstration it almost invariably shows. One should not be misled by the fantastic conclusions that it is not, so to speak, argued out along factual lines. The very fantastic character of its conclusions leads to heroic strivings for "evidence" to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. . . . But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can be justified to many non-paranoids but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates "evidence." [b]Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics[/b][/quote]
@flipper1966 I don't have an ulterior motive here though like... I'm not asking leading questions and then refusing to say what I'm getting at here.
Like someone who posits that black people have higher crime rates and leaves it hanging is probably trying to lead you to go "oh yeah black people do crimes because they're black" which is racist.
I'm not arguing some hidden point here. The entire pro-Palestinian argument comes down to them being an occupied people, and that these kinds of military occupations are a horror which cannot be countenanced. There's no secret agenda the pro-Palestinian movement is pretty open about what they want. A ceasefire and an end to the occupation.
@CountScrofula Gazans were given their freedom in 2005 when Israel withdrew. What did they do with that freedom?
[quote]There's no secret agenda the pro-Palestinian movement is pretty open about what they want. A ceasefire and an end to the occupation.[/quote]
That's debatable. Hamas does not conceal the fact that it's intent is the destruction of the State of Israel. Also, Hamas's genocidal intent is barely concealed. According to The Economist, referring to Hamas' 1988 charter advocating Israel's eradication and the UN genocide definition, Hamas can be characterized as a genocidal organization. In line with this analysis, "Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law."
@flipper1966 That's not freedom that's an end to settlements. Israel still controlled the water and electricity and telecommunications 6 of the 7 border crossings the Palestinian population registry and and and and and...
If someone was doing that shit with my homeland I'd feel pretty occupied and I imagine that there'd be violent uprisings over it. You think if a foreign country controlled access Texas like that everyone would be peaceful and kumbaya over it?
Legal scholars have debated whether Gaza continued to be occupied after 2005. Some legal scholars hold the view that Israel's disengagement from Gaza constituted the end of occupation. And certainly, that question aside, Gazans could have devoted their energies to building their economy rather than building tunnels. They had the freedom to do that upon Israel's disengagement.
A few words more. Did I accuse you of something? Did I refuse to answer your question about the point of this post? You seem preoccupied with hidden agendas: having hidden agendas or not having them.
[b][c=800000]There's no secret agenda[/c][/b] the pro-Palestinian movement is pretty open about what they want.
[b][c=800000] I'm not asking leading questions [/c][/b]and then refusing to say what I'm getting at here.
I'm not arguing[b][c=800000] some hidden point[/c][/b] here.
