Person 1: “Israel and Palestine have both done some horrid things to each other and deprived each other of basic needs. That isn’t something where genocide comes to mind.”
Person 2: “What Israel is doing to Palestine is genocide though.”
Person 1: “It’s a war crime. Not all war crimes are a genocide. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled for that. Similar to how not all mass shootings are acts of terrorism. Are you really dedicating a whole confrontation just to debate semantics?”
Person 2: Provides links to Amnesty International
Person 1: “I’m going by dictionary definitions, not what a certain biased organization says. I wouldn’t deny both of the organizations you mention there are biased. But the dictionary isn’t. Suppose you are right and the ADL is biased and controlled “by Zionism” (which sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory). What does that make the Snopes organization? What does that make the literal 50% of America who doesn’t disagree with the ADL? What does that make the people who call it a double standard that so many people are willing to support murder of one kind but not another, or that intentions matter sometimes but not all the time?”
You must log in or register to comment.
Definitions are important, but you don’t get to unilaterally choose them. Depending on the person you’re talking to, sometimes it’s more effective to ask them to define the terms first, or to ask them which dictionary they prefer.
So depending on the situation, it might be more beneficial to bring in the quotes from various Israeli leaders about how they’re trying to get Palestinians gone, and how they’re happy with Palestinian death, and then bring in those graphs that show the numbers of the dead, and ask whether they think that’s acceptable.
Another way to think about it is that sometimes questions of definition can distract us from questions of morality, and if the person that you’re trying to talk to is running away from the issue. By doing so, you can reasonably adjust your focus back to the facts.
Yeah thats genocide denial. This person is arguing in bad faith I think
This is the dictionary definition:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
And this is a quote from Israel’s Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant:
We will eliminate everything - they will regret it
He also said:
We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly
And here’s a quote from Amit Halevi, a Likud member in parliament:
There should be two goals for this victory: One, there is no more Muslim land in the land of Israel … After we make it the land of Israel, Gaza should be left as a monument, like Sodom
Those are just some examples that I could find with a quick search, but they clearly show a will to perform a deliberate and systematic destruction of the Palestine people. Therefore since they act on those wishes I would definitely define it as a genocide.
Natanuaho compared palestinians to amalek. The idf soldiers on the ground was cought shouting it and the human right reports show that they do it as a policy and currently happening.
Only nazis and zionists has such a clear intent
Two questions: Is isreal committing genocide? Is this person denying that?
If a is yes and b is yes, it sounds like this person is denying a genocide.
Honest question, what part of the dictionary definition suggests that this isnt genocide?
It is just a tactic to argue semantics.
Call it what you wanna call. But Israel is systematically killing off Palestinian population via different methods.
No amount of semantics will change that and the American normies see it. AiPaC finally got expoaed for the Zionist vermin they are.
Genocide is a legal term. A dictionary don’t go into details like that
Details like what? Exterminating an ethnic group, either by murder, displacement or cultural eradication, genocide is genocide.
Like intent and the 5 actions that if one of them is proved they is a genocide
I’m going by dictionary definitions, not what a certain biased organization says.
Would it be biased if they were saying what person 1 wanted to hear?
I wouldn’t deny both of the organizations you mention there are biased. But the dictionary isn’t.
That person doesn’t understand how the dictionary works.
Suppose you are right and the ADL is biased and controlled “by Zionism” (which sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory).
See the response to point 1
What does that make the Snopes organization?
Community sourced fact checkers.
What does that make the literal 50% of America who doesn’t disagree with the ADL?
Idiots. ADL is a good idea implemented and run horribly to the point it doesn’t do what’s on the label.
What does that make the people who call it a double standard that so many people are willing to support murder of one kind but not another
Racists.
or that intentions matter sometimes but not all the time?
Person 1 is incapable of seeing the world in anything but absolutes and shouldn’t be in any position of authority, including over a dog.
How could the dictionary be biased? Genuine question i promise im not piling on in bad faith or anything
It isn’t that it’s biased, it’s that the dictionary shows current usage updated every so often, sometimes with historical usage also. That’s why laws and ordinances often seem long-winded, they’re defining their meanings to try to avoid the change languages go through (except French).
It’d be in my book.
It also sounds like sealioning. So yeah genocide denial by either shutting you up or making you appear to be the bigot would be the goal.
