This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly

Edit: I’m convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          5·
          4 months ago

          As mentioned above, there is no genocide, and that’s why no credible source is speaking about a genocide.

          Theoretically speaking, what sources would you accept as authoritative on the matter of an ongoing genocide?

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldMEnglish
              7·
              4 months ago

              There is no credible authority body that calles or doesn’t call something genocide, genocide has a very clear definition and genocide is defined according to that definition,

              Then why say

              and that’s why no credible source is speaking about a genocide.

              as an objection?

              You’re all over the place.

          • ahornsirup@feddit.orgEnglish
            5·
            4 months ago

            Majority. As long as they can present convincing evidence (i.e. evidence that doesn’t rely on trusting the word of Hamas and/or their friends in Doha and Tehran).

            Edit: I’ll also say that I trust some Western governments more than others. I’ll take the word of the current German government over that of the current Italian one, for example.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldMEnglish
              4·
              4 months ago

              Understanding that any government declaration that Israel is committing genocide would necessarily require politically hazardous action in accompaniment, do you require that the majority of Western governments declare Israel is committing genocide, or only that a significant and credible portion of the legal and foreign policy institutions of Western governments declare as much?

              • ahornsirup@feddit.orgEnglish
                2·
                4 months ago

                Ideally I would want to see governmental acknowledgment, but I wouldn’t call it a hard requirement. But ultimately it depends on the evidence presented, and on the people and institutions who agree/disagree with it. I can’t really give you a more firm answer than that.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldMEnglish
                  4·
                  4 months ago

                  Alright, so what do you think about…

                  https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-judges-intelligence-experts-call-halt-israeli-arms-sales-2024-04-04/

                  https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-law-clerks-rare-anonymous-statement-decry-genocide-gaza-2024-05-29

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce48wpd08pgo

                  https://apnews.com/article/spain-israel-icj-genocide-case-67d4d9b8ecf6fd88e718319a5d93465a

                  https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

                  At what point does the accusation of genocide towards Israel’s behavior become plausible?

                  What about the Israeli government themselves claiming a (very dubious) 50/50 civilian-militant casualty ratio? We’ve flattened cities in WW2 with better casualty ratios than that.

                  What about prominent members of the Israeli government openly saying the intention is to commit genocide?

                  • ahornsirup@feddit.orgEnglish
                    2·
                    4 months ago

                    Regarding your initial set of links, I think it’s clear that I don’t consider these particularly credible. With that said, the accusation obviously has some degree of surface-level plausibility. But there’s more to genocide than “people are being killed”.

                    What about the Israeli government themselves claiming a (very dubious) 50/50 civilian-militant casualty ratio?

                    I don’t have any issues with that. I know, that sounds callous but considering that urban warfare and sieges always have exceptionally horrific civilian death tolls even without one side (Hamas) very deliberately placing as many civilians between them and the enemy as they can, I’d argue that those numbers are actually exceptionally good.

                    We’ve flattened cities in WW2 with better casualty ratios than that.

                    Not for lack of trying. Civilian casualties were basically a non-concern for the Americans (this is also true of Israel), and the Brits very deliberately sought out attacked purely civilian targets in a terror bombing campaign (this is not). Me saying Israels conduct reminds me of the Allies in WW2 was not a commendation of either. I consider both to be necessary evils to eliminate the Nazis and Hamas respectively.

                    What about prominent members of the Israeli government openly saying the intention is to commit genocide?

                    Ben-Gvir and his party certainly would like to turn it into a genocide, but coalition governments don’t work that way. A public statement from one minor coalition member doesn’t make something government policy. Otzma Yehudit has two ministers and six seats in the Knesset, they’re very much not able to dictate government policy. The fact that they haven’t been kicked out of the coalition over their remarks is concerning, but so far that’s all it is.

      • goat@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
        5·
        4 months ago

        Please don’t use Al Jazeera, they are owned by the Qatari government, which is the same government that actively holds Hamas leadership. They are extraordinarily biased and not to be taken seriously.