Debatte über die Definition von Völkermord | FriendZone
Zusammenfassung
FriendZone | Freunde finden & Chatten ⋅ Aktiver sozialer Spaß ⋅ Chill ⋅ VC veranstaltet eine Community-Diskussion über die rechtliche Definition von Völkermord im Kontext des Israel-Gaza-Konflikts. Mitglieder analysieren historische Vergleiche, internationales Recht und die Kriterien für Völkermord versus Krieg. Dieser Thread beleuchtet die vielfältigen Perspektiven innerhalb des Servers, während Nutzer darüber debattieren, ob aktuelle Ereignisse die spezifische rechtliche Schwelle für Völkermord erreichen....
free plaestine 🇦🇪
No it's not...😭 the two are different
from hamas
how
From israel
And THATS WHY I SAY 2 STATE WONT WORK 😭🥀
You sent me a UN inquiry
A UN Inquiry commission simply doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to call something a genocide, that's the job of the ICJ.
It is literally not lawful for them to do that, yet an inquiry did that...and the inquiry itself doesn't prove genocide, simply because stated, it simply didn't use ICJ standards, and conveniently it doesn't have to because it was never a judicial body
Yall tripping
Like we actually see the ICJ and UN which give those being fully correct
2 state IS the logical solution
This got to be ragebait
un as evidence isnt good btw that org is fucked on its own right
Yh I completely agree with that lol
It's a country they use basic as that they control the water the electricity they control what goes in and what comes out not to forget they obviously have the higher power over palestine
Someone controlling you in your own land
Umm..you are not addressing my point
The UN goes on tippy toes to make sure the 5 permanent council members don't decide to destroy what's left of it's 'control', don't wanna be league of nations
what does electricity have to do with the fact that both jews and palestinians have equal historic ties and ancestry to the same land
And you seemed to not see mine
scale of destruction still does not automatically prove genocidal intent. The ICJ has literally dealt with cases involving widespread killings, serious harm and destruction and still found that the purpose was something like forced displacement rather than physical destruction of the group, so genocide was not proven.
U gotta be ragebaiting
They don't palestinians are the people of the land they lived in it for hundreds of years and we have evidenced that proves that
jews and palestinians both have deep ancestral ties to the land. the israelites from whom the jewish ppl descended from, are documented from 1200 BCE. palestinians also descended substantially from populations that have lived in the levant for millenia. jews were technically there first btw thats not even fuckin relevant to the real point im trying to make which is that BOTH identities find ties to their ancestral homelands
People like you piss me off. You couldn't possibly hold a candle to any body participating in this conversation, neither would you participate. You would only come on here and insult people.
If we are dumber than a brain cell, I couldn't possibly imagine what you are
u my friend need to google
Good
If ur pissed of bc of that then u have low temper
💀
You haven’t made a single substantive argument btw
Fair enough. If you want, you can show me?
Yeah let's listen to the ICJ which certainly doesn't have any biases (majority of their wanted list is people of African descent)
I dont have to
Pro palis here are just larping with the possible exception of Abdullah
Not one. I am out of words on what to use to insult him. Its basically not my stole.
Yep.
The real tea is that ppl just left like they actually care about human lives but they actually just care about their own bigoted beliefs
bro bringing up forced displacement as your "alternative explanation" isn't the legal win you think it is 💀
first driving an entire population out of their homeland by rendering their environment completely uninhabitable and destroying their survival infrastructure still falls directly under genocidal acts when the method used physically destroys the group in whole or in part
second the ICJ precedents you are misquoting specifically dealt with cases where basic conditions of life were not completely dismantled to the point of engineered famine and total medical collapse. when you combine widespread physical destruction with official state rhetoric demanding total erasure and the deliberate withholding of life saving necessities the cumulative evidence crosses from ethnic cleansing directly into genocidal intent under international law
trying to argue "we aren't trying to destroy them, we are just trying to forcibly displace two million people by making their land unlivable" is literally admitting to a major international crime while pretending it magically shields you from the legal reality of genocide im not going in circles you are.
Nah they’re just tryna ragebait because they don’t know what to say
Atp my point has been lost, if you want to see then you can scroll to what I wrote above, yet in the end we just pick and choose what we align in, and what is and isn't genocide
Yeah sure..
Ahem ahem ur a great example
Kinda the main issue
Yeah not like ive responded to you every time
I’m educated and ur mad about it💀💀💀
Saying i need google proves nothing btw
The forced displacement was an example other previous findings… i’m just making sure you understand the legal threshold to prove genocide
Everyone using the term larp nowadays 😮💨
