Debating the Definition of Genocide | FriendZone Discussion

it was you dumbass

That's a completely different time period and doesn't connect to the modern day version, only mainly through name

and so? he said palestine is more important historically which is not true

The kingdom of isral you are talking about has nothing to do with the israel we know today 😭 which btw we are talking about

It is absolutely

I'm pretty sure he was referring to around the last 100 years

yeah and israel still did more stuff gng

If you mean modern day Israel then that only came about in the last 100 years, Palestine has been known to be around for longer

palestine has been around for longer but it wasn’t a state it was a region so it doesn’t really count gng

bro that makes zero sense. regional importance in global history and international law is not some competition based on military firepower or who does more military moves.
​if you look at actual hard facts, Palestine has been the literal baseline for middle eastern politics for over a century:
​first, legal and diplomatic history. Palestine holds the highest number of dedicated UN resolutions in modern history, like Resolution 181, 242, and 338. international bodies and the ICJ have spent decades built around this single conflict because its legal status dictates the entire region.
​second, geographic reality. every major war and peace treaty in the Middle East since 1948, from 1967 and 1973 to modern regional normalization deals, has literally revolved around the Palestinian issue. you cannot separate middle eastern stability from it.
​third, superpower involvement. global powers like Britain and the US didn't draft the 1917 Balfour Declaration or spend billions in diplomatic strategy for over a hundred years just for fun. they did it because this exact piece of land connects three continents and drives global foreign policy.
​downplaying a country's historical and political weight just because another side has a stronger military just shows you don't understand how international politics actually work. 😭 😭

You are conflating evidence of civilian destruction with proof of genocide which has a much higher and specific legal threshold. The things you mentioned are not proof of genocide if there are other explanations for those actions (like targeting Hamas, tunnels, weapons, or military use of civilian areas)

I wasn't referring to the modern day state, that was the name of the region and it's what the people of that region were referred to as for at least a few hundred years

For example you mentioned restriction of aid which I am assuming your perspective means that Israel is intentionally starving the civilians in Gaza. The Israeli perspective is that it only makes sense for them to inspect what goes into Gaza in order to prevent supplies from being diverted to Hamas

Thr oldest book palestine was mentioned in was 450 b.c and the greeks called it palaistínē

Interesting, I think for the term which the native people of that region were called was a later thing though but I'm not sure fully

bro you are completely misinterpreting how international law establishes genocidal intent in court
​legal scholars and the ICJ do not look at intent in a vacuum or take official press statements at face value intent is inferred from the overall pattern of conduct when a military systematically destroys every single hospital wipes out water treatment plants enforces total starvation blockades and leaves 90 percent of a population homeless that level of destruction goes way beyond hitting tactical military targets
​saying there is a military explanation for literally every single piece of civilian infrastructure being flattened is a classic legal defense but under international law when the foreseeable result of your actions is making an entire territory uninhabitable for a specific group of people that meets the exact legal threshold for genocide whether you put out a disclaimer or not lol

Bc im speaking facts

It was the whole region it was called palaistínē

You didn’t even understand anything that I said. It’s true that genocidal intent can be inferred from a pattern of conduct but the actual ICJ standard is: “if intent is being inferred from conduct, then genocidal intent has to be the only reasonable inference from that conduct”. That’s literally the standard. If there is any other reasonable inference, then it does not apply

I asked for evidence. If the evidence is so obvious prove that I am empty in the skull

Please try to understand this concept in international law before typing up your next response

Exactly.

😑 you are literally cherry-picking one legal line while completely ignoring how international tribunals apply the "only reasonable inference" rule in practice
​when a military creates conditions that physically guarantee the total destruction of a population's basic survival system—like cutting off all water, food, power, medical supplies, and systematically destroying every single livable sector—claiming that the "only goal was fighting militants" stops being a reasonable inference in the eyes of international legal scholars
​courts do not accept any wild excuse as a valid "alternative inference" just because a defense lawyer says it out loud. an inference has to be logically reasonable based on the scale of the actions. when the direct, foreseeable result of a policy is making an entire region completely uninhabitable for an entire civilian group, trying to hide behind tactical military excuses doesn't magically wipe away genocidal intent under international law

This is basically racism and anti-Semitism at once. You couldn't possibly offer a good argument for a position of yours.

Avoid engaging in this kind of conversations in the future, it is beyond you.

Again condescendingly re-reading the book doesn't change how international law is applied in practice
​the ICJ standard assesses the cumulative reality on the ground—when an entire population's survival infrastructure is systematically dismantled, claiming "military utility" ceases to be a legally reasonable alternative inference
​explaining how legal standards actually operate isn't a lack of understanding, it's refusing to take basic defense slogans at face value 🙄

And in addition, intention from the legal point of view is exceptional difficult to prove, that is usually left for the courts.

Thanks, Gabe, you really are a smart guy, didn't know there were people like you still out there. Thought I would be doing a lone wolf job 😂.

I didn't know smart guys agree with bombing innocent children

Did you research the two wars I cited?

so you literally agree with me lmao thanks for conceding

Yeah, I am glad about it

We are talking about palestine correct??

I am on your side 😂. I am the one who had the hot take.

To understand what a genocide is, we need to study how bloody wars look like and why the world's consensus didn't call them a genocide.

Let's see what the bible says about killing innocent people since you call yourself christian but never follow your book

Exodus 20:13: "You shall not murder." (Often translated in older versions as "Thou shalt not kill"). The original Hebrew word used here, ratzach, specifically refers to intentional, unauthorized, or unlawful killing (murder), rather than all taking of life

Wanna be a victim so bad u how is that anti semetic plus im black myself ur argument is just absurd and what aboutism that dosent even make sense comparing a state oppression to civil war like Sudan not to mention ur So moral Israel is Helping rsf commit those genocides and Sudan and they direct allies nice try jew