• HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      I want to say yes, but also aware that legal definitions take a long time to work through. Current discussions by those much further in the know are “allegations” of genocide, “could amount” to genocide, “could lead to” genocide.

      Are the flags there - absolutely. The hold out (as far as im aware) is the intent vs causality aspect. I suspect investigation will start to lean to intent existing.

      • Count042@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Legal definitions in the end are trying to turn a hammer into a scalpel.

        They don’t fucking matter for moral judgments.

        Israel is committing a genocide to anyone with even a highschool level knowledge of history. Want a simple definition that is very effective?

        Any government that intentionally withholds food, medicine, and potable water from a population it considers undesirable is intentionally committing genocide.

        Starvation is historically the most effective method and most used method of committing genocide. Everyone knows what the outcome is. Anyone trying to use legal definitions at this point is an asshole genocide denier trying to pretend they’re not.

        Like you.