Skip to main content


I want the conflict in #Gaza to end but the single-issue #Gaza voters act like the situation isn't nuanced.

Not everyone agrees there is a genocide going on. Genocide has a specific legal definition. Outside observers can *at best* guess at whether the requisite elements exist.

The whole "How can you support genocide?" reply on anything political is just about the dumbest, most mind-numbing position to parrot.

Stop being lazy and engage the issue or gtfo.

#uspol #politics #uspolitics #Israel

This entry was edited (3 months ago)
in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

none of this can be disputed:
• routine massacres of civilians, including refugees
• non-combatants tortured to the point of death or maiming, including torture of a sexual nature
• famine conditions
• destruction of life-sustaining civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and water treatment facilities
• blockade of humanitarian resources
• targeted attacks on civilian medics and foreign aid workers

setting aside the label for a moment — how can anyone support *all this shit?*

Alex P. 👹 reshared this.

in reply to Alex P. 👹

@JasonPerseus@mas.to

Your poor clients

To have someone this dishonest or willfully ignorant in charge of their life is harrowing

This entry was edited (3 months ago)
in reply to Alex P. 👹

you're some sort of lawyer, right?

feel free to read South Africa's submission to the ICJ if you want a bunch of quotes of Israeli leaders saying they want to do genocidal shit to Gaza

that's an example of documented intent

someone who looks at that and says "looks like a genocide is happening!" isn't avoiding the issue — they've articulating a conclusion based on evidence

but, if their word choice is wrong somehow: u.s. weapons are being used to massacre civilians regularly

in reply to Alex P. 👹

you want to "stop being lazy and engage?" engage with this, then:

the purpose of the international legal definition of genocide is to prevent genocide, not simply to force us all to sit quietly and obediently while we wait for the mass graves to be excavated by forensic archaeologists 30 years from now

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

a determination of genocide is not required to stop arming IDF units free-firing on civilians in Gaza or "intelligence agents" torturing people in both Gaza and the West Bank

it is absolutely ludicrous that high-ups in the State Department didn't even apply selective sanctions for the intentional double-tap assassination of the WCC workers, for example

it's also blatantly ridiculous that we're arming a state that interferes with the U.S. government's own attempts to deliver food

in reply to Alex P. 👹

I bring this up because there is clearly a desire on the part of Biden, Blinken, et al. *not to even look*
in reply to Alex P. 👹

You mean Blinken who just flew in the middle of the night to the Middle East for emergency discussions on a ceasefire? He’s the one not doing anything and trying not to look? Ooooookay.

But yeah I don’t think we should be giving them weapons to keep doing that.

My point is that people are going to disagree because they don’t agree it’s genocide, and if you don’t agree it’s genocide then there isn’t an absolute morality. There are shades of gray.

This entry was edited (3 months ago)
in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

yes, absolutely! Blinken, whose department has had a slow but continual trickle of defectors publicly resigning and saying they tried to do something but were summarily blocked by the big dogs upstairs, has no interest in answering the question of "is it genocide?" in any substantive way

from a policy position, it *cannot* be genocide because that would seriously complicate America's foreign policy towards its expansionist client state — that's the "shades of grey" view here

in reply to Alex P. 👹

@saddestrobots

You are welcome to your conspiracy theories.

I think the government replaced all our tin foil with aluminum foil so they could read our minds. Some blame the cost of tin, but I know the truth.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a simple political calculation — it would be incredibly inconvenient for the U.S. government to declare that one of its closest allies and pet projects was committing genocide against 2 million people

(and I say "declare" because functionally it would be a declaration, not any kind of formal legal process — the secretary of state just announces it in press releases)

this is part of why Leahy action is scoped to, like, individual "units"

in reply to Claire, The Ultimate Worrier

@waitworry @saddestrobots

Yeah it does mean something if it isn’t genocide.

Civilian death can be justified under IHL. It doesn’t mean civilians dying is a good thing, but it doesn’t mean that the US is obligated to act.

So if people don’t agree it’s genocide, then there is room for them to sit where they think it’s bad, but it’s not bad enough for them to act. If it’s genocide, there is no justification.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@waitworry
Leahy says "gross violation of human rights" is sufficient cause to cut off military aid and foreign military sales

State Department interprets murder of civilians as an example

Israeli media has documented "free-for-all violence" against unarmed civilians as widespread among IDF units:
972mag.com/israeli-soldiers-ga…

in reply to Alex P. 👹

@saddestrobots @waitworry

Okay? Clearly it’s nuanced: sufficient, not necessary. Each word you used has a specific definition. Not every murder is a violation of human rights. Not every IDF soldier murdering a civilian is doing so as part of a coordinated plan—criminals exist in the military too.

That’s my point. It’s nuanced and complicated and acting like it’s not is moronic.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@waitworry
read the article? if the rules of engagement say you can shoot up whoever you want whenever you want — to the point that it's causing friendly-fire incidents among trigger-happy soldiers — that's not an isolated incident

we have applied Leahy in other contexts, including against forces deployed in direct support of U.S. military units, for far, far less

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@waitworry @saddestrobots

I think it very well could be a genocide and think it should stop, and that we should stop supplying weapons—but it isn’t some black and white situation compelling us to act. There is space to disagree and most people do.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@waitworry
it's an *incredibly* black-and-white situation given that the starting point of the whole thing is a state of continuing apartheid, blockade, and occupation with the explicit goal of ghettoizing Gaza and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank

the main reason people disagree is that they think Palestinians deserve what's happening to them, or that it's a sad inevitability required to achieve some magical dream-Israel that they are obligated to support

in reply to Alex P. 👹

@saddestrobots @waitworry

I think the most proximate starting point for the immediate conflict would be the civilian massacre by Hamas.

Otherwise we can just go around in circles because every act and reaction has justified the next for thousands of years.

No, the main reason people disagree is because there is actual disagreement and not everyone has to think and value the same things you do.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@waitworry
when the IDF starts shooting fish in a barrel you kinda have to ask how those fish all got in the barrel in the first place

you keep saying there's ample reason to disagree but you haven't offered any actual examples

in reply to Alex P. 👹

@Alex P. 👹 @Claire, The Ultimate Worrier @Jason Perseus honestly this is the worst case of Lawyer Brain Rot I've ever seen. Morality is the law, law is morality. The question isn't right or good but the quality of your legal theory.
in reply to silverwizard

@silverwizard @saddestrobots @waitworry

The guy killed someone!

Who cares if it was intentional murder of a child or self-defense against a rapist, the law isn’t related to morality!

Or maybe these legal distinctions matter to how we frame them morally.

in reply to Claire, The Ultimate Worrier

@waitworry @saddestrobots @JasonPerseus@mas.to Not everyone agrees whether the earth is flat or not. I guess you think that also "means something"? 🙄
in reply to Bilal Barakat 🍉

@bifouba @waitworry
(OP got nuked so the thread is all broken now. Claire was sarcastically restating the lawyer guy's position.)
Unknown parent

Alex P. 👹
@Cefr @waitworry
(it's clearly a pseudonym, no reason to stalk the guy imo)
Unknown parent

Leonor

bruh what the fuck do you mean theres no statement of intent you can look up several times that israeli state officials in charge of security have made statements straight up justifying the rape of civilians, Ben Gvir says this shit with a demonic shit eating grin knowing full well what the israeli army is doing

npr.org/2024/08/08/nx-s1-50574…

Unknown parent

Alex P. 👹

@leonor @waitworry
for example, i'm looking at this State Department press release declaring that genocide is happening against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang and the genocidal quotes from CPC-controlled media seem pretty similar to what half the Israeli cabinet says on camera every week

2017-2021.state.gov/determinat…

in reply to Leonor

@leonor @saddestrobots @waitworry

Yes, and what amount of evidence is sufficient to prove that?

And is it possible for people to disagree on that? Yes.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@leonor @waitworry
states commit genocide just as easily as people order a pizza

but i think that's sorta undercutting your point about reasonable people disagreeing &c. &c. — we are *swimming* in a sea of genocide all over the globe and yet when the guy ordering the invasion and the guys shooting kids in the bombed-out streets are mugging at the camera going "i love exterminating the palestinians hyuk hyuk" very serious reasonable people can disagree about what they are after?

in reply to Alex P. 👹

@saddestrobots @leonor @waitworry

I don't see how. Reasonable people clearly disagree and hold nuanced positions. That is literally my main point.

Everyone is claiming a morally absolutist position on a problem when people don't agree on what the problem is.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@leonor @waitworry
how do you propose to determine that these "reasonable people" are expressing a reasoned position and not, for example, engaging in diplomacy or PR?

where do you draw the line between "reasonable" disagreement about genocide and straightforward genocide denial? (or, for that matter, some kind of "nuanced" fancy PhD-waving carefully-structured genocide denial?)

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

Trash tier sophistry from a fucking fascist. Call it whatever you like, we're facilitating mass murder, torture and bombing fucking schools you absolute goddamn muppet.
This entry was edited (3 months ago)
in reply to AnarchoNinaWrites

Aw, poor baby. 🥲

Take some time to collect yourself, you’re embarrassing yourself in front of the guests.

in reply to Jason Perseus has moved

@AnarchoNinaWrites “Recent developments have seen a growing consensus among legal experts and international organizations that the situation in Palestine, particularly Gaza, constitutes genocide. Over 600 lawyers, including former senior judges and prominent academics, have formally urged the UK government to recognize the genocide risk and take measures, such as imposing sanctions on Israel. Additionally, UN Special Rapporteurs have identified “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel’s actions meet the criteria for genocide, citing acts intended to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part. Amnesty International also highlights the alarming scale of destruction and dehumanizing rhetoric against Palestinians, indicating the real and present danger of genocide. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing cases that may further solidify these conclusions, with a focus on Israel’s potential breaches of the Genocide Convention.”

Why do you support genocide?