this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023

88 points (90.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26746 readers

2004 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

What's the significance of calling it "Israel-Hamas War" vs "Israel-Gaza War"? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 1 year ago by yool_ooloo to c/asklemmy

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm in the US.

I haven't discerned a pattern, by the media, in the titling of the horror currently underway.

I've seen Al Jazeera use both phrasings. I haven't determined that other media sites are hardlining their terminology either, but I notice the difference as I browse.

Maybe it doesn't mean anything, but these days people seem extra sensitive about names.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that word doesn’t mean what you think it means

actually, i think it’s you that doesn’t understand what the word means so here’s the definition:

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

partial targeting is still genocide

[+] [email protected] -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

1st of all, Hamas terrorist attacks also fall into that definition. Secondly, IDF has not targeted any "national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. IDF goals are to eliminate Hamas militants inside the Gaza strip. The general Gazan population was given weeks of advance notice and provided safe/r places to evacuate to. If 100% of the civilians had chosen to cooperate, and Hamas had not forcibly used them as human shields, then there would be no casualties. Clearly that is not a realistic scenario, but it's important to understand the genocide definition requires intent . IDF is actually attempting to minimize casualties whenever possible. Unfortunately it often isn't.

[–] bostonbananarama 1 points 1 year ago

The general Gazan population was given weeks of advance notice and provided safe/r places to evacuate to. If 100% of the civilians had chosen to cooperate, and Hamas had not forcibly used them as human shields, then there would be no casualties.

So any country can say all civilians in an area must leave immediately. And if they don't, it's ok to indiscriminately murder civilians? Are you insane?

IDF is actually attempting to minimize casualties whenever possible.

They most certainly are not. They have bombed hospitals and refugee camps after claiming that Hamas terrorists were among them. That's a war crime.

Intent is satisfied by reckless disregard for known dangers, if you really want to go down the legal route.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Hamas terrorist attacks also fall into that definition
yup you’re absolutely right and nobody here is disputing that… this isn’t a black and white one side good one side bad situation: BOTH hamas and israel are fucking awful here… you’re also probably going to say that it’s hamas’s fault that civilians are being killed because they’re using them as human shields… also right! however, that doesn’t absolve israel of all responsibility: there’s a lot more they could be doing to reduce the civilian casualties

civilians had chosen to cooperate
yeah cool how about you leave your home and basically everything you own so that it can be bombed to shit and see if you just cooperate… don’t blame the people who are just bystanders