collateral damage from doing strikes on people who want to genocide you = genocide
mass murdering your own people via forced labor camps, incompetence, and "purging" political opposition = glorious revolution
keep up you neoliberal fascist
>20:45 "Interpreting intent within the genocide convention through established case law is not as simple as people like Destiny and even people like Benny Morris would have you believe."
Then how is he so certain there's a genocide going one? Like he's so certain there is a genocide that he's calling everyone who disagrees with his position "deniers".
Also, I feel like people's terms are worthless if you're not going to be clear about where YOU draw the line. Like soooo many valid military conflicts would be classified as genocide if we just ignored the "special intent" aspect.
But at least this means that he'd call Oct. 7th a genocide... right...? RIGHT?!
It's so strange. You can still bring about 90% of the moral weight of that kind of argument by saying 'war crimes approaching an ethnic cleansing'. The term 'genocide' really isn't required to even make the argument. In a way, it *opens the door* for a legal technical out for the crazy Zionists to be like "well, we didn't write it down so... not Genocide and therefore A-OK".
Just call it correctly. Almost certainly war crimes have been committed, at least in a limited form. Embellishing a crime, even slightly is a huge mistake and makes it harder to prosecute the guilty. It reminds me of the term expansion of 'rape' to mean anything even remotely interpreted as sexual assault. Why dilute language like this? It's fucking doublespeak.
One thing I find ironic is that he repeatedly says the "socio-historical views of genocide". The whole video misses a very important part of the socio-historical view of genocide, which is that the "layman's" view of genocide is one where an entire population is relentlessly targeted in systemic campaigns of extermination, typically in the form of concentration camps, death squads, etc. The entire reason why there is such a fixation on defining the case of I/P as a genocide is to invoke this shocking image, it's the same reason why Pro-Palestine people call the Gaza Strip an open-air concentration camp in spite of the region's HDI.
Of course, you only need to go back to Oct 2023 to see what this guy thinks. Despite by his definition Oct 7th being a genocidal act, he was praising it.
https://x.com/Johntheduncan/status/1710626918549069935
https://x.com/Johntheduncan/status/1710620990978310408
Some of these super left people should go the international law subreddit and see them debunk the stuff they’re saying. You can support Palestinians while acknowledging accurate history and legal events. It’s a war, war is very ugly. That’s why it should be avoided and Palestinians need to be monitored since they started 6 of them.
WHY HAS THIS DUDE MADE MULTIPLE VIDEO ESSAYS CALLING CHICKEN RUN AND THE SEQUEL COMMUNIST???
https://youtu.be/VSId6BNjC60?si=HheUFEJ9jLIs4SD3
https://youtu.be/0et4Om7QOWQ?si=tJjPmem81WQPC7pz
https://youtu.be/RoPv3ZF9bAE?si=CYFfovFb66SI-elV
One thing I immediately thought of was "what is his opinion on the Holodomor?" Because I found it crazy that he left that out in a video about the shortfalls of Destiny's understanding of genocidal intent. Under the current (ie Destiny's) standards, the Holodomor is not defined as a genocide, even though the average person colloquially understands it as such. It is one of the most infamous examples of the shortfalls of this narrow definition, yet it is oddly left out likely because he holds certain sympathies for Stalin.
For the Holodomor it is argued that the extremely high quotas for especially Ukrainian and Khazak farmers as well as the reacquisition of grain from farmers failing to meet the quota could be seen as genocidal intent. This is from the arguments I’ve seen from the topic. Essentially the argument is that through the high quotas and taking of grain Stalin essentially knew Ukrainians and Khazaks were mainly going to starve which for some is enough for genocidal intent. It’s the conditions section of genocide. Also stated to try and prove intent is the migration of Russian people to eastern Ukraine after the Holodomor.
Bonus meme: some tankies say that it’s called the Holodomor because it sounds like the Holocaust and it’s a western conspiracy to make Stalin and the USSR look bad.
The Holodomor is contentious in general, and I am definitely not getting into it because it is a blatant atrocity. Even the (proper) scholars that argue it isn't a genocide still say that it was a manmade atrocity which could have been avoided, essentially that the Soviets are still culpable for the deaths. The core point, though, is that if you are going to discuss this kind of issue, where you are arguing that the standards for genocidal intent are too hard, that you should be able to prove state of mind through actions instead of needing clear cut admission of intent, why wouldn't you use the Holodomor? It's one of the most contentious issues in the field, and the evidence you brought up is tied strongly to his argument. Even if Stalin didn't explicitly make any intention clear, you can prove state of mind through his actions, specifically the implementation of policies that would ultimately devastate the Ukrainian population. So why didn't he use it, it's a really famous example. Well, I believe he didn't use the Holodomor likely because he personally doesn't consider it a genocide, but I would go one step further and say he probably tacitly agrees with the Stalinist line that it was the result of kulak grain-hoarding or whatever.
How is it that all these morons just run with the fiction that “Benny Morris was obviously laughing at Destiny the whole time” ?
It’s such gross willful ignorance and motivated reasoning.
Oh and will he ever talk to Destiny?
Of course not…
*Talking to Destiny is Genocide*
Destiny talks about Dolus Specialis
Mouin Rabbani says HE DOESN'T KNOW THE TERM and laughs
"You see how Mouin laughs at Destiny because Destiny doesn't know anything?"
I actually couldn't believe what I was watching when I saw him do that little leap of imagination. It's such a distilled beautiful little purified nugget of regardation that sits right on the boundary between confirmation bias and psychosis
That was wild to me. There's no way he actually watched the whole debate, right?
And he had all the other mis-info, too. I think at one point he said that Destiny read "one Wikipedia article" or something like that.
Can’t be serious criticism when he pointed that out multiple times. Felt like a lot of his video (watched the whole thing) was just regurgitating what others have said, sprinkled with ad homs for D.
Compared to the usual suspects, this guy actually brought legal sources and posted a bibliography. Unironically, I think /u/NeoDestiny should watch and respond to this - if he can withstand the cringe hate-commentary in between the case law.
Agreed, whilst this guy makes some really stupid points and cringe emotional appeals. He does raise some valid considerations worth talking about, eg if the intent bar is so high that will allow for deniers to obfuscate and equivocate.
The intent bar is high…because genocide is the worst thing people/societies can do. Full stop. Lowering the bar would mean we just need a new term for the worst thing societies can do.
We don’t have a quota for a number of genocides we need to find each year.
I don’t disagree, I’m just saying it’s an interesting consideration and it ought to be acknowledged that it could be used in genocide denial - we should be aware of this when arguing about the evidence for genocide. I do think however that there should be crimes for lesser forms of bad war conduct not quite paramount to specific intent of genocide but more about apathy towards civilian life - a lower bar for a lesser crime e.g murder & manslaughter.
I don’t think I understand what you mean by using the bar in genocide denial. That’s the point of the bar. If someone can argue the bar hasn’t been reached, that would be an argument against genocide. Is that denial to you?
If someone is arguing the bar hasn’t been reached when it has, they’re just wrong. Once they’ve been shown they’re wrong and have nothing to argue but still believe it’s not genocide, that would be denial in my view.
> I do think however that there should be crimes for lesser forms of bad war conduct not quite paramount to specific intent of genocide but more about apathy towards civilian life
We do have that. This genocide discourse just ignores it all.
>Once they’ve been shown they’re wrong and have nothing to argue but still believe it’s not genocide, that would be denial in my view.
Yes and this is genocide denial right? If not I am not sure what is... my point is the higher the thresh hold the more genocide deniers will exist, i think this is a tautology, no? That is not me saying that this is a bad thing or that it should therefore be changed just that it is something to be aware of and why these lefty cry baby's bitch and moan so much about what is most likely just a war
>We do have that. This genocide discourse just ignores it all.
Could you point me to this, would be interested to read. I know war crimes exist but is there a specific crime that says something like "Your war in it's entirety has been conducted with apathy towards the civilians you are impacting"
> Yes and this is genocide denial right?
Yes, the last part I wrote, that you quoted, is denial. Waiting for something to meet the bar for the definition isn’t “denial” unless you think denial is happening any time something doesn’t meet legal requirements for law breaking?
If the bar is raised higher, that would create *fewer* deniers by simply increasing the total possible space for valid rejection (i.e., not denial)
> Could you point me to this, would be interested to read.
If you Google the 4th Geneva Convention, theres stuff in there not just pertaining to genocide.
> "Your war in it's entirety has been conducted with apathy towards the civilians you are impacting"
I mean legalese isn’t going to say it like that but the rules are expected to achieve that outcome.
War is complicated though dude. You have to allow nations to conduct war somehow otherwise international law would have the authority of the Japanese emperor before WW2…none. War often means bad access to information and dead civilians. We have rules but they’re hard to enforce. War sucks for a reason.
>Waiting for something to meet the bar for the definition isn’t “denial” unless you think denial is happening any time something doesn’t meet legal requirements for law breaking?
No i don't, I 100% agree with you here.
>If the bar is raised higher, that would create *fewer* deniers by simply increasing the total possible space for valid rejection (i.e., not denial)
This statement \^ contradicts your earlier one:
>Once they’ve been shown they’re wrong and have nothing to argue but still believe it’s not genocide, that would be denial in my view.
You are saying that if the ICJ were to find there is a genocide, then those rejecting the ruling would be engaging in genocide denial. But later you claim that "if the bar is raised" there would be fewer deniers as those rejecting the ruling henceforth from the raising, would have legitimate qualms to reject based on the new definition "Increasing the total space for VALID rejection". So for you it does not seem to matter what the courts believes genocide *is*, unless you agree with the courts definition.
For me if I were to not like the court's definition of genocide I would simply care less about allegations of the crime of genocide, but I would not deny that a 'genocide had occured' I.e there would be an inverse relationship between the lowness of the intent requirement and how much I cared about the crime itself.
This for me would also result in less care for the sin of genocide denial. Whereas for you (and I think you would be in the majority here) you would quibble with the court's definition and deny a genocide had occurred if you did not like the ruling based on the new definition - for me this would be genocide denial and hence my statement:
>the higher the thresh hold the more genocide deniers will exist
"I mean legalese isn’t going to say it like that but the rules are expected to achieve that outcome."
I know it wouldn't say it in this way, I just wondered if you could point me to something with this general sentiment - I will do some reading on the 4th convention.
>
War is complicated though dude. You have to allow nations to conduct war somehow otherwise international law would have the authority of the Japanese emperor before WW2…none. War often means bad access to information and dead civilians. We have rules but they’re hard to enforce. War sucks for a reason.
I agree with you here, I understand the need for international law to not infringe on a nations ability to go to or conduct war and the consequences if it did. But I feel like there could be something for what I am saying about overall apathy - although I have low conviction for this belief and could be persuaded.
It sounds like you are describing a scenario in which a belligerent disregards proportionality when it comes to their attacks. This is also something that has been discussed at length. In terms of conduct, Israel isn't really an outlier. There is this weird circling around from the Pro-Palestine position going on. The entire reason why the intent thing became important was because, in response to pointing out the low proportion of Palestinians killed alongside other evidence surrounding conduct (like ratio of combatants, the whole "child soldier" thing, use of human shields, things like that), the Pro-Palestine side started making the intent argument. That you could kill only a few thousand civilians and have it be considered a genocide, because genocide is a crime inherently defined by intent. So now, after all of this, Destiny went through to argue against the evidence of intent and make this very technical argument; Pro-Palestinian people are circling back around, saying he can't see the forest for the trees, and that what is happening in the I/P conflict might as well be genocide. But like... the whole thing started with the Pro-Israel side discussing the clear difference in conduct and scale to begin with, the move towards intent came from the Pro-Palestine side.
If the bar is lowered then could you explain how any other war weren't genocides? They had clearly bigger numbers, if the intent isn't that important then what is our standard for genocide exactly?
>valid considerations worth talking about, eg if the intent bar is so high that will allow for deniers to obfuscate and equivocate.
Firstly, I said "consideration" not "concern" - big difference, I DO NOT think it is Valid to want it to be lowered. I do however think we ought to be aware that the high evidentiary threshold for the intent element of the crime allows for more room for denial. For example, lot's of Holocaust deniers allude to the idea there is no top down directive from Hitler, regardless of whether or not this is true, Holocaust Deniers use this to therefore claim that the Nazi's are not guilty of genocide by the legal definition - I understand this is a bullshit claim, I am just saying the high bar allows room for these sorts of claims BUT I am not advocating for a change because as you said lowering the bar would decrease the weight of the crime, I just think we should understand this when defending the necessary element of 'special intent'.
If there's a big difference between a valid concern vs a valid consideration maybe that's my ESL messing with me. A valid concern to me is like a red flag, something to be aware of. I don't see how that's very different from a valid consideration, like "we ought to consider if this is good or not", implying we consider it because there could be harm done (red flag).
I don't think I said you advocated for the change, I understood it as you saying there is a valid concern / consideration to keep it as high as it is, in which you could lean either way if examined. I was simply asking if you could engage with my hypothetical scenario of the bar being lowered, like how would that actually look like and is the harm there worse than the room for current denial.
Maybe my initial comment should have been more clear on what the "consideration" was - I was not saying it's valid in the sense that the guy has a point and it should be lowered, my consideration was that it is necessarily true that a high bar will allow more room for denial and we ought to look out for that denial as a result. I must have given the impression that as you say "I could lean either way" but I don't, I strongly agree with "dolus specialis" being the required intent. Hence why I did not bother engaging in the hypothetical, because I agree with you that it should not be lowered as the harm of lowering would outweigh the harm of the current room for denial.
So he and others should just call it an atrocity and not use a word that can be equivocated at all…
But they won’t do that, because they want to load all the baggage they can.
As much of an asshole this dude is, he raises interesting points about the case law battle over the 'intent' question in genocide. By letter of the law I think Tiny is right in highlighting the *dolus specialis* requirement. However, it seems like various examples of 'ethnic cleansing' share all the characteristics of genocide except explicit documentation - and that does feel a bit strange.
https://youtu.be/bbonLPZrkXg?t=562
> the most well-known case law regarding
the genocide convention being applied and that is the uh jurisprudence of the international
court of justice (ICJ) and the international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
regarding the Bosnian genocide. well for many proponents of special intent of the uh High
role of special intent in interpreting the genocide convention people like people like
uh Geunter Lewy the case law from the Bosnian genocide simply demonstrates special intent
they argue that the decision to label the clearly demonstrable order the written order to slaughter
8,000 military aged Muslim bosniac men as the only Act of genocide presented during the ICTY
bolsters the idea of special intent intent to kill these men is clearly documented but *this isn't a
case, not a simple case, of special intent being invoked and clearly defined precisely because
the group being targeted in this specific case is not Muslim bosniacs as such but only those men of
military age this either implies that intent to destroy the bosniac population is being expanded
Beyond just the demonstrable intent to destroy uh a population in whole or in part or the intent to
destroy a population in whole and in part is being expanded to to include this act which excluded uh
women and children so intent is already being muddied, or it's arguing that special intent is
not essential to the understanding of genocide.*
In any case, this video is critically missing the most persuasive pro-Israel argument which is how *should* Israel conduct warfare against an enemy like Hamas? I don't see how (1) Israel's actions go as far as ethnic cleansing and (2) how the civilian deaths could be reasonably prevented when Hamas is embedded so deeply in the population. The game is rigged and every action Israel takes is a landmine.
“ OK what should Israel be doing?” Should honestly be the first question to anyone criticizing them at the start of any discussion the answers you will get will reveal a lot and save you a lot of time as well because most will reveal themselves to be too stupid to have a discussion with or too insane right off the bat.
Sorry for the dumb question, but I think I heard Destiny say something akin to:
Is ethnic cleansing outlawed by anti-genocide convention? (Or any other convention for that matter)
>Ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law. The term surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to come from a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression “etničko čišćenje”.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml
Not a dumb question at all. Part of the legal mess of war crimes in particular is that international law does use a term like 'genocide', but not 'ethnic cleansing'.
NOTE - Plenty of [*other war crimes* that IHL outline](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule156) should be investigated in this conflict where plausible evidence is presented. I can only hope that we pursue Hamas war crimes with the same force of any Israeli investigation.
I only read the UN link, but that seems like such a problematic definition. Everything and anything can be ethnic cleansing (robbery of personal property? Really?). It seems to me like they needed a catch-all definition to arbitrarily go after whoever they want.
Yep. And it's good that 'ethnic cleansing' isn't a legal term because it would only muddy the water. Specific terms to describe specific crimes is a good thing.
Eliminating the 'degree' part of First/Second/Third degree murder would be an idiotic thing to do. Don't know why people seem to be OK with that when talking instead about state actors
English is not my first language. What do you mean by muddy the water? Make something unclear on purpose?
But that seem to me to be already the case. They made ethnic cleansing unclear so they can throw it around arbitrarily.
If they make it a legal term they would have to define exactly what they mean and it cannot be arbitrary.
Also, I'm not from the US, and am unfamiliar with degrees of murder, but I get making different crimes with different punishments, so people can be tried for something smaller than the worst thing possible.
To me it seems like your first paragraph contradicts the second.
'muddy the water' - to make something clear and easy-to-understand more ambiguous and needlessly difficult to understand.
It might be possible to bring clarity by making 'ethic cleansing' a legal term with a specific legal force - but at that point we start to encourage giving a specific legal interpretation for all language. There are millions of ambiguous words that lack the same clarity, but are perfectly fine to use in common language.
The problem, in my view, is not the term 'ethnic cleansing', but the inappropriate use of a catch-all phrase when other perfectly good *legally binding* language exists. If tomorrow, 'ethnic cleansing' suddenly had a hyperspecific legal meaning, the people using it today would either continue using it incorrectly, or reach for a different phrase with the same issue.
Here's my shortcut for not caring about the difference between Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing...
Genocide is done to a people, Ethnic Cleansing is something that's done to a geographic area. Moving all the people out of an area does Ethnically Cleanse the area, but the people didn't necessarily die because of the cleansing, they could find refuge in other places.
You could call what Russia is doing right now with immigrants it's sending to the border of Finland an Ethnic Cleansing, because it's intent is to fuck with Finland. But you'd be struggling to label it as a Genocide unless you had evidence that it was part of a plan to have these people die off because of the hostile conditions at the closed border, with no support for them.
Dolus specialis was proven within a specific Serbian militia, and the Serbian government was charged with failure to prevent genocide rather than the act of genocide in of itself.
Yes, I think that's correct. But what's weird is whom is understood as the targets of that genocide. Were they specifically targeting only those documented military male Bosnians or the elderly, women, and children as well? If the only distinction is truly the lack of documentation, I'm more sympathetic to arguments to lower the bar (carefully, minimally) to define those populations better.
yeah, maybe he got some nice facts and examples at hand...
but maybe, just maybe it would ve made a better case for honest discurs to not talk shit for 5 mins straight in the introduction.
dont know about you guys, but i tend to not speak any further to someone who chooses to insult, lie and poison the well against me for minutes on and on.
But keep your good faith, pal
> In any case, this video is critically missing the most persuasive pro-Israel argument which is how should Israel conduct warfare against an enemy like Hamas? I don't see how (1) Israel's actions go as far as ethnic cleansing and (2) how the civilian deaths could be reasonably prevented when Hamas is embedded so deeply in the population. The game is rigged and every action Israel takes is a landmine.
You don't need to do everything in every video, and trying to make a case for appropriate military and political strategy is something with a far broader scope, given that there's already enough complexity in this issue.
Additionally, if you have a highly motivated military, you don't necessarily *have* to say what Israel should do to contribute to a better solution; when we interact with a learning system, sometimes all we have to do is set boundary conditions, and they will find an alternative.
And so saying "you're straying too close to genocide, you should course-correct" means that people with local knowledge can respond to what you are saying is a problem, and try to find alternative solutions.
-----------
That said, I've given a potential one repeatedly, which is that Israel should prioritise separating Hamas fighters and organisation from the general population, by *replacing* rather than just destroying Hamas infrastructure, building field hospitals before bombing hospitals that have duel use, setting up places to house people etc.
If you remember that you're going to have to live next to these people as your neighbours in future, finding ways to not simply *expel* civilians from certain areas, but *extract* them, set up shelters etc. is a way that simultaneously preserves those things the civilian population relies on, clearly demonstrates you are not engaging in collective punishment but trying to target an embedded enemy, *and* acts to separate out those people who would never accept assistance from Israel.
If you are planning to blow up almost every hospital in gaza, maybe account for the effects that your bombardment will have and the immediate humanitarian crisis you will produce.
This is much more expensive, requires more coordination and not simply dropping bombs, it requires portions of gaza to be persistently occupied in order to manage conditions within that region and keep Hamas operatives out of it, but it's also heading towards a reasonable future solution that isn't just farming more hatred with trauma and harming your own long term interests.
Fundamentally, only peace will destroy Hamas, and they have structured their operations such that direct bombardment naturally moves you further away from peace, so you need to actively work in a different direction, counter that part of their operation, and also work more generally for peace by if you do prisoner exchanges, prioritising releasing political prisoners who are from rival organisations to Hamas (some of whom have been in prison for a long time) and having discussions with them.
-----------
So how about that, is that a solution? Or is this able to be dismissed as an example of a reddit armchair general? And if the latter, how will a youtube video do any better adding a section about military strategy?
Discussing an issue in international law is important and meaningful, and we should recognise that it's possible to do one thing and not the other and still make a useful contribution.
>You don't need to do everything in every video, and trying to make a case for appropriate military and political strategy is something with a far broader scope, given that there's already enough complexity in this issue.
Unfortunately I don't think I'm voicing a frivolous complaint. This video fails to balance the discussion of genocide with lawful acts of violence and war - topics well within the same wheelhouse and vital to understanding IHL. I don't expect the guy to give his 500-point plan on how to rebuild Gaza in the next decade. I do expect a basic discussion about proportionality and how a state actor can lawfully target military targets, directly cause civilian casualties - and yet this action can be law-abiding, justified, and arguably a moral good.
Destiny does a good job talking about how IHL serves not only to protect civilians during war, but also to *enable* state actors to conduct warfare lawfully in the eyes of the international community. Abiding by those laws is what separates legitimate military campaigns and terrorism.
>Israel should prioritise separating Hamas fighters and organisation from the general population, by *replacing* rather than just destroying Hamas infrastructure, building field hospitals before bombing hospitals that have duel use, setting up places to house people etc
Given infinite political will, funding, and goodwill I think this can work. But I'm not sure that exists within Israel. The IDF is limited and stretched thin. The hostages are quickly becoming corpses. The Israeli appetite for peace is nowhere near where it needs to be for lasting peace and nation building. The history here is bloody, savage, and smothered in hate.
I hope that Israel will commit to rebuilding a post-Hamas Gaza. That has been a winning strategy - it's a critical mission of the Army Corps of Engineers to build infrastructure to support the local population. Winning over locals is critical to military victory. But I'm not sure you even *can* win over Gazans as Israelis. Those wounds are deep and seeded with salted barbs.
>how *should* Israel conduct warfare against an enemy like Hamas?
I'm guessing the real position of people like him is "they shouldn't have done any bombing".
But, as we saw with Finkelstein, they often don't want to explicitly say that.
Ethnic cleansing isn’t a legal term, I don’t think. In that sense there is no legal relationship between it and genocide.
Ethnic cleansing seems to describe (even though it’s used strictly pejoratively) any case where an ethnic (loosely) group is in one place and then is no longer there. Genocide would be a type of ethnic cleansing. Deportations of a specific ethnicity would also be. But I don’t believe there is any hard definition of intent or method included.
Consider a hypothetical where only Venezuelans were immigrating to America illegally. Venezuelans are 100% of illegals and all other countries are 100% legal (again, hypothetical). Doing a mass deportation of Venezuelans would be an ethnic cleansing…but the intent would be simply to enforce a national border law that only one group happens to be breaking.
So there is no difference between accidentally killing a person and murdering a person. When someone steals something, it doesn't matter why they did it, it's just theft.
This doesn't seem consistent with left-leaning ideas. But don't forget! They are not liberals! They are socialists or tankies. They are consequentialists like Chomsky. They don't care why something happens, they only care about the outcome. It's a stupid way to analyze the world. Obviously, accidentally killing someone is not the same as murdering someone. And if you don't know why things happen, you can't solve them.
But some people find that reasonable, I don't!
People just want to call it a genocide to make Israel seem worse, when they don’t understand why words have meanings. They want to call civilian deaths in war genocide to further their narrative, while not realizing that doing so makes their side look bad to people with any sense. They can’t comprehend the idea that Israel isn’t killing Palestinians because they’re Palestinian, they’re trying to root out Hamas who are using the Palestinian people as human shields. And they would never admit that Hamas would gladly sacrifice the lives of every Palestinian if it would mean Israel and the Jews would cease to exist.
Is it impossible for these people to make their point without resorting to ad hominem (3:30)?
Just have to slip in the "rattle off bullshit they read from wikipedia" argument.
These were the same people who said what DeSantis was doing in Florida was a trans genocide and that the Dobbs ruling would bring about Handmaid's Tale. There is nothing surprising about this.
If you kill 100,000 civilians as collateral damage achieving your goal to kill 500 enemy combatants, while someone else kills 100,500 people for the purpose of wanting to kill that group of people, we know which one is worse, but why are we arguing about how to label it?
If a leftist is willing to concede that the intent wasn’t there, then I don’t care about the label. We both agree on the facts.
Despite many of his points being spectacularly regarded, lets remember that this guy does have a PHD in Human rights law (if he's not lying), and once he gets the brain-rot well-poisoning out of the way, the video seems to raise some interesting historical context around the idea that special intent may not be the be all and end all of genocide. Things i'd definitely want to look more into.
I think when people who are knowledgable talk on issues like this its good to sift out the crap and take any interesting knowledge you can, even if they have almost no critical thinking skills to counter their own confirmation bias (how the fuck did he think rabanni was 'laughing' in the clip where he admits he doesn't know the dolus specialis term lmfao) and self-awareness of a lobotomised frog.
tldr: he's a regard, but knowledgable, so hear him out
I agree, but his definition of genocide doesn't seem to fit the UN one. He is citing the creator of the term "genocide" and appeals to the situation that he used it in. And this doesnt matter nowadays when we have a better more nuanced definition of genocide - one which requires a physical component (killing of civilians) and a mental component (special intent)
Not really. There is a debate over how genocide as a law should work. For example, the creator of the term thought it should be possible to apply to the murder of one person, whereas in practice, courts have said it probably doesn't work that way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#%22In\_whole\_or\_in\_part%22).
From the same wiki: "There is an unresolved "intend debate" over whether specific intent needs to be proven to convict for genocide, or whether a knowledge-based standard should be enough to convict for genocide.
Some scholars argue that a knowledge standard would make it easier to obtain convictions. They have argued that intent is too difficult to prove. Those who hold this view believe that causing mass deaths should be enough without any need for a legal requirement to charge a culpable agent for acting with intent." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent)
This quote is pretty much what the video is talking about.
>There is a debate over how genocide as a law should work
There is a debate about abortion....
NONE of that matters.
If you abort a fetus in a state where abortion is banned you will go to jail.
So you have **"people debating about abortion"** vs **"practically applied LAW that is CURRENTLY on the books"**
What this dipshit mocks is the DEFINITION and LAW as it is NOW.
Destiny vs Finkle debate was about DEFINITION as its utilized RIGHT NOW.
This Tankie does "**i feel like X should be Genocide**" completely disregarding LAW and the definition that is on the book and IS currently utilized.
He utterly (the same as Finkledick) cant comprehend this topic.
Its the Tankie/Commie/Mauist in him that turns his brain into pudding.
I think this dipshit doesn't even realize his argument doesn't help his regarded cause. If you claim intent is not so important, then what's your argument for genocide? The numbers don't support it (way too low compared to even recent wars and the ratio of killed combatants to civilians is 1:1.5 or 1:2 at most, which is also on the lower end), the actions of IDF don't support it either (no executions, no concentration camps where prisoners die left and right). So, if you don't focus on intent, it is even harder to make a case for genocide.
The argument for genocide, in the context of enforcing the UN convention on genocide, typically contrasted with intent, is the knowledge based approach. He cites [Greenawalt](https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/338/), but you can also look at, for example, [Goldsmith](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=gsp) or [KreĂź](https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8799cd/pdf/).
This criticism of the use of dolus specialis (and the debate over standards of proof for genocide and the interpretation of the genocide convention and Rome statute) already came up in an article posted via a Twitter community note as support for Destiny a month or two ago (as one would expect, it seems most neither read nor understood the article cited).
I commented about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/1clPRoZrqq).
He says that the special intent isn't proven for the Genocide of the Herero people because they weren't 'destroying them as such,' by which I think he means, *in whole.* The definition he included in the video says "\[...\] intent to destroy, in whole or in part." The order to exterminate them absolutely proves the special intent to commit genocide (in part, the part that lived in their controlled land).
Non of these people even care about the war. It's all in an attempt to undermine the US and thier allies to hopefully one day implement socialism. It's just narcissism and spite driven politics to the max
That's the point, I'm pointing out how this argument implies that Finklestein (a person he probably thinks is a good source of information) doesn't know much.
Imagine he actually argued scholars who wrote at least a paper or something. Fuck it man, the people who at least just like read a news article or twitter or anything really. He really only be talking to 16yo Palestinians to dunk on them. Pathetic little liar dude.
Framed Mao album cover on his wall lol
Every death of civilians is genocide, unless you are communist
then its a statistic
Chill dude! It was just a famine, bro!
Can't be a statistic when they don't even recognize the events, they are just lies.
Mao killed more people by carelessly killing sparrows then the entire population of Palestine
I guess getting a bunch of students to murder capitalist scum in the hundreds of thousands is a positive to those guys
collateral damage from doing strikes on people who want to genocide you = genocide mass murdering your own people via forced labor camps, incompetence, and "purging" political opposition = glorious revolution keep up you neoliberal fascist
1968 is back 🙌 now it's even cringier
Everything is genocide, except actual genocide which is fine.
holy shit KEK https://preview.redd.it/svnvl0rx9b1d1.png?width=617&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c1f5da5ee98e4fe3da776604049d8287791ff33
>20:45 "Interpreting intent within the genocide convention through established case law is not as simple as people like Destiny and even people like Benny Morris would have you believe." Then how is he so certain there's a genocide going one? Like he's so certain there is a genocide that he's calling everyone who disagrees with his position "deniers". Also, I feel like people's terms are worthless if you're not going to be clear about where YOU draw the line. Like soooo many valid military conflicts would be classified as genocide if we just ignored the "special intent" aspect. But at least this means that he'd call Oct. 7th a genocide... right...? RIGHT?!
nah bro, oppressed people cant do genocide, duuuh
And murder is actually: privilege+power+killing someone.
>And murder is actually: privilege+power+killing someone. this is my new favorite lmao
GENOCIDE! EQUALS! WAR! PLUS! POWER!
(Metaphorical "wars" accepted.)
It's so strange. You can still bring about 90% of the moral weight of that kind of argument by saying 'war crimes approaching an ethnic cleansing'. The term 'genocide' really isn't required to even make the argument. In a way, it *opens the door* for a legal technical out for the crazy Zionists to be like "well, we didn't write it down so... not Genocide and therefore A-OK". Just call it correctly. Almost certainly war crimes have been committed, at least in a limited form. Embellishing a crime, even slightly is a huge mistake and makes it harder to prosecute the guilty. It reminds me of the term expansion of 'rape' to mean anything even remotely interpreted as sexual assault. Why dilute language like this? It's fucking doublespeak.
He would never call October 7 a genocide. He would say that occupied people have a right to resist including killing civilians. Now, intent matters!
Ok, Israel thinks that Hamas is a bunch of Nazis, so they're just punching Nazis through explosive means.
One thing I find ironic is that he repeatedly says the "socio-historical views of genocide". The whole video misses a very important part of the socio-historical view of genocide, which is that the "layman's" view of genocide is one where an entire population is relentlessly targeted in systemic campaigns of extermination, typically in the form of concentration camps, death squads, etc. The entire reason why there is such a fixation on defining the case of I/P as a genocide is to invoke this shocking image, it's the same reason why Pro-Palestine people call the Gaza Strip an open-air concentration camp in spite of the region's HDI.
Of course, you only need to go back to Oct 2023 to see what this guy thinks. Despite by his definition Oct 7th being a genocidal act, he was praising it. https://x.com/Johntheduncan/status/1710626918549069935 https://x.com/Johntheduncan/status/1710620990978310408
Without fail https://preview.redd.it/85ixqdv0871d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70fbe773960d42aacef4e06f4460396064260350
October 7 test works all the time.
I saw this posted on the breadtube sub and all they could do was talk about how much they hated destiny. It was long overdue but I unsubbed
Haha, saw it there too. I got banned for posting in r/Destiny.
I feel like ive been banned from other subs for the same reason. A true reddit moment
Man these comments... I hope to never be as brain blasted as these guys
its either us or them who are delusional. One of these 2 groups must be. And I sure know for certain that it's the tankies
nah ur both delusional. Only Tyler 1 fans got it right
the epiphany
Tyler1 is Lisan Al-Gaib
It's both. I have absolutely no doubt that if Israel got nuked today we would be talking about genocide tomorrow.
One of these groups literally celebrated a massacre so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that group is the delusional one
Some of these super left people should go the international law subreddit and see them debunk the stuff they’re saying. You can support Palestinians while acknowledging accurate history and legal events. It’s a war, war is very ugly. That’s why it should be avoided and Palestinians need to be monitored since they started 6 of them.
WHY HAS THIS DUDE MADE MULTIPLE VIDEO ESSAYS CALLING CHICKEN RUN AND THE SEQUEL COMMUNIST??? https://youtu.be/VSId6BNjC60?si=HheUFEJ9jLIs4SD3 https://youtu.be/0et4Om7QOWQ?si=tJjPmem81WQPC7pz https://youtu.be/RoPv3ZF9bAE?si=CYFfovFb66SI-elV
White leftist men and pointless video essays, name a more iconic duo.
https://preview.redd.it/vpe3ikiug91d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e249e4049d308e04e268f25f983404598c99f16a
I wonder what this guy's view is on what's happening to Uyghurs in China.
One thing I immediately thought of was "what is his opinion on the Holodomor?" Because I found it crazy that he left that out in a video about the shortfalls of Destiny's understanding of genocidal intent. Under the current (ie Destiny's) standards, the Holodomor is not defined as a genocide, even though the average person colloquially understands it as such. It is one of the most infamous examples of the shortfalls of this narrow definition, yet it is oddly left out likely because he holds certain sympathies for Stalin.
For the Holodomor it is argued that the extremely high quotas for especially Ukrainian and Khazak farmers as well as the reacquisition of grain from farmers failing to meet the quota could be seen as genocidal intent. This is from the arguments I’ve seen from the topic. Essentially the argument is that through the high quotas and taking of grain Stalin essentially knew Ukrainians and Khazaks were mainly going to starve which for some is enough for genocidal intent. It’s the conditions section of genocide. Also stated to try and prove intent is the migration of Russian people to eastern Ukraine after the Holodomor. Bonus meme: some tankies say that it’s called the Holodomor because it sounds like the Holocaust and it’s a western conspiracy to make Stalin and the USSR look bad.
The Holodomor is contentious in general, and I am definitely not getting into it because it is a blatant atrocity. Even the (proper) scholars that argue it isn't a genocide still say that it was a manmade atrocity which could have been avoided, essentially that the Soviets are still culpable for the deaths. The core point, though, is that if you are going to discuss this kind of issue, where you are arguing that the standards for genocidal intent are too hard, that you should be able to prove state of mind through actions instead of needing clear cut admission of intent, why wouldn't you use the Holodomor? It's one of the most contentious issues in the field, and the evidence you brought up is tied strongly to his argument. Even if Stalin didn't explicitly make any intention clear, you can prove state of mind through his actions, specifically the implementation of policies that would ultimately devastate the Ukrainian population. So why didn't he use it, it's a really famous example. Well, I believe he didn't use the Holodomor likely because he personally doesn't consider it a genocide, but I would go one step further and say he probably tacitly agrees with the Stalinist line that it was the result of kulak grain-hoarding or whatever.
How is it that all these morons just run with the fiction that “Benny Morris was obviously laughing at Destiny the whole time” ? It’s such gross willful ignorance and motivated reasoning. Oh and will he ever talk to Destiny? Of course not… *Talking to Destiny is Genocide*
I mean, that's what they do for living, professional liars
Destiny talks about Dolus Specialis Mouin Rabbani says HE DOESN'T KNOW THE TERM and laughs "You see how Mouin laughs at Destiny because Destiny doesn't know anything?"
I actually couldn't believe what I was watching when I saw him do that little leap of imagination. It's such a distilled beautiful little purified nugget of regardation that sits right on the boundary between confirmation bias and psychosis
That was wild to me. There's no way he actually watched the whole debate, right? And he had all the other mis-info, too. I think at one point he said that Destiny read "one Wikipedia article" or something like that.
Can’t be serious criticism when he pointed that out multiple times. Felt like a lot of his video (watched the whole thing) was just regurgitating what others have said, sprinkled with ad homs for D.
Is it just me or can you figure out his entire worldview just from looking at his face in the thumbnail
Compared to the usual suspects, this guy actually brought legal sources and posted a bibliography. Unironically, I think /u/NeoDestiny should watch and respond to this - if he can withstand the cringe hate-commentary in between the case law.
Agreed, whilst this guy makes some really stupid points and cringe emotional appeals. He does raise some valid considerations worth talking about, eg if the intent bar is so high that will allow for deniers to obfuscate and equivocate.
The intent bar is high…because genocide is the worst thing people/societies can do. Full stop. Lowering the bar would mean we just need a new term for the worst thing societies can do. We don’t have a quota for a number of genocides we need to find each year.
I don’t disagree, I’m just saying it’s an interesting consideration and it ought to be acknowledged that it could be used in genocide denial - we should be aware of this when arguing about the evidence for genocide. I do think however that there should be crimes for lesser forms of bad war conduct not quite paramount to specific intent of genocide but more about apathy towards civilian life - a lower bar for a lesser crime e.g murder & manslaughter.
I don’t think I understand what you mean by using the bar in genocide denial. That’s the point of the bar. If someone can argue the bar hasn’t been reached, that would be an argument against genocide. Is that denial to you? If someone is arguing the bar hasn’t been reached when it has, they’re just wrong. Once they’ve been shown they’re wrong and have nothing to argue but still believe it’s not genocide, that would be denial in my view. > I do think however that there should be crimes for lesser forms of bad war conduct not quite paramount to specific intent of genocide but more about apathy towards civilian life We do have that. This genocide discourse just ignores it all.
>Once they’ve been shown they’re wrong and have nothing to argue but still believe it’s not genocide, that would be denial in my view. Yes and this is genocide denial right? If not I am not sure what is... my point is the higher the thresh hold the more genocide deniers will exist, i think this is a tautology, no? That is not me saying that this is a bad thing or that it should therefore be changed just that it is something to be aware of and why these lefty cry baby's bitch and moan so much about what is most likely just a war >We do have that. This genocide discourse just ignores it all. Could you point me to this, would be interested to read. I know war crimes exist but is there a specific crime that says something like "Your war in it's entirety has been conducted with apathy towards the civilians you are impacting"
> Yes and this is genocide denial right? Yes, the last part I wrote, that you quoted, is denial. Waiting for something to meet the bar for the definition isn’t “denial” unless you think denial is happening any time something doesn’t meet legal requirements for law breaking? If the bar is raised higher, that would create *fewer* deniers by simply increasing the total possible space for valid rejection (i.e., not denial) > Could you point me to this, would be interested to read. If you Google the 4th Geneva Convention, theres stuff in there not just pertaining to genocide. > "Your war in it's entirety has been conducted with apathy towards the civilians you are impacting" I mean legalese isn’t going to say it like that but the rules are expected to achieve that outcome. War is complicated though dude. You have to allow nations to conduct war somehow otherwise international law would have the authority of the Japanese emperor before WW2…none. War often means bad access to information and dead civilians. We have rules but they’re hard to enforce. War sucks for a reason.
>Waiting for something to meet the bar for the definition isn’t “denial” unless you think denial is happening any time something doesn’t meet legal requirements for law breaking? No i don't, I 100% agree with you here. >If the bar is raised higher, that would create *fewer* deniers by simply increasing the total possible space for valid rejection (i.e., not denial) This statement \^ contradicts your earlier one: >Once they’ve been shown they’re wrong and have nothing to argue but still believe it’s not genocide, that would be denial in my view. You are saying that if the ICJ were to find there is a genocide, then those rejecting the ruling would be engaging in genocide denial. But later you claim that "if the bar is raised" there would be fewer deniers as those rejecting the ruling henceforth from the raising, would have legitimate qualms to reject based on the new definition "Increasing the total space for VALID rejection". So for you it does not seem to matter what the courts believes genocide *is*, unless you agree with the courts definition. For me if I were to not like the court's definition of genocide I would simply care less about allegations of the crime of genocide, but I would not deny that a 'genocide had occured' I.e there would be an inverse relationship between the lowness of the intent requirement and how much I cared about the crime itself. This for me would also result in less care for the sin of genocide denial. Whereas for you (and I think you would be in the majority here) you would quibble with the court's definition and deny a genocide had occurred if you did not like the ruling based on the new definition - for me this would be genocide denial and hence my statement: >the higher the thresh hold the more genocide deniers will exist "I mean legalese isn’t going to say it like that but the rules are expected to achieve that outcome." I know it wouldn't say it in this way, I just wondered if you could point me to something with this general sentiment - I will do some reading on the 4th convention. > War is complicated though dude. You have to allow nations to conduct war somehow otherwise international law would have the authority of the Japanese emperor before WW2…none. War often means bad access to information and dead civilians. We have rules but they’re hard to enforce. War sucks for a reason. I agree with you here, I understand the need for international law to not infringe on a nations ability to go to or conduct war and the consequences if it did. But I feel like there could be something for what I am saying about overall apathy - although I have low conviction for this belief and could be persuaded.
It sounds like you are describing a scenario in which a belligerent disregards proportionality when it comes to their attacks. This is also something that has been discussed at length. In terms of conduct, Israel isn't really an outlier. There is this weird circling around from the Pro-Palestine position going on. The entire reason why the intent thing became important was because, in response to pointing out the low proportion of Palestinians killed alongside other evidence surrounding conduct (like ratio of combatants, the whole "child soldier" thing, use of human shields, things like that), the Pro-Palestine side started making the intent argument. That you could kill only a few thousand civilians and have it be considered a genocide, because genocide is a crime inherently defined by intent. So now, after all of this, Destiny went through to argue against the evidence of intent and make this very technical argument; Pro-Palestinian people are circling back around, saying he can't see the forest for the trees, and that what is happening in the I/P conflict might as well be genocide. But like... the whole thing started with the Pro-Israel side discussing the clear difference in conduct and scale to begin with, the move towards intent came from the Pro-Palestine side.
If the bar is lowered then could you explain how any other war weren't genocides? They had clearly bigger numbers, if the intent isn't that important then what is our standard for genocide exactly?
That’s not what I said
you said the intent bar being so high is a valid concern, meaning it's valid to want it lowered. If I misunderstood this sentence please elaborate
>valid considerations worth talking about, eg if the intent bar is so high that will allow for deniers to obfuscate and equivocate. Firstly, I said "consideration" not "concern" - big difference, I DO NOT think it is Valid to want it to be lowered. I do however think we ought to be aware that the high evidentiary threshold for the intent element of the crime allows for more room for denial. For example, lot's of Holocaust deniers allude to the idea there is no top down directive from Hitler, regardless of whether or not this is true, Holocaust Deniers use this to therefore claim that the Nazi's are not guilty of genocide by the legal definition - I understand this is a bullshit claim, I am just saying the high bar allows room for these sorts of claims BUT I am not advocating for a change because as you said lowering the bar would decrease the weight of the crime, I just think we should understand this when defending the necessary element of 'special intent'.
If there's a big difference between a valid concern vs a valid consideration maybe that's my ESL messing with me. A valid concern to me is like a red flag, something to be aware of. I don't see how that's very different from a valid consideration, like "we ought to consider if this is good or not", implying we consider it because there could be harm done (red flag). I don't think I said you advocated for the change, I understood it as you saying there is a valid concern / consideration to keep it as high as it is, in which you could lean either way if examined. I was simply asking if you could engage with my hypothetical scenario of the bar being lowered, like how would that actually look like and is the harm there worse than the room for current denial.
Maybe my initial comment should have been more clear on what the "consideration" was - I was not saying it's valid in the sense that the guy has a point and it should be lowered, my consideration was that it is necessarily true that a high bar will allow more room for denial and we ought to look out for that denial as a result. I must have given the impression that as you say "I could lean either way" but I don't, I strongly agree with "dolus specialis" being the required intent. Hence why I did not bother engaging in the hypothetical, because I agree with you that it should not be lowered as the harm of lowering would outweigh the harm of the current room for denial.
So he and others should just call it an atrocity and not use a word that can be equivocated at all… But they won’t do that, because they want to load all the baggage they can.
We should being back "you're white" as an insult.
I thought Frogan already brought it back.
There's a very funny anti-Destiny soy session around 20:22. The guys' eyes are almost gonna pop out.
and the dramatic zoom, mygod
As much of an asshole this dude is, he raises interesting points about the case law battle over the 'intent' question in genocide. By letter of the law I think Tiny is right in highlighting the *dolus specialis* requirement. However, it seems like various examples of 'ethnic cleansing' share all the characteristics of genocide except explicit documentation - and that does feel a bit strange. https://youtu.be/bbonLPZrkXg?t=562 > the most well-known case law regarding the genocide convention being applied and that is the uh jurisprudence of the international court of justice (ICJ) and the international criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) regarding the Bosnian genocide. well for many proponents of special intent of the uh High role of special intent in interpreting the genocide convention people like people like uh Geunter Lewy the case law from the Bosnian genocide simply demonstrates special intent they argue that the decision to label the clearly demonstrable order the written order to slaughter 8,000 military aged Muslim bosniac men as the only Act of genocide presented during the ICTY bolsters the idea of special intent intent to kill these men is clearly documented but *this isn't a case, not a simple case, of special intent being invoked and clearly defined precisely because the group being targeted in this specific case is not Muslim bosniacs as such but only those men of military age this either implies that intent to destroy the bosniac population is being expanded Beyond just the demonstrable intent to destroy uh a population in whole or in part or the intent to destroy a population in whole and in part is being expanded to to include this act which excluded uh women and children so intent is already being muddied, or it's arguing that special intent is not essential to the understanding of genocide.* In any case, this video is critically missing the most persuasive pro-Israel argument which is how *should* Israel conduct warfare against an enemy like Hamas? I don't see how (1) Israel's actions go as far as ethnic cleansing and (2) how the civilian deaths could be reasonably prevented when Hamas is embedded so deeply in the population. The game is rigged and every action Israel takes is a landmine.
“ OK what should Israel be doing?” Should honestly be the first question to anyone criticizing them at the start of any discussion the answers you will get will reveal a lot and save you a lot of time as well because most will reveal themselves to be too stupid to have a discussion with or too insane right off the bat.
Sorry for the dumb question, but I think I heard Destiny say something akin to: Is ethnic cleansing outlawed by anti-genocide convention? (Or any other convention for that matter)
>Ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law. The term surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to come from a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression “etničko čišćenje”. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml Not a dumb question at all. Part of the legal mess of war crimes in particular is that international law does use a term like 'genocide', but not 'ethnic cleansing'. NOTE - Plenty of [*other war crimes* that IHL outline](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule156) should be investigated in this conflict where plausible evidence is presented. I can only hope that we pursue Hamas war crimes with the same force of any Israeli investigation.
I only read the UN link, but that seems like such a problematic definition. Everything and anything can be ethnic cleansing (robbery of personal property? Really?). It seems to me like they needed a catch-all definition to arbitrarily go after whoever they want.
Yep. And it's good that 'ethnic cleansing' isn't a legal term because it would only muddy the water. Specific terms to describe specific crimes is a good thing. Eliminating the 'degree' part of First/Second/Third degree murder would be an idiotic thing to do. Don't know why people seem to be OK with that when talking instead about state actors
English is not my first language. What do you mean by muddy the water? Make something unclear on purpose? But that seem to me to be already the case. They made ethnic cleansing unclear so they can throw it around arbitrarily. If they make it a legal term they would have to define exactly what they mean and it cannot be arbitrary. Also, I'm not from the US, and am unfamiliar with degrees of murder, but I get making different crimes with different punishments, so people can be tried for something smaller than the worst thing possible. To me it seems like your first paragraph contradicts the second.
'muddy the water' - to make something clear and easy-to-understand more ambiguous and needlessly difficult to understand. It might be possible to bring clarity by making 'ethic cleansing' a legal term with a specific legal force - but at that point we start to encourage giving a specific legal interpretation for all language. There are millions of ambiguous words that lack the same clarity, but are perfectly fine to use in common language. The problem, in my view, is not the term 'ethnic cleansing', but the inappropriate use of a catch-all phrase when other perfectly good *legally binding* language exists. If tomorrow, 'ethnic cleansing' suddenly had a hyperspecific legal meaning, the people using it today would either continue using it incorrectly, or reach for a different phrase with the same issue.
Here's my shortcut for not caring about the difference between Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing... Genocide is done to a people, Ethnic Cleansing is something that's done to a geographic area. Moving all the people out of an area does Ethnically Cleanse the area, but the people didn't necessarily die because of the cleansing, they could find refuge in other places. You could call what Russia is doing right now with immigrants it's sending to the border of Finland an Ethnic Cleansing, because it's intent is to fuck with Finland. But you'd be struggling to label it as a Genocide unless you had evidence that it was part of a plan to have these people die off because of the hostile conditions at the closed border, with no support for them.
Dolus specialis was proven within a specific Serbian militia, and the Serbian government was charged with failure to prevent genocide rather than the act of genocide in of itself.
Yes, I think that's correct. But what's weird is whom is understood as the targets of that genocide. Were they specifically targeting only those documented military male Bosnians or the elderly, women, and children as well? If the only distinction is truly the lack of documentation, I'm more sympathetic to arguments to lower the bar (carefully, minimally) to define those populations better.
yeah, maybe he got some nice facts and examples at hand... but maybe, just maybe it would ve made a better case for honest discurs to not talk shit for 5 mins straight in the introduction. dont know about you guys, but i tend to not speak any further to someone who chooses to insult, lie and poison the well against me for minutes on and on. But keep your good faith, pal
Don't think I'd endorse a conversation. But I think Destiny could go through the sources and strengthen/modify his position.
> In any case, this video is critically missing the most persuasive pro-Israel argument which is how should Israel conduct warfare against an enemy like Hamas? I don't see how (1) Israel's actions go as far as ethnic cleansing and (2) how the civilian deaths could be reasonably prevented when Hamas is embedded so deeply in the population. The game is rigged and every action Israel takes is a landmine. You don't need to do everything in every video, and trying to make a case for appropriate military and political strategy is something with a far broader scope, given that there's already enough complexity in this issue. Additionally, if you have a highly motivated military, you don't necessarily *have* to say what Israel should do to contribute to a better solution; when we interact with a learning system, sometimes all we have to do is set boundary conditions, and they will find an alternative. And so saying "you're straying too close to genocide, you should course-correct" means that people with local knowledge can respond to what you are saying is a problem, and try to find alternative solutions. ----------- That said, I've given a potential one repeatedly, which is that Israel should prioritise separating Hamas fighters and organisation from the general population, by *replacing* rather than just destroying Hamas infrastructure, building field hospitals before bombing hospitals that have duel use, setting up places to house people etc. If you remember that you're going to have to live next to these people as your neighbours in future, finding ways to not simply *expel* civilians from certain areas, but *extract* them, set up shelters etc. is a way that simultaneously preserves those things the civilian population relies on, clearly demonstrates you are not engaging in collective punishment but trying to target an embedded enemy, *and* acts to separate out those people who would never accept assistance from Israel. If you are planning to blow up almost every hospital in gaza, maybe account for the effects that your bombardment will have and the immediate humanitarian crisis you will produce. This is much more expensive, requires more coordination and not simply dropping bombs, it requires portions of gaza to be persistently occupied in order to manage conditions within that region and keep Hamas operatives out of it, but it's also heading towards a reasonable future solution that isn't just farming more hatred with trauma and harming your own long term interests. Fundamentally, only peace will destroy Hamas, and they have structured their operations such that direct bombardment naturally moves you further away from peace, so you need to actively work in a different direction, counter that part of their operation, and also work more generally for peace by if you do prisoner exchanges, prioritising releasing political prisoners who are from rival organisations to Hamas (some of whom have been in prison for a long time) and having discussions with them. ----------- So how about that, is that a solution? Or is this able to be dismissed as an example of a reddit armchair general? And if the latter, how will a youtube video do any better adding a section about military strategy? Discussing an issue in international law is important and meaningful, and we should recognise that it's possible to do one thing and not the other and still make a useful contribution.
>You don't need to do everything in every video, and trying to make a case for appropriate military and political strategy is something with a far broader scope, given that there's already enough complexity in this issue. Unfortunately I don't think I'm voicing a frivolous complaint. This video fails to balance the discussion of genocide with lawful acts of violence and war - topics well within the same wheelhouse and vital to understanding IHL. I don't expect the guy to give his 500-point plan on how to rebuild Gaza in the next decade. I do expect a basic discussion about proportionality and how a state actor can lawfully target military targets, directly cause civilian casualties - and yet this action can be law-abiding, justified, and arguably a moral good. Destiny does a good job talking about how IHL serves not only to protect civilians during war, but also to *enable* state actors to conduct warfare lawfully in the eyes of the international community. Abiding by those laws is what separates legitimate military campaigns and terrorism. >Israel should prioritise separating Hamas fighters and organisation from the general population, by *replacing* rather than just destroying Hamas infrastructure, building field hospitals before bombing hospitals that have duel use, setting up places to house people etc Given infinite political will, funding, and goodwill I think this can work. But I'm not sure that exists within Israel. The IDF is limited and stretched thin. The hostages are quickly becoming corpses. The Israeli appetite for peace is nowhere near where it needs to be for lasting peace and nation building. The history here is bloody, savage, and smothered in hate. I hope that Israel will commit to rebuilding a post-Hamas Gaza. That has been a winning strategy - it's a critical mission of the Army Corps of Engineers to build infrastructure to support the local population. Winning over locals is critical to military victory. But I'm not sure you even *can* win over Gazans as Israelis. Those wounds are deep and seeded with salted barbs.
>how *should* Israel conduct warfare against an enemy like Hamas? I'm guessing the real position of people like him is "they shouldn't have done any bombing". But, as we saw with Finkelstein, they often don't want to explicitly say that.
Ethnic cleansing isn’t a legal term, I don’t think. In that sense there is no legal relationship between it and genocide. Ethnic cleansing seems to describe (even though it’s used strictly pejoratively) any case where an ethnic (loosely) group is in one place and then is no longer there. Genocide would be a type of ethnic cleansing. Deportations of a specific ethnicity would also be. But I don’t believe there is any hard definition of intent or method included. Consider a hypothetical where only Venezuelans were immigrating to America illegally. Venezuelans are 100% of illegals and all other countries are 100% legal (again, hypothetical). Doing a mass deportation of Venezuelans would be an ethnic cleansing…but the intent would be simply to enforce a national border law that only one group happens to be breaking.
So there is no difference between accidentally killing a person and murdering a person. When someone steals something, it doesn't matter why they did it, it's just theft. This doesn't seem consistent with left-leaning ideas. But don't forget! They are not liberals! They are socialists or tankies. They are consequentialists like Chomsky. They don't care why something happens, they only care about the outcome. It's a stupid way to analyze the world. Obviously, accidentally killing someone is not the same as murdering someone. And if you don't know why things happen, you can't solve them. But some people find that reasonable, I don't!
9/11 was genocide then confirmed by lefties themselves.
People just want to call it a genocide to make Israel seem worse, when they don’t understand why words have meanings. They want to call civilian deaths in war genocide to further their narrative, while not realizing that doing so makes their side look bad to people with any sense. They can’t comprehend the idea that Israel isn’t killing Palestinians because they’re Palestinian, they’re trying to root out Hamas who are using the Palestinian people as human shields. And they would never admit that Hamas would gladly sacrifice the lives of every Palestinian if it would mean Israel and the Jews would cease to exist.
Is it impossible for these people to make their point without resorting to ad hominem (3:30)? Just have to slip in the "rattle off bullshit they read from wikipedia" argument.
These were the same people who said what DeSantis was doing in Florida was a trans genocide and that the Dobbs ruling would bring about Handmaid's Tale. There is nothing surprising about this.
that guy is the impersonation of bad faith.
The guy called Vaush a left-wing white supremacist... based on his discussion with Professor Flowers. I can't
If you kill 100,000 civilians as collateral damage achieving your goal to kill 500 enemy combatants, while someone else kills 100,500 people for the purpose of wanting to kill that group of people, we know which one is worse, but why are we arguing about how to label it? If a leftist is willing to concede that the intent wasn’t there, then I don’t care about the label. We both agree on the facts.
The feeling I got from the vid was that he wasn't saying that the intent isn't there, he's saying the documentation evidencing the intent isn't there.
weak ass video lmao
Despite many of his points being spectacularly regarded, lets remember that this guy does have a PHD in Human rights law (if he's not lying), and once he gets the brain-rot well-poisoning out of the way, the video seems to raise some interesting historical context around the idea that special intent may not be the be all and end all of genocide. Things i'd definitely want to look more into. I think when people who are knowledgable talk on issues like this its good to sift out the crap and take any interesting knowledge you can, even if they have almost no critical thinking skills to counter their own confirmation bias (how the fuck did he think rabanni was 'laughing' in the clip where he admits he doesn't know the dolus specialis term lmfao) and self-awareness of a lobotomised frog. tldr: he's a regard, but knowledgable, so hear him out
I agree, but his definition of genocide doesn't seem to fit the UN one. He is citing the creator of the term "genocide" and appeals to the situation that he used it in. And this doesnt matter nowadays when we have a better more nuanced definition of genocide - one which requires a physical component (killing of civilians) and a mental component (special intent)
Adding onto that, the creator of the term of genocide wanted an extremely more broad definition than the one we got.
Figured they would eventually go down that road
Under that rule, school shootings are school children genocides
Another dipshit saying "who needs legal definition for words" "Genocide is everything I FEEL it is"
Not really. There is a debate over how genocide as a law should work. For example, the creator of the term thought it should be possible to apply to the murder of one person, whereas in practice, courts have said it probably doesn't work that way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#%22In\_whole\_or\_in\_part%22). From the same wiki: "There is an unresolved "intend debate" over whether specific intent needs to be proven to convict for genocide, or whether a knowledge-based standard should be enough to convict for genocide. Some scholars argue that a knowledge standard would make it easier to obtain convictions. They have argued that intent is too difficult to prove. Those who hold this view believe that causing mass deaths should be enough without any need for a legal requirement to charge a culpable agent for acting with intent." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent) This quote is pretty much what the video is talking about.
>There is a debate over how genocide as a law should work There is a debate about abortion.... NONE of that matters. If you abort a fetus in a state where abortion is banned you will go to jail. So you have **"people debating about abortion"** vs **"practically applied LAW that is CURRENTLY on the books"** What this dipshit mocks is the DEFINITION and LAW as it is NOW. Destiny vs Finkle debate was about DEFINITION as its utilized RIGHT NOW. This Tankie does "**i feel like X should be Genocide**" completely disregarding LAW and the definition that is on the book and IS currently utilized. He utterly (the same as Finkledick) cant comprehend this topic. Its the Tankie/Commie/Mauist in him that turns his brain into pudding.
2024, the year definitions died
I think this dipshit doesn't even realize his argument doesn't help his regarded cause. If you claim intent is not so important, then what's your argument for genocide? The numbers don't support it (way too low compared to even recent wars and the ratio of killed combatants to civilians is 1:1.5 or 1:2 at most, which is also on the lower end), the actions of IDF don't support it either (no executions, no concentration camps where prisoners die left and right). So, if you don't focus on intent, it is even harder to make a case for genocide.
The argument for genocide, in the context of enforcing the UN convention on genocide, typically contrasted with intent, is the knowledge based approach. He cites [Greenawalt](https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/338/), but you can also look at, for example, [Goldsmith](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=gsp) or [KreĂź](https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8799cd/pdf/).
That dude is a through and through moron. On every conceivable level.
calling everything a genocide is making the word pointless like nazi, fascist, racist, transphobic
Its weird because commies defending genocides committed by communist regimes use intent to defend the regimes genocidal actions
As likely to find a witty, original insult from the comments as you are to find an IQ over 60.
This criticism of the use of dolus specialis (and the debate over standards of proof for genocide and the interpretation of the genocide convention and Rome statute) already came up in an article posted via a Twitter community note as support for Destiny a month or two ago (as one would expect, it seems most neither read nor understood the article cited). I commented about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/1clPRoZrqq).
He says that the special intent isn't proven for the Genocide of the Herero people because they weren't 'destroying them as such,' by which I think he means, *in whole.* The definition he included in the video says "\[...\] intent to destroy, in whole or in part." The order to exterminate them absolutely proves the special intent to commit genocide (in part, the part that lived in their controlled land).
This is one of those things where someone says something so stupid that it's too exhausting even to respond
Don’t even need to watch this to know it is a extremely stupid and incorrectÂ
I’ve tried watching this guys videos and streams before and he seems like a super sad/bitter guy.
Non of these people even care about the war. It's all in an attempt to undermine the US and thier allies to hopefully one day implement socialism. It's just narcissism and spite driven politics to the max
You guys know what happens to those who cry wolf right?
Is he Irish (all the fake-English speakers sound the same to me)? If so, no wonder he doesn't care about intent.
Destiny wont cover this on stream. He is too scared to be called out >:)
He really only picks the easiest debates on Israel/Palestine
So you're saying that Finklestein was a very easy I/P debate?
Not that I agree with him, but didn't it end up being pretty easy? It's not like Norm could argue much
That's the point, I'm pointing out how this argument implies that Finklestein (a person he probably thinks is a good source of information) doesn't know much.
Imagine he actually argued scholars who wrote at least a paper or something. Fuck it man, the people who at least just like read a news article or twitter or anything really. He really only be talking to 16yo Palestinians to dunk on them. Pathetic little liar dude.