|
>it would be very strange for someone to argue that Israel is not attempting to destroy, in whole or in part, Palestinians This line alone proves all my points on the topic. That you find it _unfathomable_ that Israel has goals other than the destruction of Palestine shows how one-sided your view on the subject is. There's nothing I can write in this forum that will change such a deeply warped perception, but I'll state for the record: no serious international observer believes that claim.
Ironically, that claim is usually made much more convincingly in the other direction -- that various regional factions have sought the utter destruction of Israel -- but even that is considered an extreme view (of the present) by most experts. >I have looked at these arguments, listened to opposition to these arguments, and determined that Israel is indeed committing a genocide. Good for you, but there is a lot more information than you alone have processed, and much more information about the current conflict is not available and will not be for some time. So by declaring your personal "determination", you are really just declaring an amateurish opinion via malapropism. >What are you looking at that I'm not? The frame of reference (as the other poster indicated) is post-WW2. That's when the current international order was established and also when globalization kicked into high gear. Since then, world trade integrated free market economies simply haven't started wars of conquest designed to change the ownership of territory.
Yes, there are wars of intervention, regime change, etc. which have almost exclusively been precipitated against regimes that are deeply hostile to and out of sync with the international order. I'm not saying those are all just, or harmless. But the scale of destruction caused by WW1&2-style total war / wars of conquest is incomparable to the expeditionary wars described above.
Bound the claim correctly and it's very simply true: free market states in the current order don't start the most devastating and costly kinds of conflict, whereas authoritarian states still do, to devastating effect.
Both kinds of states do other types of bad things, but that's a non-responsive non-sequitur to this particular point about the advantages of market steering vs. centralized steering. |
> no serious international observer believes that claim
Well, some would call this "appeal to authority fallacy," but, I'm not sure, would you call these people "unserious international observers?"
* Damien Short, professor of human rights at the School of Advanced Study, University of London, and co-director of the Human Rights Consortium. He and Haifa Rashed, also at the University of London, analyse a genocide of Palestinians by Israel: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2012.73...
* John Docker, professor in the Humanities and Research Centre at Australian National University, has written extensively on Israel genocide against Palestine https://www.euppublishing.com/author/Docker%2C+John
* Abdelwahab El-Affendi, Professor of Politics at Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, has called what is happening to the Palestinians a genocide https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...
* The Center for Constitutional Rights, famed defenders of the Chicago 8, has denounced the genocide against the Palestinians https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/Ba...
* The national governments of South Africa, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, the PRC, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovenia, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe have accused Israel of committing genocide. Are nations not "serious international observers" if they're not big / American enough?
I barely scratched the surface. You can find some very highly qualified people, very serious people, arguing that what's happening in Palestine isn't a genocide, of course, but I think it's quite unfair to accuse me of being unserious or "having a deeply warped perception." I gave the no-genocide camp respect, I read the papers, I read the accusations of antisemitism, fake news, etc, and found them lacking, and I believe I am on the right side of history. You seem to be accusing me of being some kind of mindless holy warrior.
> that various regional factions have sought the utter destruction of Israel
I'm not arguing this one way or the other. I simply said before I don't believe there's any justification of genocide, and genocide is what Israel is doing do the Palestinians.
> much more information about the current conflict is not available and will not be for some time
Luckily, you don't need to wait for the complete eradication of a people to call it a genocide, you can do so while it's happening, and you observe the "destruction in part" of a people. This is actually a part of the legal definition of genocide, that it can be credibly applied during the events happening, you can see more in the original paper I linked on the subject.
> change the ownership of territory
If we're talking about the "new international order," isn't it a little naive to claim that wars that don't result in a 1800s British Colony output with a new national flag, aren't "wars of conquest?" From your perspective, were the communists aiming to lift the same national flag over a new communist government, doing wars of conquest? I would think you'd argue yes. I would argue the same for American intervention to establish puppet governments.
So far as I'm aware, WWI had very little to do with free market vs planned economy nations. And while Nazi germany was certainly a planned economy, it, quite famously, lost to another planned economy, allied with a market economy. Since then, what planned economy nations have started "the most devastating and costly kinds of conflict?" I'm gonna be honest, I simply don't accept that Russia is a planned economy lol. As I said, it's not as free market as the USA, but it's not communist, nor is the PRC. I don't see Venezuela or Cuba or Vietnam kicking off any wars recently either, so I just don't understand where your framing is coming from.