If you care to take the time to read critically and carefully you'll note it's not _my_ argument.
It's one part of the greater case made by several Jewish holocaust and genocide scholars.
They each have the same general approach of having multiple criteria and going through weightings for / against each factor.
The argument I would make is that this is not some casual quick ill considered process that would conclude every war is a genocide and that all participants in WWII would be considered as committing genocide - as was asserted by the green account I was responding to.
To address your singular observation ... their argument isn't simply based on that single order, it's in conjunction with statements of intent and an entire body of orders.
If you're interested in replying to these arguments then a small amount of effort should find you points of contacts and names for the people advancing the assertion that the current Israeli administration is practicing genocide with respect to Gaza.
I'd suggest and urge you to read their arguments in full before doing so, I've merely quoted a short extract from an opinion piece written by a single person.
IIRC there's a weighty body of submissions put forward when presentations were made to the UN.
there are no statements of intents with exception of mistranslated and partial hebrew quotes.
i read arguments in full. it mix of cherry picked news, mistranslated/irrelevant quotes and total avoidance of "uncomfortable facts" that go against the narrative.
you surely read on the other side few of 400 page long documents that debunk it ?
Could you be more specific in your criticism? As an observer of the conversation, I see the OP making a bunch of substantiated claims/observations and your response is "that's cherry-picked or misleading" but you never refuted a single specific thing they mentioned.
> "army ordered civilians to evacuate from warzone so it's genocide" is not as great argument as you think
The trick, though, was to keep doing it, over and over, expanding the area each time, so people never stop having to evacuate, or give up and stay in place to die.
"More than three-quarters of Gaza's territory have been designated as evacuation zones by the Israeli military since the war against Hamas began in October, an analysis by BBC Arabic has found."
At a certain point, it becomes plain old ethnic cleansing.
How could relocation within the same territory be ethnic cleansing? By that logic, I was ethnically cleansed by our fire department due to an approaching wildfire. Ethnic cleaning also wouldn't imply genocide anyway.
> So the Warsaw ghetto wasn't ethnic cleasing because they stayed in Poland?
I suppose you have a point, my framing was off. But the IDF asking people to leave a dangerous area is much closer to a fire evacuation than a ghetto where residents are broadly denied freedom of movement.
> Did they leave people of certain ethnicities out of the evacuation?
Neither did. IDF couldn't care less about someone's skin color either, just that they're in a dangerous area. Jews would have been asked to leave just like anyone else, had they not already been ethnically cleansed from Gaza in 2005.
There's no single agreed upon definition. Many of them include ethnic cleansing as a form, using wording like "the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups".
here we go. you finally used (by mistake, but we won't count this against you) appropriate verb: "displaced". population in gaza is displaced but still in gaza.
While on the other side population of Nagorno Karabakh was ethnically cleansed from Nagorno Karabakh and had to leave to Armenia.
a) they were not ethnically cleansed. even article says "displaced". this is what usually called "internally displaced". My relatives in Ukraine are "internally displaced". There was also 500k Israeli that were internally displaced during war.
b) most of cities/population in gaza is west of yellow line
d) CMCC is currently developing protocols for how to let population move east of yellow line (while preventing militants doing so), because this is where international community starts reconstruction efforts and where ISF will be deployed
It's one part of the greater case made by several Jewish holocaust and genocide scholars.
They each have the same general approach of having multiple criteria and going through weightings for / against each factor.
The argument I would make is that this is not some casual quick ill considered process that would conclude every war is a genocide and that all participants in WWII would be considered as committing genocide - as was asserted by the green account I was responding to.
To address your singular observation ... their argument isn't simply based on that single order, it's in conjunction with statements of intent and an entire body of orders.
If you're interested in replying to these arguments then a small amount of effort should find you points of contacts and names for the people advancing the assertion that the current Israeli administration is practicing genocide with respect to Gaza.
I'd suggest and urge you to read their arguments in full before doing so, I've merely quoted a short extract from an opinion piece written by a single person.
IIRC there's a weighty body of submissions put forward when presentations were made to the UN.