I’m in the US.

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

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

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

  • PupBiru
    6•1 year ago

    that word doesn’t mean what you think it means

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

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

    partial targeting is still genocide

    • A_DudeEnglish
      -9•1 year ago

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

      • @bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        1•1 year ago

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

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

        IDF is actually attempting to minimize casualties whenever possible.

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

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

      • PupBiru
        1•1 year ago

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

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