where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like the winner, and the genocidal act that has started said war (classic genocide mass killings of civilians by death squads) is appropriated by the perpetrators turned victims
Also, my point was more about how conflict is perceived and litigated in politics and threads like this. Factoids about history are completely irrelevant to that. Its just another abstraction.
It's a weird concept, which kind of nationalism isn't ethno-nationalist? I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA.
Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation, and the ethnic part is debatable if you ever seen Israelis, unlike the Palestinian national movement which is ethnic-nationalist
Most nationalism either is based around an established ancestry-derived ethnic identity (which is what “ethno-nationalism” usually refers to), or seeks to construct a new identity (which itself can be viewed as ethnic) transcending existing ethnic lines within the population of a state (the PRM regime in Mexico is an example of this); you might call this cosmopolitan nationalism.
> I can think of maybe two nations whose brand of nationalism does not relate to an ethnic group and I will probably push it for the USA.
States often contain multiple different kinds of nationalism in their population, and may even contain different kinds in their governments. The USA definitely has nationalist factions of both the ethnonationalist (specifically White nationalist) and cosmopolitan nationalist kind.
> Israel is probably the only ethnoreligious nation,
The Israeli state is possibly the only strongly ethnoreligious state. Ethnoreligious nationalism is a large subset of ethno-nationalism, but states in places with strong ethnoreligious nationalism don’t always build both ethnic and religious character into their state structure.
I usually take it as another example of scapegoating Israel for universal concepts like war, which is a cultural tradition dating at least two millennia (scapegoating, not war)
However, there are enough examples to stable nationalism being completely at peace and enough examples for transnational entities trying to aggressively add more nations to their project (USSR, prenational empires)
And I don't see why American can't be an ethnicity or even religious type all on its own. None of this is static.
Rather, they carefully and methodically presented hundreds of reports made by OTHER UN agencies which reported on the genocidal behaviour.
This left the ICJ in a pickle: as a UN body itself, it had to either find for 'probably genocide' or publicly state that every other UN body was either in a grand conspiracy or was incompetent.
A very smart legal strategy.
While most of your argument is the fact that because South Africa has sued Israel in international court then it is somehow proof of genocide.
Regarding scholars, again not enough I am sorry.
In reality after more than two years the Gazan population hasn't even declined in size, which makes the entire case for genocide mostly a political joke on people who were mostly systematically exterminated like the Jews, Armenians and Tutsi.
Generally this is so far from a real genocide killing rates, reasons and methods that the only explanation is that some regimes have an interest at removing the substance out of the definition of genocide
Wonko the Sane is right.
Yeah yeah, people are still dying, and we're arguing about the definitions of words. How convenient. Whatever distraction helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
You could argue about "mass killing" or some such. Dresden firebombings did not attempted to eliminate German nation as such. It does not matter how actual nazi try to frame it as similar to holocaust, it was not nearly close.
And same goes for Hiroshima. It was not an attempt to eliminate Japanese people out of existence.
also the population was warned to evacuate in advance, nothing that the germans or japanese had the benefit of
They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers. The attempt to starve them was intentional too.
There was even open rhetoric about that.
no, they were directed at the militant organizations in Gaza while the civilian population was warned to evacuate in advance.
the only thing you can base this on is the fact hamas intentionally does not publish its dead, all of the casualties are "civilians", and Hamas was caught either converting dead militants to "journalists" and such or completely inflating its statistics such as the 500 false dead in the hospital "attack".
if you compare this to a similar contemporary war with reliable statistics like the war against hezbollah, you can see Israel was clearly able and successful in targeting militants.
regarding "starvation" even according to unreliable Hamas statistics these are minuscule, while if you will look at instagram there was actually a restaurant and food blogging scene in gaza throughout the war which is very inconsistent with mass famine
I suppose you'll just say it didn't happen, but if it did, the medics were Hamas.
Let's say for the sake of argument the tank crew did not shoot due to fog of war but did out of malice, what would that prove except a single criminal tank crew? and no, I don't think Occam's razor points at that
And also foreign journalists and workers. No reason for scare quotes, their deaths are well documented.
As for starwation, well documented too. Policy of not allowing food in was going on for months, Israel intentionally creating issues with distribution was going on for months.
Genocidal rhetorics was present too, like you are literally lying here.
I am not sure your facts are aligned with reality in general