31
Reuters prefers a different term (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by [M] to c/ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

There is no "war" in Gaza there is only a genocide in Gaza. Even the nomer "Hamas" is wrong because there are multiple Palestinian resistance factions. The military wing of Hamas is called "Qassam Brigades". They are not an official Palestinian army but one resistance group.

In fact Hamas has suggested disbanding Qassam Brigades in exchange for Palestinian statehood deal based on 1948 borders and then Qassam Brigades would merge into the Palestinian army.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Hmm. I still don't quite catch that argument. While there have been far more casualties on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side, I can't see how there isn't an "Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups, ...". Even if you argue that the Palestinian people does not currently exert sufficient and organized government control over a territory to qualify as a state, then it would still be a revolutionary war or a war of independence. Just because such an endeavor has not been successful yet doesn't imply the struggle isn't real. Genuinely trying to understand how calling it a "war" is false. As one counterexample, were the acts of the French Résistance in WW2 not part of the war, because they lacked central organization?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Even if you argue that a conflict against an armed group qualifies as a "war", you still get stuck with the other qualifier that a war is meant to neutralize the other parties military force not destroy its population. Because then it's genocide.

    It's like calling the Holocaust "Hiter's war against Poland". Or the Armenian genocide "The war on Armenians".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Of course Hitler invading and occupying Poland was an act of war, which enabled the genocide there. He couldn't have committed genocide in Poland without first conquering it. I'm not saying there is no genocide in Gaza, I'm saying: It can be a war and a genocide at the same time. While not always, genocide is often enabled by war. What's lost by calling it a war, independently of calling it a genocide?

    I don't think the Armenian genocide would've occurred without the Balkan wars and WW1; in this terrifying scale, anyway. However, quite like the genocide of Jews, Sinti, Roma, and other minorities in Germany at the hand of the Nazis, the Ottoman forces didn't need to invade anywhere to commit these atrocities within their own empire. Steep argument: Doesn't it deny Palestinian statehood to say that Israel were not leading a war on Gaza?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •