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
 

all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Sry, I don't understand the red boxing here: Are you saying the word "war" in the summary downplays the word "genocide" in the title? Both can be true: You can have a genocide during and as a part of a war. Also, if any, the title is more visible than the summary, no? Placing more emphasis on the "genocide" part than the "war" part. Are you arguing that whatever is going on in Gaza right now does not qualify as a war at all? I had always thought that referring to the situation as a "war" and not just as a "crisis" or whatever strengthened the Palestinian cause, because "war" implies two opposing nation states, which implicitly recognizes Palestinian statehood; a thing that some western states are quite candid about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child 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
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The issue at hand is that the term "war" implies a level of symmetry that simply is not present, and that is why these outlets are using it. It softens Israel's role by minimizing the reality that Gaza is an open-air prison and completely cut off from any means to a protect or defend itself, let alone wage an effective resistance or in any way justify the force being used.

    In a conflict where the casualties and oppression are so heavily weighted on one side, the term "war" completely warps this reality. It implies that both sides have equivalent responsibility for the war starting, equivalent pressure and means to end the war, and thus the outside world can only wait for the conflict to reach natural conclusion. The reality here is that this "natural conclusion" is the complete annihilation of Gaza and the subjugation of any person living there who isn't outright murdered, and that the outside world could easily prevent that conclusion if it was not so heavily invested in actively helping the aggressor.

    All the pressure here is on people who have nowhere else to go and will be annihilated if the outside world fails to pull back the aggressor. That is not war, just as a trained dog mauling a caged man with his limbs bound behind him is not self defense just because that man theoretically should have the same rights as the dog's trainers. The intentions and consequences at play are not at all even in the way that term implies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent