ok...but when you have what seems to be indiscriminate bombing of people and infrastructure including hospitals and shelters, the bombing and burning of refugee camps, the cutting off of essential supplies, and then people in Israeli govt justifying this by saying they are fighting human animals or the president saying an entire nation is responsible or Netanyahu referencing Amalek then you can see why people might at the least say Israel is committing genocidal acts even if not full genocides.
The problem is the definition is open to interpretation, not all genocides are the same, there of course have been many genocides throughout history including those committed by us, it is loaded against Israel because of how the term came to be defined originally, and the hardest part of any case is to prove intent...which is why sometimes maybe just easier to stick with war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Also, even if ICJ found Israel guilty of genocide, what then? A fine? Arrest the government? The main thing is finding a conclusion.
Me too, wind was crazy and they still continued.
So I think it's fair to say that, this is Britain, there is weather... Unless there's a significant risk to life, i.e flooding, hurricane force winds, electrical storms etc, then the show must go on? We knuckle down and get through it.
Which was the entire point of what has been a deliberate campaign to redefine and enfeeble the word. Genocide is and should be anything but a meaningless term, but it has been made, as you say, so "subjective it's ultimately pointless" by people with no respect for the word or its history throwing it around at anything they don't like very much.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.