Democratic Party Rebuild

[Mister Terrific]

Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians. "Committed" would mean it's over and done, but it is on-going and real.

Please list every genocide in world history where the population of a place increased during a genocide.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Please list every genocide in world history where the population of a place increased during a genocide.

Population growth does not disprove genocide. You know that's not an honest or reliable metric for determining whether a genocide is occurring. The United Nations doesn't use it as criterion for genocide, nor do Human Rights groups, or any court, because it is too easy to distort.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Jon: "This is one from January. "Hamas is a thousand times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state of Israel"

Hasan: "I stand by that. "

Jon: "Well, so I will say this is the one that bothered me most when I first heard it and I remember I remember having a reaction to it when I first saw it in January because I think even if you believe what happened in Gaza is genocide and what's happening in the West Bank is apartheid.

Those are different claims from Hamas is a thousand times better because like Hamas is an organization that has massacred, raped, kidnapped civilians on October 7th. They've also been catastrophic for Palestinians by almost every measure. The governance, corruption, they made choices they knew would result in mass civilian death of their own people.

So my question is when you say Hamas is a thousand times better, do you actually mean that or is that a rhetorical move or like a solidarity signal? like what what I mean it's all of the above. "

Hasan: "I do mean it. Uh I think it's a rhetorical move because it frustrates a lot of people. I've also said I'm a harm reduction voter. I'm a lesser evil voter and therefore I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time because um I'm looking at the situation as uh as as uh a paramilitary organization that has like a political party as well, a polit bureau as well that is entirely comprised not as an alien force but of orphaned children that have, you know, had their parents killed by an apartheid state that has been dominating the lives of of Palestinians for 80 years at this point and have they've done a genocide at this point as well.

But like it started off with the Nakba and and has only evolved as technology has gotten better to to become more heinous. Uh and and Gaza is this hermetically sealed area that many people correctly point to as the world's largest open air prison before October 7. So, uh, my my perspective on this has always been that I I think that Hamas's tactics, which I oppose at times, right? uh or or it's like internal governance issues are are secondary to this conversation because they're it's it's like uh placing a lot of emphasis on the Nat Turner uh rebellion or or uh instead of talking about the the much larger much more consequential much uh bigger harm that you know chattel slavery was uh to to black people to like sell black people and to to rape them and uh and and treat them as though they weren't human.

I think that's a far larger systemic force that is is going to be in is going to make the national rebellion look inconsequential in comparison to the greater harm. Same with uh for example the the ANC. The ANC had a militant wing called the MK. I'm not going to try to even attempt to say it. And you know Nelson Mandela went to prison and was uh uh was imprisoned by the the apartheid state. and MK and the ANC did a lot of stuff to collaborators. The collaborators that have worked alongside the apartheid uh administration, they would uh they had a practice called uh um necklacing where they would put a tire around the necklaces of collaborators and light it on fire. It was a heinous practice."

I don't think it matters that he's not a politician. It's foolish to make that kind of comparative moral claim. All that does is force you into a position where you have to justify Hamas as morally preferable, and shifts the conversation away from Israel's conduct - their "mowing the lawn," policies, their destruction and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, their violence and displacement in the West Bank, Palestinian's lack of mobility due to the apartheid conditions imposed on them, Israel's racist Nation State law, and so on. He couldn't even defend the claim, so he re-framed it.

This isn't even about being confined to the public relations aspect of politics, it's about clarity, and he is just muddying the argument.

His comparison of Hamas to Nat Turner's Revolt was stupid too, because there was no external state backing Black American slaves with weapons or funds. Nat Turner wasn't the head of a political group trying to maintain political control, because we had none. This is the same kind of instrumentalization of Black people to run cover for something else that a lot of non-Black minorities love doing, and I fukking hate it.

 

[Mister Terrific]

Population growth does not disprove genocide. You know that's not an honest or reliable metric for determining whether a genocide is occurring. The United Nations doesn't use it as criterion for genocide, nor do Human Rights groups, or any court, because it is too easy to distort.

How is it easy to distort? Either a people are being exterminated or they are not. Clearly there is military, social and denial of resource pressure on the Palestinians so they accept Israeli rule, but genocide? Come on now. If Israel was allowed to wipe out all the Palestinians, would they? Probably. But are they currently doing so? No.


You know the UN committee is politically biased. We don’t have such a committee for Eastern Ukraine, Uighur China, Azerbaijan, or the Christian population of the Middle East do we?

 

[Mister Terrific]

To be fair to Hasan as a Turkoman, he should know a thing or two about extermination campaigns. The Greeks, Armenians, Kurds. Turks are arguably the pound for pound goats.

 

[the cac mamba]

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

How is it easy to distort? Either a people are being exterminated or they are not. Clearly there is military, social and denial of resource pressure on the Palestinians so they accept Israeli rule, but genocide? Come on now. If Israel was allowed to wipe out all the Palestinians, would they? Probably. But are they currently doing so? No.


You know the UN committee is politically biased. We don’t have such a committee for Eastern Ukraine, Uighur China, Azerbaijan, or the Christian population of the Middle East do we?

Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes | United Nations

www.un.org

The legal standard for genocide is intent to destroy a group "in whole or in part," and that includes things like killing members of that group, creating conditions that make survival difficult for that group, and preventing basic necessities, not just end-stage annihilation. Genocide in international law isn't defined as "total extermination" or measured by whether a population disappears.

Also, human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem don't use population trends as a binary test. They evaluate documented conduct, policy, and patterns of harm. What Israel is doing to Palestinians fits that evidentiary standard.

You can make the argument that international human rights enforcement is fragmented and politically constrained, not centralized or consistent (thanks to P5 members), but you can't claim those issues are being ignored or aren't subject to scrutiny, especially wrt Ukraine and Xinjiang.

There are UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission and independent UN commissions of inquiry on Ukraine:

UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine

UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine

ukraine.ohchr.org

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/iicihr-ukraine/index

There have been UN OHCHR assessments and multiple independent human rights investigations on Xinjiang:

China responsible for ‘serious human rights violations’ in Xinjiang province: UN human rights report

A long-awaited report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) into what China refers to as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) has concluded that “serious human rights violations” against the Uyghur and “other predominantly Muslim communities” have been committed.

news.un.org

 

[AquaCityBoy]

we don't even know what happened yet with the investigation. this is sad.

fukk all that.

Whatever they say that white man did, he did

 

[Mister Terrific]

Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes | United Nations

www.un.org

The legal standard for genocide is intent to destroy a group "in whole or in part," and that includes things like killing members of that group, creating conditions that make survival difficult for that group, and preventing basic necessities, not just end-stage annihilation. Genocide in international law isn't defined as "total extermination" or measured by whether a population disappears.

Without wholesale admittance of genocidal intent any war where a group is “destroyed whole or in part” can be termed a genocide. As the “in part” is doing a lot of work here. What does “in part” mean? The US “in part” destroyed a lot of Japanese and Germans during world war 2. Is that a Genocide?

No, it’s not because there was no systematic extermination of the Japanese or German people as state policy. There was mass killings to bring defeated nations to subservience or pacification. The US used blockades, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and terror to subdue an adversary. Just like 99.9% of wars that have ever happened.

Likewise there is no indication both written or otherwise that the goal of the Israeli government is the extermination of the Palestinians. There are literally Palestinians in Israel with the same rights by law as other inhabitants: does that mean Israeli’s aren’t racist and would gleefully sell their Arab neighbors property to a New Yorker if they could? No. But that isn’t what genocide is.



For comparison I can make the claim through deportations, ideological conditioning, and mass killings that Russia is trying to systematically erase Ukrainian identity throughout eastern Ukraine. In fact we have statements from Putin declaring that Ukraine is not a real country but a break off province of Russia with its inhabitants Russians. Which matches putting children into schools designed to strip them of Ukrainian identity.

China is doing the same thing to the Uighurs.

Now do we get a UN commission report on this? No. We get “monitoring” and “concern”

It’s political. Simple as that, which makes it irrelevant.

Also, the goal of genocide is “end stage annihilation” or it’s not genocide. The Nazi’s weren’t trying to do a little holocaust on the Jews. The Turks weren’t trying to do a little genocide of the Armenians. It’s either the goal or it’s not a genocide. You can’t half measure a genocide. The Azerbaijani government didn’t move some Armenians out of Nagorno-Karabakh. it was all 100,000 of them. Did we get a UN committee on that? No. Hell it was barely covered in the news.

Also, human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem don't use population trends as a binary test. They evaluate documented conduct, policy, and patterns of harm. What Israel is doing to Palestinians fits that evidentiary standard.

Again “patterns of harm”. What is that? You know how little that narrows down state violence?

 

[wire28]

I don't think it matters that he's not a politician. It's foolish to make that kind of comparative moral claim. All that does is force you into a position where you have to justify Hamas as morally preferable, and shifts the conversation away from Israel's conduct - their "mowing the lawn," policies, their destruction and genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, their violence and displacement in the West Bank, Palestinian's lack of mobility due to the apartheid conditions imposed on them, Israel's racist Nation State law, and so on. He couldn't even defend the claim, so he re-framed it.

This isn't even about being confined to the public relations aspect of politics, it's about clarity, and he is just muddying the argument.

His comparison of Hamas to Nat Turner's Revolt was stupid too, because there was no external state backing Black American slaves with weapons or funds. Nat Turner wasn't the head of a political group trying to maintain political control, because we had none. This is the same kind of instrumentalization of Black people to run cover for something else that a lot of non-Black minorities love doing, and I fukking hate it.

And is likely why a lot of black people don’t trust him and others like him. Either subconsciously or consciously you know something ain’t right.

 

[the cac mamba]

preview of our Allstars' 2028 rhetoric

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Without wholesale admittance of genocidal intent any war where a group is “destroyed whole or in part” can be termed a genocide. As the “in part” is doing a lot of work here. What does “in part” mean? The US “in part” destroyed a lot of Japanese and Germans during world war 2. Is that a Genocide?

No, it’s not because there was no systematic extermination of the Japanese or German people as state policy. There was mass killings to bring defeated nations to subservience or pacification. The US used blockades, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and terror to subdue an adversary. Just like 99.9% of wars that have ever happened.

Likewise there is no indication both written or otherwise that the goal of the Israeli government is the extermination of the Palestinians. There are literally Palestinians in Israel with the same rights by law as other inhabitants: does that mean Israeli’s aren’t racist and would gleefully sell their Arab neighbors property to a New Yorker if they could? No. But that isn’t what genocide is.



For comparison I can make the claim through deportations, ideological conditioning, and mass killings that Russia is trying to systematically erase Ukrainian identity throughout eastern Ukraine. In fact we have statements from Putin declaring that Ukraine is not a real country but a break off province of Russia with its inhabitants Russians. Which matches putting children into schools designed to strip them of Ukrainian identity.

China is doing the same thing to the Uighurs.

Now do we get a UN commission report on this? No. We get “monitoring” and “concern”

It’s political. Simple as that, which makes it irrelevant.

Also, the goal of genocide is “end stage annihilation” or it’s not genocide. The Nazi’s weren’t trying to do a little holocaust on the Jews. The Turks weren’t trying to do a little genocide of the Armenians. It’s either the goal or it’s not a genocide. You can’t half measure a genocide. The Azerbaijani government didn’t move some Armenians out of Nagorno-Karabakh. it was all 100,000 of them. Did we get a UN committee on that? No. Hell it was barely covered in the news.









Again “patterns of harm”. What is that? You know how little that narrows down state violence?

"In part" in genocide law doesn't mean "any civilian harm in war." It means the intentional destruction of a substantial part of a protected group, not incidental wartime casualties.

That's why WWII bombing campaigns are treated under laws of war, and not automatically as genocide, because genocide requires specific intent to destroy a group, not just defeat an enemy.

You also don't need explicit written orders. Intent is usually inferred from patterns of conduct, policy, and official statements, because states rarely document genocidal intent directly.

If the UN is "too political" or "not relevant," what standard are you using instead to determine genocide?

Because right now it sounds like you're dismissing the UN when it disagrees with you. But then use them implicitly when it supports your comparisons.

So what would actually count as credible evidence in your view? Court rulings, independent human rights groups like Amnesty/HRW/B'Tselem, internal government documents, or something else?

Wrt the definition: are you using the legal definition ("intent to destroy, in whole or in part"), or your own definition that requires explicit extermination orders or a population being totally wiped out?

 

[the cac mamba]

Warlord Wes

 

[Mister Terrific]

"In part" in genocide law doesn't mean "any civilian harm in war." It means the intentional destruction of a substantial part of a protected group, not incidental wartime casualties.

Of course not, but are you (or the UN committee) demonstrating that Israel has gone outside these bounds from military necessity to outright deliberate destruction of Palestinians as an identity or ethnic group?

In fact why did the war in Gaza end? Because of political pressure? Sanctions? Military intervention?

Or, because Israel felt it achieved its military goals and Gaza was sufficiently subdued as not being able to offer further resistance.

Now let’s go back to “in part”. No where during the holocaust did Hitler state his intentions were only to “in part” destroy Jews, Roma and other undesirables. He allocated a tiny percentage of slaves to serve as sterilized cattle but otherwise complete obliteration.


That blurb was added not to say “you only need to destroy such and such percent” to be termed a genocided but to say “even if your intent was genocide but you only got some of them, it’s still genocide”. It leaves no room for argumentation based on numbers.

It wasn’t a wholesale endorsement that any war where civilians are targeted equates to genocide.

The bombing campaigns against civilians were not incidental, they were as deliberate as Israel’s actions in Gaza. I.e as the civilian portion of a state is complicit in the actions of its military and party to it.

You also don't need explicit written orders. Intent is usually inferred from patterns of conduct, policy, and official statements, because states rarely document genocidal intent directly.

What official statements from the Israeli government or policy that states their intent is to get rid of all Palestinians?

If the UN is "too political" or "not relevant," what standard are you using instead to determine genocide?

I’ve established that the UN is a political organization. Again, we don’t get a commission established to determine genocide unless it’s Israel or some African country people pretend to care about for 5 minutes. The UN is filled with regular folks like you or me. A lot of those regular folks are people like Hasan.
s.

So what would actually count as credible evidence in your view? Court rulings, independent human rights groups like Amnesty/HRW/B'Tselem, internal government documents, or something else?

- population decline showing a sustained policy of obliteration
- deliberate policy of extermination either through declaration or internal documents
- wholesale removal of the Palestinians from their land through state military force

Wrt the definition: are you using the legal definition ("intent to destroy, in whole or in part"), or your own definition that requires explicit extermination orders or a population being totally wiped out?

That’s your interpretation of the legal definition or whoever happens to have a political axe to grind.



As an example, notice how any push back or critique of Hamas, Hesbollah, Islam, Hasan, Tankies etc is met by “but what about the Genocide!!!?”

You think Hasan who has gone on record saying it’s ok that Crimea was snatched by Russia and thinks China should invade Taiwan despite the political wishes of the Taiwanese people cares about actual legal definitions of genocide?


You think @Loose who has made statements that Assad had to do what he had to do in Syria cares about the legal definition of genocide? It’s a political tool/slogan nothing more.


Just like “apartheid” and “ethno-nationalist” is used against Israel when we got “Turkey” and “Saudi-Arabia” existing please. I’m an adult. You think I have the same legal rights in Japan as ethnic Japanese. Get out of here.

 

[wire28]

preview of our Allstars' 2028 rhetoric

He’s not a politician!

He’s just a guy that has the pleasure of saying whatever dumb shyt he wants, endorsing political candidates and then forcing them to defend whatever dumb shyt he says lest they piss off his twitch cult