Sacrifice your land, give up your homes and identities so I can build a casino strip where they where. Don’t bother me with that crap about your needs and human rights… What happened to all that self rightious indignation over imperialist expansion and capitalist subjugation of the masses?
It also lists specifically in the main points that causing physical or mental harms is right up at #2. You’re suggesting that just telling them to GTFO and find someplace else to live is not harmful? Now, I suppose we could just say let them all come to the USA, but we ended up electing someone who made a pretty big promise of starting the largest deportation in history, do I don’t see that happening.
I definitely think it’s harmful. I definitely think force and physical harm, and likely some murders would be required to actually remove them. What is being proposed is awful there’s no doubt about that.
But I cannot equate “mental harm” with “genocide”. You’re redefining an incredibly triggering word just so you can use it to attack an enemy. However redefining it is dangerous because it minimises the words true impact. You’re now, in effect, saying that Hitler “upset a few Jews” rather than he committed mass murder. You’re applying genocide to a bunch of places where it only really serves to make the word redundant.
Saying it reasonably fits the definition as established by the UN in no way equates to ‘Hitler upset a few jews’.
You can call it what you will, frankly in many ways taking everything one has and throwing them to the wilds is crueler than to just kill them outright.
Yes, because ethnic cleansing famously doesn’t cause loss of life. And even if you could somehow relocate millions of Gazans safely to a country that’s willing and capable to accept them (of which there are none because the Arab nations aren’t as much pro-Palestine as they are anti-Israel, one of the biggest mass murders of Palestinians was committed by Jordan) forcibly relocating people for a landgrab is still a crime against humanity. Even if it’s not technically “genocide.” Though considering the almost guaranteed loss of cultural heritage and consciousness calling cultural genocide would not be inappropriate in the slightest.
For fuck’s sake, I’m as pro-Israel as you can get and that’s not something I can defend. It’s completely inhumane. It’s also exactly what I expected from a Trump presidency.
Trump: we’re going to relocate Gazans into other territories so we end the conflict without loss of life.
Libs: we’ve decided to redefine the term Genocide to mean “moving people or destroying culture”.
Now, refugees are “self-genociding” and mass immigration into western countries is Genocide that should be stopped.
Sacrifice your land, give up your homes and identities so I can build a casino strip where they where. Don’t bother me with that crap about your needs and human rights… What happened to all that self rightious indignation over imperialist expansion and capitalist subjugation of the masses?
If you read the page you linked it explicitly says:
It also lists specifically in the main points that causing physical or mental harms is right up at #2. You’re suggesting that just telling them to GTFO and find someplace else to live is not harmful? Now, I suppose we could just say let them all come to the USA, but we ended up electing someone who made a pretty big promise of starting the largest deportation in history, do I don’t see that happening.
I definitely think it’s harmful. I definitely think force and physical harm, and likely some murders would be required to actually remove them. What is being proposed is awful there’s no doubt about that.
But I cannot equate “mental harm” with “genocide”. You’re redefining an incredibly triggering word just so you can use it to attack an enemy. However redefining it is dangerous because it minimises the words true impact. You’re now, in effect, saying that Hitler “upset a few Jews” rather than he committed mass murder. You’re applying genocide to a bunch of places where it only really serves to make the word redundant.
Saying it reasonably fits the definition as established by the UN in no way equates to ‘Hitler upset a few jews’.
You can call it what you will, frankly in many ways taking everything one has and throwing them to the wilds is crueler than to just kill them outright.
Yes, because ethnic cleansing famously doesn’t cause loss of life. And even if you could somehow relocate millions of Gazans safely to a country that’s willing and capable to accept them (of which there are none because the Arab nations aren’t as much pro-Palestine as they are anti-Israel, one of the biggest mass murders of Palestinians was committed by Jordan) forcibly relocating people for a landgrab is still a crime against humanity. Even if it’s not technically “genocide.” Though considering the almost guaranteed loss of cultural heritage and consciousness calling cultural genocide would not be inappropriate in the slightest.
For fuck’s sake, I’m as pro-Israel as you can get and that’s not something I can defend. It’s completely inhumane. It’s also exactly what I expected from a Trump presidency.
The reason the Arab countries are refusing refugees is because when they do it becomes a permanent displacement.
Here they are.