You must log in or register to comment.
Its only a genocide if it comes from the third reich. Anything else is just sparkling ethnic cleansing.
Turkey: See I told you guys
Japan, after decimating Ainu people and brutally murdering Chinese and Korean people in the occupied territories: “uwu”
It’s probably all the radiation.
Being on the wrong side of history on the same topic 75 year apart
Every Jew in modern day Germany…
They are already. Antisemitic violence has been on the rise here since October 7. Antisemites see Israel do a thing and think “I know, let’s hurt some Jews”
I think the bigger problem is Germany arresting Jews for antisemitism.
?
Protesting Israel is considered antisemitism in Germany even if you’re Jewish. Real antisemitism is also on the rise but all pro-Palestinian protests are also lumped in. Anti-Zionist jews (Jewish Voice for Peace, etc) always on the forefront of these marches.
I as a german asked an expert on that topic. Chatgpt. According to chatGPT there is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So if for example you drop accidentally poison into their water because you mixed the Botox and sugar bottle in the water station then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since chatgpt is infallable this is the only truth.
Good thing then that Israeli politicians haven’t been on record saying that Gaza needs to be “wiped from the face of the Earth”!
Except that basically all Israeli politicians have made statements saying they have genocidal intentions.
All?
The charge document includes quotes of expression of genocidal intent by the following state officials:
- Prime Minister of Israel
- President of Israel
- Israeli Minister of Defence
- Israeli Minister for National Security
- Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure
- Israeli Minister of Finance
- Israeli Minister of Heritage
- Israeli Minister of Agriculture
- Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and Member of the Foreign Affairs and Security
Committee - Israeli Army Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (‘COGAT’)
- Israeli Army Reservist Major General, former Head of the Israeli National Security
Council, and adviser to the Defence Minister
You can read the actual quotes in the application document in chapter D.
Upvoted but I wish you would have run your post through ChatGPT as well my friend. That was hard to read.
Comma rule in German is so fucked that normal humans just give up and never use any.
I could use german grammar to set the commas, but then I would have probably 10 to many for English grammar. So I tend to use less in English.
Comma rules in German are logical and follow set rules. When I asked my English teacher about comma rules in English, she said she’s not teaching them cause they’re too complicated.
When I asked my English teacher during my foreign exchange year in the US, she basically said the same.As a native English speaker, I barely understand comma rules either. The only person I know that I would expect to always get commas right has a Master’s degree in English. The extremely oversimplified rule I was taught as a young child was to add a comma anywhere you would naturally pause while speaking. Doesn’t always work, but it works well enough.
None of those sentences needed commas, they’re just not constructed very clearly.
I, as a German, asked an expert on that topic: ChatGPT. According to ChatGPT, there is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So, if for example you accidentally drop poison into their water because you mixed the botox and sugar bottle at the water station, then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since ChatGPT is infallible, this is the only truth.
—
Six commas, colon, capitalization, word order, word choice, “infallible”. Infallible like my editing 🤓 & dunt u disagreeme
PS: I speak zero languages (rounded), good job all who learn English and attempt to use it
Okay, yes, those are all valid places to put commas, good job – except for the one after “So”, which actually decreases the legibility. It would be better to surround “for example” with commas.
However, none of them are grammatically necessary. The original comment is totally fine and can be parsed unambiguously as-is. I would support the colon insertion above any of your commas.
Good point!
Interesting, anywhere I can read about grammatically necessary vs. recommended yet unnecessary commas? (Perhaps on the first search result for that question heh)
This is a decent article, at least for the most part: I actually don’t like their examples for the “Preposition of Time” stuff at all, the versions with commas are just bad writing.
But basically it just comes down to whether the sentence/clause can be parsed unambiguously without the commas. There is no syntactical difference between “I as a German asked…” and “I, as a German, asked…”. It’s entirely a style choice.
I’ve counted 6 missing commas.
You overuse commas.
No, he doesn’t.
Read some Cormac McCarthy some time.
No, u
deleted by creator
Yeah, genocide often requires intent. So I guess this could be more of a massacre than a genocide.
But there’s quite a few different definitions, some are more lax.
Except for all the politicians, from shutzstaffel commanders to the (Hitler apologist) PM’s PR guy saying exactly this, using words like cexterminate’ ‘wipe from the earth’ ‘every last one’ and many individual storm troopers posting on their social media (in videos while doing war crimes), or even their ‘civilians’ frequently saying it
Edit: nevermind. It wasnt a press guy; their pm.said it himself. Of course it did.
I really doubt their aim with this thing is to destroy all the Palestinians, but if you can provide those quotes that show that that’s their stated aim then I’d definitely consider this a genocide.
How many do you need? So we don’t have any more goalpost shifting?
I was thinking the ones in the above reply but it doesn’t have to be very many at all if it’s the top people saying it. PM, DM, generals (that sort of people) saying their goals are extermination of Palestinians seems like it’d make the case pretty clear.
I’m sorry if you see asking for sources as goalpost shifting but my goalpost was that there should be intent shown (because that’s a common genocide definition I think). It hasn’t changed. Asking for source is just basic thing on online discussions. It’s not a personal thing against you.
How many. Give me a number. IMO case is already so obvious you need special glasses to look directly at it and keep your eyes. So tell me how many high level and how many low level (probably nsfl) sources would work.
If Theres a ‘might convince me’ range and a ‘this is so fucking obvious how could I have missed this?’ Range, feel free to include that.
Uhh, let’s say five? Is that alright?
I’m sorry I didn’t first see that you had edited the comment. I don’t know what would be a solid number for “this is obvious”. I guess it would depend on what is said by who. But I guess if you want some sort of hard number then let’s go with five top level comments or something? Would that work?
Teeeeensy nitpick: there are two definitions of genocide that have ever mattered. Two. Not many. Two.
Lemkins original, much much broader, definition, And the one you’re familiar with, adopted by the UN because like everyone on the permanent security council thing had an interest in the definition being a little more narrow. Under which the way the Palestinian people are being exterminated absolutely still counts.
Interestingly, by lemkin’s broader definition, making the shutzstaffel stop killing Palestinians might constitute a genocide of the kapostanis; it would be destroying every trace of their culture, and the means of its reproduction.
I didn’t say there were plenty “that have ever mattered” so it doesn’t seem like a nitpick towards me.
I’m sure your high school had its own? Doesn’t count.
There are plenty of abbreviations. But those aren’t separate content; just condensed versions.
There are two.
Well that’s certainly a view.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I’m going to laugh at it so hard.
Which is probably going to get me kicked out of a lot of ‘stop the genocide’ stuff.
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I’m going to laugh at it so hard.
Weird.
I know your being sarcastic but I just want to point out that this is incorrect
here is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet
If you plan to cull a demographic by only 10% its still genocide according to the UN. This is the definition that South Africa’s case at the ICJ will be ruled under. Under this definition all ethnic cleansing requires genocide.
Fire Nation: “We never did the Air Nomad genocide. We didn’t intend to kill them all, we only intended to kill one guy”
To meet the legal definition of genocide, you also have to have the intent to destroy a particular group of people. So, legally speaking, your example isn’t genocide according to any source.
I don’t know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started, but if it doesn’t involve an intent to destroy Palestinians specifically, I guess I could see how GPT’s take is valid. Like, the war in Ukraine is egregious too, but that by itself doesn’t make it a genocide.
Deliberate displacement of particular ethnic or religious groups is also recognized as genocide, in particular because it’s often a pretext. ChatGPT is wrong, and needs to read the UN definition.
How it started: the Ottomans sided with the Nazis, so when they lost, the Ottomans also lost their land and the Allies got it, following the usual war rule where the winner wins the land. Dividing up the land is where the British Mandate for Palestine came from, under which we gave 2/3 of the land to the Arabs (Transjordan) and 1/3 of the land to Israel. But the Arabs refused to accept this and started the first of a series of wars against Israel. The Arabs, now also partially known as Palestinians, have continually refused to accept any peace deal, starting wars whenever possible and so far losing every one of them. Israel has repeatedly accepted peace deals, even at the cost of land, but it only works if both sides agree, which they don’t: the only deal the Arabs want is all the land and no Israel, which also means no Jews (proof: look at the Jewish communities within existing Arab states (TLDR: non-existent or shrinking)), which means the Arabs are hellbent on a genocide of all the Jews, and are determined to achieve that or die trying.
I don’t know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started
Religion
(Preface: I am team genocide. I also live in Germany. Germany’s politics are a disgrace, but I digress.)
What annoys me about this is that this discussion gets so much media attention and focus, while it doesn’t matter in this very moment. I understand that there are implications if it will be defined as a genocide. But right now people are being killed every day en masse and they frankly give a crap about whether they died in a mass murder or terrorist attack or a genocide.
It reminds me of the early days of the Ukraine war when everyone was so obsessed with comparing Putin to Hitler (Putler is still a popular term) and the discussion was high on whether Putins actions amount to fascism or not, with a lot of internet laymen but also experts on that subject chiming in. When I asked a half Russian, half Ukrainian what their opinion was, their reply was something like “who the fuck cares? Call it a chicken pea pie, nobody cares, people are being killed, I don’t give a crap. Somewhen in the future people will be looking back and asking the same question, but it doesn’t matter right now.” And it stuck with me.
If I understand correctly, the ICJ will rule again on the case in a couple of years (?), which obviously isn’t relevant right now. It seems like the ruling would have an aftermath in retrospect but even if they ruled it were a genocide today, nothing much would change directly - but please correct me if I am wrong here.
But what definitely doesn’t matter is what we think. What matters is what is happening. And it doesn’t need a name to be evil and detrimental.
Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they’d have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it’s of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that’s not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.
Ok, this sounds valid. But what would oblige them to stop them from delivering weapons if the ICJ rules it is a genocide? Is there any legal obligation, can they denounce the ruling?
If you mean acknowledge in a sense of civilian/political acknowledgement, then my issue with it is that it shouldn’t be necessary to be this anal about some definition. It’s splitting hairs on cut off heads. Supporting mass murder is wrong in the context of genocide as well as outside of it. It shouldn’t be necessary to convince the governments that it is a genocide to convince them to stop supplying weapons.
Removed by mod
The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):
“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”
Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.
Thank you, that is a very helpful insight!
crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements
Why do we then seem to hear only about the genocide controversy? Wouldn’t it be easier/faster/more obvious to argue for all the other crimes mentioned above?
That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I’m genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?
This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.
Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?
Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.
terrorism is a crime. you use police to deal with crimes. investigate, get a warrant, and bring them to a judge.
Especially when the terrorists come from an area which the victim has effective control over. It’s a police matter, not a 2,000 pound bomb matter.
American companies allegedly kept on working with Nazi Germany after the US entered the war. Therefore, unless Israel gets on the UN stand and says, “Yes, we’re committing genocide and y’all’s are next” no one will let non-white deaths affect the bottom line.
”i am team genocide"
-volvoxvsmarla
I dunno, can we trust them? Agree tho; people are dying and it needs to stop no matter what we call it, even if there were no larger implications; its fucking pointless and needs to stop.
I hope I won’t be remembered for this quote. I’ll choose my phrasing better in the future.
"I (…) won’t be (…) better in the future. "
-volvoxvsmarla
I need to stop digging, my grave is already big enough to fit a walrus
I need to stop ███ing, my ███ is already big enough to f███ a walrus
-volvoxvsmarla
Lol please don’t; it was hilarious to read.
Well, he is right, its mass murdering, but not genocide.
Wait until we find his 2012 Twitter handle calling everyone but Titans unnecessary
If I randomly kill all humans it would be genocide. I absolutely hate the common usage of the word, but killing all humans definitely would be genocide.
It’s still genocide if somebody survives. Otherwise Holocaust wouldn’t be a genocide.
Killing 50% of any one people is genocide, right? For example, the Nazis killed up to 50% of European Romani people and it is classified as a genocide.
Let’s assume killing 50% of n peoples is genocide.
Since killing 50% of n peoples is genocide, killing 50% of n+1 peoples must also be genocide, else a number N would exist such that killing 50% of N - 1 peoples is genocide but killing 50% of N peoples is not. The existence of such a number N would be quite contradictory, as it would imply one could undo genocide by killing more people. Additionally, if one were to first kill 50% of N - 1 people and then kill 50% of one more people some time later, both events would be classified as genocide, since killing 50% of one people is assumed to be genocide.
Therefore, Thanos did in fact commit genocide.
Israel: [Murdering journalists and foreign aid workers] see? It’s not only Palestinians, it’s random.
Genocide, as in the legal definition, requires intent. As far as I see it Germany is not even trying to deny anything Israel did or does, or argue evidence in any other way, all the government is basically doing is saying “Your honour, our client can’t have intent because they’re demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity”. Not in that many words, but to that effect.
And a sane person/nation would willingly engage in genocide? Insanity doesn’t negate intent, only ones ability to distinguish reality or prevent themselves from carrying out actions they know to be immoral. Inb4 India, China, the USA, and Russia of course but you take my point?
With individuals, criminal insanity means that you can’t be held accountable on account of not being able to tell good from wrong: Lacking that ability, you cannot have an intent to do wrong. It’s also not a get out of jail free card, it’s quite often a get locked into a closed institution for an indeterminate amount of time card, until the doctors decide that you’re not a danger to yourself or society. Being judged criminally insane can turn a five-year sentence into de facto life.
And it’s not like I personally agree that the notion is really applicable to a people, or that it should be considered when it comes to the genocide convention, but damn someone has to be their defence lawyer – they certainly aren’t capable of defending themselves, pretty much everything they say just makes people more mad, justifiably so. Given Germany’s history don’t blame us for taking on that role.
The thing about insanity is made up by the person eho posted that comment. What they actually say is that Israel’s intent is to defend themselves against the armed attacks by the Hamas, so self-defense, and not to commit a genocide.
That’s such a weird take. I mean you’re right, that is exactly the argument, but it doesn’t hold any water. To defend against Hamas attacks, Israel would need a huge border fence (check), a vastly superior military (check), constant surveillance on Gaza (check), Iron Dome (check), and even morally questionable methods like full control over the Palestinian population registry to track criminals (check). The fact that they had all those and still failed self-defense just adds to the argument that killing tens of thousands of civilians and destroying the majority of civilian infrastructure (while making the vast majority unusable) and completely debilitating the medical infrastructure and blocking humanitarian aid (also via criminal methods) and
Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
is actually genocide.
Your honour, our client can’t have intent because they’re demonstrably criminally insane, we know because we caused that insanity". Not in that many words, but to that effect.
That’s completely made up, either by you or by another person. What they actually say is that Israel’s intent is to defend against the armed attacks of the Hamas, not to commit a genocide.
More like: “Your honor, our client is just trying to defend themselves, they are not doing this to commit a genocide”
Mere defensive intent does not match up with the evidence unless you assume psychosis, and Germany very much is not denying the evidence.
That’s why I said “in not that many words”.
Germany provided Israel with anti-tank weapons and also training muniton. That’s it (according to official statements). Doesn’t sound like something you could commit a genocide with to me…
The insanity started way before Nazi genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzl's_Mauschel_and_Zionist_antisemitism
That’s a spark, not the kindling, much less the oil we poured on top of it. Without that, the “holocaust oil”, Israelis would probably be like French levels of patriotic today: Occasionally annoying but harmless and also mostly charming.
it’s not genocide, it’s war crimes: Germany, 2024
If it weren’t tragic, it would be funny.
germany really said
Germany: “Fucking casuals, you call that a genocide!”
Germany, are you going to be responsible for EVERY FUCKING World War you humans fight in!?! Liiiike feck.
I don’t get this WW3 talk that seems to only be here on Lemmy. Like, does anyone actually expect any countries with significant global influence to line up behind Hamas?
The closest I can think of is Iran, and they’re a regional power at best, and they prefer to work behind the scenes.
No, this will be a nasty little “tempest in a teacup” as always, with lots of onlookers wagging fingers but doing nothing. This is what all neighbouring nations are already doing - in fact they love the fact that Israel’s disproportionate response is damaging their reputation. They’re more than happy to stand by and watch, as they’re the ones who set Gaza up as a punching bag in the first place.
Ukraine is far more likely to evolve into a global conflict, especially with Ukraine’s position weakening and Poland chomping at the bit to jump in.
Like, does anyone actually expect any countries with significant global influence to line up behind *Hamas*?
Do you seriously think WWI happened because countries “lined up behind” Gavrilo Princip?
Do you know of any countries that have a defensive alliance with Hamas?
Look if Germany isn’t evil, is it even a World War sequel. Come on, the writers need to stay consistent
Is all champaigne from france?
If Germany’s not on the wrong(er) side, its just a sparkling global conflict.
😂 but also 😭
Maybe because what is happening is not genocide?
Youre gonna have to be a bit more specific in your defense. They have been killing all Palestinians, have been saying that all Palestinians are Hamas (including kids), and have said multiple times they want to wipe them off the face of the earth.
How is that not genocide?
Benjamin Netanyahu has in recent days called on politicians to choose “their words carefully” so as not to give ammunition ahead of the hearing in The Hague, Vaturi on Wednesday reaffirmed his calls to “wipe Gaza off the face of the earth,” and added: “Gaza must be burned.” “I stand behind my words… It is better to burn down buildings rather than have [Israeli] soldiers harmed. There are no innocents there,” he said in a radio interview before calling for the “elimination” of the estimated 100,000 Palestinians left in northern Gaza. “I have no mercy for those who are still there. We need to eliminate them,” added Vaturi, who belongs to Likud, the right-wing party led by Netanyahu.
If there was an intent to destroy Gaza and all it’s inhabitants Israel would have done so already. I probably need to see more justification than some emotional outburst a few days after getting terror attacked and israeli citizens kidnapped.
Your arguments are weak. Yes there is a sad situation where a lot of Palestinians are dying but it’s not a genocide.
What do you call ethnically cleansing and starving an entire population? Is that not genocide?
I think Lemmy likes perpetuating a particular propaganda that keeps reiterating the same talking points until they are engraved in your brain. Genocide is an extremely specific judgement that requires both evidence of specific intent and specific action. You can make claims to one but not to both. The intent doesn’t match the action.
So saying “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth” followed by almost continuous bombardment isn’t in your eyes evidence of specific intent and action, because they haven’t wiped them out yet? Therefore, by your own definition, the colonizing Europeans never commited genocide against the indigenous American population, because there’s still native Americans left and they have their own nature reserves to reside in?
It was literally like 1 day after an invasion. You need to recognize that emotions came to play.
As for your genocide of indigenous Americans, it’s a completely different topic. Don’t whatabout here please.
That’s not whataboutism is lol.
He’s not defending/minimizing doing something by pointing out the others have also done it… he’s comparing 2 situations, and saying that the definition of genocide is not limited to extinction.
Again, what so you call ethnically cleansing and starving an entire population?
They are 2 million in gaza. Hamas (oh so trustworthy source…) says Israel killed over 30000 thousand.
That’s 1.5%.
Palestinians are near extinction I tell you!
It’s about the intent
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
That’s still a large number of people, and we don’t have to wait until it’s a significant percentage of them to call it a genocide. Make up your own word if you mean something else, this is genocide (successful or not and the extent of it is left to be seen).
When your argument is trying to explain the technical definition of genocide, you’ve lost the fucking argument, it’s a genocide.
Technically you aren’t brain dead but some might say you are brain dead. Is that the same thing?
Glad to see Germany addressing the conflict rationally, unlike half of Lemmy which just screams “genocide!” in every thread.
Still waiting to hear an explanation for why there are no Jews in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt, when there were historical populations in those countries (hint: it’s the G word)
You mean that G word that happened right after Israel came into existence and proceeded to demonstrate its intent to conquer by immediately disregarding its own borders with Palestine?
Genocide ain’t it no matter who’s doing it and for what reason, but it’s real fuckin’ convenient to just ignore a major instigating factor that just happens to be the country you’re trying to apologism for.
You mean after the Arab neighbours started a G on the jews as soon as the Brits left?
Sure the jews aren’t much better but it’s clear they’d be G’d themselves if it wasn’t for their weapons
Jewish people from all over the world (not only parts of Europe invaded by Nazi Germany) were brought there to displace the Arab population that was forced to flee after a campaign of terrorist attacks.
The different religions didn’t have much beef with each other until that ethnic cleansing by religious fanatics who actually think that specific strip of desert land was gifted to them by god.
The only people who committed Jewish genocide were the Nazis. That’s why if at all a Jewish state should have been carved out from German territory and not have Arabs pay with their homeland.
Jews went there on their own. In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Those from the Ottoman empire who didn’t were largely genocided by their muslim neighbours to ‘punish’ them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that “different religions didn’t have much beef” is complete bs.
Not to say the zionist jews aren’t among the worst people as well, of course
Jews went there on their own.
To displace the native population. That’s a war crime.
In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Not genocide, though. Unlike what’s happening to Palestinians now which is another coordinated effort to get rid of them. The civilians are systematically attacked and pushed towards Egypt for that reason.
‘punish’ them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that “different religions didn’t have much beef” is complete bs.
When I write that “different religions didn’t have much beef” before the creation of Israel by religious fanatics, any action that happens afterwards is no counter argument to that.
Yeah, I think this idea comes from not really knowing much history then.
As long as there are different religions, there’s been religious beef.
Jews living as minorities in predominantly islamic countries have experienced this by various degrees. Islamic law demands that they always be treated as second class citizens and, to no surprise, they have. And in certain periods in certain places, this was spiced up with some forced conversion or genocide.
Read up on this for a nice example. It’s like claiming black African slaves had a nice life in the US until some troublemakers started demanding equal rights.
The mass migration towards Palestine and zionist efforts to create a majority jewish state there aren’t a pinnacle of humanity, but it’s important to know where it comes from
As an atheist I’m far from being an Islam defender but a special tax for “book religions” other than Islam and bans on certain jobs isn’t genocide and really not an excuse to displace or even murder a Muslim population who wasn’t even the ruling class that made those laws in the first place.
Islam isn’t treating Judaism and Christianity the way it would treat polytheists like Hindus. Now that’s a whole other can of worms but Palestinian genocide is inexcusable no matter how much anyone tries to justify it belittle it.
Too rational for Lemmy.
It’s the convert word.
Germany moment
