I entirely agree, and I feel moreover that it's the moral obligation of the United States to use our substantial foreign policy influence with Israel to compel a more humane treatment of Palestinians.
Nevertheless when people point out that this is a "genocide" or that Israel is committing "war crimes" I wonder what point is actually being made. If it wasn't against international law, would that make it ok to collectively punish Palestine? I certainly don't think it would.
At some level it just feels like weaponization of language, or at the very least like lazy thinking. One party is breaking laws, and breaking laws is bad, so that party is bad. But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating.
People can make an argument that it is a genocide, and there is a reasonable defense that it is not. If, based on the facts, it doesn't seem to you like a genocide, then that's fine, but it's not like there is no rational basis for those assertions.
With war crimes, I recall there being some specific evidence thereof, potentially from the UN. It was brought up during PMQs in Ireland, I think.
> But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating.
I think most of us:
a) Do not think this should prevent us from calling a spade a spade;
b) In any event, can see quite a few differences between the two situations, such as the relative power disparity between the 2 sides in the middle east, the fact that Germany had taken over or was engaged in active hostilities with...most of Europe, etc.
Maybe the US was wrong to bomb Dresden; maybe it was a war crime, and maybe it could have won the war without doing that, and without dropping atomic bombs. But that doesn't mean we have to hesitate before calling out similar crimes in the future just because we live in the US.
It’s not a maybe. By current international law, the US government is guilty of war crimes. It is most definitely guilty of genocide against Japan with the wanton and unnecessary killing of Japanese civilians that can only be seen as a stark retaliation and collective punishment for the preventable events of Pearl Harbor.
That’s how the law is written. There is no maybe about it.
However, the fact that people are largely sympathetic to the US implies that maybe the law is a little too harsh, and does not provide any caveats for situational violence.
International law today is a perfect ideal. It’s like a criminal code that bans murder, but doesn’t include any leeway for self defense or reduced sentences for manslaughter. Only perfect people can hold to its standards and no one is perfect.
> In any event, can see quite a few differences between the two situations, such as the relative power disparity between the 2 sides in the middle east, the fact that Germany had taken over or was engaged in active hostilities with...most of Europe, etc.
But this is exactly my point. The moral imperative was clear in WWII, but the same pejoratives ("war crimes", etc) would equally apply.
These terms are at best uninteresting and at worst distracting, which is what I'd originally intended to highlight with the quote referring to "genocidal language".
Nevertheless when people point out that this is a "genocide" or that Israel is committing "war crimes" I wonder what point is actually being made. If it wasn't against international law, would that make it ok to collectively punish Palestine? I certainly don't think it would.
At some level it just feels like weaponization of language, or at the very least like lazy thinking. One party is breaking laws, and breaking laws is bad, so that party is bad. But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating.