Oh, I made a mistake - the article you quoted from is, itself, quoting another article - that was written only a month after the attacks.
The same hurdle of proving intentionality applies to any evaluation of whether Hamas’s October 7 attack constitutes genocide. Hamas, which governs Gaza and is designated by many countries as a terrorist organization, promises the destruction of Israel in its founding charter and has said it has plans for more attacks like the one on October 7. Its “wild and indiscriminate killing” of more than 1,400 people is characteristic of what social scientists refer to as a “genocidal massacre” that should be “acknowledged and condemned as such,” but the intentionality requirement under the law is still a “high evidentiary bar to reach,” Jones said.
Beyond killing civilians en masse, Israel appears to be inflicting “conditions of life calculated to bring about [the targeted group’s] physical destruction,” as prohibited by the convention, said Adam Jones, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia who has written a textbook on genocide. He pointed to Israel’s decisions to let in only limited humanitarian assistance that is far from sufficient to provide for the needs of 2.2 million people; to cut off fuel, water, and electricity; and to deprive people of adequate access to medical care. As of November 5, some 370 aid trucks had reportedly arrived in Gaza since they were first allowed to enter on October 21, but more than 100 trucks daily would be required to meet the needs of the population.
You can call something genocide without having to give a shit what ‘international law’ calls it.
The man is literally a professor of genocide studies; when a news org asks him if something is genocide, he’s not just some rando tossing out an opinion. He’s giving an academic answer.
It was plain as chips for all of us to see so early on, how did an expert fail if not intentionally.
Jesus Christ.
And fuck Chomsky, I never said he was great only that the author themselves are also guilty of politicising genocide.
“Politicizing genocide”
“I can’t believe someone who notes that the definition of genocide is, by international law, intentionally restrictive would, one month into a military campaign with conflicting narratives and information blanketing the space, note only that there were genocidal intentions and practice instead of outright calling it genocide. This is an unbelievable betrayal 😔”
What, did you immediately run to google the author’s name in the hopes of digging up dirt, and then threw shit at the wall to see what would stick? lmao.
Thanks for that quote. Further highlights how problematic this professor is.
Under the law he calls it’s a high bar to reach to label Oct 7th as genocidal, yet he had no problem doing so a month later?
It’s selective application of when to follow legal precedent and when he can apply his own personal interpretation. One that he refused to use to call genocide genocide until far too late.
Well I didn’t need to go and Google Chomsky did I? He’s a known figure, this author was not.
Thanks for that quote. Further highlights how problematic this professor is.
Under the law he calls it’s a high bar to reach to label Oct 7th as genocidal, yet he had no problem doing so a month later?
No, that article from a month later is quoting this one. He didn’t say Oct 7th was genocide. That’s what you are desperately reading into it in order to… I don’t even really know why. Refuse to admit to being wrong, I guess?
It’s selective application of when to follow legal precedent and when he can apply his own personal interpretation. One that he refused to use to call genocide genocide until far too late.
Fucking what.
Well I didn’t need to go and Google Chomsky did I? He’s a known figure, this author was not.
Maybe you should’ve spent a few more minutes googling, considering that your accusation was so easily and quickly disproven.
Oh, I made a mistake - the article you quoted from is, itself, quoting another article - that was written only a month after the attacks.
The man is literally a professor of genocide studies; when a news org asks him if something is genocide, he’s not just some rando tossing out an opinion. He’s giving an academic answer.
Jesus Christ.
“Politicizing genocide”
What, did you immediately run to google the author’s name in the hopes of digging up dirt, and then threw shit at the wall to see what would stick? lmao.
Thanks for that quote. Further highlights how problematic this professor is.
Under the law he calls it’s a high bar to reach to label Oct 7th as genocidal, yet he had no problem doing so a month later?
It’s selective application of when to follow legal precedent and when he can apply his own personal interpretation. One that he refused to use to call genocide genocide until far too late.
Well I didn’t need to go and Google Chomsky did I? He’s a known figure, this author was not.
No, that article from a month later is quoting this one. He didn’t say Oct 7th was genocide. That’s what you are desperately reading into it in order to… I don’t even really know why. Refuse to admit to being wrong, I guess?
Fucking what.
Maybe you should’ve spent a few more minutes googling, considering that your accusation was so easily and quickly disproven.