Comment by netsharc

3 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXExGWGEyw

"War crimes are defined by the winners. I'm a winner, so I can make my own definition.".

The whole documentary is worth a watch, IMO. It's an incredible look about how people commit heinous acts and build an imaginary world for 40 years to say what they did was "right and justified". Including a scene where the killers imagine they're being thanked by their victims for taking them from godless communism and bringing them to Heaven. Maybe in 2065 there'll be a version where we'll need subtitles for the Yiddish dialog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TDeEObjR9Q

36 comments

netsharc

Reply
breppp  3 months ago

I think the more interesting thing here is the ability to fantasize categories such as genocide

where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like the winner, and the genocidal act that has started said war (classic genocide mass killings of civilians by death squads) is appropriated by the perpetrators turned victims

  • 7952  3 months ago

    Its all abstractions that help justify ethno-nationalism at the expense of concern about individual tragedy.

    • breppp  3 months ago

      most of the wars in history were fought by empires that were the exact opposite of ethnic-nationalism, and also most genocides. it is completely unrelated

      7 replies →

  • kombine  3 months ago

    This is demagoguery. There is ample evidencence that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Historians who study genocide all their careers, including Israeli Jewish ones, concluded it a long time ago. There is 100 pages with references in the application by South Africa to the ICJ. If you intend to take the same route as the Holocaust denialists, the burden is on you to disprove all the evidence.

    • breppp  3 months ago

      last time I checked a basic part of a trial is the mere existence of it is not a proof of guilt..

      While most of your argument is the fact that because South Africa has sued Israel in international court then it is somehow proof of genocide.

      Regarding scholars, again not enough I am sorry.

      In reality after more than two years the Gazan population hasn't even declined in size, which makes the entire case for genocide mostly a political joke on people who were mostly systematically exterminated like the Jews, Armenians and Tutsi.

      Generally this is so far from a real genocide killing rates, reasons and methods that the only explanation is that some regimes have an interest at removing the substance out of the definition of genocide

      1 reply →

    • ta20240528  3 months ago

      To be clear, South Africa didn't present any of their OWN evidence to the ICJ of Israeli genocide.

      Rather, they carefully and methodically presented hundreds of reports made by OTHER UN agencies which reported on the genocidal behaviour.

      This left the ICJ in a pickle: as a UN body itself, it had to either find for 'probably genocide' or publicly state that every other UN body was either in a grand conspiracy or was incompetent.

      A very smart legal strategy.

  • netsharc  3 months ago

    I guess "genocide" is also defined by the winners, or their defenders. And if it's not a genocide, then it's just mass killing of innocents, and that's... fine!

    Wonko the Sane is right.