Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.
No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.
A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.
That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.
All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.
Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.
And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.
Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well
Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?
It wouldn’t be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I’m not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won’t readily denounce it.
If so then the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Chechnya were all genocides.
When entire civilian populations are bombed or starved, then yes. The US is not free of war crimes. They’re merely immune from the consequences.
Not just the US. Chechnya was invaded by Russia. German civilians were bombed by the UK and USSR.
In fact, it’s hard to find a large-scale modern war that didn’t cause thousands of civilian casualties.
Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.
Are you really suggesting that every asymmetrical war that is conducted successfully is genocide? O.o
No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.
A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.
That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.
I mean, there isn’t any obligation in war to make sure casualties are evenly distributed among both sides.
Normally, a lopsided war ends only when the losing side surrenders.
Now you’re getting it
“Genocide” is just another word for “war”?
When it’s targeted at a specific group of people and there’s such a dramatic power imbalance, yes. Whether modern definitions agree or not.
All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.
So if your definition amounts to a highly favorable balance of power, then all countries at war would aspire to make it a “genocide”.
Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.
And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.
Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well
Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?
It wouldn’t be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I’m not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won’t readily denounce it.
Fair enough, but if an invasion of Canada is not necessarily genocide then there must be more to it than attacking a less powerful neighbor.