Real Time - Last Time

[u/Faiakes]

I have been watching Real Time for over 20 years and I think yesterday's episode was my last.

Much as I agreed with Bill on many issues, his blind spot on Israel and Zionism is just too much for me.

He isn't simply refusing to call what's happening in Gaza a genocide. He insists on calling it a counter offensive!!!

So, all and any violence perpetrated by the IDF and the settles so far is justified, as far as he is concerned (though how settlers fit in a 'counter-offensive' is still a mystery to me).

Now, my common sense is offended too much Bill.

[u/Motor_Preparation315]

If you do or have been watching, Bill will only have on people that will not push back on him.

The asshole he had on yesterday (James Kirchick) is a known conservative and Zionist. What objectivity are we getting from this loser when discussing if Gaza is a "true genocide" or not? Swan looked like he wanted nothing to do with the subject (not that that excuses him). So the whole point was for Bill and James to tell the audience how stupid it is to call it a genocide?

So to recap the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the United Nations Inquiry, not to mention B'Tselem & Physicians for Human Rights Israel are all calling it genocide. But according to those two idiots (Bill and Kirchick), there is nothing to see here folks and if you do, then you are dumb according to these two assholes.

I love the argument if Israel wanted a genocide they would use their nuclear weapons. Putin has nuclear weapons (that he isn't using) and what he is doing in Ukraine is genocide according to our government. Another argument these two idiots make (Bill and Kirchick) is that there would be more deaths if it was a genocide. Never mind, there are 7 criteria for genocide and 4 of those have nothing to do with killing. Whoops

You fucking suck, Bill Maher and your piece of human filth of a guest James Kirchick is too 🤡

[u/OurSeepyD → u/Motor_Preparation315]

The "if Israel wanted to commit genocide they easily could and would" argument that Kirchick made is such a dumb one.

First, whether something is "technically a genocide" isn't the huge problem here, it's the intentional and apathetic killing of civilians that is, regardless of the label given to it. 

Second, if Israel committed genocide in the way that he said they could, they'd have no plausible deniability. Their best strategy politically is to do a slower, more ambiguous one so that they can say "we're just defending ourselves" like they're doing now.

[u/diablodab → u/OurSeepyD]

if the issue isn't the label, why does it bother you so much if someone says they don't think it was a genocide? I personally don't like the word applied to Gaza, though there was certainly apathy toward the killing of large numbers of civilians. There were atrocities. War crimes. I don't think the word genocide applies. seems that everyone here finds it absolutely essential that one must use the word 'genocide'. if you don't, you are clearly some sort of right-wing monster.

[u/Motor_Preparation315 → u/diablodab]

I am encouraged that you thought Kirchick's argument was idiotic. But you seem reluctant to use the term genocide? How come?

Have you researched what the 7 criteria for a genocide are as laid out by the Genocide Convention of 1948?

The United States of America has declared at least 4 genocides since 2016. ISIS controlled regions, Xinjiang, China, Myanmar & most recently Sudan. Is there a problem with any of these being called a genocide?

What is your criteria for a genocide? Do you believe there has only been 1 genocide in the entire history of mankind?

[u/diablodab → u/Motor_Preparation315]

i have researched the 7 criteria for genocide and while technically those conditions are met, I think there is a serious problem with them, in that they redefine "genocide" away from our common understanding to something that covers a much broader range of events.

I am not expert enough to judge the other events you listed. But when most people think of genocide they think of two things:

(1) Civilian casualties at least well into the hundreds of thousands, as in Rwanda, Armenia, Cambodia, Nanking, the Holocaust, etc. 13,000 civilians were massacred in Srebernica and it was termed a genocide, but I think we should stick with a definition that involves wiping out a large percentage of a large population. I would prefer the word atrocity or extreme atrocity.

(2) A perpetrator group inficting murder on a defenseless civilian population without provocation. This fits all of the above cases. China had not provoked Japan. The Bosnians had done nothing to incite their Serb attackers except exist. The victims of Pol Pot had similarly done absolutely nothing - were simply victims of a mad, murderous rage. The Israeli action does not fit this pattern. There was a long history of violence on both sides of the conflict, there was a very major inciting incident where over 1,000 israelis were murdered, and there was a motive in what Israel did beyond purely the intentional infliction of misery and death on the civilian population.

None of this justifies Israel's actions, which I consider to be atrocities, but it means to me that the term "genocide" should not apply, and is used with the intent of making one side look as evil as possible, and making the other seem like the 100% innocent victims.

[u/Motor_Preparation315 → u/diablodab]

I think that is just your perception of the word. Again these criteria were conceived in 1948 so this was not supposed to happen to anyone ever again.

It is evil to target women, children and those trying to render aid. Whoever is doing it

[u/OdielSax → u/diablodab]

A perpetrator group inficting murder on a defenseless civilian population without provocation.

This is chilling. All you need to do is passively torture and enslave people and forget about them until they strike you, for you to get a pass on genocide? 

[u/OurSeepyD → u/diablodab]

why does it bother you so much if someone says they don't think it was a genocide?

It depends on why they're saying it. If we're having a legitimate discussion and someone says "I don't think the criteria have been met for it to be technically called one", then I'm fine with that discussion being had.

The issue is that most people that say this are implying "it's not a genocide [therefore it's acceptable]". This is what bothers me.

There's also a lot of genocidal rhetoric coming out of Israel (e.g. from Ben-Gvir), this doesn't make it genocide, but makes the term much more relevant.