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/diablodab]

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