On Wednesday, 1,200 Israeli university academics and administrators issued an open letter protesting the "war crimes and even crimes against humanity" committed by the Israeli military in Gaza.
And many of them did. But if you’re a “genocide scholar” and you’re only now coming to the conclusion that this is genocide. 19 months after real scholars correctly pointed to it. You are not a scholar. You are a glorified record keeper.
All of them have been agreeing that Israel is committing genocidal acts pretty much since month, if not week, one. Then the scholarly debate started on whether the sum of genocidal acts already constitutes genocide proper. It’s one of those cases where scholars make distinctions that activists don’t like because activists like simple narratives, punchy slogans, clear-cut lines, as opposed to getting bogged down in nuance.
I’m not saying that activists are wrong calling it a genocide, I’ve been predicting that the Kahanites are going to use the opportunity on day fucking one, but it’s also not right to expect scholars to lower their standards, simplify their analytic framework. There’s a good reason why they apply metric tons of nuance to everything.
but it’s also not right to expect scholars to lower their standards, simplify their analytic framework.
A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0 and with the 100 year history of colonizing Palestine, any “genocide scholar” who was held back by their standards was a glorified record keeper, waiting until it’s widely recognized as a genocide before labeling it as such themselves.
And you’re white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.
A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0
That’s evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.
And you’re white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.
Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting “stop the thief”. As said: I’ve been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I’d still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.
And that has to be established, instead of just assumed… If you’re a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.
You don’t want activist scholars or judges because then you don’t have scholars or judges any more, is all I’m saying. Leave the activism to the activists.
Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there’s a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can’t fight barbarism by succumbing to it.
There is zero assumptions of guilt here. Only hitler was as clear as israel about genocide intents. Denying the genocide at this point is like denying the holocust when it occured.
Human right reports and idf themselves filming themself comiting crimes show that the intent is also applied on thr ground
What is this BS. If you do genocidal acts like blocking aid for 2 months you are comiting genocide. No such a thing as genocide proper and genocide not proper.
Genocide is a serious war crime that when declared all countries has the duty to do all they can to stop it. Declaring a genocide late is like detecting a cancer in the latest stage. You don’t want a genocide to be declared a decade after just like it happened in Bosnia
No such a thing as genocide proper and genocide not proper.
That’s not what I said. There’s a difference between genocidal acts and genocide, same as there’s a difference between breaking a promise and fraud.
You don’t want a genocide to be declared a decade after just like it happened in Bosnia
Yes we want exactly that, because genocide needs to be proven thoroughly because otherwise deniers have an attack surface. But we also want to intervene much earlier. Those two things are not at odds.
All of them have been agreeing that Israel is committing genocidal acts pretty much since month, if not week, one. Then the scholarly debate started on whether the sum of genocidal acts already constitutes genocide proper. It’s one of those cases where scholars make distinctions that activists don’t like because activists like simple narratives, punchy slogans, clear-cut lines, as opposed to getting bogged down in nuance.
I’m not saying that activists are wrong calling it a genocide, I’ve been predicting that the Kahanites are going to use the opportunity on day fucking one, but it’s also not right to expect scholars to lower their standards, simplify their analytic framework. There’s a good reason why they apply metric tons of nuance to everything.
A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0 and with the 100 year history of colonizing Palestine, any “genocide scholar” who was held back by their standards was a glorified record keeper, waiting until it’s widely recognized as a genocide before labeling it as such themselves.
And you’re white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.
That’s evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.
Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting “stop the thief”. As said: I’ve been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I’d still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.
Israel didn’t even arrest thr nekba zionist terrorist. Israel just scape goat some low level soldiers to act like israel crimes are not systematic
And that has to be established, instead of just assumed… If you’re a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.
You don’t want activist scholars or judges because then you don’t have scholars or judges any more, is all I’m saying. Leave the activism to the activists.
How can anybody seriously believe that it is not established. Anybosy who deny the genoce is in a certain level complicit
Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there’s a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can’t fight barbarism by succumbing to it.
There is zero assumptions of guilt here. Only hitler was as clear as israel about genocide intents. Denying the genocide at this point is like denying the holocust when it occured. Human right reports and idf themselves filming themself comiting crimes show that the intent is also applied on thr ground
You are simply doing genocide apologia here
I have been calling what Israel is doing a genocide like four or five times now. In this very thread. Watch where you’re aiming.
There is a difference between a prosecutor calling the accused a murderer, and a judge calling the accused a murderer. Can you follow me this far.
What is this BS. If you do genocidal acts like blocking aid for 2 months you are comiting genocide. No such a thing as genocide proper and genocide not proper.
Genocide is a serious war crime that when declared all countries has the duty to do all they can to stop it. Declaring a genocide late is like detecting a cancer in the latest stage. You don’t want a genocide to be declared a decade after just like it happened in Bosnia
That’s not what I said. There’s a difference between genocidal acts and genocide, same as there’s a difference between breaking a promise and fraud.
Yes we want exactly that, because genocide needs to be proven thoroughly because otherwise deniers have an attack surface. But we also want to intervene much earlier. Those two things are not at odds.