Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Oops sorry, I mis-interpreted the quote tree there.

BTW I think that article Martinez repeated warrants a close look at the claims involved. e.g. blaming "the left" is a big giveaway, as are claims downplaying violence against muslims as "25 times less likely" - i can't find any sources that corroborate those figures. e.g back in 2015:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12075018/Hate-crimes-against-Muslims-and-Jews-soar-in-France.html

More than 400 incidents of an "Islamophobic" nature, including assaults, harassment and criminal damage, were reported to the authorities in 2015, up from 133 in the previous year. From January to May, 508 antisemitic crimes were recorded, a rise of 84 per cent compared to the same months in 2014. Figures for the full year are still being compiled.

I found a list of french hate crimes in 2016, there were 12 against Jews and almost 60 against muslims, which given the larger number of muslims (10 times as many) suggests Jews about twice as likely to suffer attacks than Muslims, not 25 times. And articles claim the rate of anti-jewish crimes has falled by about 50% a year since then:

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-what-s-behind-the-drop-in-anti-semitic-incidents-in-france-1.5465733

“Let us not forget that we are winning this struggle,” President Emmanuel Macron told school pupils in September. Statistically, at least, he’s right: Anti-Semitic incidents have been declining steadily in the country over the past two years.
...
According to official reports, the number of anti-Semitic incidents in France has decreased by 58 percent over the past year.

With the decline in anti-Jewish crimes from 2016 when they were twice as likely to suffer attacks to now, that leads to the conclusions in this article:

http://time.com/5220830/france-anti-semitism-mireille-knoll/

Official statistics show a complicated picture of racist incidents, and suggest that other minorities, such as Muslims, are regularly harassed and are at least equally at risk of hate crimes as Jews.

It's also a bit of a red flag when isolated small incidents are listed from several years apart, to illustrate what's supposed to be a rising trend. With a murder rate of 1.58 per 100,000 people and 65 million people, that's about 1000 french murder victims per year. citing 12 murders across 12 years, of jews by a muslim isn't necessarily statistically significant: that's only 0.1% of the murder rate, so it wouldn't be hard to dredge up purely unrelated incidents and put them in a list. I'm pretty sure that if I only needed to dredge up 0.1% of murders to prove that ethnicity A is killing ethnicity B, I could prove that for virtually any pair of ethnicities.

While not necessarily wrong, when a source relies on extremely isolated incidents to make such point, that's usually a warning sign that looking at the incidents will reveal a different narrative to the one claimed. e.g. the very first one I look at was this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Halimi

The guy was a crazed drug addict who'd just had a domestic dispute, broke into the apartment of some non-jewish people, and attacked them, then when they locked themselves in the bedroom to protect themselves, he climbed out the window to their balcony and was able to enter the Jewish woman's house through her balcony. Basically a mentally ill drug addict from Mali had a domestic dispute attacked some random non-jewish people in their apartment first then entered the apartment of the jewish woman - basically the whole thing was mostly a coincidence, and not a planned attack on her for being Jewish. She just happened to have her balcony next to the balcony of the first family.

Sure, it's terrible, but it also seems like a completely random incident in which the ethnicities of both victim and perpetrator could have been largely a coincidence. After all, you have 999 other murders in France every year so it can't be all that difficult to drum up a few that match whatever racial / ethnic theories you'd like. e.g. the USA estimates that about 10% of France are muslim, then all else being equal you'd expect them to commit 10% of the murders, or 100 murders per year. Then, since Jews consist of about 1% of the population, you'd expect that around 1% of those victims would be jews - purely by chance, or 1 victim per year / 12 victims over 12 years, which is the number on the complete list provided by martinez's source. So while no attacks are insignificant, a list of anecdotes is not proof when the entire list falls within the bounds of what you'd expect purely from random chance / averages.

[Teneb]

People being driven from their homes are still an ethnic cleansing even if few of them are being murdered.

I suppose it could be. It's just that I'm more used to seeing that paired up with genocide (or attempted genocide).

[scriver]

People being driven from their homes are still an ethnic cleansing even if few of them are being murdered.

I suppose it could be. It's just that I'm more used to seeing that paired up with genocide (or attempted genocide).

I mean, I'm definitely of the opinion that the removal of a people from their home area is genocide (or at least attempted) as well. Genocide isn't simply the murder of people, as in many individuals, but the murder of a people. For supposedly "homeless" peoples like the Jews it gets a little more complicated but I feel fairly confident that 2000-ish years should let them be counted as a firmly rooted European nation.

[Reelya]

Some people dispute what is "really" genocide, usually to downplay some incident. The problem with "really" genocide is that it's a neologism (made up word) coined in 1944 then ratified as a legal definition by the UN in 1948. So as for there being a "real" definition of genocide that's more stringent than the UN's definition, that's bullshit since the term only has meaning within the UN framework. There is no pre-existing English definition of the term since it didn't exist before. e.g. people complaining that what their group doing to another group isn't "true" genocide is fairly meaningless since the term was only really defined in 1948 by legal fiat.

http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

See especially Section 6, genocidal acts and Section 7 Evidence of intent “to destroy in whole or in part ...”

you can see for example that the KKK / Jim Crow / Tuskagee medical experiments / harsh policing and mass-arrests of black men / murder of Martin Luther king / shootings of blacks / intimidation of black voters, etc etc, all fall under the definition of genocidal acts and motivations.

[scriver]

What exactly is the point you're trying to make, Reelya? Because it feels to me that you're either arguing that A, The driving of a people from it's home isn't genocide; or B, that I can't define or have another opinion on the concept of what makes the killing of a people beyond what the UN convention juridicia says (both to which I tip my bullshit hat right back at ya mate).

[martinuzz]

Who the fuck cares if a word definition existed before WW2 or no?

It's like saying ... "there's no LGBT definition from before 1980, so you can't be gay if you're born before that"

<Joins the tipping of bullshit hat crowd>

[ChairmanPoo]

I think they are two different, closely linked concepts. Eg: genocide would fall within the broader category of ethnic cleansing. So you could argue that the definition is a bit different, . For practical purposes however, I think you'd be hard pressed to find instances of ethnic cleansing that didn't qualify as genocide.  Eg: even when the campaign isnt about killing everyone from the onset, the involved parties seldom want to move people into *nice*  places

[Dorsidwarf]

Who the fuck cares if a word definition existed before WW2 or no?

It's like saying ... "there's no LGBT definition from before 1980, so you can't be gay if you're born before that"

<Joins the tipping of bullshit hat crowd>

From what I understand, it would be like if LGBT was a term invented by the government for the purpose of an equality law or something, but then people started saying that that definition wasnt correct and that person X isn’t “truly” LGBT?


Also unless I deeply missed the point of Reelyas post they were saying that Genocide is a much more inclusive term than deniers would have you believe.

[scriver]

Who the fuck cares if a word definition existed before WW2 or no?

It's like saying ... "there's no LGBT definition from before 1980, so you can't be gay if you're born before that"

<Joins the tipping of bullshit hat crowd>

From what I understand, it would be like if LGBT was a term invented by the government for the purpose of an equality law or something, but then people started saying that that definition wasnt correct and that person X isn’t “truly” LGBT?


Also unless I deeply missed the point of Reelyas post they were saying that Genocide is a much more inclusive term than deniers would have you believe.

Except nobody said that X is "not truly genocide", and Reelya seemingly was responding to me stating how I think genocide makes up more than just murdering.

[Kagus]

I think Reelya might just be experiencing some kind of weird forum layout bugginess or somesuch. There have been multiple posts in fairly short order that, while well-sourced and backed up, were in response to things that hadn't been said.

[martinuzz]

Germany is in uproar, after the German Jewish Council advised jews in Germany to stop wearing kippahs earlier today, because those put jews at risk of becoming victims of aggression.
Instead, it would be wise to wear a baseball cap, or other non-religious hat to cover the head, according to president of the council Josef Schuster.

Last week, an Israeli student was assaulted by 3 men, of whom one started beating him with a belt while shouting 'Jehudi' (arab for jew).
The victim, Adam Armush, later says in an interview with Deutsche Welle, that he decided to film the incident, to have evidence for the police, and to show the world how terrifying it is to walk in the streets of Berlin as a jew.

Armush himself isn't even jewish. He was raised in Israel as a member of an arab family. The kippah he was wearing was given to him by a jewish friend, who had even warned him that wearing it would be a risk. Armush couldn't imagine that was really true, so he decided to wear it to prove the opposite.

What also struck him, that of all the people walking on the streets witnessing the incident, no one rushed to his aid except one woman.
Tomorrow a large protest march is planned in Berlin against antisemitism and intolerance. People are encouraged to wear a kippah while attending.
Meanwhile, the assailant has reported himself to the police. It is a 19-year old refugee from Syria.

Angela Merkel promised on Israeli tv this weekend that she would do anything in her power to safeguard the jewish population in Germany. She called it a new phenomena, hate and violence against jews by migrants from arab countries, who have brought a new type of antisemitism.
"It did exist before that though", she said. "It is tragic that we cannot have jewish Kintergartens, schools or synagogues without permanent police protection".

Statistics from teh German police show antisemitism to have risen sharply in the past year. Antisemitic incidents doubled in 2017 compared to 2016.

"Three years ago I warned to not wear a kippah in neighborhoods that house a lot of arabs", Joseph Schuster tells Deutsche Welle. "This incident however took place in a trendy, wealthy neighborhood. That is a whole new dimension".

https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/duitse-joodse-raad-verstandiger-om-baseballpetje-te-dragen-in-plaats-van-een-keppeltje~a4595682/

[Reelya]

I think Reelya might just be experiencing some kind of weird forum layout bugginess or somesuch. There have been multiple posts in fairly short order that, while well-sourced and backed up, were in response to things that hadn't been said.

No, i just thought you were responding to a different post than the one you were responding to. probably because the waffle house shooting was a big deal that I was reading about, and reading about someone who got sacked from a job didn't register with me as being what you were responding to.

Except nobody said that X is "not truly genocide", and Reelya seemingly was responding to me stating how I think genocide makes up more than just murdering.

I said "some people" not "some people in this forum", for clarification, if needed. It was just an observation: "what counts as genocide" which is what Scriver was starting on just before (although innocently) is often the pre-cursor to some ... questionable stuff, usually related to deniers:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

- aboriginals in Australia. if you read the UN definition, and read the history, Australia's treatment of aboriginals meets several criteria from both the actions and motives sections. People will swear blind that it wasn't genocide if you bring it up however, because there are "still aboriginals" alive or "there are more aboriginals alive now" as though this disproves genocide claims.

- Israel herding Palestinians into compounds while taking their land. Has strong similarities with the Nazis debating e.g. the "madagascar solution" up to 1941. Some people will counter claims of genocide with "but there are more Palestinians alive now".

- Holocaust, WWII. Deniers sometimes bring up a graph that shows that the number of Jews at some point after WWII was greater than the number before it as "disproving" the holocaust.

[martinuzz]

U wut? You are calling what Israel is doing in Gaza genocide? And then you call me right-wing? Really?
Sure it is a clusterfuck there, and both Likud and Hamas bear part of the blame, as does colonial history, and as do the arab nations.
But Israel genociding Palestines? No. Genocide is sadly what the surrounding arab countries want to do with Israel.
Note that Israel has never sworn to drive all arabs into the sea, as quite a few arab rulers have sworn to do to Israel.

Maybe if Hamas hadn't called for bloody intifadas, or sent suicide attackers and missiles into Israel for decades there would have been no incentive to segregate.

EDIT: I would agree to call Israel's illegal colonization 'ethnic cleansing' though. But that is something different than genocide.

[Doomblade187]

I would like to note that the pro-palestine stance exists on both left and right.

[martinuzz]

You have 'Israel is discriminating, segregating and oppressing Palestinians' in the left wing spectrum, yes. I agree on most of that even, except the generalization. There's many Israeli that would like to see things differently.

But the 'Israel is genociding Palestinians' is mostly reserved by the extreme-far-right.