5 ms·

> If some act is in pursuit of a legitimate war goal then that typically negates it being considered an act of genocide from my understanding of international l

> If some act is in pursuit of a legitimate war goal then that typically negates it being considered an act of genocide from my understanding of international law. Even if there was a dual-intent exception for acts that would be within the laws of war if done without genocidal intent (which there is not), it wouldn't apply to all the acts that are war crimes or crimes against humanity even aside from genocidal intent, such as those (including killings) done in the context or as part of collective punishment of civilian populations under occupation, use of starvation as a method of warfare, both deliberate and indiscriminate direct killing of civilians, etc.

jameshilliard 29d ago
> acts that are war crimes or crimes against humanity AFAIU per international law either war crimes or crimes against humanity do not by themselves mean there is a genocide. Almost all wars will see these crimes in isolated instances at a minimum, but that doesn't translate to genocide without the dolus specialis(special intent) factor as a deliberate policy(i.e. Nazi's implementing the Holocaust as policy).
- dragonwriter 29d ago
  > AFAIU per international law either war crimes or crimes against humanity do not by themselves mean there is a genocide Correct, and I didn't say that they did. I said that even if enumerated acts of genocide in the convention, committed with genocidal intent, were excluded as being genocide by some “dual intent” rule—which I can find no evidence of ever existing or being theorized by any serious authority on international law—if they were in the context of war and would be legitimate acts of war when done without genocidal intent, that still wouldn’t stop all the acts Israel has done with genocidal intent, even if during war, that include acts enumerated as genocidal acts in the Convention and which are, even aside from genocidal intent, war crimes or crimes against humanity and, therefore, not legitimate acts of war even before considering whether they constitute genocide, from satisfying the defintion of genocide in the Convention. You are basically arguing that you can never have genocide during a war because otherwise legitimate acts of war, committed with genocidal intent, don’t count even if they are enumerated genocidal acts in the convention, and war crimes and crimes against humanity done with genocidal intent that are or include enumerated genocidal acts also don’t count as genocide when committed during war because “all wars will see these crimes”. But aside from the fact that no basis for the claim that either of these exceptions actually exists in international law has been offered, this ignores that the specific genocides that motivated the convention were committed during wars; its bizarre to argue that the Convention should be read to sub silentio exclude all enumerated genocidal acts perpetrated with the described genocidal intent that happen to occur during war from the scope of the prohibition on genocide.
  - jameshilliard 29d ago
    > You are basically arguing that you can never have genocide during a war because otherwise legitimate acts of war, committed with genocidal intent, don’t count even if they are enumerated genocidal acts in the convention, and war crimes and crimes against humanity done with genocidal intent that are or include enumerated genocidal acts also don’t count as genocide when committed during war because “all wars will see these crimes”. I'm arguing that the genocidal intent is really the crux of the issue and that the genocidal intent needs especially strong evidence in a war. Legitimate war goals existing for a conflict generally raise the evidentiary bar for something to be considered a genocide as they tend to serve as the plausible alternate non-genocidal intent.

jameshilliard 29d ago

> acts that are war crimes or crimes against humanity AFAIU per international law either war crimes or crimes against humanity do not by themselves mean there is a genocide. Almost all wars will see these crimes in isolated instances at a minimum, but that doesn't translate to genocide without the dolus specialis(special intent) factor as a deliberate policy(i.e. Nazi's implementing the Holocaust as policy).

dragonwriter 29d ago
> AFAIU per international law either war crimes or crimes against humanity do not by themselves mean there is a genocide Correct, and I didn't say that they did. I said that even if enumerated acts of genocide in the convention, committed with genocidal intent, were excluded as being genocide by some “dual intent” rule—which I can find no evidence of ever existing or being theorized by any serious authority on international law—if they were in the context of war and would be legitimate acts of war when done without genocidal intent, that still wouldn’t stop all the acts Israel has done with genocidal intent, even if during war, that include acts enumerated as genocidal acts in the Convention and which are, even aside from genocidal intent, war crimes or crimes against humanity and, therefore, not legitimate acts of war even before considering whether they constitute genocide, from satisfying the defintion of genocide in the Convention. You are basically arguing that you can never have genocide during a war because otherwise legitimate acts of war, committed with genocidal intent, don’t count even if they are enumerated genocidal acts in the convention, and war crimes and crimes against humanity done with genocidal intent that are or include enumerated genocidal acts also don’t count as genocide when committed during war because “all wars will see these crimes”. But aside from the fact that no basis for the claim that either of these exceptions actually exists in international law has been offered, this ignores that the specific genocides that motivated the convention were committed during wars; its bizarre to argue that the Convention should be read to sub silentio exclude all enumerated genocidal acts perpetrated with the described genocidal intent that happen to occur during war from the scope of the prohibition on genocide.
- jameshilliard 29d ago
  > You are basically arguing that you can never have genocide during a war because otherwise legitimate acts of war, committed with genocidal intent, don’t count even if they are enumerated genocidal acts in the convention, and war crimes and crimes against humanity done with genocidal intent that are or include enumerated genocidal acts also don’t count as genocide when committed during war because “all wars will see these crimes”. I'm arguing that the genocidal intent is really the crux of the issue and that the genocidal intent needs especially strong evidence in a war. Legitimate war goals existing for a conflict generally raise the evidentiary bar for something to be considered a genocide as they tend to serve as the plausible alternate non-genocidal intent.