Invitation to u/MeganDelacroix to explain and possibly defend her position on the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people

submitted by ageingrockstar from self.WayOfTheBern

I had an exchange on here with u/MeganDelacroix a bit over a week ago now. She made a comment that I found 1) highly ignorant and 2) frankly repulsive and which I've been dwelling on since. Here's the quote :

the idea that Israel is committing "genocide" against a population that is constantly growing strikes me as comically grotesque. They must be doing something wrong.

Her comment is ignorant because it demonstrates she doesn't understand what genocide entails and how it has been defined under the United Nations Genocide Convention. (Or maybe she does know but rejects that definition?) The comment was also repulsive in her callow suggestion that if the Palestinian people suffer genocidal attacks but still are 'constantly growing' then it can't be genocide because 'they're doing something wrong', the Palestinian people have not yet been reduced to a fraction of their former population size or fully wiped out. And thus somehow describing it as genocide without successful eradication of the Palestinian people is 'comically grotesque'.

I am still feeling disquieted by this remark of hers a week on. I invite her to expand on what she meant in that comment and to give us a clear description of her position on the current conflict and the history of Israel's occupation of Palestine over the last 75 years, and the immense suffering and atrocities they have inflicted on the Palestinian people. I think that language makes my position clear; I invite her to do the same.

all 8 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Right. You're not satisfied with 99.99999% of the people here having the exact same opinion; it's very important to seek out and stone the one heretic in public.

If all you wanted was my opinion, you could have continued the exchange in question, or asked me in a private message. We had a cordial relationship until now. But it seems what you want is a crowd behind you.

Thank you for your invitation, but I decline to participate in your struggle session. You people have a lot more in common with the Democrats you hate than you realize.

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If all you wanted was my opinion, you could have continued the exchange in question

I was frankly shocked by what you said then, and I continued to dwell on it for days afterwards. If I had come back to it a week later to then further reply, the thread would have been cold and most likely no one would have seen our continued exchange except ourselves. I don't come on here only to engage with individuals. I come on here for my exchanges and discussions with others to be publicly visible; otherwise it's not worth the effort. It's fine if you want to leave what you said at that time without filling it in further. However, I think it's also fine for me to bring it forward in a new thread and develop my own responses further and challenge you to do likewise. What you said was on the 'public record' in a forum. You chose to say it publicly, it doesn't have to stay put in the place where you said it (although, to be fair, the original context should be linked, as I did).

Finally, to address this little sneer :

You people have a lot more in common with the Democrats you hate than you realize.

Does Chaya Raichik (LibsofTikTok) have more in common with Democrats than she realises too? Because what she does is what I'm doing - bringing what someone said publicly out for further examination. And twitter is full of ppl doing that all the time from all 'sides' of politics.

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Coming back to spell this bit out more fully :

what genocide entails and how it has been defined under the United Nations Genocide Convention

The many ppl calling Israel's treatment of the Palestinians genocide aren't doing it for rhetorical effect. They mean it properly and definitively and here, just as one of many examples, are two Jewish writers explaining why they call it genocide, making direct reference to the 1948 UN Convention :

And Israel has issued a directive to those remaining that amounts to an ultimatum: leave northern Gaza, all 1.1 million of you, “for your own safety” – in other words, evacuate or risk death in the impending blitz and ground invasion.

The United Nations says such a mass evacuation is “impossible” and has potentially “devastating humanitarian consequences,” pleading with Israel to rescind the order. A UN special rapporteur was clear, calling the order “a crime against humanity and a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.”

We call it something else: unfolding genocide.

There is no other word to describe the pageantry of death embraced by Israel’s politicians. Under international law, genocide requires two things: an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” and then the attempted destruction of that group. Without intent, these actions amount to ethnic cleansing. If deliberate, they are considered genocide.

Israel seems to be laying the groundwork for destroying Gaza and its residents: President Isaac Herzog on Friday said Gazans are not innocent civilians: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true.” This contradicts international law that prohibits collective punishment and the targeting of civilians, both of which amount to war crimes. It also suggests that Israel will show no restraint in its attacks on Gaza.

Forced displacement, which Israel has begun, is an established precursor to extermination – one of the final steps, in fact, in the 10 stages of genocide cited internationally by genocide scholars and institutions, including by Holocaust museums across the world. These steps, which can occur simultaneously, include “dehumanization,” acts that deprive groups of water and food, and the false labeling of military operations as “counter-terrorism.”

We are there. Israeli officials are invoking terrorism to justify their indiscriminate bombing campaign, while the Israeli defense minister said that they are fighting “human animals” – dehumanising language that is always used in the lead-up to genocide. And an unnamed Israeli defense official was quoted as saying: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeated his promise that the mass death inflicted thus far is “only the beginning.” The Gaza strip is under “complete siege,” the defense minister said, and cut off from electricity, fuel, food and water. A Knesset member openly called for a second Nakba, referring to the mass displacement of Palestinians in 1948. Again, to deliberately create another Nakba would amount to genocide in Gaza.

The rhetoric has made it down to the rank-and-file, too: an Israeli soldier said on national television that this war is not just with Hamas, but “with all the civilians.” This indiscriminate erasure of Palestinians in Gaza would, without doubt, be genocide – as an Israeli genocide scholar has himself stated. The precursors to genocide are actively unfolding before our eyes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/18/israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians

(There are a number of links in the quoted text which I haven't reproduced here, including one where they link to the Convention)

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'll be curious where this goes. Watching.

[–]sdl5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Note they responded to ME below at great length, with multiple demands...

AFTER reading my comment and ignoring I was very clear I would not engage with them again.

They can debate and challenge and discuss to their heart's content with anyone willing but that does not seem to be enough for them, they have to insist on engagement even when declined, or (and this is priceless!) expect you to Block them so they don't see you on here either.

Smdfh at this

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This thread was about criticising something someone said (while inviting them to defend/expand on it), without criticising the person.

You've come in and criticised me and, when cordially invited, refused to back it up with anything I've actually said.

[–]sdl5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

rock star keeps doing this- personal demands in Comment threads for very specific responses from individuals to his own arguments- followed with attacks on character or assumptions as to the other person's values or political takes if they do...

And now aggressively insisting on pursuing those who have declined to continue the farce so he can create the monster he wants to attack.

Because very frequently it is based on an entirely misunderstood (deliberate or not is unclear) Comment by said other individual.

This guy attempted to paint ME as a rigidly conservative guy with little political savvy and even less knowledge about Russia et al.

All because I sniped one of their comments as being naive as well as ignorant of longer historical geopolitics. It was so naive I was shocked when they then seemed to both be old enough to know better AND probably reside in EU! And I stopped engaging- because no one can be that oblivious to reality without it being willful, and nothing good comes from continuing a "debate" with that kind of mindset person.

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm open to this criticism. First, could you link to the discussion you are referencing here :

This guy attempted to paint ME as a rigidly conservative guy with little political savvy and even less knowledge about Russia

And bring any other examples you like too. Without actual examples, I can't properly address what you are saying and possibly acknowledge fault (which I'll be happy to do if see that I have erred).

However, I will say one thing generally. When I 'pursue' (as you put it) ppl it is because I am interested in proper intellectual debate and frank exchange of views. Anything that a person says in a forum can be challenged, explored further, or examined for intellectual consistency or coherency. Including, of course, things said by myself, I'm not special. And if a forum doesn't do this, or it's not allowed, then I'm frankly not interested in participating in such a forum. But also fine if ppl choose to disengage with me, I make similar choices, and you're welcome to completely block me if you choose to do that too.

Anyway, I'll wait for specific examples for your criticism. I acknowledge that I may have been in error at times and will concede it in examples you bring if I can see it. But I hold ppl and will continue to hold ppl responsible for the positions they take, especially for monstrous positions such as supporting genocide (if that's actually the case with Megan). It seems a small thing to wear some verbal criticism when many people are suffering much worse consequences from other people 'disagreeing' with their very existence.