• AreaSIX @lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):

    “A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”

    Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.

    • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Thank you, that is a very helpful insight!

      crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements

      Why do we then seem to hear only about the genocide controversy? Wouldn’t it be easier/faster/more obvious to argue for all the other crimes mentioned above?

      • AreaSIX @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.

    • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I’m genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)