Iāve got a lot of mixed feelings on this thread, I agree with some parts, but the framing of people engaging in online discussion of geopolitical conflict as participating in āfandom like mob behaviourā, along with OP spreading what is hopefully misinformation in the comment section raises a lot of red flags to me.
It is an absolute no brain statement that you should not comment on geopolitical conflict based on a handful of tiktoks. However, it is strange to me that what is encouraged within the rest of the post is not to do further research, but instead ignore it entirely.
I also find it quite strange that those claiming to have ignorance of the subject are stating that a) the people who are talking about it also donāt know anything and b) the people talking about are actively trying to manipulate and spread disinformation, and c) are just talking about it to virtue signal.
Which leaves to a bit of a logical fallacy. Either these people do have an opinion, however it is unpopular/controversial/they simply do not recognise it as one and are claiming neutrality to obfuscate the fact. Or, theyāre justifying their lack of participation through degrading and trivialising those who do.
I probably wouldnāt have come to such an uncharitable conclusion (as there are actually valid critiques to be had in the way people participate in geopolitics online) had there been a discussion on how to circumvent this through research, as opposed to the contradictory thinking mentioned. Or if there was any actual specifics on what these people were referencing. I do wonder what the fifteen second sound bites actually are.
However, between the explicit reference to āto be silent is to be complicitā, OPās post in the comment section, and just the fact it is at the forefront in both the news cycle and social media, I think this is a vague post at least in part about the Israeli Palestine āconflictā.
In the comment section, OP made this reply to a commenter asking about Israel and Palestine.
The problem with this response is that it distorts, misrepresents and straight up lies about actual information, as well as leaving out important context.
In terms of the UN report. Yes, this was found by a committee, so it would be inaccurate to say that the UN is referring to it as such. The paper also did not declare Israelās actions to be a genocide, rather stating it was āconsistent with the characteristics of genocide.ā
The paper in question was published by the UN. The special committee in question was set up in 1986 by the UN to specially monitor Israeli Occupation, and the paper OP referred to is one of their annual reports. The actual paper freely admits that they did not do a full investigation. Because they were not able to visit occupied territories as their requests to visit these areas did not receive a response from Israel. Here is a list of what investigation they did do.
You can find the full report here.
In terms of the Amnesty International paper, I read through some of the relevant sections of the actual paper (here) as well as this article from the Guardian. I could not find anything at all to verify the claim that āAmnesty International, in the big report using that term, stated the facts donāt meet the legal definition, but they thought the definition should be changed so they were going to use it anywayā¦ā. At most I could find was an acknowledgement that it is difficult to interpret if certain actions would have certain causation, and that:
It is also important to note that Amnesty International werenāt anticipating to rule this as genocide, expecting to follow the findings of the International Court of Justice, which found there was a risk of genocide. It seems strange to me that they would seek to change the definition instead of making a similar finding.
Also noteworthy is that this is first time that Amnesty International has accused a country of genocide during an ongoing conflict.
Now absolute disclaimer, I did not read all 296 pages of the document, I specifically looked through the sections discussing Genocide Under International Law (of which there is an entire section, see pg 85) along with the conclusion and reccomendations, as I thought these sections would be the most likely to state that the definition of genocide be changed. There is every chance I missed something, though I feel that such a controversial statement would likely be reported. Had the op cited any sources, I would have included them in my research.
At the end of the day, I really do think the majority of this post is people trying to justify their lack of engagement with these issues to themselves through framing people who do participate in discussion as doing so for the āwrong reasonsā. At the end of the day, it is the easiest option, and people will want to take it. And they have every right to do so, but they have to be content with the fact people will make judgements of their moral character because of that.
However, particularly in light of OPās framing of key documents relating to the Palestinian Genocide, it should be noted that refusing to engage in a topic and refusing to educate yourself on it is also a political act that will benefit certain groups of people, ie the Bystander Effect.
It is worthwhile asking who, exactly, is encouraging you to do this.
