responding to common objections to bible part 4

[HoreTore]

Who attacked who first is utterly irrelevant. I cannot stress this enough, but you can't seem to grasp it. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether it was genocide or not.

You do not seem to see the difference between evicting a population and toppling its leadership either. I do not know how to explain this simple enough for you, sorry. When the US attacked German-occupied France(which wasn't annexed(owned) so even less relevant), there was no removal of civilian populations. A change in statehood is a change in statehood, and has little to do with genocide. Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war. If Germany today was to claim it as its own and annex it, this would be a breach of international law. If they forced the french living there away, it would be a genocide.

I have no problems in accepting arguments that the removal of German civilians from Prussia by the Soviet Union after the war constituted a genocide.

Israel was Abrahams land? Irrelevant. The Canaanites lived there now, it was their land. The Canaanite population cannot be forced to leave without it being a genocide. You could subjugate them, and it would merely be unlawful under other conventions, but not remove them. That will always be termed genocide.

There are absolutely no provisions under international law to retake previously owned land. Doing so is under all circumstances an illegal act.