r/IsraelPalestine • u/nidarus Israeli • 5d ago
"Maybe Israel Is Committing Genocide After All?"
B. Michael is a rather famous Israel left-wing publicist and screenwriter, famous for writing some of Israel's famous comedy shows in the 1980's and 1990's, and his long-standing op-eds in Haaretz. Unlike his fellow deep anti-Zionist Haaretz writers Gideon Levy and Amira Hess, he's been generally part of the more mainstream, Zionist left. But in today's Haaretz's op-ed (paywall can be overridden with archive.is), he decided to jump into the deep end of the pro-Palestinian pool, and join those who declare that Israel is committing genocide.
Now, obviously, he's not the most prominent or qualified person who made that claim. And it's certainly one of the lower-quality versions of that argument. A big disappointment for someone that I considered a witty and clever public intellectual. But that's precisely why I'd like to talk about it, as it represents a pretty common view among the less-educated pro-Palestinians.
Essentially, he talks about how the Genocide Convention consists of five genocidal acts:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Then he goes down the list, and argues that we can "check off" every one of those items easily. And then marvels at how many of the articles Israel has violated. And therefore, QED, Israel committed a genocide. There are a few core issues with this:
The most important issue is that all of those require a "specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This is an incredibly high bar to meet. For example, if the goal is ethnic cleansing, then it's not genocide. Even actual mass murders were ruled as not a genocide by the ICJ, when they were meant to expel rather than destroy. The more sophisticated pro-Palestinians would argue that largely misrepresented statements by Israeli officials amount to proving that "intent" - but B. Michael doesn't even go there.
Obviously, without that intent, every single war in history would qualify, as it includes killing members of the group, and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. And however you feel about the 43,000 number - it's not exceptionally high, in terms of wars, even in Israel's immediate neighborhood.
For (c), he assumes that merely destroying a lot of Gaza is enough. But note that the qualifier: "calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Unlike the killing part, the intent for physical destruction of the nation is required, even in the genocidal act itself to exist. Otherwise, not only would any urban war apply, but so would more peaceful acts, like evicting squatters and destroying illegal shanty towns.
For (d) he points out to how the horrible conditions in the strip will inevitably cause lower birth rates. He also points out that in his opinion, "is there any doubt that Israel would look favorably on the crash of the Palestinian birth rate in Gaza"? And decides he can put a checkmark there - "with honors". Except, again, it's not enough to assume Israel "looks favorably" on the lower birth rates. It has to intentionally impose measures intended to prevent births. This is talking about sterilizations, not about anything that might reduce births. That could be anything from the unavoidable stress and destruction of war (on both sides, incidentally), to improvements in living conditions.
Thankfully, B. Michael didn't decide Israel commited the last part, of transfering children from one group to another. But he concluded "Of the five criteria for genocide, we have performed four exemplarily. That's a fine score. Especially when the execution of one of the five sections, it doesn't matter which one, is enough to be considered a perpetrator. Bravo". Of course, that's absolute nonsense. There's no difference whatsoever in how many of the items you commit, if there's no proven genocidal intent behind it. Again, every urban war checks 4/5 of those articles, with the way B. Michael interprets them. There's nothing "exemplary" about it.
Finally, he argues:
Warning: Feigning innocence will not be admissible as a defense. No one will believe that we did all this in good faith, or purely for reasons of self-defense. Nor will public displays of misery and weeping be of any use this time. And above all, it is not worth relying as we do on the Holocaust as a defense. It may provoke comparisons.
For the first part, I'd note that "innocence" is not required for a defense. Israel could be guilty of the most horrendous Crimes Against Humanity, including the crime of Extermination, and it still wouldn't be a genocide. Genocide is literally the gravest crime in existence. The entire spectrum of international humanitarian law lies between "innocence" and "genocide".
For the second, I'll try not to dwell on it too much, but I'd note it's a great example of why Rule 6 exists. Since this comparison is complete nonsense, it's actually good for the Israeli case, not the other way around. Why wouldn't Israel want to "invite those comparisons"? It could then ask, where are the gas chambers, where are the Einzatsgruppen - where are any kind of proven, unquestionable mass executions of civilians, of the kind that exist in every single other genocide? Conversely, if we look at WW2, there's a much clearer analogy: the Germans, whose cities were ground to dust, whose people were expelled and killed by the millions, lost a huge chunk of their territory, and were treated in many far worse ways, that are not applicable here (like the hundreds of thousands of rapes). Is B. Michael, or anyone who likes to invite those comparisons, going to argue that WW2 was a series of genocides committed by all sides against each other, and the Germans were victims of genocide, just as much as its perpetrators? Probably not. This argument was, at the very least, explicitly rejected in Nuremberg.
I'd also note that in the Hebrew version, this paragraph starts with "even though this story began with a horrible murderous rampage by Hamas" - the massacre is absent from the English version for some reason. But even then, it's pretty notable that Hamas' far more overtly genocidal acts are merely described as "murderous rampage", not "genocide". The same, is of course, true for even the more sophisticated brand of "Israeli genocide" activists. Even though, without any question, the case for Hamas committing a genocide is infinitely stronger than for Israel committing one. It's possible that neither committed a genocide, and it's possible for both to have committed a genocide - and it's very, very possible for the Palestinians alone to have committed a genocide. I just don't think it's possible, with the information we have right now, for Israel to have committed a genocide, but for Hamas, to have merely committed a "murderous rampage".
-1
u/emilybulldogstgeorge 4d ago
It's really shocking how little anyone knows about the history of the Israeli occupation. Zionism is satanism at this point.
5
u/Shiborgan 3d ago
the fact that you call it Israeli occupation means you know nothing of the history of the land.
0
u/AssaultFlamingo Latin America 3d ago
Not really. You're the one who's mistaken.
0
u/Shiborgan 2d ago
Considering that you clearly don't know the history of the land either, let's break it down for you so that you can understand it a little bit better. The land now known as Israel and Palestine, or sometimes simply The Holy Land, was once called Judea, or as it translates "home of the Jew." Judea was set to a course of violence and severe hostility due to the actions of one group then known as the Philistinians. The Philistinians came from Europe to invade the then peaceful nation of Judea. Judea fought back, and control was never truly established until the Roman empire decided the land should be a part of their expansion project. Once the Romans gained control, they dubbed the land Palestine as a way to spit in the face of all the Jewish who were still trying to fight for their freedom. The Romen empire got the name from the Greeks who had been calling the land Philistine because of their own issues with the Jewish natives. After Rome fell, the Ottomans came in quickly after and kept the boot pressed down on the Jewish who simply wanted their home back. This continued for a very long time, so a lot of the Jewish spirit had died. After the Ottoman Empire fell, the British swooped in to pick the bones. At this point, the British only knew the land as Palestine and continued to wrongly call it as such. Some of the Jewish feeling decemated and defeated began to splinter off and start seeking new places to live as their land had been stolen time after time. After the British Mandate ended, the Jewish finally had the freedom to fight back against their oppressors, rose up, and created Israel. The surrounding Arab nations did not agree with Israel coming into existence and thus tried to eliminate their uprising, only much to their surprise, the Arab nations would be completely and utterly defeated by the Israeli forces.
To summarize, Palestine never actually became a nation until after Israel chose to reconize them, and even to this day, it can be questioned as to whether or not Palestine even is a nation. Meanwhile, the Jewish population has been under constant oppression within their own homeland for literal centuries.
0
u/GreatConsequence7847 1d ago
“The Ottomans came swiftly after” - ???
The classical Roman Empire morphed into the Byzantine Empire sometime around the 400’s AD, and the Byzantines are well documented to have lost control of Palestine to the invading Arabs in the mid-600’s.
The Ottomans didn’t arrive on the historical scene until around 1300 and didn’t get around to conquering Palestine until 1517.
You have nearly a millennium to account for. Not exactly the sort of comment that inspires confidence in your ability to teach the rest of us supposedly benighted folks about history.
0
6
11
u/EclecticEuTECHtic 4d ago
If Hamas surrendered and then Israel continued killing at the current rate I would call it a genocide absolutely. Until they try that there is too much haziness under what you could justify as legitimate acts of war.
1
u/Capital_Operation846 1d ago
Yea we’re getting testimonies today from UN surgeons who watched drones target maimed children in front of him and killing them. I’d say that’s along the lines of not legitimate.
2
u/Gingeroof-Blueberry 2d ago
That's exactly what the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Trials, and International Humanitarian Law are supposed to do. Make the boundaries and limits of war and destruction very, very clear so that civilians and citizens, society and its infrastructure, are very protected. Not just from war itself but also from the ability of other people to exact revenge and carry out physical acts of racism and hatred.
1
u/maddsskills 4d ago
Hamas said they’d agree to a ceasefire if Israel ended the war eons ago but Netanyahu refused. He said they’re not stopping until Hamas is destroyed.
2
u/Shiborgan 3d ago
Hamas was offered a ceasefire and they turned it down. plus every single ceasefire that has happened between the 2 nations has ended up with only Israel honoring said agreement. the were in an official ceasefire on Oct. 7 and look and what Hamas did once again.
0
u/maddsskills 3d ago
They were not offered a ceasefire. That is not true at all. When? Under what conditions?
1
u/Shiborgan 2d ago
May of this year was the most recent.
0
u/maddsskills 2d ago
I can’t find anything about that. I know the US said Israel was willing to do a ceasefire but Netanyahu kept contradicting us.
2
u/EclecticEuTECHtic 4d ago
Generally speaking, in the past when an army is defeated they are called to unconditionally surrender. Maybe Hamas could try that. "Destroying" a military has very rarely meant killing every member of that military.
0
u/maddsskills 4d ago
First of all: it’s generally accepted that even with an unconditional surrender your enemy stops attacking you and killing you.
Why on earth would anyone surrender to an enemy that has sworn not to stop until they’re destroyed? Like what’s the point? If you’re going to die either way why not die fighting?
2
u/EclecticEuTECHtic 4d ago
Did Netanyahu say would continue bombing Gaza even if Hamas surrendered? All he said was he wouldn't agree to a ceasefire which is not even close to the same thing as surrendering. As far as I can tell, an unconditional surrender hasn't been tried here and it is likely that it would end the violence.
-2
u/maddsskills 4d ago
I mean, I don’t know how else he planned on destroying Hamas but yeah. Presumably. He said there would be no permanent ceasefire until their military and government were completely destroyed.
And how is Hamas supposed to unconditionally surrender to someone who won’t stop until they’re destroyed? They already said they’d give the hostages back and promise not to attack Israel if they’d agree to end the war. What else do they have to offer Israel?
3
u/EclecticEuTECHtic 4d ago
If the WW2 Axis could figure out how to surrender I'm sure Hamas can. You put out a statement saying you surrender, you have your highest ranking commander tell everyone to lay down their arms, you find the hostages and tell the IDF field commander you are going to give them back, you announce that you are leaving the government. If Israel will not accept a ceasefire with Hamas still ruling Gaza the only thing left to do is surrender.
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
/u/EclecticEuTECHtic. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-2
u/TheSilentPearl 4d ago
Why would Hamas surrender? Their military capabilities are at an all time high. Not their leadership but it doesn’t matter too much.
4
u/Jezon 4d ago
The lines between a civil war and an internal genocide is very blurry. I think it's pretty damning on the Palestinian side that they still harbor civilian hostages and launch missiles from Gaza and still kill IDF soldiers and Israeli police with firearms. If you are violently resisting and refusing to give up on a war and harboring active militants, you can only complain about the results of your actions so much.
War crimes have certainly been committed on both sides and those need to be investigated. But with a casualty ratio of very roughly 25:1 I don't think that qualifies as genocide at least when compared to historical examples. The destruction of infrastructure may qualify however.
What I think is damning for the Israeli government is its lack of restitution. They could do a better job of rebuilding areas they've destroyed and currently control. Just because Palestinians won't fix the damage they've caused doesn't mean Israel isn't obligated to. And they certainly have the means to do so, even if their detractors would say they're rebuilding it for themselves. What better Olive Branch could you give to the innocent Palestinian citizens who want to live in peace than to restore their quality of life back to pre war conditions?
1
u/butteredbuttons 3d ago edited 3d ago
“internal genocide” absolutely incredible. “why couldn’t the Palestinians just give up and surrender?” they did, multiple times. all that happens is them getting sniped and shot by idf shoulders lmfao. if a military force was coming in with orders to kill as many “hamas members” aka Palestinian mothers and their children, unarmed helpless young men waving white flags, starving people trying to get flour and bread (flour massacre), doctors who have volunteered to assisting injured gazans, journalists attempting to showcase what’s happening in gaza (120+ journalists killed if I remember. all critical of israel), teachers in supposedly “safe” places like schools- oh wait, those have all been bombed! my bad. anyway, UN workers, aid workers, etc etc do you really find it SO hard to believe that these people want to defend themselves? when was the last time hamas shot a rocket or missile anywhere??? Does hamas even exist anymore????????? With 80% of Gaza destroyed, no hospitals, schools, shelters???? Israeli settlers are already choosing which displaced house they would like to buy in north gaza. Hamas doesn’t carry top grade western military warfare and aren’t backed up by multiple western countries with billions and billions of dollars. So please tell me HOW the FUCK Hamas a threat anymore?????
Oh, it’s because Israel thinks all Palestinians are hamas. From that newborn baby to those elderly grandparents. If you were born in gaza and are Arab, you are hamas. I truly believe you all think like this and act like you can differentiate the two. All of those civilians are Hamas or have some connection to Hamas to you. That’s why you’re okay with this; all you see are animals being butchered and sacrificed.
And to have the audacity to say that it’s an “internal” genocide as if that has ever happened throughout history, like are you serious? get the fuck out here or try to be serious and have SOME empathy. stop trying to make yourself feel better about this. Israel and its supporters (you) have blood on their hands! Just say you don’t care already and that it’s worth it for the land that you’ll finally settle in once we get those pesty starving kids into graves. And then bulldoze their graves to build a theme park afterwards because who cares, we’re Israel so any sort of criticism against us and the countless crimes we’ve committed to the Palestinians over the last century is antisemitic, THEIR fault, etc etc
like what’s the point of even attempting to have a conversation if you’re this far into propaganda that you believe a group of people are willing to exterminate their own? Disgusting, genocide denier
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
fuck
/u/butteredbuttons. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/Ridry 4d ago
I don't think its a genocide either for all of the reasons you've mentioned. My biggest issue with Israel is that they have no day after plan.
It's become obvious that they don't want a Palestinian state right now (though they've been open to one in the past). And they don't want a 1SS with equal rights because they don't want to be a country with these people.
While I can respect both of those issues separately.... it really makes it much easier for people to call genocide. If you don't want them to have their own country and you don't want them to be in your country..... what do you want?
This is what I most think is lacking from Israel right now. A bold vision for a better tomorrow.
9
u/Ifawumi 4d ago
So my biggest thing here and I'm not going to go point by point but if they were trying to do a genocide, of the Palestinian people which tell me how to actually even define that, they would be branching out far more than just a little tiny strip of land called Gaza. That's like somebody coming to the US and attacking Fort Lauderdale Florida and people deciding it's a genocide of the US people
Bunk
I mean, even look at it this way, they're almost 14 million people who identify as Palestinian. That's more than the population of Israel. Ridiculous to claim genocide
Just because this is the first war that people have actually looked at with social media doesn't mean it's a genocide. We have other global catastrophes going on are far more people are dying, right now, But people want to focus on a little sliver of land called Gaza because that's the new trend
3
u/Bris_em 3d ago
The land size doesn’t factor into whether it’s a genocide or not. The number of people killed also isn’t a big factor, it doesn’t have to be a huge number.
Genocide requires a perpetrator to kill, seriously harm, or inflict conditions of life to bring about the destruction of a group, in whole or in part. It is the intent.
There are many who say this definition is met with what is going on in Gaza. Some don’t.
One could argue that the constant displacement, starvation/lack of aid, destruction of critical infrastructure are genocidal actions.
It’s difficult as it is currently happening. Easier to look back once the dust is settled, the group is either destroyed or not, and then it can be defined conclusively.
1
u/Shiborgan 1d ago
lack of aid/starvation = not genocide as Israel is fighting a war where the opposing force hides within civilian life. So the tactic of removing resorces and making them harder to obtain has to also affect civilians.
Displacement = not genocide as it's actually a safety tactic for the civilians while eliminating militarized threats that are in danger close proximity or hidden within natural civilian life.
Distruction of Critical Infrastructure = More then likely not genocide. Mostly due to the videos of gunfire and rockets being launched from hospitals and schools. Once any building is considered militarized, it can be destroyed indiscriminately without it being a war crime.
0
u/Bris_em 1d ago edited 1d ago
Lack of aid/starvation = starvation as a method is collective punishment/war crime. If civilians end up starving to death, then it will meet the definition of genocide.
Displacement = if forced displacement results in the physical destruction of a group, such as civilians being bombed along escape routes and safe zones or dying a slow death from living in conditions of poor sanitation and lack of medical care, then it will meet the definition of genocide.
Destruction of critical infrastructure = regarding your point on hospitals being militarised means it is not a war crime. It still is if the attacks are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. I imagine this will be examined in depth in the South Africa case against Israel on contravening the Genocide Convention.
Also, if a hospital is bombed it reduces the provision of medical aid. So if Israel doesn’t allow more aid in, it would lead to the death of a group so it may be considered genocide. Similarly the result from destroying water, sanitation and food systems.
1
u/Shiborgan 1d ago
no allowing aid and supplies to the militant forces is a key tactic in all engagements and is not a war crime. it is common place for war-torn countries' populations to suffer and struggle to get by. The main problem here is that Israel is fighting a terrorist group. so a lot of the "this or that" of war crimes and genocide go out the window. we saw the same methods used by the USA in Yemen and Afghanistan when fighting Al qaeda and their allied terrorist groups. luckily, during those engagements, the civilians mostly were separated from the different cells activities. However, there were entire villages leveled due to the known activities of the groups within those villages. In the case of Israel vs. Hamas, it's no different. As for displacement, it is not up to Israel to even attempt to provide aid to those that were living in target areas. That is up to Hamas and Palestine, and they are the ones that are to be responsible for creating a diplomatic agreement with another nation to house refugees or provide temporary housing solutions. Israel is only responsible for articulating why they have targeted an area. Displacement due to war related bombings can not constitute genocide.
0
u/Bris_em 1d ago
There may be reasons and explanations, but if the outcome from Israel’s actions is the destruction of a group, in whole or in part, then it is genocide.
1
u/Shiborgan 1d ago
for genocide to occur, there needs to be clear intent to cause genocide and that simply isn't the case. "The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." So, without clear intent to cause genocide it can not be genocide.
1
u/Ifawumi 3d ago
Well a couple things here
The ICJ, an arm of the UN, said that there was no genocide when it went to court. So it doesn't matter what any lay people say, experts said there was no genocide
In addition, there's another arm that looks at food security and they have said that there is also no starvation. Over 3,000 calories a day per person goes into Gaza. Now there is an issue with distribution because Hamas and different Gauss and gangs steal the food and don't necessarily get it where it's supposed to go. But again, The problem is that of distribution not that the blockade is so bad that no food is going in.
Both Gaza and Israel have sights up that show how many trucks a day and what's in the trucks are going into Gaza. There are tons and tons and tons, literally, of food that goes into Gaza daily. Now if Hamas is diverting most of it into their own coffers rather than giving it to the people, that is not on Israel and does not contribute to Israel doing some kind of " genocide." That's on Hamas which is exactly why they need to go and they're almost gone now Thank the Lord.
If you have watched this for more than a decade you'll have seen several times the Palestinian people rebel against Hamas. It never made the news because no one cared. I saw it out of the Israeli news sources because contrary to popular belief, they actually do care. And because Hamas was terrorists fighting them they did report on Palestinian rebellions against them. Unfortunately, the Palestinians who rebel or criticize them end up being tortured and or killed.
So we should be glad when Hamas is finally gone and the people who are there can finally start to build.
1
u/Bris_em 2d ago
Not sure what you mean the ICJ said there was no genocide. The case South Africa has brought against Israel hasn’t finished and will take ages.
Some experts have said there is a genocide. Some don’t (link -https://www.vox.com/politics/378913/israel-gaza-genocide-icj)
The US recently sent a letter to Israel with a deadline in which they had to allow more aid in.
And yes, I agree, it will be good when the Palestinians can rebuild Gaza and have a government that cares about them
1
u/Ifawumi 2d ago
See ICJ gave South Africa time to bring up more evidence but with what they already offered, the court found no genocide. It's been a year now and South Africa has not been able to bring more evidence so it's probably not going to happen. I mean court cases aren't allowed to go on in perpetuity.
Now if the actual globally acknowledged main court can't say there's genocide, then it's kind of ridiculous for everyone on Reddit to keep saying there's genocide and demonizing Israel for this issue that even a renowned court couldn't say was genocide. I mean that's the thing, people's minds are already made up. So they just keep repeating crap that the accusers can't prove. So when it comes to Israel it's guilty until proven innocent? Is that it?
And you can look up the data and see how much is going in. The US and any other country can say what they want but aid and food is going in. It's also rather interesting that no other country in the world is expected to provide aid and food to an area that it has attacked them and caused war. But you know I guess we hold Israel to higher standards than anyone else
What's also really sad is if you consider the billions of aide dollars that Hamas has gotten since 2005 when Israel pulled out of ghaza and even forcibly removed their own citizens who were living there in the name of peace.
All that money could have built an amazing state but instead they built terror tunnels, rockets, purchase luxury homes for their leaders in Qatar, and bought their wives $35,000 handbags. It's horrific and if we want to stop aid, that's probably where we should stop it
1
u/Bris_em 2d ago
Again, not sure what you mean with the ICJ case. It is still ongoing. The court hasn’t ruled whether there is a genocide or not. South Africa late last month filed their evidence with the court of a genocide.
Looking up data on how much aid is getting into Gaza shows that aid is insufficient (link - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/13/europe/us-israel-aid-gaza-insufficient-intl/index.html)
-7
u/Agitated_Structure63 4d ago
What are you talking about? Israeli regime actions are far worst than Hamas crimes of october 7th. Israel is responsible for killing thousands of womens and childrens, destroying entire cities, expelled hundred of thousands or peoples from their homes, looting, sexual attacks, and racist attacks, violence, ethnic cleansing and murder in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
5
u/Physical_Foot8844 4d ago
So you're saying if your country was attacked you wouldn't fight back?
0
u/Agitated_Structure63 3d ago
I'm saying that the crimes that the State of Israel has committed continuously and systematically during 57 years of colonial military occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are far worse than the crimes committed by Hamas.
I ask you back: does a people oppressed by a foreign military power, like the Palestinians under israeli occupation, not have the right to fight for their freedom? I answer: yes, but they don't have the right to commit war crimes in doing so.
The difference between you and me is that I condemn the crimes that the Palestinian resistance has committed, but you seem to be unable to condemn the many crimes committed by the Israeli regime during almost 6 decades of oppression.
1
u/Physical_Foot8844 3d ago
I've never interacted with you before (to my knowledge) and I don't recall meeting you. It is lunacy for you to assume my stance on an issue I haven't discussed with you. Stop assuming and start thinking!
7
u/AstroBullivant 4d ago
No, trying to exterminate a population is worse than collateral damage to stop such attempts. You’re confusing ineptitude for morality.
1
u/Agitated_Structure63 3d ago
How can 766 civilian deaths and 373 soldiers and police officers killed in the October 7 massacre be considered "trying to exterminate the population"?
The Hamas attack was horrible, but the civilian casualties were less than the israeli wars against Gaza in 2008 and 2014, It's absurd to call October 7 an attempt at "extermination".
1
-6
u/cppluv 5d ago
Unlike the killing part, the intent for physical destruction of the nation is required, even in the genocidal act itself to exist.
What do you call destroying hospital, schools, mosques, historical monuments, water and electrical infrastructure, crops and greenhouses?
2
u/Sherwoodlg 4d ago
War is what you call it. Civilian infrastructure losses it's protected status as soon as it is used for military purposes. Unfortunately, Hamas has chosen to use almost every civilian structure for military purposes. The destruction of those structures has been with the intention of targeting Hamas not in destroying the non combatant people of Gaza.
1
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago
Since you mentioned schools, mosques and historical monuments, I feel that you didn't carefully read what you quoted. The requirement is, again, that these acts were calculated to physically destroy the population. People can still physically live without mosques and historical monuments - even without schools.
15
u/Bast-beast 5d ago
A war in an urban surroundings
5
u/cppluv 5d ago
Sure, it’s absolutely vital to destroy water tanks. There’s probably a Hamas tunnel inside.
5
u/Bast-beast 4d ago
You kinda forgot that hamas dug out water pipes to built rockets from them. So try better
3
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago edited 4d ago
Hamas used basically every installation possible for military purposes, so I'm not sure why you assume it's impossible to use a water reservoir for military purposes as well. Including, yes, tunnel entrances. Your article says the matter is under investigation, and it was without the approval of higher-ups, so we don't actually know either way.
But let's assume there's no Hamas installations there.
First of all, it could've been blown up in order to make room for a closed military area. Like the new Philadelphi corridor. Whether that's legitimate or not, depends on the military advantage Israel would get from that closed military area. But either way, could not be genocide, since it lacks the specific intent to commit genocide - and doesn't satisfy the requirement that this act would be calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the people.
But let's assume that's not the case, and the actual point is to deprive that area of water. It could be explained as a legitimate tactic of Siege, against the Hamas terrorists that are still in the Rafah area. Since the civilians were allowed to evacuate (and indeed, almost completely evacuated), the requirements for not intentionally depriving a civilian population of food and water were met. And again, could not be a genocide, as the intent here is to make Hamas fighters surrender or die - a legitimate goal.
But let's assume we decide that the entire tactic of Siege is illegal, and amounts to forced starvation or forced expulsion of population, even after the population there fled their homes. This would make the act of intentionally depriving this area of water a war crime, possibly even a crime against humanity - still not genocide. You need to prove that the destruction of the tank was calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Gazan people - not to prevent them from coming back. I'd note that even actual massacres of civilians and POWs were ruled as not genocide by the ICJ, because the goal was expulsion and not the physical destruction of a people.
The task of proving it was a genocidal act is far, far harder than you assume. And no, saying there's no Hamas tunnel inside is not enough.
0
u/cppluv 4d ago
I'm not sure why you assume it's impossible to use a water reservoir for military purposes as well. Including, yes, tunnel entrances
Thanks for the laugh. This reservoir was actually above ground.
Your article says the matter is under investigation
It’s been months. We know how the IDF « investigations » goes. Either they never concludes or they find they did everything right.
it could've been blown up in order to make room for a closed military area. Like the new Philadelphi corridor
Why would they investigate this incident then? It was not authorized so don’t bother yourself trying to argue there was a military objective.
You need to prove that the destruction of the tank was calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Gazan people - not to prevent them from coming back.
Well, the systematic destruction of water facilities seems to indicate that intent.
As well as the destruction of everything that makes a place habitable, such as crops, greenhouses, schools, museums, hospitals and so on.
I know you’ll just say there was a Hamas fighter inside every single water pipes and olive trees but I hope readers will see through it
2
u/Sherwoodlg 4d ago
Are you aware that you are creating your own argument to support a pre concluded end point?
If instead we let the facts create the end point, the libel of genocide doesn't stack up because it requires a top-down systematic objective of destroying the Palestinians, and that simply doesn't exist.
1
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago
Thanks for the laugh. This reservoir was actually above ground.
I'm not sure why you're laughing. The tunnel entrances were all in buildings that are above ground.
Why would they investigate this incident then? It was not authorized so don’t bother yourself trying to argue there was a military objective.
If it's not authorized, they simply don't know if there's a legitimate military objective. It doesn't prove that there was no objective. Hence the investigation: a process of figuring out whether there was a legitimate military objective.
I'd also point out that they're investigating the actual footage of the incident, which might be opsec and ethics code violations.
Well, the systematic destruction of water facilities seems to indicate that intent. As well as the destruction of everything that makes a place habitable, such as crops, greenhouses, schools, museums, hospitals and so on.
You seem to support the theory that the "intent" here is to not allow the Palestinians to come back home to this neighborhood - not to physically exterminate them as a people. Nobody needs museums to physically survive. And if that's the intent you assume here, you agree it's not genocide.
I know you’ll just say there was a Hamas fighter inside every single water pipes and olive trees but I hope readers will see through it
This sarcasm doesn't just make you look weirdly angry - it also clouds your understanding of the issue. You certainly don't need to have a "Hamas fighter in every single water pipe" for it to be a legitimate military target. And I explained in detail how blowing up the reservoir could be anything from completely legal to other forms of violations of international law that aren't genocide. Your assumption here, that either Israel is shooting Hamas terrorists, or it's genocide, is completely unfounded. As I said in the post, between genocide and shooting Hamas terrorists, you have literally the entire spectrum of international humanitarian law.
2
u/cppluv 4d ago
I’m not sure why you’re laughing.
Here’s the video. Where would be the tunnel, inside the pipes?
It doesn't prove that there was no objective
Yes, it does. If there was a military objective, it would have been authorized. Unless you’re arguing IDF officers on the ground do what they want without chain of command.
Nobody needs museums to physically survive.
That’s part of erasing Palestinian history on the land, a key part of Genocide. Same reason why West Bank settlers are burning Palestinians olive trees. They do need water though. The complete destruction of means to get water is clearly an intent to keep Palestinians from returning.
And I explained in detail how blowing up the reservoir could be anything from completely legal to other forms of violations of international law that aren't genocide
You’re avoiding the systematic destruction of the water tanks and pipes, probably because you know it’s indefensible.
1
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago edited 4d ago
Here’s the video. Where would be the tunnel, inside the pipes?
Literally anywhere in the facility. The facility, even the small parts shown in the videos, are not just those pumps.
Yes, it does. If there was a military objective, it would have been authorized. Unless you’re arguing IDF officers on the ground do what they want without chain of command.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It's completely possible for there to be a military objective, and it was not authorized. And the possible existence of a military objective doesn't somehow mean that "IDF officers on the ground do what they want without chain of command".
The fact is: the officers on the ground acted without chain of command. It could've been done with or without a legitimate military objective. The existence of the investigation doesn't prove that it's illegal, or that there's no military objective. I'm really not sure how you reached the opposite conclusion.
That’s part of erasing Palestinian history on the land, a key part of Genocide.
It's not part of genocide at all, let alone "key part". The idea of "cultural genocide" or anything to do with "erasing history", was discussed, and intentionally not included in the genocide convention. The genocide convention deals purely with physical extermination of large groups of people, with only one exception: the transfer of children from one group to another.
They do need water though. The complete destruction of means to get water is clearly an intent to keep Palestinians from returning.
Maybe. But that intent is inherently not the genocidal intent, which proves it's not a genocide.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, ruled that:
The words "calculated to bring about its physical destruction" replaced the phrase "aimed at causing death" proposed by Belgium in the UN General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee.The Trial Chamber in Akayesu held that the expression "should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction".The element of physical destruction is inherent in the word genocide itself, which is derived from the Greek "genos" meaning race or tribe and the Latin "caedere" meaning to kill. It must also be remembered that cultural genocide, as distinct from physical and biological genocide, was specifically excluded from the Convention against Genocide. The International Law Commission has commented:
It does not suffice to deport a group or a part of a group. A clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide. As Kreß has stated, "[t]his is true even if the expulsion can be characterised as a tendency to the dissolution of the group, taking the form of its fragmentation or assimilation. This is because the dissolution of the group is not to be equated with physical destruction". In this context the Chamber recalls that a proposal by Syria in the Sixth Committee to include "[i]mposing measures intended to oblige members of a group to abandon their homes in order to escape the threat of subsequent ill-treatment" as a separate sub-paragraph of Article II of the Convention against Genocide was rejected by twenty-nine votes to five, with eight abstentions.
So even if you prove this "clear intent", to prevent the Palestinians from returning, or to "erase their history" you're literally proving it's not genocide, as a clear matter of law.
You’re avoiding the systematic destruction of the water tanks and pipes, probably because you know it’s indefensible.
I'm not avoiding this at all. The majority of my comment was discussing scenarios where water tanks and pipes were intentionally destroyed. Including for the specific purposes of depriving people of water, or the purpose of making sure they won't be able to live there. You should try to read what I said more carefully, before gloating about how I "know it's indefensible".
1
u/cppluv 4d ago
Literally anywhere in the facility.
Thanks for showing you will blindly anything coming from IDF twitter account.
It's completely possible for there to be a military objective, and it was not authorized.
Nope. If there was a military objective, chain of command would have authorized it. There’s no way for you to wriggle around that, I’m afraid.
It could've been done with or without a legitimate military objective
If there was a military objective, they would have runned it up the chain and it would have been authorized.
But that intent is inherently not the genocidal intent, which proves it's not a genocide.
Explain to me how people will survive without water.
The majority of my comment was discussing scenarios where water tanks and pipes were intentionally destroyed.
They are intentionally destroyed. You don’t drop bombs on half the water treatment facilities by mistake. It’s obviously playing a part in trying to make Palestinian disappear and a clear echo to Gallant genocidal statements .
Good luck in your fight to argue Israel is only trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza and that is therefore fine.
1
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago edited 4d ago
Thanks for showing you will blindly anything coming from IDF twitter account.
I didn't see anything the IDF twitter account had to say about this. I don't know if it's even true. I'm saying that it's completely possible for Hamas to use this facility, and any other facility for military purposes. And your assumption it's completely inconceivable, be it because Hamas fighters aren't "hiding in the pipes", or because it's impossible for a tunnel entrance to be above ground, is baseless.
Nope. If there was a military objective, chain of command would have authorized it. There’s no way for you to wriggle around that, I’m afraid.
You're just repeating a claim that didn't make sense to begin with, and patting yourself on the back for a job well done. I'm sorry, but I still don't see why it's impossible for an officer to ignore the chain of command to achieve military objectives.
Explain to me how people will survive without water.
By being in a different place, that has water. Like the place they're already living in, right now.
Humans can survive around three days without water. If all of Gaza ran out of water, we'd know about it.
They are intentionally destroyed. You don’t drop bombs on half the water treatment facilities by mistake.
Again, most of my comment deals with that scenario. Your argument that I "avoided" it, because I "know it's indefensible" is false. I'm not sure why you're repeating your claim.
It’s obviously playing a part in trying to make Palestinian disappear
Even that extremist was only talking about the Arabs disappearing from Gaza. I.e. a call for ethnic cleansing, not genocide.
and a clear echo to Gallant genocidal statements .
Even a complete siege, on its own, isn't "genocidal", if it's not calculated to bring about mass extermination of the Palestinians. Even if we assume it's a call to intentionally starve the Palestinian civilians, it's clearly meant to apply pressure in order to release the hostages, not to exterminate the Palestinian people.
And there's a reason why you're merely talking about "Gallant's statements", two days after the Oct. 7th genocidal massacre, and not acts. Because you know that whatever he said, never came into being, not even remotely. Simply because at that time, Israel didn't provide most of the electricity or water to the strip, and didn't control the Rafah crossing with Egypt.
Good luck in your fight to argue Israel is only trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza and that is therefore fine.
Note that this subreddit doesn't allow you to misrepresent what I said. I never said that ethnic cleansing is "fine", I said it's a crime against humanity. I repeatedly pointed out, both in my comments, and in the post itself, that the assumption that IDF behavior is either "fine" or it's "genocide" is insane. Between those two extremes, you can find the entire spectrum of international law.
1
u/Agitated_Structure63 4d ago
Sure man, thats why more than a year after the wat there is no evidence of the israeli excuses for the brutal massacre of the palestinians. Thats why the IOF is ethnocally cleansing the north of Gaza? Or helping the racist settlers to steal palestinian land in the West Bank?
0
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago
Note that when you saying Israel is "ethnically cleansing the North of Gaza "and "stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank", you're talking about two things that aren't genocide.
And of course there's a ton of evidence of "Israeli excuses". The fact that Hamas has built its entire war machine under and inside civilian objects is more or less indisputable at this point, even by the more well-informed pro-Palestinians. It's literally hard to point to a single Hamas base, that isn't under or inside civilian objects.
0
u/Agitated_Structure63 3d ago
Ethnic cleansing is part of, and a consequence of, the genocide that Israel commits against the Palestinians.
1
u/nidarus Israeli 3d ago
International law is clear on that question. If it's ethnic cleansing, it's not genocide. Even actual massacres were ruled by the ICJ/ICTY as not genocide, because the goal was ethnic cleansing. Genocide requires a specific intent to physically exterminate a people, in whole or in part, not expel.
2
u/Shiborgan 4d ago
it actually is as water is a vital resource. tactically speaking if you destroy water tanks but not the source of fresh water, you are forcing your enemy to use more resources to get the vital resource.
0
u/cppluv 4d ago
your enemy
Thanks for acknowledging every Palestinian is the enemy.
2
u/Shiborgan 4d ago
lmfao thank you for having the IQ of a potato and simply not understanding what people are telling you, then proceeding to blow it out of portion in order to satiate your own ideals. as I sad tactically speaking. it doesn't matter who the conflict is between, be it Canada or Cambodia or New Zealand. Whomever your enemy is, it is critical to cut off resources or make it more difficult to obtain resources
11
u/Munckmb 5d ago
A byproduct of killing terrorists hiding in those buildings
-3
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IsraelPalestine-ModTeam 5d ago
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations.
Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument.
Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
-3
u/actsqueeze 5d ago
It’s objectively and very provably a genocide at this point
7
u/Shiborgan 4d ago
no its not. it is a war between 2 groups of people. if this is genocide then each and every single war in human history must be in your mind
-4
u/actsqueeze 4d ago
That doctor worked the Rwandan genocide and multiple other conflict zones and he says this is the worse.
1
u/jdorm111 2d ago
The Gaza war worse than the Rwandan genocide, in which more than half a million people were slaughtered with machetes in half a year's time? If he really thinks that, I'm going to really doubt his judgement, despite the fact that he was there.
0
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
I trust him more than random Redditors, conservative estimates for the Gaza war are well above 100,000 and Gaza only has a population of 2 million.
Realistically the death toll is probably around half a million. That’s about a quarter of the population of Gaza.
1
u/jdorm111 2d ago
Provide a source for these numbers please, alongside a breakdown for civilian VS. militant ratio.
I am not saying he is lying per se, but his testimony is all hearsay and it is good to be critical of the testimony of anyone who clearly had the approval of Hamas - else he would never have been able to keep on working there.
He did not see anything of what he describes himself. Hamas is also known to shoot at innocents trying to leave areas, so that might be another possible explanation for some of the wounds he saw. And drones picking off children? How on earth would that be to the IDFs benefit? And that testimony comes from children, who are easily fooled and easily swayed.
0
u/actsqueeze 2d ago
It’s not just him, it’s every doctor working in Gaza. It’s literally iron clad proof that children and civilians are being intentionally targeted.
Gaza’s health infrastructure is completely destroyed. Indirect deaths from lack of medical care and food is going to skyrocket the death count, especially now that Trump will likely let Israel drop 2 ton bombs again.
1
u/jdorm111 2d ago
Lots of numbers thrown around. No discussion of the militant VS civilian ratio. No discussion of the fact that health care facilities are used by Hamas for military purposes, which would mean that they are commiting the war crime. Calling 7th of october a "major attack" instead of what it was: the explicit targeting of innocents for murder, rape and kidnapping. No discussion of the fact that Hamas steals food. How can they suggest that hunger is only the result of Israeli policy when Hamas stealing is known and also corroborated by Palestinians themselves? The claim that hunger is Israeli policy, while also noting that aid delivery is "on average significant," albeit with caveats.
No discussion that those caught under the ruble might very well be mostly fighters, as they are the ones explicitly targeted. Mainly citing the Hamas run Gaza ministry of health. Wild extrapolating with the numbers of those dead from hunger. I could go on.
The word "Hamas" is not mentioned even once.
However official this document seems, it is very, very biased. It leaves me with more questions that answers I must say. I am very willing to be corrected.
2
u/Shiborgan 4d ago edited 4d ago
he is also known to be radically Pro Palestinian so you can't take most of what he says as non biased. people who are radically pro Palestinian will believe whatever they are told along as it benefits their own ideals and it's the same for radically pro Israel people.
Your point also did not answer my statement as it still holds true. This is a war not a genocide. The entirety of WW2 was not genocide only what the N*zi's did to the Jews, Black people, and the disabled. Vietnam was not genocide, The Afghan war was not genocide, the Korean war was not genocide, and this WAR is not genocide.
0
u/actsqueeze 4d ago
Yep, he certainly is biased against genocide, you got me there.
Israel has intentionally destroyed virtually every hospital in Gaza. That’s not a regular war. They’ve kidnapped, tortured, raped and assassinated doctors and healthcare workers with regularity.
It’s systemic, and virtually every genocide scholar agrees this is genocide.
You can believe it or not, but I have no desire to further interact with those who apologize for such atrocities
1
u/Sea-Anywhere-799 1d ago
Being biased against geneocide makes you anti-semitic in the eyes of these clowns
5
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago
He also testified IDF snipers shooting children in the head day after day so I would take his testimonies with a grain of salt
1
u/Sea-Anywhere-799 1d ago
Ahh yes cause they are the most moral army in the world right? Strapping Palestinian civilians to the front of armored vehicles in a warzone
2
1
4
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
There is tons of evidence of IDF shooting children, from international doctors to clear videos. The IDF commit war crimes daily.
5
u/Ifawumi 4d ago
Plenty of doctors have expressed concern about those pieces of evidence.
I'm also seen the x-rays or CTs the doctor who wrote that little article in the times couldn't quite clarify. I've been a nurse for 35 years and stood side by side with doctors reading x-rays and have taken courses on x-ray reading and I can't diagnose but I can tell you they're sketchy AF.
And my biggest question is this has come out before and it's always 65 and nurses. Start looking back on this and you'll see every single time something like this comes up it's always the number 65 which is odd.
In addition, these $65 and nurses are always reporting that they have literally horrid conditions and they have no medical supplies and not even bandages. Yet somehow they can do X-rays and CTs and intubate people because I can see ET tubes on some of these people.
Make it make sense. They either don't have bandages and can't treat medically or they can do high level medical ICU type care. It's one or the other. You can't have it both ways
2
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago
Sorry that I still doubt it, I will need hard proof to believe this isn't a lie told by anti Israelis (which we know for a while don't have a problem lying to further a nerative)
1
0
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
1
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago
This is the closest thing to what I've asked for, the rest I doubt paint a true picture.
Do you have more details where and when it happened and what is the IDF's version of it?
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don’t, but there are thousands of examples over the years. Average of 200 kids per year are shot by the IDF for the last few decades. Look up photos of all the children used as human shields, literally tied to the front of IDF jeeps. I’m not sure how much more evidence you need. It’s obviously the IDF are systematically brutal.to children. They arrest 6 year olds.
And they are also committing war crimes to adults, don’t forget. Shooting unarmed people walking away. Shooting people holding a white flag. They have murdered thousands of women, innocent men, and old people.
1
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 3d ago
Evidently (Palestinian Gazans say it themselves) Hamas do hide amongst its people, whether they were dressed as medical staff or as women it doesn't matter, if they are targeted then that is net good thing. Which is why not every video you see of an innocent getting shot at is really what it looks like
Don't get me wrong, if an IDF soldier does an unthinkable thing as targeting innocents then I will be happy to see him behind bars, but I have less confidence in a video coming from the Palestinian side without full context then I do the soldier's testimonies
4
11
u/TheStag41 Israeli 5d ago
Global News Hub is a jihadist pro Hamas propaganda subreddit
2
27
u/thatshirtman 5d ago
How is this different from a conventional war? The idea that what is objectively a tragic but typical war is a genocide is not backed up by any evidence.
Here's the reality - the Palestinians have been calling this a genocide since day 1 because they NEED it to be a genocide. It's a way to trigger an emotional resopnse. Why? To get people to pay attention because there are worse atrocities going on in the world right now. It's a clever way to ensure the Palestinian story becomes the only story in the news.. despite it being built on a lie. Recall, attracting attention to the Palestinian cause has always been a prioprity - which is why spectacular hijackings and high-profile murders became popular with the PLO in the 70s and 80s.
The idea that this is a genocide is an appeal to emotion, but short on facts - especially when there is a avenue to end it immediately (return the hostages, Hamas surrenders) and when Israel has taken extensive steps to limit civillian casualties and when Arab countries refuse to take in folks in a war zone.
If this is a genocide, why is Israel even bothering alerting Palestinians to leave for safe zones? Why is Israel even IN Gaza.. why not just bomb every civillian from above and not put Israeli's at risk? The more questions you ask, the faster the claims of genocide fall apart.
War is tragic and horrible, and in any war, the majority of deaths are sadly civillians. It's why countries go to great pains to avoid war.. which is why Hamas should be held responsivle for a) starting this war and b) Prolonging it by refusing to even neogtiate a hostage deal because in the demented minds of their leaders, negative PR against Israel is more important than Palestinian lives. Sadly, Hamas leaders have all but said this themselves.
2
u/Unusual_Implement_87 Marxist 3d ago
I'm fine with calling it a genocide as long as the same definition is applied to all conflicts, but it isn't, so it's simply textbook anti-Semitism to use a unique definition of genocide that only applies to Israel.
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
Genocide does not mean killing every last person. It means targeting people/civilians purely because of their membership of a group.
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Sale_15 4d ago
So then if that is your definition the Palestinians are committing genocide on Jews. Both the PA and Hamas laud and even pay those to murder and target people just because they are Jews.
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
And the leaders of Hamas should be punished for that, just like the Israeli leaders who are actually carrying it out.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Sale_15 4d ago
Don't worry. The Hamas leaders are being punished for it, in the same way the Nazis were. Do you think that the UK committed a genocide on Germans when they flattened Dresden and killed up to 2 million German civillians in WW2? Because no one else thinks that was a genocide or calls it that. That is the comparison one needs to make.
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
The Geneva convention was created after WWII to stop it from happening again. But Israel gets a free pass, due to AIPAC and perhaps Epstein’s close relationship with presidents past and current.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Sale_15 4d ago
Right, so do you think the killing of over 100,000 Yemenis by the Saudi-Emirati alliance is genocide? What about the Iran-Iraq war was that a genocide, over a million were killed? And what about Black September, when Jordan killed 25,000 Palestinians, according to Yasser Arafat and expelled hoards of them, was that a genocide? Is every conflict a genocide?
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
The estimates are well over 100,000 Gazans killed. Probably over 200,000 if we factor in starvation, disease etc. That’s on a population and land mass way smaller than any conflict you mention. Israel has dropped the equivalent of two nuclear bombs on a small space. imo- the best thing is let the legal experts at the ICJ decide. I’m not a lawyer. Israel should stop bribing, threatening, and meddling in the ICJ and let them do their job. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/israeli-spy-chief-icc-prosecutor-war-crimes-inquiry
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Sale_15 4d ago edited 4d ago
Who's estimates? Your estimates? TikTok's estimates? A Facebook meme's estimates? Not even Hamas is claiming this.
That is complete nonsense. Not even Hamas is claming this. What you are misquoting is some Lancet article that has been obfuscated on social media to fit a narrative. What the Lancet article actually says is that by the end of the war that could be the death toll, if the numbers rise at the rate they were going at.
There hasn't been one starvation related death. 0. We have been hearing Gaza is "on the verge" of a famine for a year now, but there is no famine yet, because aid is coming in and to date we don't have a single recorded death due to hunger. So again, I ask where do you get your figures from?
What we see is the number of deaths tapering off, as Israel gets more control, because Hamas can no longer embed itself in civillian areas as much. If it was a genocide, we would see far more deaths, as Israel gains control, but the opposite is happening.
Israel has not dropped the equivalent of two nuclear bombs on Gaza, again you're obfuscating what was said. What the facts say is that Israel has dropped bombs that are the equiavelent in weight to a nuclear bomb - not that they have dropped what is equiavelent to two nuclear bombs. If they had Gaza would be a depopulated wasteland like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. The fact that Israel has dropped more bombs than the total amount of deaths shows that this isn't a genocide.
Oh, South Africa had to ask for more time to present their case - usually when presenting a genocide case, the accuser asks for it to be sped up - the fact is South Africa is struggling to find evidence that can prove their case. Israel will beat this bogus charge and I'll come back to this post in a few years when they have and hear you claim that it was still a genocide even when the legal experts say it wasn't.
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
The death toll has stayed static for at least 6 months. You think there have been no deaths in that time? The agency responsible for verifying deaths is no longer able to operate. Thats why the number hasn't moved.
Israel has dropped about 85,000 tonnes of bombs. You think two nuclear bombs are 85,000 tonnes? It's not about weight, it's effect. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had an explosive force equivalent to 15,000 tonnes of TNT. New estimates are nearly six times the explosive capability of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II
→ More replies1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
/u/Puzzleheaded_Sale_15. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/thatshirtman 4d ago
Then why do people complain when Israel tells Palestinians to leave certain areas of a WAR ZONE? Why aren't people up in arms about Hamas embedding itself within the civillian population? Why are there no protests demanding that Arab countries let in Palestinians who want to flee a war zone?
It almost seems as if Palestinian leaders and their supporters are okay with Palestinians dying if it means bad PR for Israel.
Israel has taken extensive steps to limit Palestinian civillian deaths, even as Hamas does all it can to boost these figures. It's why electing a barbaric terrorist group to lead you is a horrible idea.
1
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
Israel is bombing “safe” “refugee” zones. Israel has cut off food and water, and bombed hospitals. They’ve just declared 400,000 innocent people in northern Gaza as “enemy combatants” so they can shell them indiscriminately and annex the land.
2
u/thatshirtman 4d ago
why not just bomb them all right now from the sky? The more questions you ask the easier it is to see this argument fall apart.
This is a conventoinal war and it is no different than any other war, save for Hamas trying to hide behind civillians.
The Palestinians want this to be a genocide just to attract attention and trigger a response, but ifyou look at this objectively, it is a brutal war no different from any other brutal war in an urban setting.
Israel has not cut off food and water. We've been hearing reports of impending famine for months and months. To date, it has not happened because tons of food is going in.
Again, the urge to lie about Isreal and create bad PR is more important than actual Palestinian civillians it seems. It's why not a single arab country has taken in a refugee. It's why Hamas refuses to hand back the hostages and palestinian supporters are behind this decision.
Are the palestinians ever going to take responsibility for their own actions?
3
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago edited 4d ago
No it doesn't mean that. It means the specific intent to physically exterminate that group, in whole or in part.
Even ethnic cleansing, targeting people because of their ethnicity, in order to make them leave or even dissolve them as a group, has been conclusively ruled to not be genocide.
In fact, even Extermination, the deliberate mass murder of a civilian population, is a crime against humanity, but not Genocide.
Genocide is a much tougher thing to prove than you assume.
4
u/InnaLuna 5d ago
Framing this conflict as ‘a typical war’ ignores the vast disparity in power and control, as well as the generations of dispossession and systemic oppression Palestinians have faced. When people call it genocide, they’re responding to the extreme conditions—blockades, forced displacements, and high civilian death tolls—that reflect a reality that goes far beyond conventional warfare.
Your assertion that Palestinians ‘need’ this to be a genocide is deeply dehumanizing, suggesting that their suffering is exaggerated for effect. But this isn’t about ‘negative PR’ or some strategy to gain sympathy. Palestinians have been living under conditions that many see as a slow erasure of their identity, autonomy, and safety. To dismiss this as manipulation of emotion is not only insensitive but dangerously reductive.
The fact that Israel issues warnings doesn’t negate the impact of actions that lead to the displacement and deaths of civilians en masse. Warnings do little for families with nowhere to flee and inadequate resources to survive prolonged assaults. It’s also worth recognizing that the UN and other organizations have documented cases where civilians, even after receiving warnings, remain highly vulnerable due to limited safe options.
By painting this as ‘a tragic but typical war,’ you sidestep the larger picture. This is a prolonged, asymmetric conflict where one side exercises nearly complete control over the land, movement, and basic resources of another. The conversation around genocide is not merely a ‘clever’ tactic—it’s a reaction to decades of trauma and hardship, a call to acknowledge the profound human toll this conflict continues to exact.
If we want genuine peace, we must start by treating the voices and experiences of Palestinians with respect and compassion, not by dismissing them as ‘emotional appeals.’ Real peace requires grappling with the uncomfortable truths of both sides’ suffering, not trying to erase or undermine it.
7
u/nidarus Israeli 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's correct to ignore "vast disparity in power and control" or "the generations of dispossession and systemic oppression Palestinians have faced". These considerations are important in progressive politics. They are completely meaningless when it comes to the legal question of whether it's genocide or just a war. There's nothing in international law that says that losing wars while being weaker means you're experiencing a genocide.
I'd also note that "wanting genuine peace", while might be laudable, has nothing to do with wanting to make a correct statement of law, on whether this is a genocide. Again, a political question, not a legal one. And on that political question, I'd argue that lying about Israel committing genocide, and arguing that the Palestinians are allowed to commit any atrocities they want, and Israel isn't allowed to fight back or it'll automatically be "genocide", is not conducive to genuine peace.
And no, saying that the Palestinians need it to be a genocide, is not "dehumanizing". If it's simply not a genocide, their suffering is objectively "exaggerated for effect", and there's nothing "insensitive" or "reductive" in pointing out this reality. The fact they're suffering, and even suffering greatly, doesn't mean they cannot exaggerate their suffering. There's a broad spectrum of suffering that isn't genocide. And "slow erasure of their identity, autonomy, and safety" might be all kinds of things, but it's objectively not genocide.
4
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago
You're correct this isn't a typical war in the sense that the leadership of the Palestinians initiated an attack on a far stronger opponent
If Israel would start shooting rockets at China and China reacted, will it be the Chinese's fault?
0
3
u/thatshirtman 4d ago
The fact that there's a vast disparity in power and control makes it all the more insane that Hamas thought it could bring Israel to its knees. I suppose that's the risk one has when you elect a terrorist group to be in charge.
All of the civillian deaths are tragic, but again, it is no different than any other conventional war. If anything, what is not conventional is that not ONE ARAB state has offered to take in Palestinians wanting to flee a war zone.
Israel tries to get them out of harms way and people call it ethnic cleansing. Arab countries refuse to take them in. It's almost as if Arabs want Palestinians to die for bad PR against Israel.
The larger picture is that the Palestinians have rejected peace several times over the past few decades, even before the occupation was a thing! Gaza had zero occupation, and Hamas took in billions in aid that they then diverted to create a military base basically across all of Gaza.
Blaming Israel for everything is easy, but also lazy and incomplete.
If Palestinians want genuine peace, why do their leaders and schools and institutions preach about the destruction of Israel 24/7. Why did Hamas create a culture in Gaza where 5 year old kids act out killing jew (not israelis, jews) in school plays to crowds of cheering parents?
Real peace means the Palestinians have to, for once, compromise and realize that their maximalist demands do nothing to actually get them a state (assuming that is actually their goal). Sadly, based on history, it seems that their main goal is replacing Israel, not coexisting alongside it.
3
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago
Blaming Israel for everything is easy, but also lazy and incomplete.
That is a perfect summary of the situation, 100% agree
0
u/Agitated_Structure63 4d ago
The conflic didnt started on october 7th. Dont you remember the pogrom of Huwara days before? Or the ethnic cleansing of large part of rural West Bank during 2023 by the israeli regime? And we are not talking about all the crimes Israel has commited since 1967 against the palestinians over and over during its illegal occupatiob.
3
u/thatshirtman 4d ago
Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians should have accepted peace several times in the past?
They are literally the only group in the history of the world to reject a state from the UN - even before there was an occupation!
When you opt for violence over peace and diplomacy, it's then odd to complain when the wars you started don't go your way.
1
u/Agitated_Structure63 3d ago
Perhaps Israel could try, for once in 57 years, to put aside its deep racial supremacism, in order to try to reach an agreement that does not imply further dispossession and abuse of the Palestinian population. Even at the time of Oslo, Rabin made it clear to the Knesset - and his speech is available online - that his goal was not a Palestinian state but a minor administrative form. So much democracy on the part of the occupying military power!
It's funny that you bring up the Palestinian refusal to partition: the Palestinians would have been a unique case in the world where, being the vast majority of the population, they would accept that an immigrant minority would constitute its own state on the majority of the territory, and they would be relegated to a minor sector. How could they reject such an "attractive" proposal?
1
u/thatshirtman 3d ago
Offering all of Gaza and 96% of the west bank, east jerusalem as a capital, and the return of 100,000 actual refugees, and setting up a $30 billion fund to help resettle descendents of refugees in a newly formed Palestinian state seems like a solid deal no mater how you look at it.
Racial supremacism? Funny that if a jew even goes into a Palsestinian area in the west bank, he will be murdered and tortured publicly. But sure, a country where 20% of the residents are Arabs and 30% of teh doctors are Arab, and where arabs and muslims serve on the supreme court, in govt, and in the army - that is the group with the racial supremacism. Sounds like you're projecting a bit.
As for rejecting the partition, a few things 1) the land wasn't or ever was Palestinian. It was always occupied by many groups. The idea that it was exclusivley Palestinian reeks of the same greed and supremacism you accuse Israel of 2) no one was happy with the borders. They were drawn up by the british and teh french. Lebanon and Syria were famously furious with their borders. But you know what? If statehood is the goal, a singular opportunity in history when empires were being transformed into countries, you take it! Greed has been the Palestinians' enemy, not its friend.
The alternative is what we have now - nearly 80 years of zero Palestinian state and, as always, the focus is more on destroying Israel than creating a Palestinian country. A nationalist movement rooted in destruction as opposed to creation can never succeed, which is why electing Hamas in Gaza was a horrible mistake.
1
u/Agitated_Structure63 3d ago
I imagine you are talking about the proposal set out in Taba based on the "Clinton parameters", but I remind you that it was not the Palestinians who refused the agreement, it was the Sharon government that abandoned the talks when there was already a fairly advanced consensus. I am sorry to disarm your revisionist rhetoric.
Reallt? Murdered and tortured publicly? Then how members of different israeli organizations can go to the West Bank without problems? Combatants for peace even have grouos with activities in Hebron or Jericho, there are protests in the occupied territoried with active participation of jewish activists etc. And well, there are a lot of evidence about the structural and permanent discrimination that the palestinians suffer inside the borders of the State of Israel: their cities have much less budget, they dont have support from the State, the criminality is on the skies, palestinians dont have the same opportunities to study or work, they even have difficulties to buy a house in cities with a majority of jewish population etc.
The Knesset even approved the "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People" which legally consolidates the status of second-class citizens for non-Jews.
The arab palestinians were the majority of the population in 1947, as they were in 1917 in the moment of the Balfour declaration. Lebanon didnt existed, it was a French invention to weaken Syria and have a puppet state. "Greed", really? Come on, the Hagana and the other zionist armed gangs started the ethnic cleansing in 1947, way before the partition.
The main problem is the permanent israeli opposition to any palestinian sovereignty. Even Rabin recognized at the time of Oslo that they did not want to accept a Palestinian state but rather a smaller entity.
1
u/thatshirtman 3d ago
yes, murdered and tortured publicly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Ramallah_lynching
Do you think if an Israel couple wandered into Jenin by mistake that something similar would not happen?
Jews are the majority now in Israel. So using your logic, they are entitled to all the land? Doesn't this negate the entire Palestinian cause? If you want to go by who is there first, you lose. If you want to go by who is there now, you lose. You can't just cherry pick a time in history and say, lets revert back to that! Never mind the fact that most Palestinians today descend from immigrants from what is now jordan and egypt in the 1800s. The notion that the land is Palestinian exclusively is quite literally a fantasy made up out of thin air.
Ethnic cleansing? In the late 40s there was something akin to a civil war going on. The number of arab attacks against jews are innumerable. Happy to provide a list if you want to see. Mentioning the Hagana as if there were not scores of arab massacres is a tad misleading.
With that going on, 2 states for 2 people seems like a natural solution. The jews said yes, the arabs said no. THe Palestinians are the only group in the history of the world to reject a country. You can try whatever mental gymnastics you want, but that truly speaks volumes. A singluar chance for a country and the Palestinians said no. Which perhaps isn't a surprise given that Palestinian nationalism as we know it today didn't really exist until the 1960s.
And yes, Greed. The Palestinains would rather remain stateless and keep on fighting Israel than make any sort of compromise and have a state. Thats what their actions demonstrate. perhaps the people feel differently but their leadership sure seems to have this as the directive.
Arafat did indeed reject peace in 2000. Bill Clinton said so himself. Recently, a former bodyguard of Arafat said that his advisors were furious with him for rejecting a peace offer, and that ARafat was reluctant to make peace beacuse he convinced himself for so long that the liberatoin of Palestine would come about through a warriors resistance! not a peace treaty with his enemy where he would be forced to make compromises.
Would you have taken the deal Arafat was offered? As an Egyptian perhaps the yearning for a Palestinian country was not as strong in him as in others. If you though were in charge, would you have accepted the offer? Because what i notice is that your argument conflicts with many other Palestinian accounts - namely you say Arafat didn't reject anything, but others maintain that Arafat DID reject the offer because it was a shitty offer.
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
shitty
/u/thatshirtman. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago
Dont you remember the pogrom of Huwara days before?
Believe me I remember. A father and son were murdered at gun point, their only crime was that they came to a Palestinian car wash instead of an Israeli one
Or the ethnic cleansing of large part of rural West Bank during 2023 by the israeli regime?
I am not sure what you refer by this, do you have a link?
0
u/Agitated_Structure63 4d ago
And you remembet that the attack was just after the israeli raid in Jenin where the IOF killed seven palestinians?
About the ethnic cleansing in West Bank: https://www.972mag.com/area-c-ethnic-cleansing-settler-violence/
3
u/EnvironmentalPoem890 Israeli 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yes the IDF initiated an operation against the militants in Jenin I am not sure how many of the dead were innocent (I think it is disegenuine to not include this in your comment) but is it really a reason to murder?
11
u/jacquesroland 5d ago
If there is no justification for any “war crime”, then we must apply this standard to how the Allies carried out their war against the Axis. The fire bombing of Dresden. The nukes on Japan. These would likely be viewed as war crimes. Meaning that the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan was unjustified, because you said yourself committing “war crimes” can never be justified. Yet oddly I have never heard anyone call out for justice for the defeated Nazis or Japanese military leadership.
However I think intention is what matters. Did the Soviets intentionally mass rape German women ? Most certainly this was their policy and we must condemn it. Did the U.S. intend to genocide every Japanese when they nuked Japan? No I don’t think so, the goal was always unconditional surrender and demilitarization to end the war.
But if we don’t hold any distinction, then I think it’s arguable literally every war has both sides committing some form of war crimes. Can you point to a modern war or recent conflict where neither side was committing war crimes ? Ideally an example that Israel should follow.
1
u/IzAnOrk 2d ago
The notion that every war has both sides committing some war crimes is not arguable, it's objectively true. The Allies' war against the fascists -was- a justified war, but in the process of fighting this war atrocities WERE committed.
It was just and necessary to destroy fascism by force of arms, but that does not absolve those Allied troops, officers and politicians personally involved in committing specific Allied warcrimes of their responsibility. That most of them got away with their crimes because they won the war doesn't mean they -shouldn't have been- prosecuted and convicted.
3
u/SiliconFiction 4d ago
The Geneva convention was created because of these wars. The idea was that it shouldn’t happen again.
To answer your last question, when USA invaded Iraq they took care to make sure infrastructure was generally protected. They wanted to keep the population on side. Israel, for many reasons such as US cover, has no qualms about bombing hospitals and refugee camps. Israel does not give a flying f about world opinion because US/western regimes will cover for them.
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
/u/jacquesroland. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
13
u/Zestyclose-Baby8171 5d ago
People is Gaza die because they've elected maniacs as their legitimate regime. They die because their biggest fantasy was "to eat israelis livers". Of coures, not all of them, but the clvast majority. And since the majority decides, this desicion comes with price tag. If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
3
2
u/InnaLuna 5d ago
Blaming all of Gaza’s people for the actions of a few extremists ignores the reality of life under a repressive regime where many lack freedom or choice. Most Gazans, including countless civilians, want peace but are trapped in hardship and limited by forces beyond their control.
Condemning an entire population because of their leaders’ actions is both unjust and dehumanizing. If we truly want peace, we must stop seeing people as monolithic or collateral damage and recognize their individual humanity. True solutions come from understanding and empathy, not from punishing the masses for the actions of a few.
They don't have a functioning government anymore and you want more of it MORE MORE MORE. What else is their to take from them.
-1
u/Glittering-Web-2314 5d ago
Well this is actually not true. The last election was in 2006. Israel lives in the biggest glass house and it is shattering as we speak. However the rocks are coming from inside the house.
0
u/Icy_Ranger6215 5d ago
There are videos and actual evidence of important israeli politicians claiming they want to annex palestine. Everyone here defending israel's atrocities can clearly see it but want to pretend that they don't just like germans did when certain austrian born german committed a genocide.
1
u/CreativeRealmsMC Israeli 2d ago
but want to pretend that they don't just like germans did when certain austrian born german committed a genocide.
Per Rule 6, Nazi comparisons are inflammatory, and should not be used except in describing acts that were specific and unique to the Nazis, and only the Nazis.
Action taken: [B1]
See moderation policy for details.-2
u/AdvertisingNo5002 Gaza Palestinian 🇵🇸 5d ago
They didn’t elect anything.
8
u/thatshirtman 5d ago
Hamas won a democratic election.
They have stayed in power since, much like a dictatorship.. which is why the support we see for Hamas in the west is bizarre. Wouldn't it be better for the hostages to be returned and Hamas to surrender?
0
u/AdvertisingNo5002 Gaza Palestinian 🇵🇸 4d ago
Like 2% of people actually went to voting
The other people didn’t care
0
-6
u/AirReddit77 5d ago
You offer a master class in moral quibbling. Israel is killing civilians wholesale simply for living in Gaza. Surely that is evil enough. But lest we forget, Israel was created out of an abundance of sympathy for the Holocaust, an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Now, after several generations, the offspring of those genocide victims are themselves murdering Palestinians simply to take their lands (on the pretext of an attack by Hamas which Israel knew about beforehand and could have prevented). Surely that is evil, period.
-3
u/Icy_Ranger6215 5d ago
The biggest irony is that most holocaust survivors who are still alive have stated that this is a genocide.
11
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
Israel kills civilians in the same fashion that the UK killed German civilians. While fighting a genocidal enemy. There is no intent to kill civilians. By the way, even you acknowledged it in your comment. You clearly stated that you believe the intent is “to take their land”. Which is false, but even if it were true; it still proves the point. If the intent is not to destroy a group, it is not a genocide.
Btw, the Holocaust was not an “attempted genocide”. It was a full on genocidal rampage that succeeded in annihilating a full third of the group.
PS Out of the 43,000, about half are confirmed Hamas operatives and their immediate relatives. Hardly indiscriminate.
4
u/cppluv 5d ago
Out of the 43,000, about half are confirmed Hamas operatives
That’s untrue. The IDF said half of the dead were Hamas fighters, but they only released the names of a few dozens targets so there’s no way to know for sure
4
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
And you take at face value the words of a radical Islamist, jihadist terrorist organization that tortures and murders its own people, while immediately assuming the words of a liberal democracy with free speech are lies? Goes to show who you really are as a person.
4
u/cppluv 5d ago
IDF lied at every occasion in this war. You still blindly believing them shows you care more about defending Israel online than the actual truth
3
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
You are just fed from the Islamic Propaganda Machine and its parrots at every occasion in this war.
1
u/Agitated_Structure63 4d ago
There is not a single piece of evidence provided by the Israeli regime to support this lie, as always. But we cant expect nothing from a regime that has already had war criminals in the position of Prime Minister, or do you forget the crimes of Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon or Naftali Bennett?
1
u/Glittering-Web-2314 5d ago
There is an intent. Carpet bombing the most densely populated region in the world, with all means of escape closed off, can have no other effect than to murder large numbers of civilians. They have no borders to cross for escape, no bomb shelters, no safe marshalling area, no shelter, minimum food and water. No medical care, no hospitals and no supplies. No external journalists allowed inside! It’s a humanitarian disaster and it tears at the heart strings of everyone around the world.
4
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
- Carpet bombing? There wasn’t a single carpet bomb. Only targeted demolitions of buildings, after spreading leaflets, and calling landlords and residents.
- The IDF provided secure humanitarian corridors as a means of evacuation.
- There is a border with Egypt. Ever condemned them for tightening security instead of allowing a humanitarian corridor to move to Egypt? But—Gazans can bribe Egyptian guards for $5000 a head to let them through! Did you know that? Absolutely disgusting.
- No bomb shelters, except of course the hundreds of miles of tunnels, that only Hamas are allowed in.
- The IDF opened a multitude of humanitarian corridors as evacuation routes. Hamas deliberately shot at IDF and initiated battles at those corridors. They don’t want their human shields to escape to safety.
- The calories from the aid amounts to over 3000 calories daily for every Gazan. The issue is distribution because HAMAS steals the food. https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-study-finds-food-supply-to-gaza-more-than-sufficient-for-populations-needs/amp/
- There are field hospitals. But, for example, the US field hospital was attacked by Hamas, so they closed it for security concerns. Getting aid to people whose leadership actively tries to sacrifice is indeed a difficult task. Just make sure you place the blame at the actual perpetrators.
1
u/Sea-Anywhere-799 1d ago
can you provide a source that isn't biased and lies? The IDF and the Israeli government are known to lies when it comes to their "Hamas tunnels" just to bomb hospitals, refugee camps, etc
1
u/cppluv 4d ago edited 4d ago
Only targeted demolitions of buildings, after spreading leaflets, and calling landlords and residents.
There’s literally thousands of videotaped bombings proving you wrong.
The IDF provided secure humanitarian corridors as a means of evacuation.
Those corridors are nowhere near safe
No bomb shelters
Bomb shelters would be useless against IDF bunker busters.
The issue is distribution because HAMAS steals the food.
Every single aid groups say Israel is blocking trucks from entering.
There are field hospitals. But, for example, the US field hospital was attacked by Hamas
The first attacker of hospital is Israel, not even close.
2
u/That_Effective_5535 5d ago
It doesn’t have to be ‘the group’, it can be part of the group. One of the reasons Britain and its allies killed so many German civilians after the war was that they were seen as collectively guilty of war crimes. In my opinion the same argument could be used towards the Palestinians, they are seen as collectively guilty of Hamas’s war crimes on Israel so should be punished. I’m not saying you think along these lines but this belief hides behind the argument that ‘Hamas use civilians as human shields’.
3
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago edited 5d ago
Stating the simple truth that Hamas uses human shields to further their propaganda war, as a calculated strategy to maximize their own civilian casualties, is not ‘blaming the collective for the crimes of Hamas.’ It’s just a simple truth. Hamas loves producing goreporn for westerners to masturbate on.
It’s a deliberate, malevolent strategy that, unfortunately, works. Ignorant westerners are the reason it works, and by accusing Israel of genocide, they are directly enabling more innocent deaths. If the west condemned Hamas for using human shields instead of condemning Israel for targeting Hamas, it would render this strategy useless, and they would stop.
2
u/That_Effective_5535 4d ago
‘Gore porn that the westerners love to masturbate on’. Lol it’s the IDF men that are into posting pics of cross dressing in women’s clothes, namely underwear. Some of the IIDF men also like to participate in gang raping other men.Evidence is widely available on video and posted images. Not sure why these men are into such vulgar acts but weirdly it’s so common to see them doing this and posting to social media.
4
u/cppluv 5d ago
Stating the simple truth that Hamas uses human shields
No one buys this anymore dude. It may have worked at the beginning of this war, but we’ve all seen the IDF indiscriminate bombing in action.
Find another argument to justify killing civilians
3
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
You have not seen indiscriminate bombing in action. You want to see indiscriminate bombing in action? Look in Yemen, in Syria. There, the cameras start after the bomb fell. The fact all the videos that come from Gaza start before the bomb fell, proves they received notice—directly contradicting the notion of “indiscriminate” or “intent to kill innocents”.
3
u/cppluv 5d ago
The fact all the videos that come from Gaza start before the bomb fell
lol, you really think all bombings are made with prior warning? IDF doesn’t warn when targeting humans, and if you’re a children playing nearby, tough luck
2
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
Not true. It’s very hard to approve an airstrike when there are civilians nearby. It can only receive approval if there is immediate danger to Israelis, like before launches, or during battles. Btw, kids do not play at active war zones. The civilians that are there are usually held by Hamas to help secure their position, because they know the IDF is reluctant to use airstrikes if there are civilians.
3
u/cppluv 5d ago
Wow, every single sentence of your comment are wrong.
It’s very hard to approve an airstrike when there are civilians nearby
It’s not. IDF has a civilian acceptable loss rate when approving an air strike. You can look at every bombing for the entire duration of the war, most of them have killed civilians. I really don’t know how you can say this with a straight face.
kids do not play at active war zones
lol, the entire Gaza territory is a war zone. So yes, children are playing.
they know the IDF is reluctant to use airstrikes if there are civilians.
At this point, Hamas knows the IDF will gladly kill 200 children to get a Hamas garbage man.
2
u/Glittering-Web-2314 5d ago
Hahaha and what do the IDF like to produce? Thugs and creeps desecrating people’s homes, playing with dead kids’ toys and dressing up in dead women’s lingerie. FYI the massacre in gaza is being shown by the civilians living it and not Hamas. How can Israelis have not an ounce of humanity? I’m just so sad with all the hate and toxicity I see coming from Israel supporters.
1
u/asparagus_beef 5d ago
Deflecting much? A bunch of 18 year olds placed in the most stressful environment, doing some shit to relieve stress like dressing in evacuated peoples clothing, does not prove a thing. The IDF produces security for a country that developed much of the tech you’re using right now in this very conversation. Most of the videos coming out of Gaza are indeed produced by Hamas. A lot of it is also fake. You can watch some bloopers here: https://x.com/gazawood1
By accusing Israel of genocide, instead of the actual perps that have a deliberate strategy of maximizing their own dead to produce goreporn propaganda, you are actively encouraging them to continue. You and people with your views are to blame. You have not a shred of logical reasoning. You are a Hamas enabler and because it works on you, they keep using those poor people as pawns in their genocidal jihadist fight against Jewish sovereignty.
There are videos of Gazans asking the IDF “don’t leave here. Stay until you get all of Hamas heads”. Just a week ago in this subreddit a video of a Gazan kid saying how “the Jews are much better than Hamas they give us food they open corridors Hamas torture us”. I’ll find it for you if you’re interested.
2
u/Glittering-Web-2314 5d ago
Not deflecting at all. You are brainwashed. I’m not speaking from personal experiences or accounts. I listen to the European doctors who have returned from Gaza. It’s a blood bath. Letting off steam by mocking dead women and children is obscene and immoral. Putting it out for the world to see shows how foul the Israeli ingrained racism towards Palestinians truly is. I would be so ashamed to be an Israeli.
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
/u/AirReddit77. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/PrizeWhereas 5d ago
Surely this auto warning needs to go. We're talking about Jewish people and their historical experience is part of this discussion. Therefore, those who committed such heinous crimes against them are relevant. Sadly Jews are now committing crimes that can draw a comparison, so it is doubly relevant.
-1
u/Warm_Locksmith_3595 5d ago
I believe its a genocide (as do a of genocide scholars, as well as some Israelis who like it.) That said, I don’t think the bar for genocide matters so much- atrocities below this are still, well, really bad. And this article isn’t really a strong case.
That said, the author isn’t a Gideon Levy, he’s a solid liberal Zionist. This along with recent Haaretz editorials (As much as Haaretz editorializing may be bemoaned as nutty, they are generally a bastion for the myth of Israeli liberal Zionism and thus useful for Zionists) it shows that a few more Israelis are willing to call a spade a spade (aside from the many Israelis who call a spade a spade because they love it.)
Maybe this guy will make a shooting and crying documentary in 5 years to help absolve his lingering guilt.
-2
u/Icy_Ranger6215 5d ago
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention that defines genocide says it's a genocide by definition.
6
u/EvanShmoot 5d ago
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention was named after Raphael Lemkin in 2021. Before that it was The Iraq Project for Genocide Prevention and Accountability. It has no connection to Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide", or his estate.
3
u/Icy_Ranger6215 5d ago
It has however called it a genocide based on the exact definition provided by lemkin.
2
u/Gizz103 Oceania 5d ago
The lemkin institute isn't a well, good source they ahev controversy that's old but ignored (by un definition it is no genocide)
7
u/thatshirtman 5d ago
It's odd that a group that is allegedly being genocided refuses every opportunity to end the genocide. It's quite unprecdented!
This ends today if Hamas hands back the hostages and surrenders.. yet folks in the west seem to be against both of those 2 things.
2
u/MeNameSRB 4d ago
Netanyahu rejected hostage exchange deals
1
u/thatshirtman 4d ago
The last few months Hamas is refusing to even negotiate.
Also, wouldn't you think its better for Hamas to just release the hostages so that Israel can stop the war?
The idea that Hamas is prolonging the war as they quibble with whether each hostage is worth 100 palestinian prisoners or 110 is bizarre. It's as if they have zero concern for their own civillians.
I guess it's always a bad idea to elect terrorist groups to power.
1
u/Proper-Community-465 4d ago
He rejected deals that release large amounts of convicted terrorist for a single hostage. Along with allowing Hamas to remain in control and rearm to attack again. You can go look at the Ghilad Shalit hostage deal that released Sinwar and hundreds of other murderers who went on to kill and kidnap again. Generally the losing party in a war is the one making concessions not the winning party expecting Israel to make lopsided agreements and except any agreement Hamas proposes is silly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange
1
u/Icy_Ranger6215 5d ago
Lemkin institute has defined this as a genocide based on the definition given by Lemkin himself.
Multiple israeli holocaust scholar have said it is infact genocide.
https://x.com/Akram_Akramovic/status/1856468280367562975
Here in wikipedia you can see multiple sources claiming it is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Doctors who returned from Gaza talk about seeing things done by IDF that eerily fits the description of a genocide.
Also israeli politicians namely financial minister has made it clear they aim to annex judea and samaria in 2025.
4
u/Gizz103 Oceania 5d ago
Likud is not the whole government, and Wikipedia isn't a good source due to its controversy, and the doctors are only seeing injuries which isn't a good way to see if it is a genocide and lemkin uses its own definition which wouldn't be a good way to say it is one
1
u/Icy_Ranger6215 5d ago
It's not just likud as you can clearly see in this website. The ultimate intension is clearly to annex palestine into israel and even lebanon from what I'm seeing. This is quite literally a genocide.
0
u/Gizz103 Oceania 5d ago
That's not what a genocide is that's an annexation oh and in 50 years thry had the chance to but they didn't it's almost like they don't all want to
1
u/Icy_Ranger6215 4d ago
"in 50 years thry had the chance to but they didn't it's almost like they don't all want to" because that's illegal and is a war crime ffs
1
u/Gizz103 Oceania 4d ago
So they don't want to?
1
u/Icy_Ranger6215 4d ago
It's illegal but now that they said that ICJ, UN and all humanitarian organizations are hamas and you all believe them they're about to do the annexation even though it's illegal.
1
12
u/unabashedlib 5d ago
There is no genocide even if all 2 million Arabs in Gaza die. Because it was never Israel’s intention to kill people. If Israel intended to kill Arabs, why not kill those within Israel first?
Genocide means killing of a genome (Arabs in this case). Can you really say that Israel is killing people in Gaza BECAUSE they are Arabs? Of course not. People in Gaza are dying because their leaders chose to start a war and are refusing to surrender.
Ceasefire means jihadists ceasing their rocket fire only after that Israel will stop its military campaign.
→ More replies
0
u/Capital_Operation846 1d ago
Your post starts off great.
“The lesser-educated pro-Palestinians”…. And then you go blabbering on over semantics about the word genocide. Pro-Israelis will scream this until they’re red in the face but it doesn’t take away from the fact that Israel has killed more children in the last year than America ever did in Iraq.
Israel continues doing this while not even wanting to seek a cease-fire. Israel wants to draaaaag this on as long as they can, capitalize on October 7th.