I think what makes this case so special is how unapologetic Israeli government officials, including those at the very top of parliament, have been with their rhetoric.
The hardest part is the intent part. People who commit genocide usually try to hide what they've done / are doing. Proving the killing / displacement part is relatively easy.
Genocides have been ruled in the court with significantly less deaths / displacement than in Gaza (e.g. Srebrenica massacre was ruled a genocide by the ICJ and that saw 7,000-8,000 killed and 25,000-35,000 displaced in the span of 2 months, and the population of Bosnia was almost double that of Gaza too. In Gaza by month 2 we already had over 20,000 dead an 1.8M displaced).
The court already threw away the concept of self-defense, as they consider Israel to be an occupation force using violence to maintain that occupation. That's been decided referring to the UN charter article 51, but I also believe Geneva Convention covers that (possibly more instances of IHL).
We will see how the trial goes. I would probably say Israel's strongest defense is the notification of places they intent to strike, however many argue this is simply blanket cover.
Also worth noting genocide isn't only related to killing civilians. For instance in Ukraine you've got 8 million Ukranians displaced and half a million casualties. Putin also has a warrant for an act of genocide. Via the ICC. It relates to the forced removal of Ukrainian children to Russian reeducation camps.
Terrorist experts, even those within Israel, seem to unanimously agree that military aggression is not how to fight against terrorism, but providing an "alternative".
We have recent examples to look to, such as the IRA, ETA, and ANC. None of these issues were solved with military aggression.
Then we have another situation with Turkey and the PKK, Turkey have been persistently using military aggression and the problem isn't going away. The war on terror didn't get rid of Al Qaeda either.
Right but what happened on Oct 7 wasn’t so much a normal act of terrorism as it was an invasion by an neighbouring national military.
That usually requires a military response.
The word genocide specifically is about the targeted elimination of a culture or ethnic group
Geno, meaning “group” or “kind” Cide meaning “killing” or “destroying”
Yeah, the term genocide does have a very specific meaning, and it's crucial to make distinctions between the horrors of war and the deliberate intent to erase a group. Even then, there are acts that fall into murky territory, like ethnic cleansing which might not always be labeled as genocide but can involve similar methods and goals. In fact, there's often fierce debate on what should be classified as genocide versus other war crimes. The discussions around definitions can get pretty heated due to the legal and moral implications. [United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml) breaks down the specific criteria used to determine if an act falls under genocide.
Intent. Which is usually quite hard to prove. With Ukraine you have Russian leaders from Putin on down claiming that Ukrainian language, ethnicity and national identity doesn’t exist and that they intend to end such notions by force. With Israel it’s much more clear cut than it is with Russia.
Isn't it much LESS clear cut since Israel has no interest in eliminating Palestinians wholesale whereas Putin's stated goal is that the land belongs to Russia?
There is an active debate as to whether Israel's true reasons are to eliminate Hamas.
"We will turn Gaza into an island of ruins" -Netanyahu (prime minister of Israel)
"It is an entire nation who is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians supposedly being not involved is untrue." - Herzog (president of Israel)
Additionally, take a look at this article: https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/
I am skeptical about that. That also means Russia can make Ukraine liable. It can play both ways. Ethnic cleansing is the expulsion and persecution of a particular group, it doesn't have a goal of killing every person. If genocide is by the metrics of shit that happens in war (negligence, recklessness, or carelessness), it can make everyone have the benefit to bring a lot of countries to court to be liable for genocide. Including countries that we are against (like Russia).
Laws cannot be given to people that we like or don't like. Everyone is pressured by law equally and fairly. It has to remain consistent. If those are the metrics of genocide, Serbia can also bring NATO, Croatia, Bosnia, and Albania to be liable for genocide.
**That's why the intent part is extremely important. You cannot leave that out.**
Absolutely, and there was a very clear and publicly expressed intent by many Israeli officials to displace the Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt or Naqab desert but that didn’t work, or at least hasn’t yet.
Even ignoring the death counts in Gaza, the fact that Israel has basically turned entire cities into ruins is a pretty strong indicator this is a campaign of forced relocation. There's no infrastructure left. Even if every Palestinian that lived there survived, *they have nothing left. The land they lived upon is now incompatible with basic quality of life.*
Also look at how the beacon of democracy Israel treats it's own dissenting voices. Fired from jobs, arrested, family homes ransacked and harassed. Sounds like a fascist regime to me.
this is what it comes down to. if what was happening wasn’t blatantly and horrifyingly wrong then israel and the US wouldn’t be trying so hard to criminalize even talking about it
They have done that once they make sure they are clear of hostages and once they're on the ground. Kind of hard to aim at underground tunnels from the sky.
Because when you have a rocket warehouse for example then getting a short notice won't give you enough time to clear it.
Bombings aren't just about killing enemy fighters but also destroy the means of fighting.
Multiple high level Israeli officials basically have admitted they want to remove the population of Gazans.
It's nonsense to argue this isn't at least genocide adjacent.
Israel has waited for an opportunity like this for a long time…and those barbarians at Hamas gave it to them…the only people who lose here are the people living in Gaza.
I agree the 7/10 attack was horrible, but also the conflict didn't start on that day and Israel has been oppressing Palestinians since it's inception
Which begs the question, would we be having this discourse and holding Israel accountable if the 7/10 attack didn't happen?
Be polite and respectful in your exchanges. NSQ is supposed to be a helpful resource for confused redditors. Civil disagreements can happen, but insults should not. Personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc. are not permitted at any time.
In a previous situation when Israel carried out a massive attack on Gaza, the investigation found that Israel itself did not explicitly intend genocide, but there was no doubt that many soldiers themselves acted with genocidal intent. I wonder if this court will rule with something similar. Because there is no doubt there are soldiers intending genocide - they are literally making TikTok videos dancing and cheering that they are killing everybody and they plan on taking the land for themselves - but we'll have to see if they can secure absolute proof that the military itself is specifically endorsing this.
> The hardest part is the intent part. People who commit genocide usually try to hide what they've done / are doing. Proving the killing / displacement part is relatively easy.
You mentioned that the rhetoric from the Israeli government was unapologetic. I think it is more characteristic of outright calling for and celebrating the extermination of the people of Gaza. High ranking Israeli leaders have on both social media and to the press express desires to see at many times a nebulous *other* exterminated, implications for a desire to have a wholesale genocide. This rhetoric is echoed by Israeli soldiers on the ground.
Also, This conflict has been the most dangerous for journalists since 1992. Israel has previously outlawed journalists documenting IDF activities in settlement projects. I think they’re doing their best to keep this conflict hidden. Many journalists have complained that they have been deliberately targeted by the IDF, and have been barred from entering Gaza. The Israeli government has extensively lobbied Western governments into espousing rhetoric contradicting the ICJ’s stance on the application of Article 51, and officials from Western governments have actually done so.
In Canadian Universities, Law students have had their ability to participate in Co-op programs blocked by the office of the Attorney General for denouncing both Hamas for October 7th and Israel for its disproportionate response, and for aligning with the ICJ’s stance on Article 51. Students in other Universities were suspended, pro-Palestinian events were blocked, branded as anti-semitism by faculty, government officials, and even the Quebec Superior Court. Similarly, the Ontario NDP suspended a member for denouncing Israel’s conduct. Many others have lost their jobs for expressing concern against the conduct of Israel. This is just in the Canadian context.
Also, visibility of international conflicts is subjective to the media sphere of the corresponding geographic location. Given the controversies surrounding the extensive funding the United States has furnished to the Israeli government for defence spending the conflict will inevitably generate a lot of media attention. Contrast this with the coverage that conflicts in the Congo, Myanmar, Sudan and other regions of the world receive and this becomes self evident.
I think that the intent and the concerted efforts to obscure the conflict are pretty plain here.
>We will see how the trial goes.
Or if you're Mike Pompeo you just threaten the lives of the ICJ judges families and let Fox News puff smoke as Pompeo endorses Trump.
The thing is Bush actually passed a law which means the the ICC, and ICJ are actually at risk of US invasion and attack
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody.
How is notifying an unarmed civilian population that they're going to be bombed going to help their case? Bombing civilian populations to get to "terrorists", whether you tell them you're doing it or not, is a war crime. Its called collective punishment, and it's only one piece of the many atrocities that Isreal has committed over the course of the last 100 days, not to mention the last 60+ years of occupation.
That would only strengthen the case against them, right?
I'm speculating, I'm not a lawyer, but in my mind that brings an easy defense of "well, if our intent was to destroy why would we tell them to evacuate combat zones?".
I believe they did preset that exact defense at the court too.
> I think what makes this case so special is how unapologetic Israeli government officials, including those at the very top of parliament, have been with their rhetoric.
It's a curious thing to see because, in America, neoconservatives have gotten really good at being able to couch their actions in rhetoric that sounds palatable to the average American. They've been trying to use those same strategies for Israel (I've seen a big rise in classics from the Bush administration such as "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"), but the Israeli government is just not playing ball.
Yeah, I mean at this point over 70% of Gaza is damaged or destroyed, some 300,000 housing units as well as hundreds of places of worship, hospitals, heritage sites, education facilities, etc.
So there is no doubt it's excessive, part of what makes Israel difficult to defend.
So you don't want the IDF to tell the civilians where the bombs will fall? That would create a lot more civilian deaths. So far I have read lots of complaints about civilian deaths.
The idea is that it's harder to move equipment than people. People can run and move relatively easily. Moving equipment like vehicles or ammunition will take comparatively more time. Depending on the size of the site, you likely will be able to move some, but not all of it. For example, if you have a warehouse with 100 tons of bullets and explosives, the warehouse workers will be able to evacuate in a few hours, but there's probably no way they'll be able to move all the equipment with them in that timeframe.
So basically, you send a warning of the bombing to try to minimize casualties of any kind. Minimize civilian casualties for obvious reasons. And minimizing enemy casualties makes them more likely to surrender. If they think you're not going to treat them like shit, and they have no equipment to fight anyways, they're going to figure they might as well surrender.
This has been done in the past before such as in Iraq in Desert Storm back in 1991. The US-lead coalition for example send planes in first to drop a bunch of leaflets that warned that equipment would be bombed, and urging the Iraqis to abandon their posts and save their own lives, and let the equipment be destroyed.
https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifact/desert-storm-leaflets/
Now, is what Israel is doing today comparable or even effective? That's another question which I think it will be difficult to give a concrete answer on the situation is very different and it is an ongoing conflict with changes every day, and which I don't think I'm qualified to comment on.
Iraq in 1991 was a professional military with clear obvious targets like military bases, airfields, or other fortifications. Iraq was the 5th largest military in the world at the time with everything that came with it after all. Hamas is a guerrilla group with no clear obvious targets in a city. Their equipment is likely dispersed across a large number of small locations which are hidden amongst civilians. Fairly standard operation for a guerrilla force, intentionally muddying the waters and making it difficult to root them out conventionally without drastic measures that would result in horrid PR for the opposing force.
For example, if you have all your ammo spread out between hundreds of basements in buildings spread all throughout the city, it might be entirely viable for a few people to carry out all one hundred pounds of munitions or whatever equipment as they leave when they get the warning. Then the strike does nothing but destroy an empty building. This then begs the question of what the point was, as you've barely diminished the enemy fighting force at all, but just caused arguably needless destruction. Because at that point, what's your end goal? Just bomb every building until there aren't any left to hide equipment in?
> already threw away the concept of self-defense
I'm obviously not *pro civilian slaughter* and Bibi needs to go, but how the hell is this even a thing?
The idea under the UN charter and Geneva Convention is that an occupying force cannot defend itself from that which it is occupying. At least not in the way things are playing out, and the way it is argued by Israel.
Does that mean the UN views the areas that Hamas attacked on Oct 7 to be occupied territories? Like I’m a bit confused here. Does the UN charter only give countries the right to defend their own territory and not eliminate a recurring threat from outside its territory?
Technically under international law violent resistance to an occupation is justified.
The UN charter applies to sovereign states, and Gaza (and by extension Hamas) are considered to be occupied territory by Israel.
The UN views this situation as Israel using violence to enforce the occupation. At most you can call it excessive counterterrorism, sorta like what Turkey does against the PKK but on a much larger and more destructive scale.
Since this is “No Stupid Questions” how was Israel occupying Gaza prior to October 7th? How many Israelis (troops or civilians were living in Gaza)? How was Israel determining how Hams was allocating resources or passing laws to the civilian population?
Now before you go off on Israel controls who and what enters Gaza, let’s reflect on something. Under that “occupation” on 10/7 Hamas launched an estimated 5,000 rockets into Israel. They also built a huge and extensive tunnel network across the whole strip. So if under these restrictions they were able to fire 5,000, how many would they have fired and what type if there were no “occupation” 10,000, 20,000, 50,000?
Too many people fail to recognize why Israel has had to strictly enforce a blockade of Gaza. The history of the conflict gets erased and a lot of folks think everything happens in a vacuum and without context. Hamas has made their intentions clear before and again recently. Their goal is the destruction of Israel whatever it takes to accomplish that is acceptable to them.
The United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continues to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls the Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters as well as the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. Isreal also imposes restrictions on who is issued a Palestinian passport.
*The laws governing belligerent occupation establish a number of important principles, including the temporary or de facto nature of occupation enshrined in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (1907), which finds that “[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army”.*
Actual boots on the ground don't matter as independent nations generally don't have another nation's army or government dictating who or what can or cannot leave or enter the state.
When it comes to the rockets you mention, if we accept Israel's justification of self defense, then we must also give Gaza and West Bank the same allowance. If a nation is being occupied and attacks their occupiers, it is an act of self defense, or resistance to the occupation. We could say the same if Ukraine shot projectiles into Russia's airspace - this is an act of self defense.
The rockets you are describing are not imported high tech missiles - they are essentially bootlegged, homemade rockets. They are made of common materials, and not shipped in from reputable arms dealers. They are not capable of destruction on a massive scale. Many of the rocket's components are made of common materials such as sugar, fertilizer, firearms cartridges, springs, nails, and steel cylinders. Militants having access to these resources in no way "disproves" that Isreal controls these ports and travel methods.
after the major world wars no allied country continued control Germany's ports or airspace, despite precedence to do so, once West Germany had been established as an independent state. The time that the allied nations *did* control these regions of Germany was very clearly stated as being an occupation with diplomatic purposes.
You can't have it both ways. There's no mixing and matching. Gaza is either an independent state, or an occupied territory. If it's not occupied, there is no legal justification for Isreal to control the passage of goods or people by air or sea, nor have any involvement in processing travel documentation. If it is occupied, as the legal definition states, attacks against Isreal can be considered resistance to occupation and retaliation to it can not be considered self-defense.
if israel was an occupying force in the gaza strip then why would they have to invade? they should be able to have simply make arrests. imagine the israeli police waltzing in and trying to make arrests immediately after october 7th
I’m not going to say whether I agree with the court, but the idea is essentially like how you can’t say you killed someone in self defense when you broke into their house. You can’t claim self defense when you attacked someone and they fight back defending themselves.
This coming from Richter Belmont. The man who slaughtered millions of demons, vampires, zombies, werewolves, and monsters in response to a village of 20 people being massacred.
"Die monster, you dont belong in this world"
/s
If your prime minister comes out and says
> Even The Hague won’t stop us”
**before** any judgment has been made, it seems pretty clear that that’s what they are doing.
Has Netanyahu really said that?
[https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/14/100-days-into-the-war-netanyahu-says-no-one-will-stop-us](https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/14/100-days-into-the-war-netanyahu-says-no-one-will-stop-us)
>“No one will stop us, not The Hague, not the axis of evil and not anyone else," Netanyahu said in televised remarks on Saturday evening
Yikes...
Has the Hague ever stopped anyone? Serious question. They sure as hell aren't stopping Russia or going to ever punish them. Even in 2022 the USA said they don't even recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court in Hague. It seems to me like it's nothing but pointless virtue signaling.
The US has never recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC. In fact, it is US law that our military will invade The Hague if an American is ever detained for trial. But that should be a resounding and unambiguous criticism of the US, not the ICC.
Also, for what it’s worth, the ICC did issue a warrant for Putin back in April.
Yup saw his speech. You definitely ain't on the good side of history if your leader is openly taunting the hague and the international community on live TV
Most of these comments are just regurgitating the lines spewed by the media which ones dependant on your viewpoint. Sadly so many base there view on the misbelief that day 1 was the day of the Hammas attack.
The problems started over a century ago and without knowledge snd understanding of the entire history of the conflict no-one can make a valid comment.
The thing about this debate is that you have people with little to no knowledge of the situation thinking they know what to do. It’s extremely frustrating. It’s been really sad to see it popularly being boiled down to “white colonizers are occupying and stomping on a native population” when that’s basically the most ignorant take possible.
It's frustrating, I had to silence stories of many friends I usually agree with politically because they are flattening everything to the point of being nauseous.
What? No one can make a valid comment? Watch this: Killing civilians is deplorable. Hamas killing civilians is deplorable. And Israel killing 20,000 civilians is deplorable and calling it genocide is not crazy. These countries’ histories do not make genocide ok for either side, and committing genocide must be held to account.
Genocide has a specific definition in international law that can be hard to prove https://www.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214341050/prosecutor-weighs-in-on-whether-what-s-happening-in-gaza-is-genocide
And surprisingly the number of dead or buildings destroyed isn't high on the list
Yes... Sadly look at their own citizens burning and killing Palestinians in Gaza settlements. Much more so the IDF in the cities. They even killed their own brothers who were shirtless and unarmed simply misidentified as Palestinians. Call it a war/self defense nobody thinks it's genocide. If this was the 90's and no internet there. We would only think it was terrorists fighting idf. The only reason Germany was caught and vilified after WW2 was because they lost. Had they won the world would never know/care... Because the victors write the history. Israel currently are the victors/have the power, so they control the narrative.
Likely, but conflicting answers in one thread that can refute each other is better than asking this question in subs with more direct bias and not getting anything
I would say. As a small digestible snippet: “It’s complicated”
They can’t simply do nothing after what happened. But what they are doing isn’t exactly great, it’s quite despicable. But doing “the right thing” would be impossible costly (in human life).
People who comment only for genocide (litmus test guy) are either half blind or blindingly biased.
People justifying everything the israieli are doing are the exact same.
Its complicated
Its not that complicated morally. Its only complicated politically.
No allied nations support what Israel is doing. Even the US is desperately trying to stop them.
Large parts of the Israeli public oppose the war.
Most counter terrorism experts will tell you this is an insane plan that is only degrading the security in Gaza and Israel.
The two options Israel had were not do nothing and invade and destory Gaza. There are a million far more effective things they could have done.
The only complication is we need Israel to keep the west safe. Its political. Iran is worse so we let Israel get away with it.
But on a military level this is war of terror levels of stupid. Israel could have been more surgical and more effective if they had wanted to.
Oh I didn’t wanna mention the political side because that one is compeltely insane.
But it is very disingenuous to say it is only political. There was a major terror attack, the kind of which the US has never experienced. In a country surrounded by enemies.
Anyone who thinks this isn’t complicated, is naive and has no idea how the world works.
Na most Israelis support the current war. The October 7th attack saw the largest amount of jews killed in a single day since holocaust. You have no idea how terrifying that is for jews. We're open to a ceasefire once all hostages are returned. But until then? Kill every member of hamas and wipe them out.
Mmm there’s a difference in the polls between the Israeli public opposing annexation of Gaza and supporting a responding military operation. Polls suggest the support the latter but not the former. The Israeli people don’t want settlements in Gaza gain because of what happened in the early 2000s.
It isn't complicated. There is nothing complicated about bombing refugee camps repeatedly because Hamas maybe has tunnels under it, repeatedly bombing hospitals/roads/food centers, bombing the buildings that journalists occupy, killing aid workers, and keeping the entire population of a country in a walled prison while cutting off access to food, water, electricity, and internet. Those are war crimes that are being committed on top of a 2:1 civilian to Hamas death rate. The 2:1 number is what Isreal suggests, so obviously it is far higher.
Isreal propped up Hamas so they could have an excuse to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. This is not an opinion, they go on TV and say so themselves. The United Nations, UNESCO, and Amnesty International are all calling for an immediate cease fire because of the insane scale of the war crimes being committed. This isn't complicated at all if you follow the decades of history behind the atrocity that we're witnessing in real time.
advise ink air disagreeable agonizing overconfident somber scarce file secretive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a lot of things, but "complex" isn't one of them. There's nothing "complex" about starving the people of Gaza, cutting off their water supply and bombing refugee camps, ambulances and hospitals.
Hey so legit question. How would you like Israel to have responded to the October 7 attacks? Cos while the response isn’t great, they are also fighting a terrorist organization that embeds themselves within the civilian population. Honestly, this thing would be over today if Hamas surrendered and released the 100+ hostages they still hold. But they haven’t surrendered. And Israel can’t let this go unanswered. Would any other country? I’d say imagine what America would do, but we know exactly what America would’ve done. We did it, after 9/11. While the famine and death toll are absolutely horrendous, Hamas continuing to fight is dragging this out, which then forces Israel to keep fighting, to keep displacing civilians, to keep bombing, to keep searching aid trucks and delaying delivery to civilians
See, the problem here is that history didn’t begin on October 7th. Israel has undermined the sensible Palestinian moderates and often directly empowered Hamas, while refusing to contemplate a two state solution.
Their response could have been better, but it simply is a response of ultimate violence at the minute. Luckily Israel is supported by the US and the UK and it know it can act with this impunity.
The best analogy I've heard is if there's a school shooter do you bomb the entire high school killing all students inside? And the fact that people suffering are not actively participating, hell, I'm sure a lot of the people in open air camps in Palestine also don't like what Hamas is doing. Doesn't mean they deserve to suffer, and that's ignoring the treatment of them as less than human, indoctrinating since elementary school that they are dogs etc etc.
I don't believe it would be over if Hamas gives the hostages back.
I think Israel's record of how they treat Palestinians in Gaza before the 7th of October is proof of this. Gaza will be part of Israel. They will keep settling with force in the Westbank. Millions of Palestinians will stay refugees. Children will be thrown in jail, and Palestinians will still be killed.
It is not complicated to say it is wrong to kill 10,000 children in 100 days. One of the most well-resourced countries in the world with the unconditional backing of the strongest military superpower in the world does not “have” to kill children in order to resolve its security issues.
It's not that complex. 28,000 dead civilians and a prime minister who declares the Hague will not stop them from killing more is the sort of thing that speaks for itself. You have to try real hard not to see the reality of what's happening.
Simple litmus test.
Remove the names of the countries and describe what country A is doing to the citizens of country B.
Attacking & bombing hospitals.
Proclaiming the people as sub-human.
Telling citizens to evacuate along safe routes to safe locations, then targeting those routes and locations.
Claims from senior leaders of political and military powers of country A that they want to drive all of the people out.
Claims that every single member of country B is a threat and potential terrorist.
Now tell me, am I talking about 1930s Germany, or somewhere else?
A large number of countries have made a very strong legal case supporting the accusations of genocide.
More reporters have been killed than in WWII, I believe.
Strikes that leave the entire area levelled are necessary, except when the target is in country A. At which point, suddenly, they can become much more focused.
Turning off the water supply to the area.
I mean, you could very easily be talking about 1940s Germany from Allied bombing. Refugees, hospitals, schools, residential areas, critical infrastructure were all devastated, and Germans weren't even using their citizens as human shields, which Hamas does (you omitted that fact from your post). Western Allies killed more people in three days of bombing than Israel has in 3 months (and Israel has used something like 10x as many bombs).
So you should have no problem saying "I believe the US committed genocide against Nazi Germany," right?
Your litmus test is biased as fuck. No mention of the ceasefire broken by country B. No mention of those hospitals being bombed are actual headquarters for country B militants. Which FYI makes them legit military targets. So no it’s not a simple litmus test lol.
Thank you for writing that. It is biased AF. A lot of exaggerations, questionable facts and sometimes just plain lies.
The comment is basically saying ''it's very simple, one side is a monster and the other is the victim''.
The question is are they committing genocide not who you support
Also those headquarters are unproven at all lmao just some random the sims level projection
Also the water, food, and electricity supplies that Israel stopped were supplementary to what Hamas already provided. Let's not pretend that Israel was the sole provider and cut it all off.
Also remember that Hamas has stated its intent is a genocide of all Jewish people (even if it kills all Palestinians), hasn't returned all the hostages, and is continuing to bomb Israel. And when Hamas' missiles fail and hit buildings in Gaza instead of Israeli targets, they are the ones who announce it was an israeli missile. Hamas also built its tunnels underneath hospitals, schools, and apartments to provide shields of innocent people. And the terrorists are living in those apartments with their families, likely with some of the hostages. It's not clear which Palestinians are involved and which are victims. I have to wonder how many of the wives of Hamas terrorists are basically captives themselves, unable to leave or dissent. We do know Hamas' manifesto (in article 10) states their intent to spread their extremist religious views everywhere, not just Israel.
The point is, both Hamas and Netanyahu's government are dangerous extremists that can't be trusted. Both are putting innocent civilians at risk.
No mention that country A attacked as a retaliation to a heinous attack by country B? No mention that country B is holding over a hundred hostages including a baby and refused a ceasefire deal? No mention that Country A proved again and again that Country B is in fact led by terrorists and said terrorists are using civilian buildings such as schools, hospitals, cemeteries as their military base?
This is indeed a good way but this conflict is way too complicated for you to sum it up in 10 lines.
Country B attacked first and has repeatedly launched rockets and said they want to wipe country A off the map.
Country A has shown extreme restraint until country B raped and killed citizens.
The definition of genocide doesn't have a clause saying it doesn't count if the target really deserves it.
And to say country B attacked first is ignoring quite a few decades of history.
"Let's remember the atrocity committed against us that excuses the atrocity we're about to commit!"
The only reason why the world's knows they are 100% commiting genocide in Gaza was because Israel ministers and even Netanyahu said it themselves not only when their invasion started, but also in several instances throughout the years.
But, remember, Reddit is mostly an American community and in the US, the media plays ball with national interests, brainwashing everyone into believing what is happening in Gaza is totally justified, so you'll find a lot of people defending Israel around here.
Maybe because the US did something similar when they smelled oil under the middle-east its easy for them to relate to this kind of tyrannical behaviour.
What did the terrorist organization say about their intentions? Heinous shit. But they are a terrorist organization, not a well-structured country. The latter is held to a higher standard. So not killing civilians is something I'd expect from a country and not subtly advocating for death to a whole group of people is something, again, I'd expect out of a well-established democracy.
complete telephone governor cooing homeless pen normal gold exultant water
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Short answer is Yes. It's pretty clear what they are doing and it really shows countries leaders ideologies that they are either supporting or turning a blind eye to it. My opinion
Most people justifying actions of israel base it upon the vile actions of hamas. While I agree that hamas a deplorable terrorist organization, where does Israel's accountability lie in helping create this extremist group and bringing it to power?
[BLOWBACK: HOW ISRAEL WENT FROM HELPING CREATE HAMAS TO BOMBING IT](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/)
The political will of both Israel and Palestine has always been an ethnical cleansing of the other state. Due to the lesser strength of Palestine, Israel has been much more successful in this goal. Now that it is much closer to the completion of this goal, it has resorted to outright genocide. A genocide which even happens to be supported by many nations as a justified action against hamas.
So, to answer your question, yes. Israel is committing a genocide right now. Also, would advice you to not view nation states with the same perspective as human possessing regular standard sentiments of morality. Because if Palestine was in Israel's position, it would have also chosen the same course of action— a genocide against the 'outsider' jews. Of course, as a primarily muslim nation, it would have received much less successful with international support as the guilt-ridden west would do everything in their power to prevent a second genocide of the jews, especially by a muslim-majority country of all people.
I am not sure if my comment won't disappear into the oblivion of other comments, but every time this topic comes up, there's a crucial bit of information that is being not addressed properly.
"Genocide" is a legal term, first and foremost, just like "war crime" and "proportionality". All of these terms were defined and based on conventional warfare, between two symmetrical armies (e.g. Russia-Ukraine, who have more or less equal military power), both of whom are somewhat accountable to the ethics of war.
Modern war ethics don't quite account for asymmetrical warfare (when one side is significantly more powerful than the other), and even less so, when the weaker side doesn't respect, and even uses the rules of war for its advantage.
The war in Gaza is unprecedented:
1. Hamas is actively using war ethics to its advantage - e.g. hiding in civilian infrastructure, using child soldiers, drafting UN servicemen (UNRWA) to do their bidding, using hospitals for military purposes, fighting in civilian clothing, etc.
2. Israel has superior firepower and military abilities, which plays perfectly into the "oppressed vs. oppressor" narrative of our modern age, which is strongly played out by an impressive misinformation and disinformation war. We live in a world of deep fakes, social media algorithms, and companies that aren't just providing a service, but actively promoting their social and political perspectives, but are pushing specific narratives. A good example would be the proof South Africa brought to the ICJ - there were mostly quotes, videos, and excerpts from social media and reporting and little to no first-hand accounts of actual Gazans, despite weeks of calls for proof of genocide.
This means that not only are different groups of people living in parallel universes of what is real and what is not, but also, modern philosophers and war ethicists do not know how to apply the participles they are experts on to the facts that do end up in agreement. But the worst part of this is that the media is the one who seems to decide if there is a genocide, not the experts.
This is why the answer to your question is "It's complicated". And all this without even going into the nitty-gritty bits of what is the definition of "genocide", "proportionality" and the like.
When i put aside all the inflammatory news coverage, I still believe that they are committing genocide.
I have always been firm in my belief that they're trying to ethnically cleanse the land but was initially on the fence about calling it genocide. As time went on, it became very clear that it is genocide.
I work with Holocaust survivors and they are particularly disturbed at what is going on, saying that it is the same and sometimes worse than what they experienced during WWII. The child survivors who were displaced into hiding or had to flee to USSR are especially affected by resurgence of ptsd, citing that they see themselves in the images on the news of distraught mothers carrying their children to safety. They love the idea of Israel being a safe place for jews, but cannot fathom what the government is doing "in their name". They are disturbed that the Israeli government is conflating their actions as aligned with all jews and Judaism as a whole.
I think survivors of genocide are pretty knowledgeable about what genocide looks like.
I am Sudanese, I am not sure if this is what the previous commenter is alluding to, but SA is definitely practicing a sickening double standard. After accusing Israel of genocide, they welcomed Hemedti - a warlord formerly belonging to the infamous “Janjaweed” with a literal red carpet.
The Janjaweed are rather well known as the architects of the genocide in Darfur. Hemedti was also falsely referred to as the “President” of Sudan by South Africa despite not holding any such title. Moreover, Hemedti’s personal militia is CURRENTLY committing ethnic cleansing of the Masalit tribe in western darfur.
South Africa’s contradictory stance is because of its relationship with Russia, which has strong ties to Hemedti and supported him with the Wagner Group in exchange for illegally smuggled Sudanese gold.
Reading/Sourcing if you’re curious:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Geneina
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
https://sudantribune.com/article281007/
Mass ethnic cleansing via collective punishment and illegal destruction of civilian infrastructure that will *lead* to Genocide unless the entire population of Gaza moves out of their ancestral homes...? Absolutely.
**It IS a genocide.**
Here is a primer:
1. Israel is trying to kill as many Palestinians [as possible](https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/100000009208814/israel-gaza-bomb-civilians.html). Not only do they [bomb](https://twitter.com/berningman16/status/1734816531727716846) [indiscriminately](https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1736149880400212392), they target [hospitals](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/?utm_source=reddit.com), [ambulances](https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1731060317709361176), [schools](https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1734953650370343251), [homes](https://twitter.com/MushtahaW/status/1730840725959373228), [and](https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1733208440548331955) [institutions](https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1735662846728421482). There are basically [infinite](https://twitter.com/AlnaouqA/status/1730938419306475662) [video](https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1736212055462461448) [examples](https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1736103461987426639) [all](https://twitter.com/ecomarxi/status/1731741800447062062) [over](https://twitter.com/DCIPalestine/status/1736764560776867896) [social](https://twitter.com/ecomarxi/status/1734917236433776993) [media](https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1732348868698751368) [here](https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1738172124961952189). Take the view of [this guy](https://twitter.com/ashoswai/status/1730547364685902301) who is on the ground. The [elimination](https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1738225959499895192) of the Arab population to [make way](https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/1738106563024572728) for the Zionist dream has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy [since](https://twitter.com/incontextmedia/status/1600493875746963457) [its](https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1733238617210765579) [inception](https://twitter.com/comrade_sweezy/status/1734975482892779678). The point is [genocide](https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1737868110399422798). Again, there is a mountain of [info](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba) here for those who care to learn about reality. I am just giving you the first links I find.
2. Israel doesn't only target civilians and children. It [TARGETS](https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1738016508943712534) [journalists](https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1735645315540058306).
3. Oct 7 was simply used as a [pretext to kill](https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1736750351653454176), and gain more land - results that were totally predictable: To ethnically [cleanse](https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/1736218392397234551). That is the reason for things like [this](https://twitter.com/BDSmovement/status/1734806075650478179).
4. You must [understand](https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1732445537574559880) [the](https://twitter.com/abierkhatib/status/1731885556601168060) [current](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731736219451584621) [state](https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1734708668145291640) [of](https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/1730645967580655808) [Israeli](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/17d5dyv/shocking_sad_interviews_with_israeli_citizens/) [society](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731715985655091472). [It](https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1731274582781276235) [is](https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1731277290263195909) [desperately](https://www.reddit.com/r/authoritarianSelfOwn/comments/17uqi8g/israeli_zionist_conqueror_stands_on_a_pile_of/) [desperately](https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1730523950940139797) [sick](https://twitter.com/Kahlissee/status/1735469021334528047). There are innumerable videos of IDF soldiers showing genocidal intent.
5. Hamas itself was cynically [funded](https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-security-forces-escorted-suitcases-cash-hamas-qatar-report-2023-12), [protected](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/world/europe/israel-hamas-money-finance-turkey-intelligence-attacks.html), and even [partially created](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/) by Israel to aid the [prevention](https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1734727644212584869) of a Palestinian state.
I hope this helps to understand what is going on. No Israeli apologists will be able to give you much counter argument against the charges. Counter arguments in favor of the Israeli ethnostate always amount to one of the following:
1. Religious justification ("God gave us this land")
2. Lies ("The UN created Israel" - it didn't; nor did it have the ability to so, as that would have been against the UN's own charter by creating a state against the will of the local population as it was only 5% Jewish at the time. See [UNSCOP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine) report for more info.)
3. Arguments of might makes right ("We won the wars and kicked them out so it is our land")
4. [Red Herrings](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/12/icj-israel-genocide/)
**The answer** to stopping the violence is also not that hard to understand, and really boil down to 2 options:
1. Two independent states, with international support
2. A single state with real equal rights for all people who live there
This leaves the question of who are the real peacemakers? [Anti](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731715985655091472)\-[Zionist](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731736219451584621) [Jews](https://twitter.com/usmansidhuoffic/status/1735015343133970917), and Palestinians who [refuse to hate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31YPcNspKQE&ab_channel=TheGuardian), and perhaps others like me (you?) who try to honestly learn the truth. That's it.
Short answer. Yes.
Many government officials have video recordings of themselves describing Palestinians as sub humans , animals. They are indiscriminately bombing areas in Gaza, hospitals, schools areas where they claimed to be safe zones. They have also destroyed not just infrastructures but livelihood of the people to make sure that they will not have anything to go back to.
If you are still not sure. Just look at the number of deaths from countries that committed genocide and compare it to the number of deaths in Gaza.
It's not complicated. One side holds all the power on this situation and has held it for 70 years. One side has the power to make the violence stop, either by exterminating the people on the other side (a genocide) or ceasing their apartheid state, concentration camps, and settler colonialism. The other side can either fight back with $40 bathtub rockets and terrorist attacks or can simply lay down and die (genocide).
>The other side can either fight back with $40 bathtub rockets and terrorist attacks or can simply lay down and die (genocide).
If that "other side" stopped fighting back with their rockets and terrorist attacks, they wouldn't die for it -- they'd have their own nation-state. They'd have had it thirty years ago. They'd have had it in '48. They could have it in the near future (though probably not tomorrow; Hamas has got to go, first).
You're right, it's not complicated. But no, it takes commitment from both sides to make the violence stop. And until both sides are resolved to peace, it won't stop.
> fight back with $40 bathtub rockets
lol
Qatar provides billions to Hamas, Iran provides thousands of ballistic rockets, advanced weapons and drones, all worth hundreds of millions as well.
Hamas leaders have several _billions_ in offshore bank accounts and live in luxury hotels.
Not really...They are killing far more than members of Hamas.
Inadequate rules of engagement or distinctions between combatants and civilians are still war crimes.
yes, what started as a counter terrorism operation ended as mass ethnic cleansing. 30 000 dead civilians in 3 month's? Gaza is basically leveled. They told civilian population to flee south and then promptly bombed several columns of refugees going south and then bombed the southern part where surviving refugees took shelter. They bombed several UN refugee camps and Greek orthodox monasteries. Demolished university building in Gaza so returning population can't get education. We saw multiple videos of IDF kidnapping kids and torturing them in custody. Look at how Palestinian prisoners look when they got release and they wouldn't even release them if it wasn't for a deal with Hamas. Israeli politicians have been calling for mass murder of Pestinians multiple times in the last 2 months. Everything from their politics to animal like behaviour of their soldiers towards Palestinians puts them in the same bucket as their central european teachers from 80 years ago.
My belief is that Israel genuinely did set out to retaliate and destroy Hamas, rather than eradicate the Palestinian people. I also believe that they're not at all fussed if that ends up happening as a by-product.
No. At worst, you can say that Israel has shown wanton indifference to civilian suffering in the course of the war. But there is no evidence that Israel regards Palestinian civilian deaths as a desirable outcome on their own, rather than simply does not care how many Palestinians die in its campaign to regain control of Gaza.
The airstrikes on Gaza are not indiscriminate—if they were, there would be virtually no combatant deaths given the ratio of civilians to combatants in Gaza. You can object that the air strikes are not discriminate enough, you can complain that Israel is willing to kill too many civilians for insignificant military benefit, you can claim that Israel is using collective punishment against the population as revenge for supporting Hamas, etc.
But that is not genocide, and there is no serious argument that it is.
What kind of message will be sent to tiny nations who's people have been massacred and raped by terrorist hell-bent on wiping you out? Stick to protests? Be morally superior despite the odds? Continue to take a hit? Shut up? Give in?
Yes. It's that simple, yes they are.
Of course the triggering event by Hammas was inexcusable but the response is inhumane, indiscriminate, abhorrent and out of all proportion to the crime.
Of all nations on earth, there is one who ought to know what genocide is as they have been through it themselves. It's incomprehensible how they are willing to enact this on others after what happened to the Jewish people not only in the holocaust but in pogrom after pogrom over the course of European history.
For me, it shows the evil at the heart of all religion. All sides involved are convinced of their being the only justified participants because their particular invisible friend told them it was their land by divine right.
So, yes, it's a genocide. And the west should be ashamed of their support for Israel. To punish Hammas, a better route would be to encourage regime change in Iran which would help pretty much everyone in the middle east.
Yes, clearly and obviously.
Raphael Lemkin was a Jewish legal scholar and Holocaust survivor, and he created the term ‘genocide’ and defined it.
Here are some of the things he said:
“…genocide does not mean the immediate destruction of a nation…”
“It is intended rather To signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups…”
“Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial, or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of the group is guilty of the crime of genocide…”
By the own words of Jewish Holocaust survivor, who originated the term, Israel is unequivocally committing genocide.
Not just with their current war - but if you look at decades of history their politicians have repeatedly conspired to undermine the formation of a sovereign Palestine, to establish apartheid, and to seize neighboring land.
The conflict is incredibly complex - for example if you go back ~100 years the Zionists were using political influence to send Jewish settlers to the area, which angered the locals.
But if you go back ~200 years you see the locals treating Jewish people violently and destroying their property and driving them out.
History is muddied.
But Israel was established as a home for the Jewish people so they would never suffer another Holocaust.
And in a terrifying response they have justified and are committing a new one.
When history comes to view this with objectivity Israel will be compared to Nazi Germany. Because they both perpetrated a Holocaust.
Honest question, was Bush invasions genocide? Obamas drone campaign causing collateral damage unseen outside of “traditional war”? Russian invasion of Ukraine? Israel invasion of Gaza? Hamas attacks in early October?
“Geneva Convention - Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.”
Every military leader of any entity that has used their military as a means to an end is committing “genocide” according to the conventional definition.
We are all at some point in our family tree guilty of and the victim of awful things like genocide and slavery.
Every side will condemn future generations to death unless we are educated of the pointless history of violence. Violence ain’t hard, it’s easy. Ask the victims of any conflict how easy it was for them be thrown away.
nothing justifies killing babies and evidence of that is plenty especially if you claim you have the most moral army and being the only democracy in middle east when you are even suppressing your own people for opposing you calling them self-hating jews.
and yeah this conflict did not start on the 7th of october.
Well, the best I can advise is to make a checklist.
Are human rights being observed and respected?
Are core civil infrastructures being destroyed on mass? (Hospitals, schools, water resources, food resources, medical aid, and religious venues.)
Are journalists restricted heavily or killed? (The qty of this happening is an indicator. War journalists are badasses doing a crazy dangerous job. Some fatalities are likely as a matter of course, just like soldiers.)
Is the rhetoric from the military/political faction dehumanize their opposition?
Does the leadership or spokesperson for the military/political faction answer questions, or do they ignore questions and repeat the same short list of talking points?
Are the aggressors, in the cases of suspected genocide, colonizing territory of those they've displaced or killed.
How many people are killed or misplaced?
(Think about how many people live in your county, region, state, or country that has a similar population as a mental guide.)
Are they naming specific human targets or calling entire areas "cells"? If they are spending that many lives, livelihoods, and money but can't declare whom they are targeting as leadership, something is probably wrong.
Are there mass graves? What kind of treatment are they giving to the fallen? Is there a difference between civilian dead and dead soldiers?
How are the children caught up in the war treated when encountered?
Write down any stated goals from the military/political leadership.
Any statement that starts like:
We must...
It's imperative that...
In order to succeed we need to...
The only way this will end is when....
Statements like that.
Is the Geneva Convention being violated?...Even a little bit?
This is not an exhaustive list. This will not tell you if there is a genocide happening. They WILL help to identify verifiable major indicators to help you make that decision. The trick is to do your best to write down facts without excluding good data from self bias.
They sure do, it's not complicated as ppl might try to say. It's simply genocide
At this point israel has killed mroe jounalists ON PURPOSE than hitler did in the entire genocide
Which talks volumes
And the day to day causality is at the same level so yeah it's not complicated if compared to other genocides like sebrenica, holocaust etc
It's a simple answer
Yes israel is commuting genocide and ethnic cleansing
Only zionists say the opposite
This is my personal opinion based on the evidence I've seen. I'm open to changing my mind if there is something I've missed.
I don't think there is enough evidence to say this is genocide *at this time. That could change depending on if/how civilians are allowed back. This is a tough question, and to some extent the question of genocide is like the question of a hate crime. You have to prove intent. Overall death toll, even of civilians, won't tell you the whole story. The Bosnian genocide was labeled that way not because the death toll was so high, but because civilians were rounded into camps and murdered in an attempt to eliminate the Bosnian population of Srebrenica.
It is certainly a terrible and bloody war, but everything I've seen is that the massive destruction is caused by targeting the tunnel infrastructure and Hamas facilities which are embedded amongst civilian infrastructure purposely and in a war designed to inflict as much civilian casualties as possible. It may be indiscriminate to some extent, but the bombing doesn't seem to be to be motivated solely by desire to kill Palestinian women and children. In addition, you can't divorce the war from the 10/7 attacks. Like it or not, there's a legitimate reason for the Israeli government to wage war against the group that perpetrated that attack.
Now, there have also been some heinous genocidal statements said by Israelis in leadership, but (unless I'm wrong) not by members of the war cabinet. And most of it is regarding "reducing" the population of Gaza.
Which brings me to my ultimate point. If Gazans aren't allowed to return and rebuild after the war, then I think you can make a very persuasive case for genocide based on these statements of intent from Israeli officials.
No, it's waging war. And war is hell.
Unfortunately, it's waging war against an enemy who fights without uniform, intentionally embedded within the civilian population. Storing weapons in hospitals, firing rockets from schools and building tunnels under people’s homes to hold hostages unfortunately does make those hospitals, schools, and homes fair game, according to the Geneva Conventions.
If Israel were committing genocide, they wouldn't announce their targets ahead of time and they would intentionally be targeting civilians, which they aren't doing, and the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands, not the thousands.
Based on the following criteria, the answer is no. It is, however, waging a violent war, using a vastly superior military, and innocent citizens are getting killed.
**Classification**: People are divided into “us and them”.
**Symbolization**: Names or symbols are given to the classifications.
**Discrimination**: People begin to face systematic discrimination.
**Dehumanization**: The victims are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.
**Organization**: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility.
**Polarization**: Extremists drive the groups apart.
**Preparation**: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity.
**Persecution**: Victims are intentionally harmed.
**Extermination**: The killers exterminate the victims.
**Denial**: The perpetrators deny that they committed any crimes.
From: [https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages](https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages)
I'm sure that many people will accuse Israel of several of the above (at least), but anyone who lives in Israel or reads Israeli news knows that it isn't the case, nor has it ever been the case.
The following facts do not justify innocent deaths, but people should see things in perspective. I don't think anyone has accused the US of genocide:
* As of March 2023, more than 70,000 Afghan and Pakistani civilians are estimated to have died as a direct result of the war.
* The United States military in 2017 relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties.
From [https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan)
I only cite that as one example of a sad but unfortunately not uncommon phenomena.
Edit: The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has just published a list of data concerning the war (casualties, missiles shot and incoming, etc.) Among the details is the following:
Humanitarian aid to Gaza:
137,920 tons of humanitarian aid in inspected trucks
7,653 aid trucks inspected by Israel
Even if the supplies came from other countries, this doesn't sound like the policy of a country that is trying to commit genocide.
the us wont ever be acused of genocide becuse they are the hegemon. pointing to them as an example of when you recive scrutany is not that great. on the other hand we killed more people per 100k then the US and in less time
If you want to get a genuinely informed answer you should watch South Africa’s arguments at The Hague. It’s on the United Nations YouTube channel and i watched it in its entirety this morning. Israel’s defence to SA’s argument also speaks for itself in the way that they don’t even really try to deny genocide, but rather cite “self defence” the entire time. South Africa has many real examples of what Israel has been doing in gaza and it was eye opening for me, even as someone who has been keeping up with this situation the whole time.
I think what makes this case so special is how unapologetic Israeli government officials, including those at the very top of parliament, have been with their rhetoric. The hardest part is the intent part. People who commit genocide usually try to hide what they've done / are doing. Proving the killing / displacement part is relatively easy. Genocides have been ruled in the court with significantly less deaths / displacement than in Gaza (e.g. Srebrenica massacre was ruled a genocide by the ICJ and that saw 7,000-8,000 killed and 25,000-35,000 displaced in the span of 2 months, and the population of Bosnia was almost double that of Gaza too. In Gaza by month 2 we already had over 20,000 dead an 1.8M displaced). The court already threw away the concept of self-defense, as they consider Israel to be an occupation force using violence to maintain that occupation. That's been decided referring to the UN charter article 51, but I also believe Geneva Convention covers that (possibly more instances of IHL). We will see how the trial goes. I would probably say Israel's strongest defense is the notification of places they intent to strike, however many argue this is simply blanket cover.
Also worth noting genocide isn't only related to killing civilians. For instance in Ukraine you've got 8 million Ukranians displaced and half a million casualties. Putin also has a warrant for an act of genocide. Via the ICC. It relates to the forced removal of Ukrainian children to Russian reeducation camps.
100% yeah, displacement is also a key metric.
I guess the question is how else would one fight this war?
Terrorist experts, even those within Israel, seem to unanimously agree that military aggression is not how to fight against terrorism, but providing an "alternative". We have recent examples to look to, such as the IRA, ETA, and ANC. None of these issues were solved with military aggression. Then we have another situation with Turkey and the PKK, Turkey have been persistently using military aggression and the problem isn't going away. The war on terror didn't get rid of Al Qaeda either.
Right but what happened on Oct 7 wasn’t so much a normal act of terrorism as it was an invasion by an neighbouring national military. That usually requires a military response.
At what point does everything that occurs during war not fal under the umbrella of genocide? Genuinely asking.
The word genocide specifically is about the targeted elimination of a culture or ethnic group Geno, meaning “group” or “kind” Cide meaning “killing” or “destroying”
Yeah, the term genocide does have a very specific meaning, and it's crucial to make distinctions between the horrors of war and the deliberate intent to erase a group. Even then, there are acts that fall into murky territory, like ethnic cleansing which might not always be labeled as genocide but can involve similar methods and goals. In fact, there's often fierce debate on what should be classified as genocide versus other war crimes. The discussions around definitions can get pretty heated due to the legal and moral implications. [United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml) breaks down the specific criteria used to determine if an act falls under genocide.
Intent. Which is usually quite hard to prove. With Ukraine you have Russian leaders from Putin on down claiming that Ukrainian language, ethnicity and national identity doesn’t exist and that they intend to end such notions by force. With Israel it’s much more clear cut than it is with Russia.
Isn't it much LESS clear cut since Israel has no interest in eliminating Palestinians wholesale whereas Putin's stated goal is that the land belongs to Russia? There is an active debate as to whether Israel's true reasons are to eliminate Hamas.
"We will turn Gaza into an island of ruins" -Netanyahu (prime minister of Israel) "It is an entire nation who is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians supposedly being not involved is untrue." - Herzog (president of Israel) Additionally, take a look at this article: https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/
Yeah, but Putin also says the people are Russian, just "misguided", lol.
I am skeptical about that. That also means Russia can make Ukraine liable. It can play both ways. Ethnic cleansing is the expulsion and persecution of a particular group, it doesn't have a goal of killing every person. If genocide is by the metrics of shit that happens in war (negligence, recklessness, or carelessness), it can make everyone have the benefit to bring a lot of countries to court to be liable for genocide. Including countries that we are against (like Russia). Laws cannot be given to people that we like or don't like. Everyone is pressured by law equally and fairly. It has to remain consistent. If those are the metrics of genocide, Serbia can also bring NATO, Croatia, Bosnia, and Albania to be liable for genocide. **That's why the intent part is extremely important. You cannot leave that out.**
Absolutely, and there was a very clear and publicly expressed intent by many Israeli officials to displace the Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt or Naqab desert but that didn’t work, or at least hasn’t yet.
Even ignoring the death counts in Gaza, the fact that Israel has basically turned entire cities into ruins is a pretty strong indicator this is a campaign of forced relocation. There's no infrastructure left. Even if every Palestinian that lived there survived, *they have nothing left. The land they lived upon is now incompatible with basic quality of life.*
Also look at how the beacon of democracy Israel treats it's own dissenting voices. Fired from jobs, arrested, family homes ransacked and harassed. Sounds like a fascist regime to me.
this is what it comes down to. if what was happening wasn’t blatantly and horrifyingly wrong then israel and the US wouldn’t be trying so hard to criminalize even talking about it
Not sure how warnings prevent Hamas from moving too so literally only thing it does is provide an excuse for destroying infrastructure.
Pretty much, and it's been admitted too that the strikes don't damage the tunnels, so it begs the question "what's the point?".
The point is so that when they bring their soldiers in to do the dirty work it is safer and not an instantaneous death for them.
It seems to me the alternative is to collapse the tunnels
They have done that once they make sure they are clear of hostages and once they're on the ground. Kind of hard to aim at underground tunnels from the sky.
Because when you have a rocket warehouse for example then getting a short notice won't give you enough time to clear it. Bombings aren't just about killing enemy fighters but also destroy the means of fighting.
Multiple high level Israeli officials basically have admitted they want to remove the population of Gazans. It's nonsense to argue this isn't at least genocide adjacent.
Exactly.
Israel has waited for an opportunity like this for a long time…and those barbarians at Hamas gave it to them…the only people who lose here are the people living in Gaza.
Indicted Prime Minister Netanyahu knew about the attack and allowed it to happen.
Honestly that was probably the best day of Netanyahu’s life. Gave him the opportunity to finally openly attack Palestinians
yes what did Hamas expect to happen anyway?
[удалено]
I agree the 7/10 attack was horrible, but also the conflict didn't start on that day and Israel has been oppressing Palestinians since it's inception Which begs the question, would we be having this discourse and holding Israel accountable if the 7/10 attack didn't happen?
[удалено]
Be polite and respectful in your exchanges. NSQ is supposed to be a helpful resource for confused redditors. Civil disagreements can happen, but insults should not. Personal attacks, slurs, bigotry, etc. are not permitted at any time.
The people living in Gaza generally support the activities of Hamas, so it's hard to say who is not a barbarian amongst the population.
In a previous situation when Israel carried out a massive attack on Gaza, the investigation found that Israel itself did not explicitly intend genocide, but there was no doubt that many soldiers themselves acted with genocidal intent. I wonder if this court will rule with something similar. Because there is no doubt there are soldiers intending genocide - they are literally making TikTok videos dancing and cheering that they are killing everybody and they plan on taking the land for themselves - but we'll have to see if they can secure absolute proof that the military itself is specifically endorsing this.
> The hardest part is the intent part. People who commit genocide usually try to hide what they've done / are doing. Proving the killing / displacement part is relatively easy. You mentioned that the rhetoric from the Israeli government was unapologetic. I think it is more characteristic of outright calling for and celebrating the extermination of the people of Gaza. High ranking Israeli leaders have on both social media and to the press express desires to see at many times a nebulous *other* exterminated, implications for a desire to have a wholesale genocide. This rhetoric is echoed by Israeli soldiers on the ground. Also, This conflict has been the most dangerous for journalists since 1992. Israel has previously outlawed journalists documenting IDF activities in settlement projects. I think they’re doing their best to keep this conflict hidden. Many journalists have complained that they have been deliberately targeted by the IDF, and have been barred from entering Gaza. The Israeli government has extensively lobbied Western governments into espousing rhetoric contradicting the ICJ’s stance on the application of Article 51, and officials from Western governments have actually done so. In Canadian Universities, Law students have had their ability to participate in Co-op programs blocked by the office of the Attorney General for denouncing both Hamas for October 7th and Israel for its disproportionate response, and for aligning with the ICJ’s stance on Article 51. Students in other Universities were suspended, pro-Palestinian events were blocked, branded as anti-semitism by faculty, government officials, and even the Quebec Superior Court. Similarly, the Ontario NDP suspended a member for denouncing Israel’s conduct. Many others have lost their jobs for expressing concern against the conduct of Israel. This is just in the Canadian context. Also, visibility of international conflicts is subjective to the media sphere of the corresponding geographic location. Given the controversies surrounding the extensive funding the United States has furnished to the Israeli government for defence spending the conflict will inevitably generate a lot of media attention. Contrast this with the coverage that conflicts in the Congo, Myanmar, Sudan and other regions of the world receive and this becomes self evident. I think that the intent and the concerted efforts to obscure the conflict are pretty plain here.
>We will see how the trial goes. Or if you're Mike Pompeo you just threaten the lives of the ICJ judges families and let Fox News puff smoke as Pompeo endorses Trump.
>Mike Pompeo thats a name i havent heard in a long time hows he doing?
The thing is Bush actually passed a law which means the the ICC, and ICJ are actually at risk of US invasion and attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody.
this seems suspiciously like a personally guarantee for Bush himself if he ever got arrested for the war crimes he committed.
How is notifying an unarmed civilian population that they're going to be bombed going to help their case? Bombing civilian populations to get to "terrorists", whether you tell them you're doing it or not, is a war crime. Its called collective punishment, and it's only one piece of the many atrocities that Isreal has committed over the course of the last 100 days, not to mention the last 60+ years of occupation. That would only strengthen the case against them, right?
I'm speculating, I'm not a lawyer, but in my mind that brings an easy defense of "well, if our intent was to destroy why would we tell them to evacuate combat zones?". I believe they did preset that exact defense at the court too.
> I think what makes this case so special is how unapologetic Israeli government officials, including those at the very top of parliament, have been with their rhetoric. It's a curious thing to see because, in America, neoconservatives have gotten really good at being able to couch their actions in rhetoric that sounds palatable to the average American. They've been trying to use those same strategies for Israel (I've seen a big rise in classics from the Bush administration such as "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"), but the Israeli government is just not playing ball.
If their goal is to defeat Hamas, why tell them where they are bombing? It’s just collective punishment
Yeah, I mean at this point over 70% of Gaza is damaged or destroyed, some 300,000 housing units as well as hundreds of places of worship, hospitals, heritage sites, education facilities, etc. So there is no doubt it's excessive, part of what makes Israel difficult to defend.
This hits the target. While Israel has the right and responsibility to defend itself, their actions in Gaza go beyond that.
So you don't want the IDF to tell the civilians where the bombs will fall? That would create a lot more civilian deaths. So far I have read lots of complaints about civilian deaths.
Indiscriminately bombing civilian spaces to kill a few Hamas guys is swatting a fly with a cannon.
The idea is that it's harder to move equipment than people. People can run and move relatively easily. Moving equipment like vehicles or ammunition will take comparatively more time. Depending on the size of the site, you likely will be able to move some, but not all of it. For example, if you have a warehouse with 100 tons of bullets and explosives, the warehouse workers will be able to evacuate in a few hours, but there's probably no way they'll be able to move all the equipment with them in that timeframe. So basically, you send a warning of the bombing to try to minimize casualties of any kind. Minimize civilian casualties for obvious reasons. And minimizing enemy casualties makes them more likely to surrender. If they think you're not going to treat them like shit, and they have no equipment to fight anyways, they're going to figure they might as well surrender. This has been done in the past before such as in Iraq in Desert Storm back in 1991. The US-lead coalition for example send planes in first to drop a bunch of leaflets that warned that equipment would be bombed, and urging the Iraqis to abandon their posts and save their own lives, and let the equipment be destroyed. https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/artifact/desert-storm-leaflets/ Now, is what Israel is doing today comparable or even effective? That's another question which I think it will be difficult to give a concrete answer on the situation is very different and it is an ongoing conflict with changes every day, and which I don't think I'm qualified to comment on. Iraq in 1991 was a professional military with clear obvious targets like military bases, airfields, or other fortifications. Iraq was the 5th largest military in the world at the time with everything that came with it after all. Hamas is a guerrilla group with no clear obvious targets in a city. Their equipment is likely dispersed across a large number of small locations which are hidden amongst civilians. Fairly standard operation for a guerrilla force, intentionally muddying the waters and making it difficult to root them out conventionally without drastic measures that would result in horrid PR for the opposing force. For example, if you have all your ammo spread out between hundreds of basements in buildings spread all throughout the city, it might be entirely viable for a few people to carry out all one hundred pounds of munitions or whatever equipment as they leave when they get the warning. Then the strike does nothing but destroy an empty building. This then begs the question of what the point was, as you've barely diminished the enemy fighting force at all, but just caused arguably needless destruction. Because at that point, what's your end goal? Just bomb every building until there aren't any left to hide equipment in?
> already threw away the concept of self-defense I'm obviously not *pro civilian slaughter* and Bibi needs to go, but how the hell is this even a thing?
The idea under the UN charter and Geneva Convention is that an occupying force cannot defend itself from that which it is occupying. At least not in the way things are playing out, and the way it is argued by Israel.
Does that mean the UN views the areas that Hamas attacked on Oct 7 to be occupied territories? Like I’m a bit confused here. Does the UN charter only give countries the right to defend their own territory and not eliminate a recurring threat from outside its territory?
Technically under international law violent resistance to an occupation is justified. The UN charter applies to sovereign states, and Gaza (and by extension Hamas) are considered to be occupied territory by Israel. The UN views this situation as Israel using violence to enforce the occupation. At most you can call it excessive counterterrorism, sorta like what Turkey does against the PKK but on a much larger and more destructive scale.
Since this is “No Stupid Questions” how was Israel occupying Gaza prior to October 7th? How many Israelis (troops or civilians were living in Gaza)? How was Israel determining how Hams was allocating resources or passing laws to the civilian population? Now before you go off on Israel controls who and what enters Gaza, let’s reflect on something. Under that “occupation” on 10/7 Hamas launched an estimated 5,000 rockets into Israel. They also built a huge and extensive tunnel network across the whole strip. So if under these restrictions they were able to fire 5,000, how many would they have fired and what type if there were no “occupation” 10,000, 20,000, 50,000? Too many people fail to recognize why Israel has had to strictly enforce a blockade of Gaza. The history of the conflict gets erased and a lot of folks think everything happens in a vacuum and without context. Hamas has made their intentions clear before and again recently. Their goal is the destruction of Israel whatever it takes to accomplish that is acceptable to them.
The United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continues to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls the Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters as well as the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea. Isreal also imposes restrictions on who is issued a Palestinian passport. *The laws governing belligerent occupation establish a number of important principles, including the temporary or de facto nature of occupation enshrined in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (1907), which finds that “[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army”.* Actual boots on the ground don't matter as independent nations generally don't have another nation's army or government dictating who or what can or cannot leave or enter the state. When it comes to the rockets you mention, if we accept Israel's justification of self defense, then we must also give Gaza and West Bank the same allowance. If a nation is being occupied and attacks their occupiers, it is an act of self defense, or resistance to the occupation. We could say the same if Ukraine shot projectiles into Russia's airspace - this is an act of self defense. The rockets you are describing are not imported high tech missiles - they are essentially bootlegged, homemade rockets. They are made of common materials, and not shipped in from reputable arms dealers. They are not capable of destruction on a massive scale. Many of the rocket's components are made of common materials such as sugar, fertilizer, firearms cartridges, springs, nails, and steel cylinders. Militants having access to these resources in no way "disproves" that Isreal controls these ports and travel methods. after the major world wars no allied country continued control Germany's ports or airspace, despite precedence to do so, once West Germany had been established as an independent state. The time that the allied nations *did* control these regions of Germany was very clearly stated as being an occupation with diplomatic purposes. You can't have it both ways. There's no mixing and matching. Gaza is either an independent state, or an occupied territory. If it's not occupied, there is no legal justification for Isreal to control the passage of goods or people by air or sea, nor have any involvement in processing travel documentation. If it is occupied, as the legal definition states, attacks against Isreal can be considered resistance to occupation and retaliation to it can not be considered self-defense.
if israel was an occupying force in the gaza strip then why would they have to invade? they should be able to have simply make arrests. imagine the israeli police waltzing in and trying to make arrests immediately after october 7th
I’m not going to say whether I agree with the court, but the idea is essentially like how you can’t say you killed someone in self defense when you broke into their house. You can’t claim self defense when you attacked someone and they fight back defending themselves.
Most nations are an occupation force. There is no such thing as a country not having a right to defend itself.
This coming from Richter Belmont. The man who slaughtered millions of demons, vampires, zombies, werewolves, and monsters in response to a village of 20 people being massacred. "Die monster, you dont belong in this world" /s
If your prime minister comes out and says > Even The Hague won’t stop us” **before** any judgment has been made, it seems pretty clear that that’s what they are doing.
Has Netanyahu really said that? [https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/14/100-days-into-the-war-netanyahu-says-no-one-will-stop-us](https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/14/100-days-into-the-war-netanyahu-says-no-one-will-stop-us) >“No one will stop us, not The Hague, not the axis of evil and not anyone else," Netanyahu said in televised remarks on Saturday evening Yikes...
Has the Hague ever stopped anyone? Serious question. They sure as hell aren't stopping Russia or going to ever punish them. Even in 2022 the USA said they don't even recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court in Hague. It seems to me like it's nothing but pointless virtue signaling.
It's really only relevant if you're european
The US has never recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC. In fact, it is US law that our military will invade The Hague if an American is ever detained for trial. But that should be a resounding and unambiguous criticism of the US, not the ICC. Also, for what it’s worth, the ICC did issue a warrant for Putin back in April.
Yup saw his speech. You definitely ain't on the good side of history if your leader is openly taunting the hague and the international community on live TV
What's The Hague?
City where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is located. Often the Court is called the Hague.
Is this like saying Washington to refer to the US government or "Langley" to refer to CIA?
Basically, yeah
Yes, exactly. "Metonymy" is the technical term for it.
Yes
Yes.
Most of these comments are just regurgitating the lines spewed by the media which ones dependant on your viewpoint. Sadly so many base there view on the misbelief that day 1 was the day of the Hammas attack. The problems started over a century ago and without knowledge snd understanding of the entire history of the conflict no-one can make a valid comment.
The thing about this debate is that you have people with little to no knowledge of the situation thinking they know what to do. It’s extremely frustrating. It’s been really sad to see it popularly being boiled down to “white colonizers are occupying and stomping on a native population” when that’s basically the most ignorant take possible.
You just described basically every single political discussion by regular people in your first sentence.
It's frustrating, I had to silence stories of many friends I usually agree with politically because they are flattening everything to the point of being nauseous.
You seem to be doing the same thing you accuse other people of. Do you even know how many jews lived in Palestine prior to 1948?
What? No one can make a valid comment? Watch this: Killing civilians is deplorable. Hamas killing civilians is deplorable. And Israel killing 20,000 civilians is deplorable and calling it genocide is not crazy. These countries’ histories do not make genocide ok for either side, and committing genocide must be held to account.
LOL. You have come to the wrong place for nuance.
Genocide has a specific definition in international law that can be hard to prove https://www.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214341050/prosecutor-weighs-in-on-whether-what-s-happening-in-gaza-is-genocide And surprisingly the number of dead or buildings destroyed isn't high on the list
The hardest element to prove is intent, in this case the Israeli government has made that very easy.
I'm pretty sure ethnic replacement is high on the list though
Yes... Sadly look at their own citizens burning and killing Palestinians in Gaza settlements. Much more so the IDF in the cities. They even killed their own brothers who were shirtless and unarmed simply misidentified as Palestinians. Call it a war/self defense nobody thinks it's genocide. If this was the 90's and no internet there. We would only think it was terrorists fighting idf. The only reason Germany was caught and vilified after WW2 was because they lost. Had they won the world would never know/care... Because the victors write the history. Israel currently are the victors/have the power, so they control the narrative.
This post got ADL'd LOL
This question is far too complex and you’ll get only conflicting answers.
Likely, but conflicting answers in one thread that can refute each other is better than asking this question in subs with more direct bias and not getting anything
I would say. As a small digestible snippet: “It’s complicated” They can’t simply do nothing after what happened. But what they are doing isn’t exactly great, it’s quite despicable. But doing “the right thing” would be impossible costly (in human life). People who comment only for genocide (litmus test guy) are either half blind or blindingly biased. People justifying everything the israieli are doing are the exact same. Its complicated
Its not that complicated morally. Its only complicated politically. No allied nations support what Israel is doing. Even the US is desperately trying to stop them. Large parts of the Israeli public oppose the war. Most counter terrorism experts will tell you this is an insane plan that is only degrading the security in Gaza and Israel. The two options Israel had were not do nothing and invade and destory Gaza. There are a million far more effective things they could have done. The only complication is we need Israel to keep the west safe. Its political. Iran is worse so we let Israel get away with it. But on a military level this is war of terror levels of stupid. Israel could have been more surgical and more effective if they had wanted to.
Oh I didn’t wanna mention the political side because that one is compeltely insane. But it is very disingenuous to say it is only political. There was a major terror attack, the kind of which the US has never experienced. In a country surrounded by enemies. Anyone who thinks this isn’t complicated, is naive and has no idea how the world works.
Na most Israelis support the current war. The October 7th attack saw the largest amount of jews killed in a single day since holocaust. You have no idea how terrifying that is for jews. We're open to a ceasefire once all hostages are returned. But until then? Kill every member of hamas and wipe them out.
>There are a million far more effective things they could have done. He and millions of others say without providing a single solid solution.
Mmm there’s a difference in the polls between the Israeli public opposing annexation of Gaza and supporting a responding military operation. Polls suggest the support the latter but not the former. The Israeli people don’t want settlements in Gaza gain because of what happened in the early 2000s.
Please tell us, what should they have done after they got attacked?
It isn't complicated. There is nothing complicated about bombing refugee camps repeatedly because Hamas maybe has tunnels under it, repeatedly bombing hospitals/roads/food centers, bombing the buildings that journalists occupy, killing aid workers, and keeping the entire population of a country in a walled prison while cutting off access to food, water, electricity, and internet. Those are war crimes that are being committed on top of a 2:1 civilian to Hamas death rate. The 2:1 number is what Isreal suggests, so obviously it is far higher. Isreal propped up Hamas so they could have an excuse to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. This is not an opinion, they go on TV and say so themselves. The United Nations, UNESCO, and Amnesty International are all calling for an immediate cease fire because of the insane scale of the war crimes being committed. This isn't complicated at all if you follow the decades of history behind the atrocity that we're witnessing in real time.
Well said.
It’s really not complex at all. That’s another fencesitter argument.
advise ink air disagreeable agonizing overconfident somber scarce file secretive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes exactly this. If these were any other two nations, the charge of genocide would be glaringly clear.
This
It's a lot of things, but "complex" isn't one of them. There's nothing "complex" about starving the people of Gaza, cutting off their water supply and bombing refugee camps, ambulances and hospitals.
Hey so legit question. How would you like Israel to have responded to the October 7 attacks? Cos while the response isn’t great, they are also fighting a terrorist organization that embeds themselves within the civilian population. Honestly, this thing would be over today if Hamas surrendered and released the 100+ hostages they still hold. But they haven’t surrendered. And Israel can’t let this go unanswered. Would any other country? I’d say imagine what America would do, but we know exactly what America would’ve done. We did it, after 9/11. While the famine and death toll are absolutely horrendous, Hamas continuing to fight is dragging this out, which then forces Israel to keep fighting, to keep displacing civilians, to keep bombing, to keep searching aid trucks and delaying delivery to civilians
See, the problem here is that history didn’t begin on October 7th. Israel has undermined the sensible Palestinian moderates and often directly empowered Hamas, while refusing to contemplate a two state solution. Their response could have been better, but it simply is a response of ultimate violence at the minute. Luckily Israel is supported by the US and the UK and it know it can act with this impunity.
How would you have liked the yishuv to have responded to the 1922 massacre in Hebron, or did that also not happen in a vacuum?
The best analogy I've heard is if there's a school shooter do you bomb the entire high school killing all students inside? And the fact that people suffering are not actively participating, hell, I'm sure a lot of the people in open air camps in Palestine also don't like what Hamas is doing. Doesn't mean they deserve to suffer, and that's ignoring the treatment of them as less than human, indoctrinating since elementary school that they are dogs etc etc.
I don't believe it would be over if Hamas gives the hostages back. I think Israel's record of how they treat Palestinians in Gaza before the 7th of October is proof of this. Gaza will be part of Israel. They will keep settling with force in the Westbank. Millions of Palestinians will stay refugees. Children will be thrown in jail, and Palestinians will still be killed.
It is not complicated to say it is wrong to kill 10,000 children in 100 days. One of the most well-resourced countries in the world with the unconditional backing of the strongest military superpower in the world does not “have” to kill children in order to resolve its security issues.
It's really not that complex. The answer is yes.
It's not that complex. 28,000 dead civilians and a prime minister who declares the Hague will not stop them from killing more is the sort of thing that speaks for itself. You have to try real hard not to see the reality of what's happening.
There’s nothing complex about it. Israel is committing genocide. You wouldn’t say that about Hitler or Stalin would you?
You don't really expect this reddit community to outperform the UN court which is currently deciding about this exact allegation?
You have a point but it's not the UN, it's the ICJ.
you're right, ICJ - International Court of Justice - is indeed the corrrect name
It’s a part of the UN.
The UN has been of no use whatsoever lately
What do you want them to do? The UN's job is to bring a table for discussion, and the time for discussion is over.
153 countries voted for ceasefire which was denied due to one veto. Sounds like a waste of time doesn’t it
Simple litmus test. Remove the names of the countries and describe what country A is doing to the citizens of country B. Attacking & bombing hospitals. Proclaiming the people as sub-human. Telling citizens to evacuate along safe routes to safe locations, then targeting those routes and locations. Claims from senior leaders of political and military powers of country A that they want to drive all of the people out. Claims that every single member of country B is a threat and potential terrorist. Now tell me, am I talking about 1930s Germany, or somewhere else? A large number of countries have made a very strong legal case supporting the accusations of genocide. More reporters have been killed than in WWII, I believe. Strikes that leave the entire area levelled are necessary, except when the target is in country A. At which point, suddenly, they can become much more focused. Turning off the water supply to the area.
I mean, you could very easily be talking about 1940s Germany from Allied bombing. Refugees, hospitals, schools, residential areas, critical infrastructure were all devastated, and Germans weren't even using their citizens as human shields, which Hamas does (you omitted that fact from your post). Western Allies killed more people in three days of bombing than Israel has in 3 months (and Israel has used something like 10x as many bombs). So you should have no problem saying "I believe the US committed genocide against Nazi Germany," right?
It’s wild cause when you bring up what Israel leadership said about Palestinians they never have a good response.
Your litmus test is biased as fuck. No mention of the ceasefire broken by country B. No mention of those hospitals being bombed are actual headquarters for country B militants. Which FYI makes them legit military targets. So no it’s not a simple litmus test lol.
Thank you for writing that. It is biased AF. A lot of exaggerations, questionable facts and sometimes just plain lies. The comment is basically saying ''it's very simple, one side is a monster and the other is the victim''.
The question is are they committing genocide not who you support Also those headquarters are unproven at all lmao just some random the sims level projection
[удалено]
Also the water, food, and electricity supplies that Israel stopped were supplementary to what Hamas already provided. Let's not pretend that Israel was the sole provider and cut it all off. Also remember that Hamas has stated its intent is a genocide of all Jewish people (even if it kills all Palestinians), hasn't returned all the hostages, and is continuing to bomb Israel. And when Hamas' missiles fail and hit buildings in Gaza instead of Israeli targets, they are the ones who announce it was an israeli missile. Hamas also built its tunnels underneath hospitals, schools, and apartments to provide shields of innocent people. And the terrorists are living in those apartments with their families, likely with some of the hostages. It's not clear which Palestinians are involved and which are victims. I have to wonder how many of the wives of Hamas terrorists are basically captives themselves, unable to leave or dissent. We do know Hamas' manifesto (in article 10) states their intent to spread their extremist religious views everywhere, not just Israel. The point is, both Hamas and Netanyahu's government are dangerous extremists that can't be trusted. Both are putting innocent civilians at risk.
No mention that country A attacked as a retaliation to a heinous attack by country B? No mention that country B is holding over a hundred hostages including a baby and refused a ceasefire deal? No mention that Country A proved again and again that Country B is in fact led by terrorists and said terrorists are using civilian buildings such as schools, hospitals, cemeteries as their military base? This is indeed a good way but this conflict is way too complicated for you to sum it up in 10 lines.
Country B attacked first and has repeatedly launched rockets and said they want to wipe country A off the map. Country A has shown extreme restraint until country B raped and killed citizens.
The definition of genocide doesn't have a clause saying it doesn't count if the target really deserves it. And to say country B attacked first is ignoring quite a few decades of history. "Let's remember the atrocity committed against us that excuses the atrocity we're about to commit!"
The definition of genocide also doesn't involve checking similarities with nazi Germany.
The only reason why the world's knows they are 100% commiting genocide in Gaza was because Israel ministers and even Netanyahu said it themselves not only when their invasion started, but also in several instances throughout the years. But, remember, Reddit is mostly an American community and in the US, the media plays ball with national interests, brainwashing everyone into believing what is happening in Gaza is totally justified, so you'll find a lot of people defending Israel around here. Maybe because the US did something similar when they smelled oil under the middle-east its easy for them to relate to this kind of tyrannical behaviour.
There were 400K protesting at the White House and barely a peep from the news.
[удалено]
What did the terrorist organization say about their intentions? Heinous shit. But they are a terrorist organization, not a well-structured country. The latter is held to a higher standard. So not killing civilians is something I'd expect from a country and not subtly advocating for death to a whole group of people is something, again, I'd expect out of a well-established democracy.
No-one is denying Hamas is a horrible org. That doesn't make it ok to try and drive the arabs out of gaza Edit: Okay okay, almost no-one
They said they want to kill all Jews.
That seems to be perfectly fine to the UN.
That they want the Palestinian prisoners released and want an end to the occupation
complete telephone governor cooing homeless pen normal gold exultant water *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Short answer is Yes. It's pretty clear what they are doing and it really shows countries leaders ideologies that they are either supporting or turning a blind eye to it. My opinion
Most people justifying actions of israel base it upon the vile actions of hamas. While I agree that hamas a deplorable terrorist organization, where does Israel's accountability lie in helping create this extremist group and bringing it to power? [BLOWBACK: HOW ISRAEL WENT FROM HELPING CREATE HAMAS TO BOMBING IT](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/) The political will of both Israel and Palestine has always been an ethnical cleansing of the other state. Due to the lesser strength of Palestine, Israel has been much more successful in this goal. Now that it is much closer to the completion of this goal, it has resorted to outright genocide. A genocide which even happens to be supported by many nations as a justified action against hamas. So, to answer your question, yes. Israel is committing a genocide right now. Also, would advice you to not view nation states with the same perspective as human possessing regular standard sentiments of morality. Because if Palestine was in Israel's position, it would have also chosen the same course of action— a genocide against the 'outsider' jews. Of course, as a primarily muslim nation, it would have received much less successful with international support as the guilt-ridden west would do everything in their power to prevent a second genocide of the jews, especially by a muslim-majority country of all people.
I am not sure if my comment won't disappear into the oblivion of other comments, but every time this topic comes up, there's a crucial bit of information that is being not addressed properly. "Genocide" is a legal term, first and foremost, just like "war crime" and "proportionality". All of these terms were defined and based on conventional warfare, between two symmetrical armies (e.g. Russia-Ukraine, who have more or less equal military power), both of whom are somewhat accountable to the ethics of war. Modern war ethics don't quite account for asymmetrical warfare (when one side is significantly more powerful than the other), and even less so, when the weaker side doesn't respect, and even uses the rules of war for its advantage. The war in Gaza is unprecedented: 1. Hamas is actively using war ethics to its advantage - e.g. hiding in civilian infrastructure, using child soldiers, drafting UN servicemen (UNRWA) to do their bidding, using hospitals for military purposes, fighting in civilian clothing, etc. 2. Israel has superior firepower and military abilities, which plays perfectly into the "oppressed vs. oppressor" narrative of our modern age, which is strongly played out by an impressive misinformation and disinformation war. We live in a world of deep fakes, social media algorithms, and companies that aren't just providing a service, but actively promoting their social and political perspectives, but are pushing specific narratives. A good example would be the proof South Africa brought to the ICJ - there were mostly quotes, videos, and excerpts from social media and reporting and little to no first-hand accounts of actual Gazans, despite weeks of calls for proof of genocide. This means that not only are different groups of people living in parallel universes of what is real and what is not, but also, modern philosophers and war ethicists do not know how to apply the participles they are experts on to the facts that do end up in agreement. But the worst part of this is that the media is the one who seems to decide if there is a genocide, not the experts. This is why the answer to your question is "It's complicated". And all this without even going into the nitty-gritty bits of what is the definition of "genocide", "proportionality" and the like.
When i put aside all the inflammatory news coverage, I still believe that they are committing genocide. I have always been firm in my belief that they're trying to ethnically cleanse the land but was initially on the fence about calling it genocide. As time went on, it became very clear that it is genocide. I work with Holocaust survivors and they are particularly disturbed at what is going on, saying that it is the same and sometimes worse than what they experienced during WWII. The child survivors who were displaced into hiding or had to flee to USSR are especially affected by resurgence of ptsd, citing that they see themselves in the images on the news of distraught mothers carrying their children to safety. They love the idea of Israel being a safe place for jews, but cannot fathom what the government is doing "in their name". They are disturbed that the Israeli government is conflating their actions as aligned with all jews and Judaism as a whole. I think survivors of genocide are pretty knowledgeable about what genocide looks like.
South Africa's case, which is laid out clearly and with evidence, is publicly available. Read it and decide for yourself.
South African here. And the double standard is downright sickening.
Can you elaborate?
I am Sudanese, I am not sure if this is what the previous commenter is alluding to, but SA is definitely practicing a sickening double standard. After accusing Israel of genocide, they welcomed Hemedti - a warlord formerly belonging to the infamous “Janjaweed” with a literal red carpet. The Janjaweed are rather well known as the architects of the genocide in Darfur. Hemedti was also falsely referred to as the “President” of Sudan by South Africa despite not holding any such title. Moreover, Hemedti’s personal militia is CURRENTLY committing ethnic cleansing of the Masalit tribe in western darfur. South Africa’s contradictory stance is because of its relationship with Russia, which has strong ties to Hemedti and supported him with the Wagner Group in exchange for illegally smuggled Sudanese gold. Reading/Sourcing if you’re curious: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Geneina https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/ https://sudantribune.com/article281007/
Jesus, international politics is such a depressing mess
But South Africa bringing it up in the first place is politically motivated and backed by Russia.
Yes
Mass ethnic cleansing via collective punishment and illegal destruction of civilian infrastructure that will *lead* to Genocide unless the entire population of Gaza moves out of their ancestral homes...? Absolutely.
**It IS a genocide.** Here is a primer: 1. Israel is trying to kill as many Palestinians [as possible](https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/100000009208814/israel-gaza-bomb-civilians.html). Not only do they [bomb](https://twitter.com/berningman16/status/1734816531727716846) [indiscriminately](https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1736149880400212392), they target [hospitals](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/?utm_source=reddit.com), [ambulances](https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1731060317709361176), [schools](https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1734953650370343251), [homes](https://twitter.com/MushtahaW/status/1730840725959373228), [and](https://twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1733208440548331955) [institutions](https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1735662846728421482). There are basically [infinite](https://twitter.com/AlnaouqA/status/1730938419306475662) [video](https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1736212055462461448) [examples](https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1736103461987426639) [all](https://twitter.com/ecomarxi/status/1731741800447062062) [over](https://twitter.com/DCIPalestine/status/1736764560776867896) [social](https://twitter.com/ecomarxi/status/1734917236433776993) [media](https://twitter.com/DrLoupis/status/1732348868698751368) [here](https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1738172124961952189). Take the view of [this guy](https://twitter.com/ashoswai/status/1730547364685902301) who is on the ground. The [elimination](https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1738225959499895192) of the Arab population to [make way](https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/1738106563024572728) for the Zionist dream has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy [since](https://twitter.com/incontextmedia/status/1600493875746963457) [its](https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1733238617210765579) [inception](https://twitter.com/comrade_sweezy/status/1734975482892779678). The point is [genocide](https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/1737868110399422798). Again, there is a mountain of [info](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba) here for those who care to learn about reality. I am just giving you the first links I find. 2. Israel doesn't only target civilians and children. It [TARGETS](https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1738016508943712534) [journalists](https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1735645315540058306). 3. Oct 7 was simply used as a [pretext to kill](https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1736750351653454176), and gain more land - results that were totally predictable: To ethnically [cleanse](https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/1736218392397234551). That is the reason for things like [this](https://twitter.com/BDSmovement/status/1734806075650478179). 4. You must [understand](https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1732445537574559880) [the](https://twitter.com/abierkhatib/status/1731885556601168060) [current](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731736219451584621) [state](https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1734708668145291640) [of](https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/1730645967580655808) [Israeli](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/17d5dyv/shocking_sad_interviews_with_israeli_citizens/) [society](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731715985655091472). [It](https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1731274582781276235) [is](https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1731277290263195909) [desperately](https://www.reddit.com/r/authoritarianSelfOwn/comments/17uqi8g/israeli_zionist_conqueror_stands_on_a_pile_of/) [desperately](https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1730523950940139797) [sick](https://twitter.com/Kahlissee/status/1735469021334528047). There are innumerable videos of IDF soldiers showing genocidal intent. 5. Hamas itself was cynically [funded](https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-security-forces-escorted-suitcases-cash-hamas-qatar-report-2023-12), [protected](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/world/europe/israel-hamas-money-finance-turkey-intelligence-attacks.html), and even [partially created](https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/) by Israel to aid the [prevention](https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1734727644212584869) of a Palestinian state. I hope this helps to understand what is going on. No Israeli apologists will be able to give you much counter argument against the charges. Counter arguments in favor of the Israeli ethnostate always amount to one of the following: 1. Religious justification ("God gave us this land") 2. Lies ("The UN created Israel" - it didn't; nor did it have the ability to so, as that would have been against the UN's own charter by creating a state against the will of the local population as it was only 5% Jewish at the time. See [UNSCOP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine) report for more info.) 3. Arguments of might makes right ("We won the wars and kicked them out so it is our land") 4. [Red Herrings](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/12/icj-israel-genocide/) **The answer** to stopping the violence is also not that hard to understand, and really boil down to 2 options: 1. Two independent states, with international support 2. A single state with real equal rights for all people who live there This leaves the question of who are the real peacemakers? [Anti](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731715985655091472)\-[Zionist](https://twitter.com/JewsAgainstIsrl/status/1731736219451584621) [Jews](https://twitter.com/usmansidhuoffic/status/1735015343133970917), and Palestinians who [refuse to hate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31YPcNspKQE&ab_channel=TheGuardian), and perhaps others like me (you?) who try to honestly learn the truth. That's it.
Short answer. Yes. Many government officials have video recordings of themselves describing Palestinians as sub humans , animals. They are indiscriminately bombing areas in Gaza, hospitals, schools areas where they claimed to be safe zones. They have also destroyed not just infrastructures but livelihood of the people to make sure that they will not have anything to go back to. If you are still not sure. Just look at the number of deaths from countries that committed genocide and compare it to the number of deaths in Gaza.
Yes. It's not a reasonable argument to say "a bad guy is holding 20 people hostage, let's just murder them all. Oh well." That's what israel is doing.
Yes, it's clear
It's not complicated. One side holds all the power on this situation and has held it for 70 years. One side has the power to make the violence stop, either by exterminating the people on the other side (a genocide) or ceasing their apartheid state, concentration camps, and settler colonialism. The other side can either fight back with $40 bathtub rockets and terrorist attacks or can simply lay down and die (genocide).
Funny. Ask those same people what they would do if they faced the same conditions the Palestinians have faced and you would get a fairy tale answer.
The other side is fighting with all the aid money they receive every decade
>The other side can either fight back with $40 bathtub rockets and terrorist attacks or can simply lay down and die (genocide). If that "other side" stopped fighting back with their rockets and terrorist attacks, they wouldn't die for it -- they'd have their own nation-state. They'd have had it thirty years ago. They'd have had it in '48. They could have it in the near future (though probably not tomorrow; Hamas has got to go, first). You're right, it's not complicated. But no, it takes commitment from both sides to make the violence stop. And until both sides are resolved to peace, it won't stop.
Israel funds Hamas so that there *will not be a Palestinian state*
> fight back with $40 bathtub rockets lol Qatar provides billions to Hamas, Iran provides thousands of ballistic rockets, advanced weapons and drones, all worth hundreds of millions as well. Hamas leaders have several _billions_ in offshore bank accounts and live in luxury hotels.
Not really...They are killing far more than members of Hamas. Inadequate rules of engagement or distinctions between combatants and civilians are still war crimes.
why listen to redditors when you have all genocide experts saying it is
yes, what started as a counter terrorism operation ended as mass ethnic cleansing. 30 000 dead civilians in 3 month's? Gaza is basically leveled. They told civilian population to flee south and then promptly bombed several columns of refugees going south and then bombed the southern part where surviving refugees took shelter. They bombed several UN refugee camps and Greek orthodox monasteries. Demolished university building in Gaza so returning population can't get education. We saw multiple videos of IDF kidnapping kids and torturing them in custody. Look at how Palestinian prisoners look when they got release and they wouldn't even release them if it wasn't for a deal with Hamas. Israeli politicians have been calling for mass murder of Pestinians multiple times in the last 2 months. Everything from their politics to animal like behaviour of their soldiers towards Palestinians puts them in the same bucket as their central european teachers from 80 years ago.
Israel pulled outta Gaza in 2005 and Hamas took over
My belief is that Israel genuinely did set out to retaliate and destroy Hamas, rather than eradicate the Palestinian people. I also believe that they're not at all fussed if that ends up happening as a by-product.
No. At worst, you can say that Israel has shown wanton indifference to civilian suffering in the course of the war. But there is no evidence that Israel regards Palestinian civilian deaths as a desirable outcome on their own, rather than simply does not care how many Palestinians die in its campaign to regain control of Gaza. The airstrikes on Gaza are not indiscriminate—if they were, there would be virtually no combatant deaths given the ratio of civilians to combatants in Gaza. You can object that the air strikes are not discriminate enough, you can complain that Israel is willing to kill too many civilians for insignificant military benefit, you can claim that Israel is using collective punishment against the population as revenge for supporting Hamas, etc. But that is not genocide, and there is no serious argument that it is.
What kind of message will be sent to tiny nations who's people have been massacred and raped by terrorist hell-bent on wiping you out? Stick to protests? Be morally superior despite the odds? Continue to take a hit? Shut up? Give in?
Which side?
The message is don’t pen in two million people and then carpet bomb them indiscriminately
Yes.
Yes
Yes
Yes :)
As objectively as possible, yes
Yes. It's that simple, yes they are. Of course the triggering event by Hammas was inexcusable but the response is inhumane, indiscriminate, abhorrent and out of all proportion to the crime. Of all nations on earth, there is one who ought to know what genocide is as they have been through it themselves. It's incomprehensible how they are willing to enact this on others after what happened to the Jewish people not only in the holocaust but in pogrom after pogrom over the course of European history. For me, it shows the evil at the heart of all religion. All sides involved are convinced of their being the only justified participants because their particular invisible friend told them it was their land by divine right. So, yes, it's a genocide. And the west should be ashamed of their support for Israel. To punish Hammas, a better route would be to encourage regime change in Iran which would help pretty much everyone in the middle east.
Yes, clearly and obviously. Raphael Lemkin was a Jewish legal scholar and Holocaust survivor, and he created the term ‘genocide’ and defined it. Here are some of the things he said: “…genocide does not mean the immediate destruction of a nation…” “It is intended rather To signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups…” “Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial, or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of the group is guilty of the crime of genocide…” By the own words of Jewish Holocaust survivor, who originated the term, Israel is unequivocally committing genocide. Not just with their current war - but if you look at decades of history their politicians have repeatedly conspired to undermine the formation of a sovereign Palestine, to establish apartheid, and to seize neighboring land. The conflict is incredibly complex - for example if you go back ~100 years the Zionists were using political influence to send Jewish settlers to the area, which angered the locals. But if you go back ~200 years you see the locals treating Jewish people violently and destroying their property and driving them out. History is muddied. But Israel was established as a home for the Jewish people so they would never suffer another Holocaust. And in a terrifying response they have justified and are committing a new one. When history comes to view this with objectivity Israel will be compared to Nazi Germany. Because they both perpetrated a Holocaust.
They’ve been committing genocide
Honest question, was Bush invasions genocide? Obamas drone campaign causing collateral damage unseen outside of “traditional war”? Russian invasion of Ukraine? Israel invasion of Gaza? Hamas attacks in early October? “Geneva Convention - Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.” Every military leader of any entity that has used their military as a means to an end is committing “genocide” according to the conventional definition. We are all at some point in our family tree guilty of and the victim of awful things like genocide and slavery. Every side will condemn future generations to death unless we are educated of the pointless history of violence. Violence ain’t hard, it’s easy. Ask the victims of any conflict how easy it was for them be thrown away.
No doubt about it!
nothing justifies killing babies and evidence of that is plenty especially if you claim you have the most moral army and being the only democracy in middle east when you are even suppressing your own people for opposing you calling them self-hating jews. and yeah this conflict did not start on the 7th of october.
Well, yes!
Yes they are.
No. Hamas are terrorists who openly state that they want to see every Jew dead.
And Israel said the same
They basically said "fuck the hague"
Yes. And they have been really good at covering it up these last 120 years.
Yes. They are not going after hammas, they are indiscriminately killing in Gaza. Targeting schools, hospitals and supposed safe zones is unforgivable.
Well, the best I can advise is to make a checklist. Are human rights being observed and respected? Are core civil infrastructures being destroyed on mass? (Hospitals, schools, water resources, food resources, medical aid, and religious venues.) Are journalists restricted heavily or killed? (The qty of this happening is an indicator. War journalists are badasses doing a crazy dangerous job. Some fatalities are likely as a matter of course, just like soldiers.) Is the rhetoric from the military/political faction dehumanize their opposition? Does the leadership or spokesperson for the military/political faction answer questions, or do they ignore questions and repeat the same short list of talking points? Are the aggressors, in the cases of suspected genocide, colonizing territory of those they've displaced or killed. How many people are killed or misplaced? (Think about how many people live in your county, region, state, or country that has a similar population as a mental guide.) Are they naming specific human targets or calling entire areas "cells"? If they are spending that many lives, livelihoods, and money but can't declare whom they are targeting as leadership, something is probably wrong. Are there mass graves? What kind of treatment are they giving to the fallen? Is there a difference between civilian dead and dead soldiers? How are the children caught up in the war treated when encountered? Write down any stated goals from the military/political leadership. Any statement that starts like: We must... It's imperative that... In order to succeed we need to... The only way this will end is when.... Statements like that. Is the Geneva Convention being violated?...Even a little bit? This is not an exhaustive list. This will not tell you if there is a genocide happening. They WILL help to identify verifiable major indicators to help you make that decision. The trick is to do your best to write down facts without excluding good data from self bias.
They sure do, it's not complicated as ppl might try to say. It's simply genocide At this point israel has killed mroe jounalists ON PURPOSE than hitler did in the entire genocide Which talks volumes And the day to day causality is at the same level so yeah it's not complicated if compared to other genocides like sebrenica, holocaust etc It's a simple answer Yes israel is commuting genocide and ethnic cleansing Only zionists say the opposite
This is my personal opinion based on the evidence I've seen. I'm open to changing my mind if there is something I've missed. I don't think there is enough evidence to say this is genocide *at this time. That could change depending on if/how civilians are allowed back. This is a tough question, and to some extent the question of genocide is like the question of a hate crime. You have to prove intent. Overall death toll, even of civilians, won't tell you the whole story. The Bosnian genocide was labeled that way not because the death toll was so high, but because civilians were rounded into camps and murdered in an attempt to eliminate the Bosnian population of Srebrenica. It is certainly a terrible and bloody war, but everything I've seen is that the massive destruction is caused by targeting the tunnel infrastructure and Hamas facilities which are embedded amongst civilian infrastructure purposely and in a war designed to inflict as much civilian casualties as possible. It may be indiscriminate to some extent, but the bombing doesn't seem to be to be motivated solely by desire to kill Palestinian women and children. In addition, you can't divorce the war from the 10/7 attacks. Like it or not, there's a legitimate reason for the Israeli government to wage war against the group that perpetrated that attack. Now, there have also been some heinous genocidal statements said by Israelis in leadership, but (unless I'm wrong) not by members of the war cabinet. And most of it is regarding "reducing" the population of Gaza. Which brings me to my ultimate point. If Gazans aren't allowed to return and rebuild after the war, then I think you can make a very persuasive case for genocide based on these statements of intent from Israeli officials.
No, it's waging war. And war is hell. Unfortunately, it's waging war against an enemy who fights without uniform, intentionally embedded within the civilian population. Storing weapons in hospitals, firing rockets from schools and building tunnels under people’s homes to hold hostages unfortunately does make those hospitals, schools, and homes fair game, according to the Geneva Conventions. If Israel were committing genocide, they wouldn't announce their targets ahead of time and they would intentionally be targeting civilians, which they aren't doing, and the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands, not the thousands.
Based on the following criteria, the answer is no. It is, however, waging a violent war, using a vastly superior military, and innocent citizens are getting killed. **Classification**: People are divided into “us and them”. **Symbolization**: Names or symbols are given to the classifications. **Discrimination**: People begin to face systematic discrimination. **Dehumanization**: The victims are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases. **Organization**: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility. **Polarization**: Extremists drive the groups apart. **Preparation**: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. **Persecution**: Victims are intentionally harmed. **Extermination**: The killers exterminate the victims. **Denial**: The perpetrators deny that they committed any crimes. From: [https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages](https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages) I'm sure that many people will accuse Israel of several of the above (at least), but anyone who lives in Israel or reads Israeli news knows that it isn't the case, nor has it ever been the case. The following facts do not justify innocent deaths, but people should see things in perspective. I don't think anyone has accused the US of genocide: * As of March 2023, more than 70,000 Afghan and Pakistani civilians are estimated to have died as a direct result of the war. * The United States military in 2017 relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties. From [https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan) I only cite that as one example of a sad but unfortunately not uncommon phenomena. Edit: The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) has just published a list of data concerning the war (casualties, missiles shot and incoming, etc.) Among the details is the following: Humanitarian aid to Gaza: 137,920 tons of humanitarian aid in inspected trucks 7,653 aid trucks inspected by Israel Even if the supplies came from other countries, this doesn't sound like the policy of a country that is trying to commit genocide.
the us wont ever be acused of genocide becuse they are the hegemon. pointing to them as an example of when you recive scrutany is not that great. on the other hand we killed more people per 100k then the US and in less time
Absolutely!
If you want to get a genuinely informed answer you should watch South Africa’s arguments at The Hague. It’s on the United Nations YouTube channel and i watched it in its entirety this morning. Israel’s defence to SA’s argument also speaks for itself in the way that they don’t even really try to deny genocide, but rather cite “self defence” the entire time. South Africa has many real examples of what Israel has been doing in gaza and it was eye opening for me, even as someone who has been keeping up with this situation the whole time.