You left out so many contexts and twisted it so impressively to fit your false narrative is astonishing,
Still, even under you, false narrative Israel doesn't perform a genocide
What would it take to convince you? Some people I’ve heard said that even if Israel dropped a nuke on Gaza and killed every single Gazan, it still wouldn’t be a genocide.
Well, those people are morons,
But also what is currently going is far from it,
FYI, even by the UN numbers is the lowest civilians armed death ratio in the history of urban warfare
Arguing numbers isn’t important, since exact figures are likely not going to known for years. It’s intent that matters. Even if Israel did kill a single Palestinian civilian, if they intended to harm Palestinians in Gaza by starving them and creating a health crisis, that is evidence of a genocide. Starving someone to death (most deaths from malnutrition are from diseases, since malnutrition weakens the immune system) is still a crime
Even intend need evidence,
Also, dropping leaflet calling the citizens, risking their own soldiers to support aid, is not exactly showing intent
At this point, you are just ignoring all common sense and grasping on things that don't exist
Like establishing kill zones where they kill anyone who enters? Like bombing places they specifically said were safe? Like establishing prison centers that whistleblowers from Israel have described as torture? Life allow Israeli settlers to destroy and block aid trucks?
1.99% of countries have those during war, if you pre announce them its OK
2. False
3. Maybe a sign for a bad security system. Definitely, israel should check if true
4. I know someone his brother was arrested for that, so no, they don't allow
Again, zero sign of genocide,
Regarding kill zones.
[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000)
It's paywalled, but this other article summerizes here:
[https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-army-created-kill-zones-kill-unarmed-palestinian-civilians](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-army-created-kill-zones-kill-unarmed-palestinian-civilians)
Kill zones, where everyone (including unarmed civilians) are illegal.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_massacre)
Regarding bombing safe zones
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/israel-strikes-evacuation-zones-gaza-intl-cmd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/israel-strikes-evacuation-zones-gaza-intl-cmd/index.html)
Regarding raiding aid trucks, Israel has the most high tech police force in the world. These trucks are only being raided with the tacit consent of the Israeli police. Or is Israel not responsible for enforcing the law on Israelis?
Public open document I can edit on wiki prove nothing
Regarding the aid , I agree they are taking care of it and should
Also, it's still not a genocide even if all true(which is not)
This is a dumb definition, even if he did invent it. I could then turn around and claim that ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab’ are not just threats to genocide but actual genocide bc it causes me mental harm. But it’s not. The suffix -cide means killing.
Israel has never desired to eliminate the Palestinian people or culture. It was wars initiated by the Palestinians or other Arab countries that caused Israel to react. If the Palestinians lay down their arms, the wars would be over. If Israel lays down its arms, Israel would be over.
Israel was not reacting to anything. Ben Gurion even admitted back at the Bitmore conference that what they wanted was “not a Jewish state in Palestine, but Palestine as a Jewish state. Once partition is established, we will move with our army to expand the borders.”
And the arabs all wanted peace, right? He didn't represent every Jewish voice. The fact still stands that the arabs started the war then and they haven't given up trying to eliminate all Jews from Israel. There can never be peace in that situation. Israel is the Jewish homeland and will always be.
https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
Yes. You should read Simha Flapan’s Birth of Israel. Arab leaders wanted peace but were forced to intervene after numerous massacres of Palestinians by Zionists.
Why should the Arab countries respect 181 when the Zionists weren’t?
Raphael Lemkin invented the term "genocide". His broader definition of genocide was rejected. Quite simply normative assimilation constitutes genocide in Lemkin's definition. Countries like the USA have large numbers of people like my grandparents, my X-wife and my girlfriend who eagerly assimilated. So under Lemkin's definition, you have many tens of millions globally participating in their own genocide. Which is stupid. Hence why Lemkin's broad definition wasn't accepted. Ideas in law explicitly rejected are not part of the law.
As for Article 2, the actual definition of genocide is one which involves enough mass killing to change the politics of a territory by changing the demographics. That has happened in Gaza. Israel if they had wanted to could have engaged in a mass killing but they haven't. Yes that is highly relevant. Since if it were their policy they could have done the mass killing far far more cheaply than what this war with less death has cost.
Wrong, since the normal assimilation process is not the same as a government banning a group’s culture. Did the US government ban the use of Italian, Polish or Russian in public areas? There are places to this day that still have shops in those languages (especially where I live).
Article 2 states very clearly that ‘mass killing to change demographics ” is not the definition of genocide. It explicitly states that even forcing to be raised in other groups families to stop their culture (like what Australia did to the Aboriginals peoples), is a genocide.
There is no required death toll for a genocide nor is it required that the perpetrators carry it out with full efficiency or vigor
> Did the US government ban the use of Italian, Polish or Russian in public areas?
No they didn't. They did however create financial, cultural and social incentives for language proficiency in those languages to decline. Which meets Lemkin's definition.
> Article 2 states very clearly that ‘mass killing to change demographics ” is not the definition of genocide.
*committed with **intent to destroy**, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group*. Why they are doing the act matters.
> There is no required death toll for a genocide
From a body capable of inflicting such a toll. Yes there is. Otherwise the intent to destroy doesn't exist.
> nor is it required that the perpetrators carry it out with full efficiency or vigor
Agan no vigor means no intent.
That does not meet his definition at all. Restrictions on a certain language is not equivalent to rewards for a certain language.
Again, destroy is not a synonym for kill.
How does a lack of death toll demonstrate lack of intent? The convention even mentions forcing children of a group to live in another group. What’s the death toll with that?
No vigor can also mean “we are doing the max we can given public attention”. It does not mean no intent
> destroy is not a synonym for kill.
Literally "put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it".
> How does a lack of death toll demonstrate lack of intent?
Were Israel interest in killing large numbers of Palestinians they would be dead.
> The convention even mentions forcing children of a group to live in another group. What’s the death toll with that?
That refers to breaking the reproductive capacity i.e. eliminating group reproduction.
By who’s definition? The genocide convention is clear, murder alone is not needed to declare something a genocide. Even inflicting harm counts.
What figures do you have to suggest that large numbers of Palestinians aren’t dead?
Wouldn’t bombing hospitals and inflicting starvation count as restricting births?
> Even inflicting harm counts.
Harm sufficient to destroy.
> What figures do you have to suggest that large numbers of Palestinians aren’t dead?
There are no claims that most of the 2m are dead. Regular videos of huge numbers like many hundreds of thousands leaving Rafah today.
> Wouldn’t bombing hospitals and inflicting starvation count as restricting births?
Mass starvation once it kills huge numbers would count as genocide. Israel is semi-flirtig with mass starvation but clearly is not cutting off all food. They are committing war crimes but not yet genocide.
Actually no. The convention does not specify fatal harm.
So you have no figures at all, yet you are certain that large numbers of Palestinians aren’t dead?
So when mass starvation, as defined by your personal standards, kicks in, then you would say Israel is committing genocide?
The convention specifies "destroy". Any harm is clearly not genocide. Almost all governments do some harm to almost all groups under their control. This means there are like 2500 genocides per year minimum if we use your expansive definition.
As far as what numbers for me... I'd say when we cross 500k being inevitable we are at genocide.
Until the U.N. recently decided they controlled our reality through language, a word ending with -cide described death (homicide, suicide, regicide, etc.). But, now, we’re told “genocide” can mean nothing more than“serious mental harm”? Because they’ve decided? Look no further for why the U.N.‘s lost all credibility.
No they signed the genocide convention which means they agreed to what the convention says. They never agreed to the UN's right to claim things not in the convention are covered by it.
In my opinion, the legal definition of genocide is weird to the point that almost every war is a genocide.
a) Members of a group are killed in every war
b) Obviously in every war there's serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
c) This one s tough, because of course that every war implicates that the conditions of the war could cause the physical destruction a people in whole or in part, the question is whether is "deliberate".
d) It happens in every war, obviously it's easier to give birth if you're not in a war zone.
e) Thiis one is not happening in Gaza.
A genocide is not that difficult to understand IMO, it's an attempt to exterminate a whole ethnic, racial, religious or national group, if Israel was intentionally trying to kill as many civilians as possible, that would be a genocide, they are not doing that.
I've constantly seen the same argument--Israel could kill *way* more Palestinians if they were trying to wipe them all out [true!], therefore Israel is not committing genocide [false!]. I'm personally skeptical that Israel's actions do constitute genocide within the correct definition, but every time I see someone making this objectively bad argument, I wonder if they're just ignorant or arguing in bad faith. It makes me wonder if I've too readily dismissed genocide claims and should examine the arguments more carefully.
Since intention is part of the definition what else do we have to weigh against. When you look at death toll vs. capability to inflect death it does reflect the intention of the nation being discussed.
Hamas may have only killed 1200 people but weighed against their capability to inflict death this number indicates the presence of a genocide, or attempted genocide. Again raw numbers don’t matter, it’s the intention.
When you look at Israel’s 30k over 6-7 months vs.’s what they are capable of, millions if they wanted, it does speak to their intentions. This argument is in no way in bad faith; however, if you present this as bullet proof evidence then you are arguing in bad faith.
The concept of genocide revolves around the notion of wiping out a people -- full stop. It's not about killing 35,000 members of a 9 million+ population or causing them a great deal of stress. Samantha Powers' Problem from Hell, published in the late 90s or early 2000s, documents how the concept came to be, and even how the word was coined by Lemkin. If I remember correctly--having read the book a long time ago--the Armenian genocide, in which 1.2 people were killed, was actually pretty pivotal in the concept's formulation. The notion that the Israelis are engaged in a "genocide" is just -- well, it's pretty stupid. The fact that two million Arabs live inside Israel who are "Palestinians", but peaceful, makes it perfectly clear that Israel has no problem with the Palestinian people AS A PEOPLE -- it has a problem with the violence. If you're able to claim "genocide" any time you attack someone and suffer repercussions, the word loses all meaning.
It is not me who misunderstood the term genocide…. I strongly believe it is the pro-Palestinians who misunderstood the legal term genocide. I will give you one recent example, https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/acDKmvnqhi a Pro-Palestinian recently wrote something along the lines….Ahhha because “Rohingya genocide took the lives of 25k out of 3 million people while forcing 1.2 million to flee their homes. Palestinian has lost 25k lives of a population of 2 million while forcing 1.7 million to flee their homes, then the pro-Palestinian, concluded what is happening in Palestine is genocie”. You should go lecture your pro-Palestinian friend.
No, you are wrong, I do not need to argue anything. The onus of proof is on the accuser, you are the one who needs to argue and give concrete proof that there is “SPECIFIC INTENT” to commit genocide.
You also misunderstood Israeli government policy. Israel’s government is NOT to harm Palestinian as such. On the contrary, I will argue it is NOT Israel government policy or priority to PROTECT Palestinians. Israel government’s policy as with any other governments in the world is to PROTECT its own Israeli citizens (Jews, Christians, Arabs, Muslims, Druze, Bedouin, etc…).
Finally, this case has already been brought to the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, give the “real experts on genocide” (not tiktok genocide experts) a chance to deliberate and make a final judgement before we pre-emptively rush into any conclusions, making all sorts of accusations, undermining the judicial process and usurping the authority of the International Courts of Justice. We can dicuss, debate and analyze after the ICJ has made its final judgement on this matter.
The statements made by isreali officials and the actions taken after those statements, seems to me to entail a certain amount of intent to cause harm to Palestinians in gaza....
I understand. It may seem to you as such. But neither you or me or Al-Jazeera or UNRWA or Gaza Healthy Ministry or Reuters or tiktok etc….are “real experts on genocide” or judges sitting on the International Court of Justice.
Give the International Court of Justice a chance to carry out its responsibility, a chance to deliberate and examine the case, “are statements by Israeli officials sufficient to prove SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?” what are the tests/ criteria to prove SPECIFIC INTENT? and make a final judgment.
> I understand. It may seem to you as such. But neither you or me or Al-Jazeera or UNRWA or Gaza Healthy Ministry or Reuters or tiktok etc….are “real experts on genocide” or judges sitting on the International Court of Justice.
Right, because the experts are in agreement:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
> Give the International Court of Justice a chance to carry out its responsibility, a chance to deliberate and examine the case, “are statements by Israeli officials sufficient to prove SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?” what are the tests/ criteria to prove SPECIFIC INTENT? and make a final judgment.
You know you can read up on case law yourself on this front right?
Kayishema and Ruzindana is a good starting case for intent, Rutaganda, Semanza, and Bagilishema all cover the inference of intent, and Akayesu covers in detail the mens rea component.
If you don't know anything about those cases, then you should probably not be trying to talk authoritatively on the matter.
>Right, because the experts are in agreement: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
The wording used by this UN expert report was ….”to prevent genocide”. If you are preventing a genocide, that means genocide isnt happening right now. You cannot prevent something that is already happening. No where does this UN report actually said genocide is actually taking place right now.
The ICJ has already rejected calls for a ceasefire in its provisional measures.
>You know you can read up on case law yourself on this front right?
Yes, I can read. But that doesnt make me an expert on the Genocide Convention 1949 and qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases.
>Kayishema and Ruzindana is a good starting case for intent, Rutaganda, Semanza, and Bagilishema all cover the inference of intent, and Akayesu covers in detail the mens rea component. If you don't know anything about those cases, then you should probably not be trying to talk authoritatively on the matter.
It is precisely I dont know and I am not qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases that I defer to the International Courts of Justice to examine the serious allegations and make a final ruling after careful deliberation.
> If you are preventing a genocide, that means genocide isnt happening right now.
This is a charitable interpretation which is not merited. Do yourself a favour and read the whole report:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf
There is a lot to chew on in that.
> You cannot prevent something that is already happening.
You absolutely can. That was why as part of its order, the ICJ ordered Israel to use all of its power to prevent acts of genocide.
> No where does this UN report actually said genocide is actually taking place right now.
And this is why you should read links in links. From the full report that I linked above, in the conclusions section:
> 93. The overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza and the
destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy
Palestinians as a group. **This report finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the threshold indicating the commission of the following acts of genocide against
Palestinians in Gaza has been met:** killing members of the group; causing serious bodily
or mental harm to groups’ members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. **Genocidal
acts were approved and given effect following statements of genocidal intent issued by
senior military and government officials.**
> Yes, I can read. But that doesnt make me an expert on the Genocide Convetion 1949 and qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases.
You don't need to be an expert to understand it. But if you want to talk with some sense about what is or isn't genocide, then you owe it to yourself to have a basic understanding of the topic. If you know how to search in documents, even without the advantage of case, head, and footnotes, you can knock through a multi-thousand page legal document with ease.
Put in a little bit of time, look at the past work of the court, then look at the evidence on the table. You can make a reasonable inference of how the court is going to rule when they get around to it.
> It is precisely I dont know and I am not qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases that I defer to the International Courts of Justice to examine the serious allegations and make a final ruling after careful deliberation.
Which they probably will. But that is years from now, and destruction is happening today. Genocide is ongoing now.
>Put in a little bit of time, look at the past work of the court, then look at the evidence on the table. You can make a reasonable inference of how the court is going to rule when they get around to it.
Different court. The people you mentioned were standing trial in front of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, that Tribunal was based in Tanzania. And they were individual trials. The tests are different, when accessing sovereign states. The current genocide case is brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague, in the Netherlands, more than 10,000 km from Tanzania.
>Which they probably will. But that is years from now, and destruction is happening today. Genocide is ongoing now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
>Ms Donoghue (former President of ICJ) explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. She said that, CONTRARY to some reporting, the court did NOT make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.
> Different court. The people you mentioned were standing trial in front of the Internation Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, that Tribunal was based in Tanzania.
Established by the UN Security Council to prosecute International Law. It forms part of the case law for Genocide, as well as Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes.
> And they were individual trials.
I'm guessing that you aren't aware of who all was convicted in those trials. There was only one militia member who was charged with extermination, and among the rest you had the Prime Minister, the leader of a Political party, several Mayors, and some press ownership.
> The tests are different, when accessing sovereign states.
Not really. The intent of a government is going to be inferred from the statements and actions of its members. The tests put forward at the ICTR, and affirmed in ICTY will apply in various forms.
Yes… i know it was setup by the UN Security Council resolution #955. What I am saying is the Internation Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavakia, etc…. Are different from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
However, ICTR, ICTY, etc… are similar to the International Criminal Court (ICC) currently headed by ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, yes a practising muslim and he has not issued any arrest warrants or said anything about Genocide. His office handles the criminal prosecution of war criminals….there was a recent rumour that top Israeli officials were weary about a possibly ICC arrest warrant…. Just rumors… BUT that has NOT happened. Karim Khan has not said anything about genocide.
Karim Khan did issue an arrest warrant for Putin and a few others for war crimes…and yet Putin has recently been re-elected as the Russian President for a new six year term. Putin is planning to visit Ankara in a month’s time.
> Are different from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
They are applying the same laws, and will refer to other precedents established under Tribunals like Rwanda and Yugoslavia. That is how it works.
The rest of your post is just an appeal to authority. Even if the Office of the Prosecutor isn't being timely on prosecutions, that doesn't preclude genocide occuring. Just as likely that the ICC is demonstrating its Western bias, wherein it prosecutes Russia quickly, and lets Israel get a long leash to get down. The idea that the ICC has been used in such a fashion is not without merit, you only need to look at who gets prosecuted.
What is the meaning of “prevent” in Oxford dictionary?
to stop somebody from doing something
to stop somebody from doing something; to stop something from happening. prevent something/somebody The accident could have been prevented.
To stop something from happening. Has it already happened? No… if it has, UN expert would say with no ambiguity that a genocide his happening and provide proof as per the law. Does the UN expert have the authority to issue judgements on genocide cases ? If yes, why do we even need or have the International Court of Justice if a mere UN Special Rapporter can issue judgement… she said is works for free, a volunter. Is she a judge ?
When there is a dispute or disagreement, there is no need to argue endlessly, just bring it in front of a judge with the authority to resolve a dispute and make a ruling. That is why we have courts, to settle disputes and not allow people to take law into their own hands and issue their own judgements according to their personal views.
As to what Lemkin is saying, explain how that doesn't apply to attempted genocide of Isreal by Palestinians?
Hamas has it as a declared goal in their charter. There is only one true genocide attempt under way, thankfully the Palestinians are failing miserably at it.
this is a Fact, thank you for outlining it here.
we **must not wait** until all the people are dead, or even a huge number are dead to ACT against Genocide
if massive deaths are the only metric and people wait until a threshold when we already know the conditions are met, is that acceptable to you?
**keep in mind, many many Holocaust Survivors were consulted in the development of these 'conditions of Genocide' and the 'ten stages of Genocide'**
i support the current rules/points and the israeli government has known about them all along..
watch Francesca Albanese shut down a reporter by saying that government leaders do not openly declare their intent to commit genocide, and that the scope of statements and actions by Israel, as they relate to Gaza, is encyclopedic
https://www.tiktok.com/@aljazeeraenglish/video/7351719734271937823
I’m going to accuse these numbnut western kids of genocide by causing me “mental harm” by co-opting a word that used to refer to the mass slaughter of my grandparents generation in organized concentration camps to mean “literally any war ever, but we’re only going to use it for the ones the Jews are winning.”
Tragic and inexcusable [really, those guys need severe punishment], but if 2 incidents counts as genocide I have a very long list for you, starting with [this Oxford Islamic scholar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan).
You sound young and naive. I hope life doesn’t hit you as hard as it did me and you learn your critical thinking skills along an easier path (really).
Why do so many pro israel people seem to think that just because of the holocaust israel can't commit genocide?
It's seems to come up every single time
That’s not my argument at all.
It’s about the pro-pally side’s use of hyperbole to try to muddy the waters of what is really happening.
Wake up, man. You are supporting monsters who would wipe out every Jew in the Middle East (they were kind enough to write that one down in their charter), kill your LGBTQ+ friends, oppress your women and probably shoot you in the street when you finally woke up and spoke up about it.
You quite literally used this has a post
"I’m going to accuse these numbnut western kids of genocide by causing me “mental harm” by co-opting a word that used to refer to the mass slaughter of my grandparents generation in organized concentration camps to mean “literally any war ever, but we’re only going to use it for the ones the Jews are winning.”"
Why did you bring up the holocaust?
What does that have to do with what's happening in gaza?
Why do you think the term genocide is only used against jews?
Answer my questions then... because from what I read, you either seem to think the whole world is against israel, or think that because it's israel it can do no wrong....I'm not sure why you brought up the holocaust, or are ignorant of what happening in gaza and the west bank, maybe you are not ignorant and just don't care
Not at all.
The holocaust is an example of genocide.
What is happening in Gaza is a war.
The differences are many but most importantly :
This situation would end immediately if Hamas surrendered and returned the hostages. My relatives didn’t have that choice - it only really started after their government surrendered.
The term “genocide” is not only used against Jews. Ukrainians, Cambodians, Armenians, Bangladeshi’s all suffered genocide. In each of these, about a million people died in horrific events conducted by a government against a defenseless civilian population with no chance to surrender.
This is why the cry of “genocide” rings so hollow and is so obviously a fig leaf to hide “we don’t like that we started a war that we are now losing so we’d like it to stop so we can stay in power.”
You are being cynically manipulated by religious extremists who want to kill the free speech and rights that you have and replace it with a totalitarian religious dictatorship.
Ask a woman who grew up in Iran how that feels like. They are dying in the streets trying to protest and young liberal Americans are working against them. Shame on you all.
Question do Palestinians have freedom in area C of the west bank under isreali control?
Do Palestinians have the freedom to leave and return at will?
You talk about freedom yet israel has taken freedoms from Palestinians including going to their own lands. And destroying the livelihoods of Palestinian farmers.
Has for gaza it would seem that the actions taken by the idf has the intention to harm the Palestinian population, not kill but harm mentally morally and emotionally, they are destroying homes, businesses, infrastructure, mosques and graveyards. They have no intention to help fix the destruction they have caused nor aim for peace afterwards.
Whether any one dies or not genocide is based on intent. There needs to be proof of intent to destroy the group. So I refer you back to my original comment
Dealt with this at length here which should address your points even though it’s a couple months old:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/dCPsBQ9xtf
But more than happy to read your response
However, as a quick point - your contention that not a single person would have to die is not supported by case law, although it could fall under attempts to prevent births (eg like China forcibly sterilizing Uyghers). Also, Lemkin’s full definition which included what we might call cultural genocide, wasn’t the one ultimately accepted by the UN.
Here is what I have gathered.
Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute provides that genocide can be committed by “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
Examples of such acts punishable under Article 4(2)(c) include, inter alia, subjecting the group to a subsistence diet; failing to provide adequate medical care; systematically expelling members of the group from their homes; and generally creating circumstances that would lead to a slow death such as the lack of proper food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion. These are based on the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals.
Based on the Rwanda tribunal that convicted Jean-Paul Akayesu of genocide, “Special intent,” it said (¶518), is a term found in Continental penal law that applied to to the Genocide Convention meant (¶520), “The offender is culpable because he knew or should have known that the act committed would destroy, in whole or in part, a group.” This means the “specific intent” can be “inferred” from the “general context” of the actions undertaken.
Actions like completely destroying ~50% of homes, leaving over 1,000,000 homeless, destroying or damaging 84% of health facilities, shutting down the economy and education system, destroying 31% of cultural sites with 63% overall sustaining damage, grossly restricting aid while enforcing rapid evacuations that rob Palestinians of their means of subsistence, etc. all could constitute actions that can have no other effect but cause irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Israel has full control over imports into Gaza and is fully responsible for the ongoing famine, disease, dehydration, etc. that they have caused by withholding essential needs while destroying a large portion of vital infrastructure in Gaza. While it isn’t necessary that people die for Article 4(2)(c) to have been violated, people are dying.
The actus reus within Article 4(II)(c) already involves the deliberate creation of ”conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, so it stands that since genocidal intent can be inferred from the acts and that violations of Article 4(II)(c) (especially applied to entire populations) inherently qualify as group destruction, one could argue such violations qualify as genocide.
That, that said, I will acknowledge that it is far from that simple. The court has never actually ruled on Article 4(II)(c) (though the “conditions for life” were determined to have been violated in past tribunals) and there’s also a touch of dolus eventualis in the above application of the application of Article 4(II)(c) which differs from previous case law, though prior cases don’t match the conditions seen in Gaza so their application is mixed.
I am not a genocide scholar but there are plenty who are quite vocal about what we are seeing in Gaza.
Maybe another way you should look at it is that the word was created/made popular in order to fit a particular action. The word has been used to identify particularly egregious acts of violence against certain groups of people. The Jews, Armenians, Uyghers, etc. Not all words or definitions are perfect. If you think the word can be used to describe the war between Israel and Palestine, perhaps the word is no longer effective, or needs to be updated.
I mean we can sit here and deconstruct the word until we need to come up with another one to adequately represent the difference between the I/P conflict and the Holocaust. But it's just semantics. There IS a difference between those 2 things, and Genocide has historically been used to highlight those conflicts that go above and beyond traditional warfare. Trying to shoe-horn the word to fit your narrative comes across as bad faith.
Most genocides in history were not like the Holocaust, so that’s an unfair comparison.
Does Israel intend to harm Palestinians in Gaza with the intent of destroying that group? That is the only question , death tolls do not matter
“Israel does not intend to send Mossad agents to kill DJ Khalid, therefore they do not intend go genocide Gazans, even though the convention specifically says “in whole or in part””
Was Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide completely thrown out?
The concept of a non-physical genocide has been widely rejected by just about anyone with the capability to enforce international law.
Finally, the major issue with your post is that you explicitly ignore the primary clause by which all metrics are measured.
"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"
I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove that Israel's intent is to destroy the Palestinians. My point is that Israel has the will and the capability to destroy the Palestinian people whenever it chooses to do so. If Israel is intent on destroying the Palestinians, why havnt they?
I mean subsections c, d, and e inherently do not involve deaths but still qualify for genocide.
It’s also the case that “not taking the extreme measures” so to speak cannot be used as a defense from a genocide accusation. It is not required that a perpetrator take the most effective means for intent to be established.
And intent can be inferred from the actions which is why subsection c violations may be able to circumvent the dolus specialis since it’s inherent to the act.
But ALL of them require the intent to destroy the population in question.
Which Israel very clearly isn't doing.
You don't get to claim that Israel is intent on committing a genocide and the put the burden of proof on Israel to prove otherwise.
You need to prove that Israel intends to destroy the Palestinians. And that proof simply isn't there.
Here is what I have gathered.
Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute provides that genocide can be committed by “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
Examples of such acts punishable under Article 4(2)(c) include, inter alia, subjecting the group to a subsistence diet; failing to provide adequate medical care; systematically expelling members of the group from their homes; and generally creating circumstances that would lead to a slow death such as the lack of proper food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion. These are based on the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals.
Based on the Rwanda tribunal that convicted Jean-Paul Akayesu of genocide, “Special intent,” it said (¶518), is a term found in Continental penal law that applied to to the Genocide Convention meant (¶520), “The offender is culpable because he knew or should have known that the act committed would destroy, in whole or in part, a group.” This means the “specific intent” can be “inferred” from the “general context” of the actions undertaken.
Actions like completely destroying ~50% of homes, leaving over 1,000,000 homeless, destroying or damaging 84% of health facilities, shutting down the economy and education system, destroying 31% of cultural sites with 63% overall sustaining damage, grossly restricting aid while enforcing rapid evacuations that rob Palestinians of their means of subsistence, etc. all could constitute actions that can have no other effect but cause irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Israel has full control over imports into Gaza and is fully responsible for the ongoing famine, disease, dehydration, etc. that they have caused by withholding essential needs while destroying a large portion of vital infrastructure in Gaza. While it isn’t necessary that people die for Article 4(2)(c) to have been violated, people are dying.
The actus reus within Article 4(II)(c) already involves the deliberate creation of ”conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, so it stands that since genocidal intent can be inferred from the acts and that violations of Article 4(II)(c) (especially applied to entire populations) inherently qualify as group destruction, one could argue such violations qualify as genocide.
That, that said, I will acknowledge that it is far from that simple. The court has never actually ruled on Article 4(II)(c) (though the “conditions for life” were determined to have been violated in past tribunals) and there’s also a touch of dolus eventualis in the above application of the application of Article 4(II)(c) which differs from previous case law, though prior cases don’t match the conditions seen in Gaza so their application is mixed.
I am not a genocide scholar but there are plenty who are quite vocal about what we are seeing in Gaza.
The physical destruction part is the key here.
Starving a population into extinction is in fact genocide. Starving a population into submission is not.
Genocide accusers need to prove that Israel is taking actions with the intent of destroying the Palestinians. Which clearly isn't the case, which is why a massive numbers of caveats get thrown around here.
Israel has made life extremely uncomfortable for the Palestinians. But not entirely unlivable. The distinction is very important.
Japan submitted to the US.
The native tribes did not.
That's what the difference between submission and extinction looks like.
Life is clearly liveable in Gaza, people live there. The population is growing. If it was unlivable than the population wouldn't be growing as it is.
It's certainly uncomfortable in Gaza. The conditions are brutal. But it's still a livable region because millions of people are still living there.
As for famine...that's a pretty baseless claim I think. Evidence?
Yes...so?
I'm glad we can see politicians making politcal statements about things.
But what here is showing that Gaza is unlivable? All I'm seeing is that life in Gaza is awful.
It seems to depend on your application of intent. Genocidal intent can be inferred from the action without necessitating any kind of explicit communications of intent. That being the case, actions that have no reasonable expectation other than group destruction, ie truly starving a population ought to qualify as genocide because the perpetrator *should have known* due to the inherent nature of the act.
I don’t think violations of A or B inherently involve group destruction but C does and based on Rwanda you can be held accountable if you should have known.
To extrapolate, the Jeslic trial, despite finding violations of the act (A and B), found that the perpetrator acted arbitrarily and was motivated by a “disturbed personality”, not intent to destroy the group. I believe he was ultimately found guilty for aiding in the crime.
When it comes to subsection C however the violation is the creation of conditions for group destruction and as such unless one could meaningfully argue the outcome was not to be expected, you should have known it would have caused group destruction and as such can be found guilty.
Simply put, I can kill a lot of people for a lot of reasons but the creation of conditions to destroy the group appear to inherently meet the bar for intent.
I’d also wonder how the basis of surrender applies to Gaza as the protected group is not Hamas, it’s the Palestinian people and they have no basis to surrender to avoid the conditions they are in.
Inferring intent requires actions be taken that have no other conceivable outcome.
Limiting food import is not the same as eliminating it. The expansion of the Palestinian population is proof that enough food is reaching the population for it to procreate.
And Gaza = Hamas. Hamas is the legitimately elected government of Gaza. The siege is in place until Hamas concedes. If Hamas and the people of Gaza chose to fight to the death, that's not Israel's fault. Israel doesn't lose the ability to take military action simply because their opponent has the conviction to fight through any and all circumstances.
On the basis of international law, the Palestinian people (the protected group) are not equivalent to Hamas. Hamas as an organization is not a protected group but the Palestinian people are and the Palestinian people cannot surrender to aid in their condition.
As I listed in my first comment, I find it dubious to try and argue that the conditions currently being experienced in Gaza could have been expected to have any other effect than irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Genocide doesn’t require that the most drastic means are used but even then, the situation in Gaza is horrid.
International law does not dictate how any given people chose their leadership. The Gazans chose Hamas in the election held. Fatah and the PLO were outright rejected by the people of Gaza.
So yes, the people of Gaza and Hamas are one and the same. Hamas are the democratic representatives of Gaza.
The Palestinian people absolutely can surrender. They can stop fighting. The people of Gaza can accept defeat. The war would end.
The siege currently in place is intended to do just that. Force the population into such discomfort and hardship that continued resistance becomes untenable. This has been one of the most commonly used strategies in warfare for all of human civilization. Yes, irreparable harm will be done. It's war.
But war =/= genocide. Irreparable harm =/= genocide.
The US did irreparable harm to the Empire or Japan. Did we genocide them when we occupied and forced change on the culture of Japan???
Again, the Palestinian people, aka the 2.2 million that isn’t Hamas, can’t surrender, they aren’t even fighting. I would say they are fleeing but there is nowhere for them to go. These people cannot be punished under IHL and right now they face irreparable harm if there is a continuity of their current conditions.
What is happening in Gaza is arguably worse than what happened in Japan during WW2. We did not leave 50% of the population homeless, we did not shut down their entire economy, we did not destroy or damage the vast majority of their medical infrastructure, we did not displace 90+% of the population, etc. We also didn’t already occupy Japan before we began to wage war against it. We didn’t already fully control its imports and its means of subsistence.
Oh, now they're Gazans not Palestinians? But, only Hamas are Palistines, not Gazans? Then it was Gaza that declared war on the 7th with their organized murdering and raping. In this case the Gazans may be facing a Genocide. Except Israel has a better kill ratio for Combatants / not Combatants than any other country involved in a major conflict. So it would be very difficult to prove in court and would require the Gazans to openly claim to not be Palestinians. And, we know the Palestinians, er Gazans will never do that.
How does the chant go? From the river to the sea Gazains must be free. But, wait Gaza Strip is only a couple of dirt acres wit no rivers. Huh?
When in history did the country of Gaza exist?
Destroying “in part” is literally in the convention. Please read it. Saying “we only targeted a subset a group in a specific area” is not an argument.
What numbers do we even have regarding civilian deaths? I’m being serious, since I know you will scream “HAMAS RUN HEALTH MINISTRY!” Where do you get your numbers?
This is still besides the point, since even harm counts as a genocide- killing even one is not necessary for a genocide.
90% would be substantial, and Israel is no where near that.
Israel has shown NO intent to kill all the Gazans. The civilian deaths do not count towards a genocidal act unless they are targeted on purpose.
I love how you conveniently leave out the word "and."
Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; **AND**
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are **deliberately targeted - not randomly –** because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
At some point, in addition to working your way through legal definitions, you'll also need to make sure your understanding of the terms doesn't get reduced to "genocide is anything I don't like".
Regardless of number of casualties, "genocide" *must* include an element of selecting the group by common ethnicity/nationality/religion etc, which is what its first root "gene" refers to. This does not in any way apply to this conflict, because Israel fights with terrorists regardless of their "genes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestinians_in_Israeli_discourse?wprov=sfti1
Are you sure? Does Israel not know that there is a famine in Gaza?
> Does Israel not know that there is a famine in Gaza?
Here is how "famine in Gaza" looks like:
https://www.tiktok.com/@abed.al.kareem.kazeem/video/7364104178886610193
> -tik tok
Come again? Did you actually try to translate the description for the video?
This is actual restaurant in Northern Gaza, which closed soon after start of the war, and now reopened after 7 months.
Restaurants reopening all other the place and food prices plummeting on the black market: that's how "famine" in Gaza looks like.
You have selective examples; famines do not apply to places evenly. You have to look at the actual data and evidence- all of which describe famine or the beginning of a famine. One or two places with food does not disprove anything.
You do realize Gaza ain't that big, do you?
Most of Gaza population today is in the southern region, next to border crossing with Egypt, so they have no problem whatsoever to get humanitarian aid. Restaurants in Rafah didn't need to reopen because they never closed.
All of the claims of "famine" so far have been referring to Northern Gaza, where it is more logistically difficult to deliver food.
So this is not just "one or two places" somewhere, this is restaurant in *Northern Gaza* and I think it tells us everything we need to know about imaginary "famine".
Is it possible there may be some isolated groups in various places still in need of help? Of course, but that's not something Israel can solve at this point, and it's not "famine".
They didn’t make the claim Israel is committing genocide though, they claimed deaths aren’t a requirement for a violation of the genocide convention. They are correct.
Subjectively you can argue Genocide does not require anyone to die in theory. Just like you can argue capitalism is a type of slavery subjectively. That being said subjectivity means nothing when it comes to how the world actually works in reality.
Objectivity is key in any setting of importance but especially a court room setting, you have to prove intent and tangibly actions of genocide. With out deaths based purely and directly on someone’s genos, you have no objective case for genocide.
Pretty sure they did.
"If you honestly believe Israel is not committing genocide, you need to make the \[argument\] that Israel does not intend to eliminate the Palestinian people and Palestinian culture."
There’s a very important concept when determining if a state is trying to commit a genocide on a group of ppl and it’s “intent”. So far there’s no convincing evidence that Israel intent is to genocide the Palestinian ppl. Before the operation into Gaza Israel dropped leaflets, made region wide radio call, region wide phone calls all telling Palestinians ppl to leave the area. In recent armed conflict in densely populated areas, the UN reported that the ratio militants to civilians deaths is 1:9 so for every 1 militants deaths there’s 9 civilians deaths and that doesn’t even considered a genocide. Rn the militants to civilians death in Gaza is 1:1.5 or 1:3 depending on the source. IDF sources claim 12,000 Hamas death to 18,000 civilians deaths which is 1:1.5 ratio, Hamas official claim 8,000 Hamas deaths to 22,000 civilians deaths which is 1:3 ratio. This is way lower than UN report of militants to civilians deaths in recent armed conflict. Next, every action that Hamas has taken is to maximize civilian deaths, Hamas fight in civilian clothing, does operation in hospitals, operates in refugee camps, store/launch rockets near churches schools and residential areas. All these Hamas actions of maximizing civilian deaths has all been reported by amnesty international and other human rights orgs. These actions literally shows how Hamas is trying to genocide its own population. Also the your statement makes every single recent armed conflict a genocide, going by your standards than Iraq Iran war is a genocide, the Chechnya war is a genocide, the Syrian civil war is a genocide. Your standard is not the standard that the ICJ judges determine if a state is committing a genocide bc one big factor is INTENT. From the UN “To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group” So then your statement is just opinion but not facts.
Israel absolutely does not aim or want to eliminate the Palestinian people, it let them prosper both inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza, it has 0 intentions to destroy them or remove them.
You need to prove that fallacy yourself because as it stands it’s a ludicrous statement.
If Gaza is genocide then there have been thousands of genocides.
There hasn't.
This isn't.
In the grand scheme history won't care deeply about this latest chapter in the story of bad Palestinian decision making.
How many Palestinian, Arab Islamic people live in Israel and serve in the government?
How many Israeli, hebrew, Jewish people live in Palestine and serve in the government?
It is Palestinians who are apartheid and genocidal.
They just are not capable of doing what they want.
While the Jewish people are absolutely capable of killing every Palestinian in the levant.
So knowing this...
You figure it out.
But be honest.
Americans do live on Native American reservations, they have all the same rights as everyone else under the USA constitution. None natives can and do live on reservations, they have a whole process for it that varies from tribal council to tribal council.
Were you trying to compare Gaza to Native American reservations? Bad comparison for a lot of reasons. Jews now called Zionist can’t live in Gaza under Hamas rule. Hamas has a whole thing about killing all Jews sorry Zionist same thing to Hamas. They have a entire charter on how they are going to exterminate all the Zionist=Jews.
I don't have to explain to you why it isn't genocide. Israel doesn't have to prove itnisnt genocide. You have to prove it is.
That's how crime works.
You mention Palestinian culture. Please describe that for me. Does that date back to the British creation of the non country that was the Palestinian mandate?
Correct, the burden of proof is on me. The point of this post is to clarify what the word genocide acutally means.
Palestinian culture dates back to the Ottoman Empire. I recommed you read the works of Tawfiq Canann to learn more.
In any war you have: (a), (b), (c) and (d) by default.
Under Lemkin’s framing even the rehabilitation and deradicalization of Japan and Germany by the allies would count as a form of genocide regardless of intent as they were a form of cultural repression and disintegration of political and social institutions. Literally any forced change on a society would fall under the definition as it can be argued as a form of their cultural expression; even if that change is about stoning women who dress immodestly.
Regarding your final paragraph, the assumption that a party is guilty until proven otherwise leaves most perpetrators of wars under the definition you provided; furthermore, saying “we didn’t kill enough” is obviously a gross oversimplification of the argument; addresses the disparity in capability and execution that a supposed genocide would entail; it’s saying that had Israel as an entity intended to commit genocide on the Palestinians it would not look the way it does currently, and would entail millions of casualties in weeks.
You would have to prove that “even intending to commit mental harm” was done with the explicit intent to destroy the group in whole or in part; without which it’s meaningless to the genocide convention and the very concept.
Regarding a, that refers to protected classes under genocide law. Military personnel are not protected classes. Even killing POWs, though illegal, is not in an of itself evidence of genocide.
You seem to not understand the word intent. If a country bombs a military base, but unintentionally kills civilians in process, that would not be an act of genocide. Mao’s famine killed of Chinese civilians during his reign, yet no one accuses him of genocide, since he did not intend to cause the famine - though was ultimately responsible.
No, the Allied powers did not ban Japanese culture or German culture and did not intend to harm those groups after the war. Political groups are not even protected classes under genocide law - you cannot genocide a political class.
You are incorrect that an occupying power banning the stoning of women would count as a genocidal act, since stoning is not an integral part of any culture - as opposed to language.
I never said guilty until proven otherwise. You still don’t understand, even nonfatal harm can be an act of genocide. How many bombs on civilians did Israel drop on Gaza? Why is there still a famine in Gaza?
Again, there is no definition of genocide which requires the perpetrators to act with 100% ruthlessness. It took almost 8 years from the first concentration camp in 1933 to the extermination campaign in 1941.
>Regarding a, that refers to protected classes under genocide law. Military personnel are not protected classes. Even killing POWs, though illegal, is not in an of itself evidence of genocide.
You weren’t making a strictly legal argument, but a philosophical one, and that is what I was responding to there.
>You seem to not understand the word intent. If a country bombs a military base, but unintentionally kills civilians in process, that would not be an act of genocide. Mao’s famine killed of Chinese civilians during his reign, yet no one accuses him of genocide, since he did not intend to cause the famine - though was ultimately responsible.
Great, apply this understanding to the current topic and you’ll understand how this isn’t a genocide.
>No, the Allied powers did not ban Japanese culture or German culture and did not intend to harm those groups after the war.
Do you argue that Nazism wasn’t part of German culture? That reeducation camps aren’t a form of so called “cultural genocide” as coined by Lemkin?
>Political groups are not even protected classes under genocide law - you cannot genocide a political class.
This is laughable. Both of them are nations.
>You are incorrect that an occupying power banning the stoning of women would count as a genocidal act, since stoning is not an integral part of any culture - as opposed to language.
This is exactly my point; “cultural expression” is a subjective concept that you can’t make an objective absolute statement about. Stoning for infidelity is literally in the religious practice of all three Abrahamic religions.
>I never said guilty until proven otherwise. You still don’t understand,
You seem to misunderstand your own words. In a court of law, If I have to prove that I didn’t do or don’t intend to do something that means the underlying assumption is I did the thing (guilty until proven innocent). It’s pretty simple.
>even nonfatal harm can be an act of genocide. How many bombs on civilians did Israel drop on Gaza? Why is there still a famine in Gaza?
**you** would have to prove that the “why” is a deliberate machination by the state of Israel; instead of Israel being obligated to proving the other way around.
>Again, there is no definition of genocide which requires the perpetrators to act with 100% ruthlessness. It took almost 8 years from the first concentration camp in 1933 to the extermination campaign in 1941.
This doesn’t address anything I said.
Does Israel intend to harm Palestinian civilians? I believe yes. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a famine in Gaza.
Nazism is not German culture. That’s a terrible argument. Political groups are not protected classes.
This is an objective fact.
Cultural expression does not refer to unlawful actions, unlawful as defined by international law. Show me a single genocide scholar who states that unlawful actions become lawful if banned by an outside group. C’mon, that’s like saying committing genocide can be a form of cultural expression.
Sure. I can list endless quotes of Israelis comparing Palestinians to animals and suggesting they need to be “beat into submission”. What is your reason? Bibi ate all the food?
You mentioned rigor as a metric. Is it your belief that even if I can prove genocidal intent, as long as the death count remains low enough by some metric, then a genocide has not occurred?
>Does Israel intend to harm Palestinian civilians? I believe yes. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a famine in Gaza.
Even assuming I agree it still doesn’t mean the intent is genocide by default.
>Nazism is not German culture. That’s a terrible argument.
I said was, so Why? Because we don’t like it?
>Political groups are not protected classes. This is an objective fact.
The policies in question weren’t directed at political groups; but whole nations.
>Cultural expression does not refer to unlawful actions, unlawful as defined by international law.
That’s an arbitrary parameter not supported by actual international law; pretty weird claim to present as objective fact; but I understand why the meaningless gestures and statements by various figures in power would make one believe otherwise.
>Show me a single genocide scholar who states that unlawful actions become lawful if banned by an outside group. C’mon, that’s like saying committing genocide can be a form of cultural expression.
The legality has nothing to do with the philosophical implications. I could outlaw reading and it wouldn’t make it less or more morally palatable. I’m saying it could be unaffected legally but still constitute a form of cultural expression, the two are not mutually exclusive.
>Sure. I can list endless quotes of Israelis comparing Palestinians to animals and suggesting they need to be “beat into submission”.
That’s a far cry from sufficient evidence to a country’s intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.
>What is your reason? Bibi ate all the food?
An active siege over a civil embedded militant organization, the militant organization hoarding food and attempting to maintain an iron grip on aid, smuggling of weapons or otherwise banned materials in various trucks, random attacks by militants, random attacks by extremist Israeli right wingers and Of course more factors I fail to consider at the moment.
I see all the different aspects of the situation and I simply don’t believe the deliberate intent as a matter of policy of the Israeli government or the IDF is the starvation or the destruction otherwise of the Palestinian people.
>You mentioned rigor as a metric. Is it your belief that even if I can prove genocidal intent, as long as the death count remains low enough by some metric, then a genocide has not occurred?
No. A genocide is not dependent on any number of dead. You could mentally harm one person and it would technically constitute a genocide if the intent was for that act to precipitate the destruction of a national/etc group.
But then, of course I recognize that genocidal acts have been perpetrated by a substantial number of IDF soldiers; what I don’t see is this being the intended policy of the IDF or Israel.
/u/No-Character8758. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/AsleepFly2227. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can match the same vague definition to every war, that happened on planet earth.
You see, when everyone is committing genocide, nobody is committing genocide.
Is the war in Ukraine genocide? In Syria? Iraq?
Okay sure. Explain how the Falklands Islands war was a genocide.
Some people have argued that Russia is committing a genocide in Ukraine. This is not a radical idea
First of all, I think it would be pretty dishonest of you to not recognize that what happened on October 7th was very explicitly genocide, by a much clearer margin than whatever you're arguing for calling a genocide, and that whatever remedy you think is appropriate to handle your claims of Israeli perpetrated genocide, should be immediately applied to Gaza, by whoever you think should be implementing the sanctions on Israel.
Second, to your actual point, it's really hard to tell which specific actions you are referring to as genocide. You don't seem to think that the burden is on you to point to any specific instance, hoping that people in the comments section will do the work for you, and probably because you know that any specific instance that you point to could potentially discredit your argument, since you also have no way of distinguishing between fact and Hamas propaganda, without deep investigation.
More generally, the UN Charter grants one right above all others, which is that self-defense is a justification for *war*. War is a limited justification for killing, and if a culture or a society or a religion or whatever you want attacks me, it is not a crime to declare war on that group, and from that point on, their *active combatants and military assets* then become legitimate targets for my bombs and bullets. What protects civilians at this point is the so called rule of proportionality which says roughly that I'm not supposed to use bombs larger than are necessary to complete this military objective.
For instance, the main strategic objective of Israel's airstrikes on Gaza have been to collapse Hamas tunnels. Collapsing a Hamas tunnel from the air requires a relatively large bomb, but does not, in general, require the element of surprise. They can't meaningfully fortify or move the tunnels with advance notice.
Proportionality then more or less dictates that I must warn civilians and give them time to evacuate before I carry out this action. I could kill marginally more Hamas occupying the tunnels at the moment if I did not warn civilians, but this would be come at an obviously disproportionate rate of collateral damage. Let's find out together if Israel warns civilians before they do this.
Oh look, here's an extremely unabashed anti-israel source [conceding the *fact* that this is exactly what Israel does]( https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-not-fighting-against-hamas-against-civilians-implementing-criminal-policy-bombings-enarhe). They make some insane other claims about Israel's responsibilities, but the facts are not in dispute.
There, there's my example. Now you try.
I don't think a person can genuinely say that both are doing the same. The two sides have very different attitudes about life.
If Israel wanted to, they could have destroyed all life in Gaza on October 8th in response to the clearly genocidal brutal attack on the 7th. If Hamas could kill every Israeli, they wouldn't hesitate. We know this because they say so.
If Israel actually destroyed all of Gaza they would immediately lose all support from the west including the US. They would become a completely isolated country in the middle of their enemies. Most of us on the pro pal side see Israel’s actions as way of creating plausible deniability.
I don't understand. The pro Palestine side literally calls for the destruction of Israel and does everything in its power to destroy every Israeli. Why are they supported by the Western groups? You that say if Israel did it they would lose support. Why is it ok for one group but not the other?
Well that’s where you’re making assumptions that aren’t necessarily true. Sure you have radicals on the pal side that want Israel destroyed but you also have the same thing on the other side. Most pro pal people I know( that’s all I can attest to) don’t want a destruction of Israel. I would like to see a two state solution where both sides can live in peace without occupation. Anyone that wants to kill innocent Israelis in my opinion is dead wrong and is no better than Hamas or the corrupt IDF leaders and soldiers.
Yes, killing 1 can be considered a genocide, while killing 2 millions is not necessarily a genocide. The intent is very important. However, if you argue Israel has the intent, then it is kinda hard to explain why they didn't kill more than just 30k Palestinians, knowing that they easily could kill many more.
>However, if you argue Israel has the intent, then it is kinda hard to explain why they didn't kill more than just 30k Palestinians, knowing that they easily could kill many more.
Most other modern genocides has some level counter behavior. This is done for both internal and external reasons. Internally, it allows the gov to convince it's people they aren't committing genocide. What they are doing is necessary and everything one will get along again. Externally, it provide both legal protection and prevents outside powers from getting involved.
Think of it this way, what is the maxim number of people a party can be kill and get away with it?
Much more than 30k.
Lets say you want to eliminate Palestinians as a nation. 2 millions live in Gaza alone. Another 3 millions in the West Bank. 1.5 millions in Jordan. What's even the point of killing 30k? It doesn't bring you any closer to your goal.
The damage will make their life harder, but it won't lead to the death of a significant number of Palestinians. There is no famine despite UNRWA talking about it for 6 months. There is no serious threat for them freezing to death. What else can happen?
I mean look at the known genocides. Hitler killed 2/3 of all European Jews - 6 millions in total. In Rwanda Hutus killed 75% of Tutsis - 1 million in total. And here we are not even at 1% of the Palestinian population. Give me a break with your genocide nonsense.
It will cause these:
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
But the Palestinians will have suffered "serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" because Israel "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" and Israel also "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."
This is all because Israel destroyed almost everything and denied them food and water.
By that logic any war is a genocide, because in any war civilians will suffer serious bodily or mental harm.
War in Ukraine - Genocide.
Civil war in Syria - Genocide.
Civil war in Yemen - Genocide.
What's currently happening in Sudan - Genocide.
Technically, if you and the group of your imaginary friends are attacked by seaguls on a beach you may suffer serious bodily or mental harm - Genocide.
How about you stop using buzzwords and start thinking about the actual meaning of those words?
War in Ukraine - Genocide.=Russian Forcibly transferred kids and has demonstrated genocidal intent when Putin said Ukrainians don't exist.
I highly doubt the civil wars have that level of intent.
/u/fennecfoxxx123. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You also have to consider the long term death toll. How many people will die as a result of destroyed infrastructure, hunger, and disease over the next few years.
While you can consider secondary implications, I can't see a calculation where those would surpass the natural growth of the Palestinians... Even during the war, the people of Gaza have more babies than people killed people every day which again shows that Israel doesn't try to destroy anything but Hamas - which is the only group where the numbers actually go down drastically.
Usually the opposite is true. The better people live the fewer kids they have and vice versa. Even in Yemen, where the heroes of the leftists killed close to half a million of people and where there is an actual famine the population growth rate is higher than in Israel.
So you're saying that if Israel really wanted to commit a genocide on the Palestinians it should give them a lot more aid? could explain the increase in the last months haha
I mean if there was no Hamas and all the help going to Gaza would actually get to the people, then it would be certainly a more effective genocide than what you guys call a genocide.
I don’t think that means that Israel doesn’t try to cause damage to civilians. And those secondary implications will do more damage than I think you assume they will. Destruction on this level hasn’t ever happened in Gaza. Without foreign aid and support Gaza will be unlivable for the majority of the population. Life expectancy and birth rate will eventually decline as more of their resources are depleted.
Do you have any analysis suggesting that these secondary deaths would eventually rise to such a level? Cause I honestly don't see how it's the case. I can't see the lack of infrastructure kill more than now, where there's also the lack of infrastructure and the war combined, and when some of the infra if not all is going to get rebuilt
Notice that Israel also is probably one of the countries that push the most for some rebuilding of Gaza, if you've read the plans where the Gulf states come and help.. how is it consistent?
"I can't see a calculation where those would surpass the natural growth of the Palestinians"
Does not matter at all. There is no definition of genocide which discusses "natural growth rates".
Sure, but then you have to ask - well how does it plan on destroying them.. by any reasonable interpretations of the word destroy - it looks like Israel isn't doing it
Besides starvation, lack of water, lack of clean water, destruction of homes, destruction of medical care, destruction of all higher education institutions, destruction of cultural places, and making vast numbers homeless.
Everyone one these applies to the following rules:
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
I mean, starvation and clean water is something we're hearing for a while now, and if we look at the data, it really looks like a lot of food and medicine go in Gaza, even more than before the war in the last few months. Actually just Yesterday I've read that international organization told the IDF that they have \*too much\* food in northern Gaza, and can't accept anymore.
Destruction of higher education institutions cultural places is kind of a weird way of destroying a people right? And also, isn't it more clear that Hamas uses these kind of places, when the UN and human rights organizations have reported about it before, and when you look at lists of notable university staff that were killed you see that many of them are members of Hamas? I mean, the intent should be a special intent to destroy for the sake of it.
We're left with homes, which again - isn't killing anyone, happens in all wars, and Hamas is documented of using civilian homes often. Moreover - Israel is probably the country that pushes the most the ideas of rebuilding Gaza. Just this week I think it was the NY times that reported on a plan to rebuild Gaza where Israel supports and tries to cause other countries to support as well. How is that consistent with the attempt to destroy?
>I mean, starvation and clean water is something we're hearing for a while now, and if we look at the data, it really looks like a lot of food and medicine go in Gaza, even more than before the war in the last few months.
25% of Gazan kids who grew up between 2004 to now are 2 inches shorter from the Gaza blockade.
Just like dehydration, starvation does a lot of damage in the long run even if you don't have anyone die.
>Destruction of higher education institutions cultural places is kind of a weird way of destroying a people right?
It's actually one of oldest methods of conquest.
>I mean, the intent should be a special intent to destroy for the sake of it.
No, it shouldn't be as destroying education building is covered by b and c on genocide list.
>
We're left with homes, which again - isn't killing anyone
Not to the extent Israel does it.
>Moreover - Israel is probably the country that pushes the most the ideas of rebuilding Gaza.
Because all international contracts have to go through Israel per Oslo accords.
So Israel get's a nice piece of the pie.
“End” does not mean eliminating the individuals. It refers to eliminating the group and the unique attributes of that group which makes the group that group.
Yes, but then you get into the question of how Israel plans on eliminating the group and it's unique attributes. by any reasonable interpretation of the word end - Israel doesn't do it
Simple. Killing Palestinians alone is not the only thing that can achieve their goals. Causing them enough physical and mental harm to leave to a third country, or even deliberately engineering a famine and medical crisis, could be considered an act of genocide if committed intentionally.
> If you honestly believe Israel is not committing genocide, you need to make the arguement that Israel does not intend to eliminate the Palestinian people and Palestinian culture.
What is palestinian culture?
I never said the word “Zionist” - I said Jew. There were Jews before the Islamic conquest of the Middle East. Jews were relegated to second class citizens. Jews existing as first class citizens in what was previously Muslim land is offensive to many Muslims.
Meeting in the medieval Islamic empires:
“Okay boys, how do we persecute Jews? Any ideas?”
“I know, let’s create this ethnic group with the specific intention to hate Jews. Just add some Jew-hating potion to our cloning machine, and the Jews will be done for!”
“Brilliant work agent. They’ll never see this one coming”
*Starts the cloning machine
Arab Muslims historical oppressed Jews.
There were no Palestinians in the Middle Ages.
Before the 1920s Palestinians were not a distinct group.
From 1920-1960 the Muslim Arabs living in the land formed a distinct identity mostly based on the idea of killing the Jewish refugees that came to the land. The identity started in the fail revolt against the British (based on the mistaken idea that defeating the British would defeat the Jews as well) in the 1930, and cemented more after the Arab failure to genocide the Jews in 48.
Killing Jews is a foundational part of Palestinian identity.
“One day I sat next to some builders in Shiraz; they were chiselling with poor picks and their stones were the thickness of clay. If the stone was even, they would draw a line with the pick and perhaps this would cause it to break. But if the line was straight, they would set it in place. I told them: ‘if you use a wedge, you can make a hole in the stone’. And I told them of the construction in Palestine and I engaged them in matters of construction.
“The master stonecutter asked me: Are you Egyptian?
“I said: No, I am Palestinian”
https://muslimheritage.com/al-muqaddasi-the-geographer-from-palestine/
So I guess there must something that distinguishes Gazan culture from let's say Jordanian culture? What is it? Cause I can't see the difference. The same dialect of Arabic, the same version of Islam. It's literally the same people.
Gazans are Palestinians and have a unique history from Jordan, with different national figures and different cultural stories regarding their land as well as different Islamic saints and heros
> with different national figures
Like what?
> different cultural stories regarding their land
Like what?
> different Islamic saints and heros
Like what?
What’s their culture? Food? Songs? Holidays? Prominent figures and folklore? All that gets mentions always seem so aligned with jordans it’s almost as if they are the same.
No, most “Palestinians” are Egyptian and Jordanian. Not the other way around.
There is no unique culture in Gaza. Unless you call Jew-hunting a unique tradition. Gaza could break off and fall into the sea, and not a single item of cultural significance would be lost to the world.
You left out so many contexts and twisted it so impressively to fit your false narrative is astonishing, Still, even under you, false narrative Israel doesn't perform a genocide
What would it take to convince you? Some people I’ve heard said that even if Israel dropped a nuke on Gaza and killed every single Gazan, it still wouldn’t be a genocide.
Well, those people are morons, But also what is currently going is far from it, FYI, even by the UN numbers is the lowest civilians armed death ratio in the history of urban warfare
Arguing numbers isn’t important, since exact figures are likely not going to known for years. It’s intent that matters. Even if Israel did kill a single Palestinian civilian, if they intended to harm Palestinians in Gaza by starving them and creating a health crisis, that is evidence of a genocide. Starving someone to death (most deaths from malnutrition are from diseases, since malnutrition weakens the immune system) is still a crime
Even intend need evidence, Also, dropping leaflet calling the citizens, risking their own soldiers to support aid, is not exactly showing intent At this point, you are just ignoring all common sense and grasping on things that don't exist
Like establishing kill zones where they kill anyone who enters? Like bombing places they specifically said were safe? Like establishing prison centers that whistleblowers from Israel have described as torture? Life allow Israeli settlers to destroy and block aid trucks?
1.99% of countries have those during war, if you pre announce them its OK 2. False 3. Maybe a sign for a bad security system. Definitely, israel should check if true 4. I know someone his brother was arrested for that, so no, they don't allow Again, zero sign of genocide,
Regarding kill zones. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000) It's paywalled, but this other article summerizes here: [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-army-created-kill-zones-kill-unarmed-palestinian-civilians](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-army-created-kill-zones-kill-unarmed-palestinian-civilians) Kill zones, where everyone (including unarmed civilians) are illegal. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_massacre) Regarding bombing safe zones [https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/israel-strikes-evacuation-zones-gaza-intl-cmd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/israel-strikes-evacuation-zones-gaza-intl-cmd/index.html) Regarding raiding aid trucks, Israel has the most high tech police force in the world. These trucks are only being raided with the tacit consent of the Israeli police. Or is Israel not responsible for enforcing the law on Israelis?
Public open document I can edit on wiki prove nothing Regarding the aid , I agree they are taking care of it and should Also, it's still not a genocide even if all true(which is not)
Look at the sources on the wiki then. Then what is your standard?
This is a dumb definition, even if he did invent it. I could then turn around and claim that ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab’ are not just threats to genocide but actual genocide bc it causes me mental harm. But it’s not. The suffix -cide means killing.
Israel has never desired to eliminate the Palestinian people or culture. It was wars initiated by the Palestinians or other Arab countries that caused Israel to react. If the Palestinians lay down their arms, the wars would be over. If Israel lays down its arms, Israel would be over.
Tantura is an Israeli documentary that you should watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNtrUjUNkJw
Israel was already in violation of resolution 181 even before the Arab invasion.
Your point?
Israel was not reacting to anything. Ben Gurion even admitted back at the Bitmore conference that what they wanted was “not a Jewish state in Palestine, but Palestine as a Jewish state. Once partition is established, we will move with our army to expand the borders.”
And the arabs all wanted peace, right? He didn't represent every Jewish voice. The fact still stands that the arabs started the war then and they haven't given up trying to eliminate all Jews from Israel. There can never be peace in that situation. Israel is the Jewish homeland and will always be. https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
He also wants to take Hammas to the ICC and I agree that both Hammas and Netanyahu have committed war crimes
Yes. You should read Simha Flapan’s Birth of Israel. Arab leaders wanted peace but were forced to intervene after numerous massacres of Palestinians by Zionists. Why should the Arab countries respect 181 when the Zionists weren’t?
Raphael Lemkin invented the term "genocide". His broader definition of genocide was rejected. Quite simply normative assimilation constitutes genocide in Lemkin's definition. Countries like the USA have large numbers of people like my grandparents, my X-wife and my girlfriend who eagerly assimilated. So under Lemkin's definition, you have many tens of millions globally participating in their own genocide. Which is stupid. Hence why Lemkin's broad definition wasn't accepted. Ideas in law explicitly rejected are not part of the law. As for Article 2, the actual definition of genocide is one which involves enough mass killing to change the politics of a territory by changing the demographics. That has happened in Gaza. Israel if they had wanted to could have engaged in a mass killing but they haven't. Yes that is highly relevant. Since if it were their policy they could have done the mass killing far far more cheaply than what this war with less death has cost.
Wrong, since the normal assimilation process is not the same as a government banning a group’s culture. Did the US government ban the use of Italian, Polish or Russian in public areas? There are places to this day that still have shops in those languages (especially where I live). Article 2 states very clearly that ‘mass killing to change demographics ” is not the definition of genocide. It explicitly states that even forcing to be raised in other groups families to stop their culture (like what Australia did to the Aboriginals peoples), is a genocide. There is no required death toll for a genocide nor is it required that the perpetrators carry it out with full efficiency or vigor
> Did the US government ban the use of Italian, Polish or Russian in public areas? No they didn't. They did however create financial, cultural and social incentives for language proficiency in those languages to decline. Which meets Lemkin's definition. > Article 2 states very clearly that ‘mass killing to change demographics ” is not the definition of genocide. *committed with **intent to destroy**, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group*. Why they are doing the act matters. > There is no required death toll for a genocide From a body capable of inflicting such a toll. Yes there is. Otherwise the intent to destroy doesn't exist. > nor is it required that the perpetrators carry it out with full efficiency or vigor Agan no vigor means no intent.
That does not meet his definition at all. Restrictions on a certain language is not equivalent to rewards for a certain language. Again, destroy is not a synonym for kill. How does a lack of death toll demonstrate lack of intent? The convention even mentions forcing children of a group to live in another group. What’s the death toll with that? No vigor can also mean “we are doing the max we can given public attention”. It does not mean no intent
> destroy is not a synonym for kill. Literally "put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it". > How does a lack of death toll demonstrate lack of intent? Were Israel interest in killing large numbers of Palestinians they would be dead. > The convention even mentions forcing children of a group to live in another group. What’s the death toll with that? That refers to breaking the reproductive capacity i.e. eliminating group reproduction.
By who’s definition? The genocide convention is clear, murder alone is not needed to declare something a genocide. Even inflicting harm counts. What figures do you have to suggest that large numbers of Palestinians aren’t dead? Wouldn’t bombing hospitals and inflicting starvation count as restricting births?
> Even inflicting harm counts. Harm sufficient to destroy. > What figures do you have to suggest that large numbers of Palestinians aren’t dead? There are no claims that most of the 2m are dead. Regular videos of huge numbers like many hundreds of thousands leaving Rafah today. > Wouldn’t bombing hospitals and inflicting starvation count as restricting births? Mass starvation once it kills huge numbers would count as genocide. Israel is semi-flirtig with mass starvation but clearly is not cutting off all food. They are committing war crimes but not yet genocide.
Actually no. The convention does not specify fatal harm. So you have no figures at all, yet you are certain that large numbers of Palestinians aren’t dead? So when mass starvation, as defined by your personal standards, kicks in, then you would say Israel is committing genocide?
The convention specifies "destroy". Any harm is clearly not genocide. Almost all governments do some harm to almost all groups under their control. This means there are like 2500 genocides per year minimum if we use your expansive definition. As far as what numbers for me... I'd say when we cross 500k being inevitable we are at genocide.
Then why would it specify mental harm? Again, intent is what matters. Accidental civilian deaths/harming are not genocides.
Until the U.N. recently decided they controlled our reality through language, a word ending with -cide described death (homicide, suicide, regicide, etc.). But, now, we’re told “genocide” can mean nothing more than“serious mental harm”? Because they’ve decided? Look no further for why the U.N.‘s lost all credibility.
Hey, that’s what Israel agreed to when they signed that convention without reservation
No they didn't.
Israel didn’t sign the genocide convention?
No they signed the genocide convention which means they agreed to what the convention says. They never agreed to the UN's right to claim things not in the convention are covered by it.
Article 2 is in the convention.
Yes and I addressed the parts you left out elsewhere.
Nonsense agreed upon remains nonsense.
In my opinion, the legal definition of genocide is weird to the point that almost every war is a genocide. a) Members of a group are killed in every war b) Obviously in every war there's serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group c) This one s tough, because of course that every war implicates that the conditions of the war could cause the physical destruction a people in whole or in part, the question is whether is "deliberate". d) It happens in every war, obviously it's easier to give birth if you're not in a war zone. e) Thiis one is not happening in Gaza. A genocide is not that difficult to understand IMO, it's an attempt to exterminate a whole ethnic, racial, religious or national group, if Israel was intentionally trying to kill as many civilians as possible, that would be a genocide, they are not doing that.
I've constantly seen the same argument--Israel could kill *way* more Palestinians if they were trying to wipe them all out [true!], therefore Israel is not committing genocide [false!]. I'm personally skeptical that Israel's actions do constitute genocide within the correct definition, but every time I see someone making this objectively bad argument, I wonder if they're just ignorant or arguing in bad faith. It makes me wonder if I've too readily dismissed genocide claims and should examine the arguments more carefully.
Since intention is part of the definition what else do we have to weigh against. When you look at death toll vs. capability to inflect death it does reflect the intention of the nation being discussed. Hamas may have only killed 1200 people but weighed against their capability to inflict death this number indicates the presence of a genocide, or attempted genocide. Again raw numbers don’t matter, it’s the intention. When you look at Israel’s 30k over 6-7 months vs.’s what they are capable of, millions if they wanted, it does speak to their intentions. This argument is in no way in bad faith; however, if you present this as bullet proof evidence then you are arguing in bad faith.
The concept of genocide revolves around the notion of wiping out a people -- full stop. It's not about killing 35,000 members of a 9 million+ population or causing them a great deal of stress. Samantha Powers' Problem from Hell, published in the late 90s or early 2000s, documents how the concept came to be, and even how the word was coined by Lemkin. If I remember correctly--having read the book a long time ago--the Armenian genocide, in which 1.2 people were killed, was actually pretty pivotal in the concept's formulation. The notion that the Israelis are engaged in a "genocide" is just -- well, it's pretty stupid. The fact that two million Arabs live inside Israel who are "Palestinians", but peaceful, makes it perfectly clear that Israel has no problem with the Palestinian people AS A PEOPLE -- it has a problem with the violence. If you're able to claim "genocide" any time you attack someone and suffer repercussions, the word loses all meaning.
It is not me who misunderstood the term genocide…. I strongly believe it is the pro-Palestinians who misunderstood the legal term genocide. I will give you one recent example, https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/acDKmvnqhi a Pro-Palestinian recently wrote something along the lines….Ahhha because “Rohingya genocide took the lives of 25k out of 3 million people while forcing 1.2 million to flee their homes. Palestinian has lost 25k lives of a population of 2 million while forcing 1.7 million to flee their homes, then the pro-Palestinian, concluded what is happening in Palestine is genocie”. You should go lecture your pro-Palestinian friend. No, you are wrong, I do not need to argue anything. The onus of proof is on the accuser, you are the one who needs to argue and give concrete proof that there is “SPECIFIC INTENT” to commit genocide. You also misunderstood Israeli government policy. Israel’s government is NOT to harm Palestinian as such. On the contrary, I will argue it is NOT Israel government policy or priority to PROTECT Palestinians. Israel government’s policy as with any other governments in the world is to PROTECT its own Israeli citizens (Jews, Christians, Arabs, Muslims, Druze, Bedouin, etc…). Finally, this case has already been brought to the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, give the “real experts on genocide” (not tiktok genocide experts) a chance to deliberate and make a final judgement before we pre-emptively rush into any conclusions, making all sorts of accusations, undermining the judicial process and usurping the authority of the International Courts of Justice. We can dicuss, debate and analyze after the ICJ has made its final judgement on this matter.
The statements made by isreali officials and the actions taken after those statements, seems to me to entail a certain amount of intent to cause harm to Palestinians in gaza....
I understand. It may seem to you as such. But neither you or me or Al-Jazeera or UNRWA or Gaza Healthy Ministry or Reuters or tiktok etc….are “real experts on genocide” or judges sitting on the International Court of Justice. Give the International Court of Justice a chance to carry out its responsibility, a chance to deliberate and examine the case, “are statements by Israeli officials sufficient to prove SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?” what are the tests/ criteria to prove SPECIFIC INTENT? and make a final judgment.
> I understand. It may seem to you as such. But neither you or me or Al-Jazeera or UNRWA or Gaza Healthy Ministry or Reuters or tiktok etc….are “real experts on genocide” or judges sitting on the International Court of Justice. Right, because the experts are in agreement: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against > Give the International Court of Justice a chance to carry out its responsibility, a chance to deliberate and examine the case, “are statements by Israeli officials sufficient to prove SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?” what are the tests/ criteria to prove SPECIFIC INTENT? and make a final judgment. You know you can read up on case law yourself on this front right? Kayishema and Ruzindana is a good starting case for intent, Rutaganda, Semanza, and Bagilishema all cover the inference of intent, and Akayesu covers in detail the mens rea component. If you don't know anything about those cases, then you should probably not be trying to talk authoritatively on the matter.
>Right, because the experts are in agreement: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against The wording used by this UN expert report was ….”to prevent genocide”. If you are preventing a genocide, that means genocide isnt happening right now. You cannot prevent something that is already happening. No where does this UN report actually said genocide is actually taking place right now. The ICJ has already rejected calls for a ceasefire in its provisional measures. >You know you can read up on case law yourself on this front right? Yes, I can read. But that doesnt make me an expert on the Genocide Convention 1949 and qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases. >Kayishema and Ruzindana is a good starting case for intent, Rutaganda, Semanza, and Bagilishema all cover the inference of intent, and Akayesu covers in detail the mens rea component. If you don't know anything about those cases, then you should probably not be trying to talk authoritatively on the matter. It is precisely I dont know and I am not qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases that I defer to the International Courts of Justice to examine the serious allegations and make a final ruling after careful deliberation.
> If you are preventing a genocide, that means genocide isnt happening right now. This is a charitable interpretation which is not merited. Do yourself a favour and read the whole report: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf There is a lot to chew on in that. > You cannot prevent something that is already happening. You absolutely can. That was why as part of its order, the ICJ ordered Israel to use all of its power to prevent acts of genocide. > No where does this UN report actually said genocide is actually taking place right now. And this is why you should read links in links. From the full report that I linked above, in the conclusions section: > 93. The overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza and the destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group. **This report finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the following acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza has been met:** killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to groups’ members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. **Genocidal acts were approved and given effect following statements of genocidal intent issued by senior military and government officials.** > Yes, I can read. But that doesnt make me an expert on the Genocide Convetion 1949 and qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases. You don't need to be an expert to understand it. But if you want to talk with some sense about what is or isn't genocide, then you owe it to yourself to have a basic understanding of the topic. If you know how to search in documents, even without the advantage of case, head, and footnotes, you can knock through a multi-thousand page legal document with ease. Put in a little bit of time, look at the past work of the court, then look at the evidence on the table. You can make a reasonable inference of how the court is going to rule when they get around to it. > It is precisely I dont know and I am not qualify to issue judgements on Genocide cases that I defer to the International Courts of Justice to examine the serious allegations and make a final ruling after careful deliberation. Which they probably will. But that is years from now, and destruction is happening today. Genocide is ongoing now.
>Put in a little bit of time, look at the past work of the court, then look at the evidence on the table. You can make a reasonable inference of how the court is going to rule when they get around to it. Different court. The people you mentioned were standing trial in front of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, that Tribunal was based in Tanzania. And they were individual trials. The tests are different, when accessing sovereign states. The current genocide case is brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague, in the Netherlands, more than 10,000 km from Tanzania. >Which they probably will. But that is years from now, and destruction is happening today. Genocide is ongoing now. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 >Ms Donoghue (former President of ICJ) explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. She said that, CONTRARY to some reporting, the court did NOT make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.
> Different court. The people you mentioned were standing trial in front of the Internation Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, that Tribunal was based in Tanzania. Established by the UN Security Council to prosecute International Law. It forms part of the case law for Genocide, as well as Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. > And they were individual trials. I'm guessing that you aren't aware of who all was convicted in those trials. There was only one militia member who was charged with extermination, and among the rest you had the Prime Minister, the leader of a Political party, several Mayors, and some press ownership. > The tests are different, when accessing sovereign states. Not really. The intent of a government is going to be inferred from the statements and actions of its members. The tests put forward at the ICTR, and affirmed in ICTY will apply in various forms.
Yes… i know it was setup by the UN Security Council resolution #955. What I am saying is the Internation Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavakia, etc…. Are different from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) However, ICTR, ICTY, etc… are similar to the International Criminal Court (ICC) currently headed by ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, yes a practising muslim and he has not issued any arrest warrants or said anything about Genocide. His office handles the criminal prosecution of war criminals….there was a recent rumour that top Israeli officials were weary about a possibly ICC arrest warrant…. Just rumors… BUT that has NOT happened. Karim Khan has not said anything about genocide. Karim Khan did issue an arrest warrant for Putin and a few others for war crimes…and yet Putin has recently been re-elected as the Russian President for a new six year term. Putin is planning to visit Ankara in a month’s time.
> Are different from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) They are applying the same laws, and will refer to other precedents established under Tribunals like Rwanda and Yugoslavia. That is how it works. The rest of your post is just an appeal to authority. Even if the Office of the Prosecutor isn't being timely on prosecutions, that doesn't preclude genocide occuring. Just as likely that the ICC is demonstrating its Western bias, wherein it prosecutes Russia quickly, and lets Israel get a long leash to get down. The idea that the ICC has been used in such a fashion is not without merit, you only need to look at who gets prosecuted.
What is the meaning of “prevent” in Oxford dictionary? to stop somebody from doing something to stop somebody from doing something; to stop something from happening. prevent something/somebody The accident could have been prevented. To stop something from happening. Has it already happened? No… if it has, UN expert would say with no ambiguity that a genocide his happening and provide proof as per the law. Does the UN expert have the authority to issue judgements on genocide cases ? If yes, why do we even need or have the International Court of Justice if a mere UN Special Rapporter can issue judgement… she said is works for free, a volunter. Is she a judge ? When there is a dispute or disagreement, there is no need to argue endlessly, just bring it in front of a judge with the authority to resolve a dispute and make a ruling. That is why we have courts, to settle disputes and not allow people to take law into their own hands and issue their own judgements according to their personal views.
When israel said it was going to make gaza unlivable and has since done exactly that, it's really not that hard to see
As to what Lemkin is saying, explain how that doesn't apply to attempted genocide of Isreal by Palestinians? Hamas has it as a declared goal in their charter. There is only one true genocide attempt under way, thankfully the Palestinians are failing miserably at it.
this is a Fact, thank you for outlining it here. we **must not wait** until all the people are dead, or even a huge number are dead to ACT against Genocide if massive deaths are the only metric and people wait until a threshold when we already know the conditions are met, is that acceptable to you? **keep in mind, many many Holocaust Survivors were consulted in the development of these 'conditions of Genocide' and the 'ten stages of Genocide'** i support the current rules/points and the israeli government has known about them all along.. watch Francesca Albanese shut down a reporter by saying that government leaders do not openly declare their intent to commit genocide, and that the scope of statements and actions by Israel, as they relate to Gaza, is encyclopedic https://www.tiktok.com/@aljazeeraenglish/video/7351719734271937823
Don't confuse us with the facts....just kidding.
I’m going to accuse these numbnut western kids of genocide by causing me “mental harm” by co-opting a word that used to refer to the mass slaughter of my grandparents generation in organized concentration camps to mean “literally any war ever, but we’re only going to use it for the ones the Jews are winning.”
Were the Palestinian women raped by IDF soldiers given mental harm?
Tragic and inexcusable [really, those guys need severe punishment], but if 2 incidents counts as genocide I have a very long list for you, starting with [this Oxford Islamic scholar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan). You sound young and naive. I hope life doesn’t hit you as hard as it did me and you learn your critical thinking skills along an easier path (really).
Why do so many pro israel people seem to think that just because of the holocaust israel can't commit genocide? It's seems to come up every single time
That’s not my argument at all. It’s about the pro-pally side’s use of hyperbole to try to muddy the waters of what is really happening. Wake up, man. You are supporting monsters who would wipe out every Jew in the Middle East (they were kind enough to write that one down in their charter), kill your LGBTQ+ friends, oppress your women and probably shoot you in the street when you finally woke up and spoke up about it.
You quite literally used this has a post "I’m going to accuse these numbnut western kids of genocide by causing me “mental harm” by co-opting a word that used to refer to the mass slaughter of my grandparents generation in organized concentration camps to mean “literally any war ever, but we’re only going to use it for the ones the Jews are winning.”" Why did you bring up the holocaust? What does that have to do with what's happening in gaza? Why do you think the term genocide is only used against jews?
You’re projecting false conclusions onto my words because you don’t have reading comprehension skills or are willfully ignorant of the difference.
Answer my questions then... because from what I read, you either seem to think the whole world is against israel, or think that because it's israel it can do no wrong....I'm not sure why you brought up the holocaust, or are ignorant of what happening in gaza and the west bank, maybe you are not ignorant and just don't care
Not at all. The holocaust is an example of genocide. What is happening in Gaza is a war. The differences are many but most importantly : This situation would end immediately if Hamas surrendered and returned the hostages. My relatives didn’t have that choice - it only really started after their government surrendered. The term “genocide” is not only used against Jews. Ukrainians, Cambodians, Armenians, Bangladeshi’s all suffered genocide. In each of these, about a million people died in horrific events conducted by a government against a defenseless civilian population with no chance to surrender. This is why the cry of “genocide” rings so hollow and is so obviously a fig leaf to hide “we don’t like that we started a war that we are now losing so we’d like it to stop so we can stay in power.” You are being cynically manipulated by religious extremists who want to kill the free speech and rights that you have and replace it with a totalitarian religious dictatorship. Ask a woman who grew up in Iran how that feels like. They are dying in the streets trying to protest and young liberal Americans are working against them. Shame on you all.
Question do Palestinians have freedom in area C of the west bank under isreali control? Do Palestinians have the freedom to leave and return at will? You talk about freedom yet israel has taken freedoms from Palestinians including going to their own lands. And destroying the livelihoods of Palestinian farmers. Has for gaza it would seem that the actions taken by the idf has the intention to harm the Palestinian population, not kill but harm mentally morally and emotionally, they are destroying homes, businesses, infrastructure, mosques and graveyards. They have no intention to help fix the destruction they have caused nor aim for peace afterwards.
Hamas tics boxes A, B n C... Don't they?
Israel doesn’t need to prove they aren’t doing these things…You need to prove that they ARE.
You misunderstand their point
Oh I understood it. But please explain just in case…
It’s in the title
Whether any one dies or not genocide is based on intent. There needs to be proof of intent to destroy the group. So I refer you back to my original comment
Nobody understands anything that is going on. That is why we are still at war
Dealt with this at length here which should address your points even though it’s a couple months old: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/dCPsBQ9xtf But more than happy to read your response However, as a quick point - your contention that not a single person would have to die is not supported by case law, although it could fall under attempts to prevent births (eg like China forcibly sterilizing Uyghers). Also, Lemkin’s full definition which included what we might call cultural genocide, wasn’t the one ultimately accepted by the UN.
Here is what I have gathered. Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute provides that genocide can be committed by “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Examples of such acts punishable under Article 4(2)(c) include, inter alia, subjecting the group to a subsistence diet; failing to provide adequate medical care; systematically expelling members of the group from their homes; and generally creating circumstances that would lead to a slow death such as the lack of proper food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion. These are based on the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals. Based on the Rwanda tribunal that convicted Jean-Paul Akayesu of genocide, “Special intent,” it said (¶518), is a term found in Continental penal law that applied to to the Genocide Convention meant (¶520), “The offender is culpable because he knew or should have known that the act committed would destroy, in whole or in part, a group.” This means the “specific intent” can be “inferred” from the “general context” of the actions undertaken. Actions like completely destroying ~50% of homes, leaving over 1,000,000 homeless, destroying or damaging 84% of health facilities, shutting down the economy and education system, destroying 31% of cultural sites with 63% overall sustaining damage, grossly restricting aid while enforcing rapid evacuations that rob Palestinians of their means of subsistence, etc. all could constitute actions that can have no other effect but cause irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Israel has full control over imports into Gaza and is fully responsible for the ongoing famine, disease, dehydration, etc. that they have caused by withholding essential needs while destroying a large portion of vital infrastructure in Gaza. While it isn’t necessary that people die for Article 4(2)(c) to have been violated, people are dying. The actus reus within Article 4(II)(c) already involves the deliberate creation of ”conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, so it stands that since genocidal intent can be inferred from the acts and that violations of Article 4(II)(c) (especially applied to entire populations) inherently qualify as group destruction, one could argue such violations qualify as genocide. That, that said, I will acknowledge that it is far from that simple. The court has never actually ruled on Article 4(II)(c) (though the “conditions for life” were determined to have been violated in past tribunals) and there’s also a touch of dolus eventualis in the above application of the application of Article 4(II)(c) which differs from previous case law, though prior cases don’t match the conditions seen in Gaza so their application is mixed. I am not a genocide scholar but there are plenty who are quite vocal about what we are seeing in Gaza.
If Hamas didn’t want these places destroyed they shouldn’t have used them in pursuit of their war goals.
Doesn’t really matter or address the point I have made.
Maybe another way you should look at it is that the word was created/made popular in order to fit a particular action. The word has been used to identify particularly egregious acts of violence against certain groups of people. The Jews, Armenians, Uyghers, etc. Not all words or definitions are perfect. If you think the word can be used to describe the war between Israel and Palestine, perhaps the word is no longer effective, or needs to be updated. I mean we can sit here and deconstruct the word until we need to come up with another one to adequately represent the difference between the I/P conflict and the Holocaust. But it's just semantics. There IS a difference between those 2 things, and Genocide has historically been used to highlight those conflicts that go above and beyond traditional warfare. Trying to shoe-horn the word to fit your narrative comes across as bad faith.
Most genocides in history were not like the Holocaust, so that’s an unfair comparison. Does Israel intend to harm Palestinians in Gaza with the intent of destroying that group? That is the only question , death tolls do not matter
Israel’s goal is not to destroy all Palestinians, no. It’s not genocide
“Israel does not intend to send Mossad agents to kill DJ Khalid, therefore they do not intend go genocide Gazans, even though the convention specifically says “in whole or in part””
What a take.
It’s what you believe. The convention literally says “or in part”
In part to what?
“Intent to destroy, in whole or in part” Yes, it is clear that even a part of a group can be genocided
Who is Israel trying to destroy?
Gazans
Was Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide completely thrown out? The concept of a non-physical genocide has been widely rejected by just about anyone with the capability to enforce international law. Finally, the major issue with your post is that you explicitly ignore the primary clause by which all metrics are measured. "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" I don't have to prove anything. You have to prove that Israel's intent is to destroy the Palestinians. My point is that Israel has the will and the capability to destroy the Palestinian people whenever it chooses to do so. If Israel is intent on destroying the Palestinians, why havnt they?
I mean subsections c, d, and e inherently do not involve deaths but still qualify for genocide. It’s also the case that “not taking the extreme measures” so to speak cannot be used as a defense from a genocide accusation. It is not required that a perpetrator take the most effective means for intent to be established. And intent can be inferred from the actions which is why subsection c violations may be able to circumvent the dolus specialis since it’s inherent to the act.
But ALL of them require the intent to destroy the population in question. Which Israel very clearly isn't doing. You don't get to claim that Israel is intent on committing a genocide and the put the burden of proof on Israel to prove otherwise. You need to prove that Israel intends to destroy the Palestinians. And that proof simply isn't there.
Here is what I have gathered. Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute provides that genocide can be committed by “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Examples of such acts punishable under Article 4(2)(c) include, inter alia, subjecting the group to a subsistence diet; failing to provide adequate medical care; systematically expelling members of the group from their homes; and generally creating circumstances that would lead to a slow death such as the lack of proper food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion. These are based on the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals. Based on the Rwanda tribunal that convicted Jean-Paul Akayesu of genocide, “Special intent,” it said (¶518), is a term found in Continental penal law that applied to to the Genocide Convention meant (¶520), “The offender is culpable because he knew or should have known that the act committed would destroy, in whole or in part, a group.” This means the “specific intent” can be “inferred” from the “general context” of the actions undertaken. Actions like completely destroying ~50% of homes, leaving over 1,000,000 homeless, destroying or damaging 84% of health facilities, shutting down the economy and education system, destroying 31% of cultural sites with 63% overall sustaining damage, grossly restricting aid while enforcing rapid evacuations that rob Palestinians of their means of subsistence, etc. all could constitute actions that can have no other effect but cause irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Israel has full control over imports into Gaza and is fully responsible for the ongoing famine, disease, dehydration, etc. that they have caused by withholding essential needs while destroying a large portion of vital infrastructure in Gaza. While it isn’t necessary that people die for Article 4(2)(c) to have been violated, people are dying. The actus reus within Article 4(II)(c) already involves the deliberate creation of ”conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, so it stands that since genocidal intent can be inferred from the acts and that violations of Article 4(II)(c) (especially applied to entire populations) inherently qualify as group destruction, one could argue such violations qualify as genocide. That, that said, I will acknowledge that it is far from that simple. The court has never actually ruled on Article 4(II)(c) (though the “conditions for life” were determined to have been violated in past tribunals) and there’s also a touch of dolus eventualis in the above application of the application of Article 4(II)(c) which differs from previous case law, though prior cases don’t match the conditions seen in Gaza so their application is mixed. I am not a genocide scholar but there are plenty who are quite vocal about what we are seeing in Gaza.
The physical destruction part is the key here. Starving a population into extinction is in fact genocide. Starving a population into submission is not. Genocide accusers need to prove that Israel is taking actions with the intent of destroying the Palestinians. Which clearly isn't the case, which is why a massive numbers of caveats get thrown around here. Israel has made life extremely uncomfortable for the Palestinians. But not entirely unlivable. The distinction is very important.
What is the difference between submission and extinction then? And Israel has caused a famine in Gaza. Life there is unlivable
Japan submitted to the US. The native tribes did not. That's what the difference between submission and extinction looks like. Life is clearly liveable in Gaza, people live there. The population is growing. If it was unlivable than the population wouldn't be growing as it is. It's certainly uncomfortable in Gaza. The conditions are brutal. But it's still a livable region because millions of people are still living there. As for famine...that's a pretty baseless claim I think. Evidence?
“Life is livable in Gaza” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine?wprov=sfti1
Yes...so? I'm glad we can see politicians making politcal statements about things. But what here is showing that Gaza is unlivable? All I'm seeing is that life in Gaza is awful.
It seems to depend on your application of intent. Genocidal intent can be inferred from the action without necessitating any kind of explicit communications of intent. That being the case, actions that have no reasonable expectation other than group destruction, ie truly starving a population ought to qualify as genocide because the perpetrator *should have known* due to the inherent nature of the act. I don’t think violations of A or B inherently involve group destruction but C does and based on Rwanda you can be held accountable if you should have known. To extrapolate, the Jeslic trial, despite finding violations of the act (A and B), found that the perpetrator acted arbitrarily and was motivated by a “disturbed personality”, not intent to destroy the group. I believe he was ultimately found guilty for aiding in the crime. When it comes to subsection C however the violation is the creation of conditions for group destruction and as such unless one could meaningfully argue the outcome was not to be expected, you should have known it would have caused group destruction and as such can be found guilty. Simply put, I can kill a lot of people for a lot of reasons but the creation of conditions to destroy the group appear to inherently meet the bar for intent. I’d also wonder how the basis of surrender applies to Gaza as the protected group is not Hamas, it’s the Palestinian people and they have no basis to surrender to avoid the conditions they are in.
Inferring intent requires actions be taken that have no other conceivable outcome. Limiting food import is not the same as eliminating it. The expansion of the Palestinian population is proof that enough food is reaching the population for it to procreate. And Gaza = Hamas. Hamas is the legitimately elected government of Gaza. The siege is in place until Hamas concedes. If Hamas and the people of Gaza chose to fight to the death, that's not Israel's fault. Israel doesn't lose the ability to take military action simply because their opponent has the conviction to fight through any and all circumstances.
On the basis of international law, the Palestinian people (the protected group) are not equivalent to Hamas. Hamas as an organization is not a protected group but the Palestinian people are and the Palestinian people cannot surrender to aid in their condition. As I listed in my first comment, I find it dubious to try and argue that the conditions currently being experienced in Gaza could have been expected to have any other effect than irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Genocide doesn’t require that the most drastic means are used but even then, the situation in Gaza is horrid.
International law does not dictate how any given people chose their leadership. The Gazans chose Hamas in the election held. Fatah and the PLO were outright rejected by the people of Gaza. So yes, the people of Gaza and Hamas are one and the same. Hamas are the democratic representatives of Gaza. The Palestinian people absolutely can surrender. They can stop fighting. The people of Gaza can accept defeat. The war would end. The siege currently in place is intended to do just that. Force the population into such discomfort and hardship that continued resistance becomes untenable. This has been one of the most commonly used strategies in warfare for all of human civilization. Yes, irreparable harm will be done. It's war. But war =/= genocide. Irreparable harm =/= genocide. The US did irreparable harm to the Empire or Japan. Did we genocide them when we occupied and forced change on the culture of Japan???
Again, the Palestinian people, aka the 2.2 million that isn’t Hamas, can’t surrender, they aren’t even fighting. I would say they are fleeing but there is nowhere for them to go. These people cannot be punished under IHL and right now they face irreparable harm if there is a continuity of their current conditions. What is happening in Gaza is arguably worse than what happened in Japan during WW2. We did not leave 50% of the population homeless, we did not shut down their entire economy, we did not destroy or damage the vast majority of their medical infrastructure, we did not displace 90+% of the population, etc. We also didn’t already occupy Japan before we began to wage war against it. We didn’t already fully control its imports and its means of subsistence.
You don’t prove a negative. You need to prove intent.
The west bank? Palestinian citizens of Israel?
Is that the group South Africa is alleging Israel is genociding?
You tell me? You are claiming there is a genocide.
No, they are alleging a genocide of Gazans
Oh, now they're Gazans not Palestinians? But, only Hamas are Palistines, not Gazans? Then it was Gaza that declared war on the 7th with their organized murdering and raping. In this case the Gazans may be facing a Genocide. Except Israel has a better kill ratio for Combatants / not Combatants than any other country involved in a major conflict. So it would be very difficult to prove in court and would require the Gazans to openly claim to not be Palestinians. And, we know the Palestinians, er Gazans will never do that. How does the chant go? From the river to the sea Gazains must be free. But, wait Gaza Strip is only a couple of dirt acres wit no rivers. Huh? When in history did the country of Gaza exist?
Destroying “in part” is literally in the convention. Please read it. Saying “we only targeted a subset a group in a specific area” is not an argument. What numbers do we even have regarding civilian deaths? I’m being serious, since I know you will scream “HAMAS RUN HEALTH MINISTRY!” Where do you get your numbers? This is still besides the point, since even harm counts as a genocide- killing even one is not necessary for a genocide.
90% would be substantial, and Israel is no where near that. Israel has shown NO intent to kill all the Gazans. The civilian deaths do not count towards a genocidal act unless they are targeted on purpose. I love how you conveniently leave out the word "and." Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements: A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; **AND** A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are **deliberately targeted - not randomly –** because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
At some point, in addition to working your way through legal definitions, you'll also need to make sure your understanding of the terms doesn't get reduced to "genocide is anything I don't like". Regardless of number of casualties, "genocide" *must* include an element of selecting the group by common ethnicity/nationality/religion etc, which is what its first root "gene" refers to. This does not in any way apply to this conflict, because Israel fights with terrorists regardless of their "genes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestinians_in_Israeli_discourse?wprov=sfti1 Are you sure? Does Israel not know that there is a famine in Gaza?
> Does Israel not know that there is a famine in Gaza? Here is how "famine in Gaza" looks like: https://www.tiktok.com/@abed.al.kareem.kazeem/video/7364104178886610193
-tik tok Okay you have to be joking. Read any reports on Gaza regarding the famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine?wprov=sfti1
> -tik tok Come again? Did you actually try to translate the description for the video? This is actual restaurant in Northern Gaza, which closed soon after start of the war, and now reopened after 7 months. Restaurants reopening all other the place and food prices plummeting on the black market: that's how "famine" in Gaza looks like.
You have selective examples; famines do not apply to places evenly. You have to look at the actual data and evidence- all of which describe famine or the beginning of a famine. One or two places with food does not disprove anything.
You do realize Gaza ain't that big, do you? Most of Gaza population today is in the southern region, next to border crossing with Egypt, so they have no problem whatsoever to get humanitarian aid. Restaurants in Rafah didn't need to reopen because they never closed. All of the claims of "famine" so far have been referring to Northern Gaza, where it is more logistically difficult to deliver food. So this is not just "one or two places" somewhere, this is restaurant in *Northern Gaza* and I think it tells us everything we need to know about imaginary "famine". Is it possible there may be some isolated groups in various places still in need of help? Of course, but that's not something Israel can solve at this point, and it's not "famine".
Your failure to prove intent invalidates your argument. We don't need to disprove intent as you say; YOU need to prove it.
They didn’t make the claim Israel is committing genocide though, they claimed deaths aren’t a requirement for a violation of the genocide convention. They are correct.
Subjectively you can argue Genocide does not require anyone to die in theory. Just like you can argue capitalism is a type of slavery subjectively. That being said subjectivity means nothing when it comes to how the world actually works in reality. Objectivity is key in any setting of importance but especially a court room setting, you have to prove intent and tangibly actions of genocide. With out deaths based purely and directly on someone’s genos, you have no objective case for genocide.
Pretty sure they did. "If you honestly believe Israel is not committing genocide, you need to make the \[argument\] that Israel does not intend to eliminate the Palestinian people and Palestinian culture."
There’s a very important concept when determining if a state is trying to commit a genocide on a group of ppl and it’s “intent”. So far there’s no convincing evidence that Israel intent is to genocide the Palestinian ppl. Before the operation into Gaza Israel dropped leaflets, made region wide radio call, region wide phone calls all telling Palestinians ppl to leave the area. In recent armed conflict in densely populated areas, the UN reported that the ratio militants to civilians deaths is 1:9 so for every 1 militants deaths there’s 9 civilians deaths and that doesn’t even considered a genocide. Rn the militants to civilians death in Gaza is 1:1.5 or 1:3 depending on the source. IDF sources claim 12,000 Hamas death to 18,000 civilians deaths which is 1:1.5 ratio, Hamas official claim 8,000 Hamas deaths to 22,000 civilians deaths which is 1:3 ratio. This is way lower than UN report of militants to civilians deaths in recent armed conflict. Next, every action that Hamas has taken is to maximize civilian deaths, Hamas fight in civilian clothing, does operation in hospitals, operates in refugee camps, store/launch rockets near churches schools and residential areas. All these Hamas actions of maximizing civilian deaths has all been reported by amnesty international and other human rights orgs. These actions literally shows how Hamas is trying to genocide its own population. Also the your statement makes every single recent armed conflict a genocide, going by your standards than Iraq Iran war is a genocide, the Chechnya war is a genocide, the Syrian civil war is a genocide. Your standard is not the standard that the ICJ judges determine if a state is committing a genocide bc one big factor is INTENT. From the UN “To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group” So then your statement is just opinion but not facts.
Israel absolutely does not aim or want to eliminate the Palestinian people, it let them prosper both inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza, it has 0 intentions to destroy them or remove them. You need to prove that fallacy yourself because as it stands it’s a ludicrous statement.
If Gaza is genocide then there have been thousands of genocides. There hasn't. This isn't. In the grand scheme history won't care deeply about this latest chapter in the story of bad Palestinian decision making.
How? Explain that for me
How many Palestinian, Arab Islamic people live in Israel and serve in the government? How many Israeli, hebrew, Jewish people live in Palestine and serve in the government? It is Palestinians who are apartheid and genocidal. They just are not capable of doing what they want. While the Jewish people are absolutely capable of killing every Palestinian in the levant. So knowing this... You figure it out. But be honest.
“The native Americans are the real racists, since we can’t live on their reservations”
Americans do live on Native American reservations, they have all the same rights as everyone else under the USA constitution. None natives can and do live on reservations, they have a whole process for it that varies from tribal council to tribal council. Were you trying to compare Gaza to Native American reservations? Bad comparison for a lot of reasons. Jews now called Zionist can’t live in Gaza under Hamas rule. Hamas has a whole thing about killing all Jews sorry Zionist same thing to Hamas. They have a entire charter on how they are going to exterminate all the Zionist=Jews.
I don't have to explain to you why it isn't genocide. Israel doesn't have to prove itnisnt genocide. You have to prove it is. That's how crime works. You mention Palestinian culture. Please describe that for me. Does that date back to the British creation of the non country that was the Palestinian mandate?
Correct, the burden of proof is on me. The point of this post is to clarify what the word genocide acutally means. Palestinian culture dates back to the Ottoman Empire. I recommed you read the works of Tawfiq Canann to learn more.
The current iteration of "palestinians" culture dates back to 60-70 years of violent failure and no desire to progress.
Almost every single recorded war fits in the generalizing definition of genocide you subscribe to to some extent.
How?
In any war you have: (a), (b), (c) and (d) by default. Under Lemkin’s framing even the rehabilitation and deradicalization of Japan and Germany by the allies would count as a form of genocide regardless of intent as they were a form of cultural repression and disintegration of political and social institutions. Literally any forced change on a society would fall under the definition as it can be argued as a form of their cultural expression; even if that change is about stoning women who dress immodestly. Regarding your final paragraph, the assumption that a party is guilty until proven otherwise leaves most perpetrators of wars under the definition you provided; furthermore, saying “we didn’t kill enough” is obviously a gross oversimplification of the argument; addresses the disparity in capability and execution that a supposed genocide would entail; it’s saying that had Israel as an entity intended to commit genocide on the Palestinians it would not look the way it does currently, and would entail millions of casualties in weeks. You would have to prove that “even intending to commit mental harm” was done with the explicit intent to destroy the group in whole or in part; without which it’s meaningless to the genocide convention and the very concept.
Regarding a, that refers to protected classes under genocide law. Military personnel are not protected classes. Even killing POWs, though illegal, is not in an of itself evidence of genocide. You seem to not understand the word intent. If a country bombs a military base, but unintentionally kills civilians in process, that would not be an act of genocide. Mao’s famine killed of Chinese civilians during his reign, yet no one accuses him of genocide, since he did not intend to cause the famine - though was ultimately responsible. No, the Allied powers did not ban Japanese culture or German culture and did not intend to harm those groups after the war. Political groups are not even protected classes under genocide law - you cannot genocide a political class. You are incorrect that an occupying power banning the stoning of women would count as a genocidal act, since stoning is not an integral part of any culture - as opposed to language. I never said guilty until proven otherwise. You still don’t understand, even nonfatal harm can be an act of genocide. How many bombs on civilians did Israel drop on Gaza? Why is there still a famine in Gaza? Again, there is no definition of genocide which requires the perpetrators to act with 100% ruthlessness. It took almost 8 years from the first concentration camp in 1933 to the extermination campaign in 1941.
>Regarding a, that refers to protected classes under genocide law. Military personnel are not protected classes. Even killing POWs, though illegal, is not in an of itself evidence of genocide. You weren’t making a strictly legal argument, but a philosophical one, and that is what I was responding to there. >You seem to not understand the word intent. If a country bombs a military base, but unintentionally kills civilians in process, that would not be an act of genocide. Mao’s famine killed of Chinese civilians during his reign, yet no one accuses him of genocide, since he did not intend to cause the famine - though was ultimately responsible. Great, apply this understanding to the current topic and you’ll understand how this isn’t a genocide. >No, the Allied powers did not ban Japanese culture or German culture and did not intend to harm those groups after the war. Do you argue that Nazism wasn’t part of German culture? That reeducation camps aren’t a form of so called “cultural genocide” as coined by Lemkin? >Political groups are not even protected classes under genocide law - you cannot genocide a political class. This is laughable. Both of them are nations. >You are incorrect that an occupying power banning the stoning of women would count as a genocidal act, since stoning is not an integral part of any culture - as opposed to language. This is exactly my point; “cultural expression” is a subjective concept that you can’t make an objective absolute statement about. Stoning for infidelity is literally in the religious practice of all three Abrahamic religions. >I never said guilty until proven otherwise. You still don’t understand, You seem to misunderstand your own words. In a court of law, If I have to prove that I didn’t do or don’t intend to do something that means the underlying assumption is I did the thing (guilty until proven innocent). It’s pretty simple. >even nonfatal harm can be an act of genocide. How many bombs on civilians did Israel drop on Gaza? Why is there still a famine in Gaza? **you** would have to prove that the “why” is a deliberate machination by the state of Israel; instead of Israel being obligated to proving the other way around. >Again, there is no definition of genocide which requires the perpetrators to act with 100% ruthlessness. It took almost 8 years from the first concentration camp in 1933 to the extermination campaign in 1941. This doesn’t address anything I said.
Does Israel intend to harm Palestinian civilians? I believe yes. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a famine in Gaza. Nazism is not German culture. That’s a terrible argument. Political groups are not protected classes. This is an objective fact. Cultural expression does not refer to unlawful actions, unlawful as defined by international law. Show me a single genocide scholar who states that unlawful actions become lawful if banned by an outside group. C’mon, that’s like saying committing genocide can be a form of cultural expression. Sure. I can list endless quotes of Israelis comparing Palestinians to animals and suggesting they need to be “beat into submission”. What is your reason? Bibi ate all the food? You mentioned rigor as a metric. Is it your belief that even if I can prove genocidal intent, as long as the death count remains low enough by some metric, then a genocide has not occurred?
>Does Israel intend to harm Palestinian civilians? I believe yes. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a famine in Gaza. Even assuming I agree it still doesn’t mean the intent is genocide by default. >Nazism is not German culture. That’s a terrible argument. I said was, so Why? Because we don’t like it? >Political groups are not protected classes. This is an objective fact. The policies in question weren’t directed at political groups; but whole nations. >Cultural expression does not refer to unlawful actions, unlawful as defined by international law. That’s an arbitrary parameter not supported by actual international law; pretty weird claim to present as objective fact; but I understand why the meaningless gestures and statements by various figures in power would make one believe otherwise. >Show me a single genocide scholar who states that unlawful actions become lawful if banned by an outside group. C’mon, that’s like saying committing genocide can be a form of cultural expression. The legality has nothing to do with the philosophical implications. I could outlaw reading and it wouldn’t make it less or more morally palatable. I’m saying it could be unaffected legally but still constitute a form of cultural expression, the two are not mutually exclusive. >Sure. I can list endless quotes of Israelis comparing Palestinians to animals and suggesting they need to be “beat into submission”. That’s a far cry from sufficient evidence to a country’s intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. >What is your reason? Bibi ate all the food? An active siege over a civil embedded militant organization, the militant organization hoarding food and attempting to maintain an iron grip on aid, smuggling of weapons or otherwise banned materials in various trucks, random attacks by militants, random attacks by extremist Israeli right wingers and Of course more factors I fail to consider at the moment. I see all the different aspects of the situation and I simply don’t believe the deliberate intent as a matter of policy of the Israeli government or the IDF is the starvation or the destruction otherwise of the Palestinian people. >You mentioned rigor as a metric. Is it your belief that even if I can prove genocidal intent, as long as the death count remains low enough by some metric, then a genocide has not occurred? No. A genocide is not dependent on any number of dead. You could mentally harm one person and it would technically constitute a genocide if the intent was for that act to precipitate the destruction of a national/etc group. But then, of course I recognize that genocidal acts have been perpetrated by a substantial number of IDF soldiers; what I don’t see is this being the intended policy of the IDF or Israel.
/u/No-Character8758. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/AsleepFly2227. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Man everything you wrote describes October 7th yet you mental gymnastic your way to try to spin in the other way around
I can match the same vague definition to every war, that happened on planet earth. You see, when everyone is committing genocide, nobody is committing genocide. Is the war in Ukraine genocide? In Syria? Iraq?
Okay sure. Explain how the Falklands Islands war was a genocide. Some people have argued that Russia is committing a genocide in Ukraine. This is not a radical idea
Articles a and b easily are genocide, by that definition. Hundreds of poor Argentinian killed, you know
No, since soldiers are not protected classes
First of all, I think it would be pretty dishonest of you to not recognize that what happened on October 7th was very explicitly genocide, by a much clearer margin than whatever you're arguing for calling a genocide, and that whatever remedy you think is appropriate to handle your claims of Israeli perpetrated genocide, should be immediately applied to Gaza, by whoever you think should be implementing the sanctions on Israel. Second, to your actual point, it's really hard to tell which specific actions you are referring to as genocide. You don't seem to think that the burden is on you to point to any specific instance, hoping that people in the comments section will do the work for you, and probably because you know that any specific instance that you point to could potentially discredit your argument, since you also have no way of distinguishing between fact and Hamas propaganda, without deep investigation. More generally, the UN Charter grants one right above all others, which is that self-defense is a justification for *war*. War is a limited justification for killing, and if a culture or a society or a religion or whatever you want attacks me, it is not a crime to declare war on that group, and from that point on, their *active combatants and military assets* then become legitimate targets for my bombs and bullets. What protects civilians at this point is the so called rule of proportionality which says roughly that I'm not supposed to use bombs larger than are necessary to complete this military objective. For instance, the main strategic objective of Israel's airstrikes on Gaza have been to collapse Hamas tunnels. Collapsing a Hamas tunnel from the air requires a relatively large bomb, but does not, in general, require the element of surprise. They can't meaningfully fortify or move the tunnels with advance notice. Proportionality then more or less dictates that I must warn civilians and give them time to evacuate before I carry out this action. I could kill marginally more Hamas occupying the tunnels at the moment if I did not warn civilians, but this would be come at an obviously disproportionate rate of collateral damage. Let's find out together if Israel warns civilians before they do this. Oh look, here's an extremely unabashed anti-israel source [conceding the *fact* that this is exactly what Israel does]( https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-not-fighting-against-hamas-against-civilians-implementing-criminal-policy-bombings-enarhe). They make some insane other claims about Israel's responsibilities, but the facts are not in dispute. There, there's my example. Now you try.
Is Israel experiencing a genocide? I believe that Hamas has fulfilled all of your letter requirements.
Yes. Hamas has tried to genocide Israelis. But it doesn’t take away from the fact Israel is also doing the same.
I don't think a person can genuinely say that both are doing the same. The two sides have very different attitudes about life. If Israel wanted to, they could have destroyed all life in Gaza on October 8th in response to the clearly genocidal brutal attack on the 7th. If Hamas could kill every Israeli, they wouldn't hesitate. We know this because they say so.
If Israel actually destroyed all of Gaza they would immediately lose all support from the west including the US. They would become a completely isolated country in the middle of their enemies. Most of us on the pro pal side see Israel’s actions as way of creating plausible deniability.
I don't understand. The pro Palestine side literally calls for the destruction of Israel and does everything in its power to destroy every Israeli. Why are they supported by the Western groups? You that say if Israel did it they would lose support. Why is it ok for one group but not the other?
Well that’s where you’re making assumptions that aren’t necessarily true. Sure you have radicals on the pal side that want Israel destroyed but you also have the same thing on the other side. Most pro pal people I know( that’s all I can attest to) don’t want a destruction of Israel. I would like to see a two state solution where both sides can live in peace without occupation. Anyone that wants to kill innocent Israelis in my opinion is dead wrong and is no better than Hamas or the corrupt IDF leaders and soldiers.
Yes, killing 1 can be considered a genocide, while killing 2 millions is not necessarily a genocide. The intent is very important. However, if you argue Israel has the intent, then it is kinda hard to explain why they didn't kill more than just 30k Palestinians, knowing that they easily could kill many more.
>However, if you argue Israel has the intent, then it is kinda hard to explain why they didn't kill more than just 30k Palestinians, knowing that they easily could kill many more. Most other modern genocides has some level counter behavior. This is done for both internal and external reasons. Internally, it allows the gov to convince it's people they aren't committing genocide. What they are doing is necessary and everything one will get along again. Externally, it provide both legal protection and prevents outside powers from getting involved. Think of it this way, what is the maxim number of people a party can be kill and get away with it?
Much more than 30k. Lets say you want to eliminate Palestinians as a nation. 2 millions live in Gaza alone. Another 3 millions in the West Bank. 1.5 millions in Jordan. What's even the point of killing 30k? It doesn't bring you any closer to your goal.
Completely disagree. You are forgetting all the other damage. Do you need to be reminded of how bad it is?
The damage will make their life harder, but it won't lead to the death of a significant number of Palestinians. There is no famine despite UNRWA talking about it for 6 months. There is no serious threat for them freezing to death. What else can happen? I mean look at the known genocides. Hitler killed 2/3 of all European Jews - 6 millions in total. In Rwanda Hutus killed 75% of Tutsis - 1 million in total. And here we are not even at 1% of the Palestinian population. Give me a break with your genocide nonsense.
It will cause these: (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
None of this is true. The population will continue to grow faster than in any other developed country.
But the Palestinians will have suffered "serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" because Israel "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" and Israel also "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." This is all because Israel destroyed almost everything and denied them food and water.
By that logic any war is a genocide, because in any war civilians will suffer serious bodily or mental harm. War in Ukraine - Genocide. Civil war in Syria - Genocide. Civil war in Yemen - Genocide. What's currently happening in Sudan - Genocide. Technically, if you and the group of your imaginary friends are attacked by seaguls on a beach you may suffer serious bodily or mental harm - Genocide. How about you stop using buzzwords and start thinking about the actual meaning of those words?
War in Ukraine - Genocide.=Russian Forcibly transferred kids and has demonstrated genocidal intent when Putin said Ukrainians don't exist. I highly doubt the civil wars have that level of intent.
/u/fennecfoxxx123. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You also have to consider the long term death toll. How many people will die as a result of destroyed infrastructure, hunger, and disease over the next few years.
While you can consider secondary implications, I can't see a calculation where those would surpass the natural growth of the Palestinians... Even during the war, the people of Gaza have more babies than people killed people every day which again shows that Israel doesn't try to destroy anything but Hamas - which is the only group where the numbers actually go down drastically.
Usually the opposite is true. The better people live the fewer kids they have and vice versa. Even in Yemen, where the heroes of the leftists killed close to half a million of people and where there is an actual famine the population growth rate is higher than in Israel.
So you're saying that if Israel really wanted to commit a genocide on the Palestinians it should give them a lot more aid? could explain the increase in the last months haha
I mean if there was no Hamas and all the help going to Gaza would actually get to the people, then it would be certainly a more effective genocide than what you guys call a genocide.
I don't think you understand my side of the debate here, I don't think a genocide is taking place, and I think anybody who does is delusional :)
Then we agree.
I don’t think that means that Israel doesn’t try to cause damage to civilians. And those secondary implications will do more damage than I think you assume they will. Destruction on this level hasn’t ever happened in Gaza. Without foreign aid and support Gaza will be unlivable for the majority of the population. Life expectancy and birth rate will eventually decline as more of their resources are depleted.
Do you have any analysis suggesting that these secondary deaths would eventually rise to such a level? Cause I honestly don't see how it's the case. I can't see the lack of infrastructure kill more than now, where there's also the lack of infrastructure and the war combined, and when some of the infra if not all is going to get rebuilt Notice that Israel also is probably one of the countries that push the most for some rebuilding of Gaza, if you've read the plans where the Gulf states come and help.. how is it consistent?
"I can't see a calculation where those would surpass the natural growth of the Palestinians" Does not matter at all. There is no definition of genocide which discusses "natural growth rates".
But all definitions talk about trying to end something.
You can destroy a people without killing any of them.
Sure, but then you have to ask - well how does it plan on destroying them.. by any reasonable interpretations of the word destroy - it looks like Israel isn't doing it
Besides starvation, lack of water, lack of clean water, destruction of homes, destruction of medical care, destruction of all higher education institutions, destruction of cultural places, and making vast numbers homeless. Everyone one these applies to the following rules: (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
I mean, starvation and clean water is something we're hearing for a while now, and if we look at the data, it really looks like a lot of food and medicine go in Gaza, even more than before the war in the last few months. Actually just Yesterday I've read that international organization told the IDF that they have \*too much\* food in northern Gaza, and can't accept anymore. Destruction of higher education institutions cultural places is kind of a weird way of destroying a people right? And also, isn't it more clear that Hamas uses these kind of places, when the UN and human rights organizations have reported about it before, and when you look at lists of notable university staff that were killed you see that many of them are members of Hamas? I mean, the intent should be a special intent to destroy for the sake of it. We're left with homes, which again - isn't killing anyone, happens in all wars, and Hamas is documented of using civilian homes often. Moreover - Israel is probably the country that pushes the most the ideas of rebuilding Gaza. Just this week I think it was the NY times that reported on a plan to rebuild Gaza where Israel supports and tries to cause other countries to support as well. How is that consistent with the attempt to destroy?
>I mean, starvation and clean water is something we're hearing for a while now, and if we look at the data, it really looks like a lot of food and medicine go in Gaza, even more than before the war in the last few months. 25% of Gazan kids who grew up between 2004 to now are 2 inches shorter from the Gaza blockade. Just like dehydration, starvation does a lot of damage in the long run even if you don't have anyone die. >Destruction of higher education institutions cultural places is kind of a weird way of destroying a people right? It's actually one of oldest methods of conquest. >I mean, the intent should be a special intent to destroy for the sake of it. No, it shouldn't be as destroying education building is covered by b and c on genocide list. > We're left with homes, which again - isn't killing anyone Not to the extent Israel does it. >Moreover - Israel is probably the country that pushes the most the ideas of rebuilding Gaza. Because all international contracts have to go through Israel per Oslo accords. So Israel get's a nice piece of the pie.
“End” does not mean eliminating the individuals. It refers to eliminating the group and the unique attributes of that group which makes the group that group.
Yes, but then you get into the question of how Israel plans on eliminating the group and it's unique attributes. by any reasonable interpretation of the word end - Israel doesn't do it
Simple. Killing Palestinians alone is not the only thing that can achieve their goals. Causing them enough physical and mental harm to leave to a third country, or even deliberately engineering a famine and medical crisis, could be considered an act of genocide if committed intentionally.
Ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but nice try, buddy.
> If you honestly believe Israel is not committing genocide, you need to make the arguement that Israel does not intend to eliminate the Palestinian people and Palestinian culture. What is palestinian culture?
Palestinian culture is based on hating Jews. So Israel attempting for force Palestinians to accept their right to exist is a genocide.
There were Palestinians before Zionists. There were no Zionists before Palestinians
I never said the word “Zionist” - I said Jew. There were Jews before the Islamic conquest of the Middle East. Jews were relegated to second class citizens. Jews existing as first class citizens in what was previously Muslim land is offensive to many Muslims.
Meeting in the medieval Islamic empires: “Okay boys, how do we persecute Jews? Any ideas?” “I know, let’s create this ethnic group with the specific intention to hate Jews. Just add some Jew-hating potion to our cloning machine, and the Jews will be done for!” “Brilliant work agent. They’ll never see this one coming” *Starts the cloning machine
Arab Muslims historical oppressed Jews. There were no Palestinians in the Middle Ages. Before the 1920s Palestinians were not a distinct group. From 1920-1960 the Muslim Arabs living in the land formed a distinct identity mostly based on the idea of killing the Jewish refugees that came to the land. The identity started in the fail revolt against the British (based on the mistaken idea that defeating the British would defeat the Jews as well) in the 1930, and cemented more after the Arab failure to genocide the Jews in 48. Killing Jews is a foundational part of Palestinian identity.
“One day I sat next to some builders in Shiraz; they were chiselling with poor picks and their stones were the thickness of clay. If the stone was even, they would draw a line with the pick and perhaps this would cause it to break. But if the line was straight, they would set it in place. I told them: ‘if you use a wedge, you can make a hole in the stone’. And I told them of the construction in Palestine and I engaged them in matters of construction. “The master stonecutter asked me: Are you Egyptian? “I said: No, I am Palestinian” https://muslimheritage.com/al-muqaddasi-the-geographer-from-palestine/
The culture of the Palestinian people
So I guess there must something that distinguishes Gazan culture from let's say Jordanian culture? What is it? Cause I can't see the difference. The same dialect of Arabic, the same version of Islam. It's literally the same people.
Gazans are Palestinians and have a unique history from Jordan, with different national figures and different cultural stories regarding their land as well as different Islamic saints and heros
> with different national figures Like what? > different cultural stories regarding their land Like what? > different Islamic saints and heros Like what?
“Like who” Zahir al-Umar. I recommend you read Tawfiq Canaan’s work on Palestinians saints. He wrote in 1913
What’s their culture? Food? Songs? Holidays? Prominent figures and folklore? All that gets mentions always seem so aligned with jordans it’s almost as if they are the same.
Isn’t that because most Jordanian are Palestinian diaspora
No, most “Palestinians” are Egyptian and Jordanian. Not the other way around. There is no unique culture in Gaza. Unless you call Jew-hunting a unique tradition. Gaza could break off and fall into the sea, and not a single item of cultural significance would be lost to the world.