The strip is bombed out and half in ruins. With the import of construction material into Gaza highly restricted, I wonder how, or if, it'll be rebuilt. It is becoming a true open-air wasteland prison, barely capable of supporting life. So it's hard to dispute the conclusion drawn by Doctors Without Borders, even if the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.
> the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.
It is pretty clear that the death counts from Gaza are widely inaccurate and incomplete. They are only counting dead if they are brought to the hospitals and then buried. But Israel is bringing down building after building with people in them that are never recovered. And then secondary deaths caused by lack of health facilities are not being counted as dead directly as a result of the conflict, but are definitely caused by it.
This was true early in the war, but Gaza's health ministry has long since shifted to collecting reports of deaths from "reliable media sources". One source of data is a Google form which they set up in March. There are also reports claiming that GHM has counted natural deaths in their figures, which I don't think GHM has really denied (their releases don't say much about methodology). And of course they include militant deaths.
Are you trying to run damage control here or something? I’m not sure why the GHM is being centered in this thread rather than the people who have been killed.
I agree with what bhouston said. With so much destruction and death happening (even right now), I suspect it will take very long to get an accurate count.
The original comment’s implication that infrastructure damage is somehow more damaging than the human death toll is abhorrent.
> The original comment’s implication that infrastructure damage is somehow more damaging than the human death toll is abhorrent.
If you're referring to my comment, you misunderstood. It's not "more damaging" -- it's that the two are highly correlated, and that damage to infrastructure and shelter is indicative of the "war on noncombatants" nature of this conflict. We don't know how many deaths there are, but we can see with our own eyes how the entire territory is being rendered unfit for habitation.
You agree with which part? Hopefully not the part about only counting hospital deaths, which was inaccurate (I'm sure it was an honest mistake). Not trying to minimize the suffering that's happening, but it's important to have our facts straight when genocide accusations are being tossed around.
There are indeed lots of bodies buried under the rubble, and lots of bodies that are unrecognisable. Not sure about the hospital part, but I recall the process for identifying a dead body to be fairly involved
> By almost every metric, the harm to civilians from the first month of the Israeli campaign in Gaza is incomparable with any 21st century air campaign. It is by far the most intense, destructive, and fatal conflict for civilians that Airwars has ever documented. Key findings include:
> At least 5,139 civilians were killed in Gaza in 25 days in October 2023. This is nearly four times more civilians reported killed in a single month than in any conflict Airwars has documented since it was established in 2014.
In October 2023 alone, Airwars documented at least 65 incidents in which a minimum of 20 civilians were killed in a particular incident. This is nearly triple the number of such high-fatality incidents that Airwars has documented within any comparable timeframe.
> Over the course of 25 days, Airwars recorded a minimum of 1,900 children killed by Israeli military action in Gaza. This is nearly seven times higher than even the most deadly month for children previously recorded by Airwars.
> Families were killed together in unprecedented numbers, and in their homes. More than nine out of ten women and children were killed in residential buildings. In more than 95 percent of all cases where a woman was killed, at least one child was also killed.
> On average, when civilians were killed alongside family members, at least 15 family members were killed. This is higher than any other conflict documented by Airwars.
Seems like a neutral source that documents all conflicts focusing on the casualties.
One one hand, indeed, we're approximately at "one quarterth" of the century.
On the other a high-tech well-funded professional combined-arms military with total air supremacy in complete control of the perimeter is ought to be capable of being more careful. And maybe it is, just wasn't feelin' it.
Well that. But also geurilla warfare against non-uniformed combatants that use public infrastructure for military purposes has inherently higher civilian casualties. It's not going to be all one thing or another.
"Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million."
We should expect similar numbers for Gaza in terms of additional indirect deaths. But the current numbers for Gaza still are an undercount of direct deaths.
A better (and more recent) conflict would be US war on terror, with a death count around 400 thousands to 6 millions. The numbers varies extremely. The US military claims that only a total of 20 civilians has died to drone strikes. At the other extreme, others has estimated that 10 civilians has died per killed military which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1.
In iraq, the Iraq Body Count project estimate a civilian casualty rate of 77%, which is quite similar to the 68% and 83% estimated given by B'Tselem and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
It should be mentioned that genocide is not defined by number of deaths or civilian casualty rate, but instead about the intention. US killing people with drones, even if the wast majority is civilians and committed for poor reasons, are not considered genocide. If that is fair or not is up to debate.
There are no Israeli casualties ? wtf are you on about.
There are enough Israeli casualties to completely shake a country to its core. Forget all the dead from the Hamas massacre of October 7th, Israel has 12k+ wounded soldiers. That's an enormous amount for such a small country. It still has around 100k internal refugees.
Yes it's way way less than what Gaza has experienced but at the same time - correcting for population - it's so much worse than 9/11. There's no Western country in recent time that went through something event remotely similar to what Israel has gone and is going through.
I would leave aside all proportions and corrections for population: because otherwise you need to multiply by a factor between 2 and 4 the deaths and injuries in Gaza to compare them with those of Israel. You'd probably not want to.
Besides this, the number of Israeli casualties in the Gaza invasion amount to a few hundred soldiers while the Palestinians ones are two orders of magnitude higher, and most of them civilians. If you have more precise data plase share.
> I would leave aside all proportions and corrections for population: because otherwise you need to multiply by a factor between 2 and 4 the deaths and injuries in Gaza to compare them with those of Israel. You'd probably not want to.
Why wouldn't I want to ? I'm not gonna deny for a moment what Gaza is going through isn't traumatic, of course it is. That's reality. And saying what Israel is going through is nothing is delusional as well.
I think comparing what Israel is going through with the destruction of Gaza- which is comparable to that of Dresden or Warsaw, a wasteland of ruins, starving people, corpses and amputated civilians- is, well, obscene.
Gaza is suffering much more - I never tried to say otherwise. I'm not sure what the point of this argument is anymore to be honest. It seems you can't or won't admit that Israelis are suffering quite a bit for some reason even if it pales in comparison to Gaza.
The point is that this is not a war. It's a massacre in which an army is killing tens of thousands of civilians and razing an entire region to the ground, while itself is suffering minimal casualties.
> I'm not gonna deny for a moment what Gaza is going through isn't traumatic, of course it is. That's reality. And saying what Israel is going through is nothing is delusional as well.
Only in one of those places people are celebrating.
Precisely zero civilian casualties inside Israel proper since Oct 8th (due to the Hamas conflict) is what they apparently meant.
There's no Western country ...
These being the only ones whose populations are worth having empathy with.
There's no Western country in recent time that went through something event remotely similar to what Israel has gone and is going through.
Except Ukraine, which has had 100x displaced (in raw terms) or 25x per capita. And (since we need to divide by zero) infinitely civilians more actualy killed/wounded.
There are also (assuming since 2000 so) these countries "Georgia" and "Armenia" you might have heard of. Feel free to run the numbers on those countries, and report back to us what you find. Again, restricting our attention to worthy "Western" societies.
It seems you'll need to find another way to promote the "Israel's suffering is unique" narrative.
> These being the only ones whose populations are worth having empathy with.…It seems you'll need to find another way to promote the "Israel's suffering is unique" narrative.
HN norms are to assume the best interpretation of your collocutor. This isn’t doing that.
Then you should assume the best interpretation of my intent, as well.
The commenter was really quite clueless when they said "No Western country in recent times has gone through something even remotely similar to what Israel has gone and is going through." To the point that we're forced to ask ourselves if it's even possible for someone be that clueless.
It's also difficult to read that statement other than as suggesting that there must be something awfully special about what Israel is going through. Especially when suffering literally 30x-100x greater (depending on your choice of metric), also ethnically targeted, has been happening right there in the same time zone, just a few notches up (and in a thoroughly Western country which Israel has extensive cultural and ancestral ties with). It's not like it hasn't been in the news.
And nevermind the suffering that has been happening in countries right next to Israel. Because they aren't Western and so don't matter.
Well, we disagree about the assuming-the-worst part, then.
I think mine was fair enough take, given what they said vis-a-vis the actual state of the world in the past 15 years or so. Or at pretty much any time since the State of Israel has existed.
As for understanding and inferring the intent of others -- it's an essential life skill, last we checked. Not sure why you'd try to knock it, when evidently it's a normal human capability that we all make use of to one degree or another, pretty much all the time.
If you think I'm reading too much into their words, then you'll need to provide specific substantiation for this claim. Otherwise your remark is basically a shallow dismissal.
The commenter themselves narrowed the scope when they said
Forget all the dead from the Hamas massacre of October 7th,
And went on to focus on the 12k+ wounded soldiers and 100k displaced.
But even if we include those killed on Oct 7th -- it's simply and obviously not true that "No Western country has gone through something event remotely similar" in recent times.
If only there was something you could do when you're losing a war that you started... Mmmm. Is there a customer support number for Jihadists they could try?
As I'm sure you must know, Hamas are not Jihadists. Though even if they were, it would not justify US-backed Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people.
It completely justifies it as it justified the expulsion of sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia after WW2 (btw the Palestinians allied with the Axis powers and Nazi Germany on that one, great track record). Read the Melian dialogue for more information.
As for your internationalist fixation of pedantry for the determination of Jihadist, I'll just say thankfully Hamas has been thwarted in its ambitions and doesn't even have the means to create a tiny baby caliphate. RIP you'll be missed.
It is by no means agreed that the violent ethnic cleansing of Germans from Czechoslavaka, Poland and other areas after WW2 was justified. You're just assuming it is and that everyone agrees with you on this. Most bizarrely, as a way of explaining/minimizing ethnic cleansing taking place in the current time.
BTW the Palestinians allied with the Axis powers and Nazi Germany
Some of their non-elected leadership did, but the Palestinians as a people did not.
Meanwhile, a certain very famous organization that was instrumental to Israel's founding (and which would go on to provide one of the country's more famous Prime Ministers) twice attempted to form an alliance with Nazi Germany, going so far as to propose a Jewish State based on "nationalist and totalitarian principles, and linked to the German Reich by an alliance".
When it wasn't busy assassinating British and UN leaders, taking part in Deir Yassin and other massacres, etc.
it actually ranks quite reasonably for civilian casualties even if we believe the Hamas figures (which we shouldn't), it's clear Israel are doing their best to minimize civvy losses.
Opressed similar to germany by the treaty of versailes and then liberated by the..
oppression doesn't equal saint hood. the wirld is filled with opressed monsters. Part of the reason why they are opressed is a inability to form strong institutions .
The gazans are oppressed because they can’t form strong institutions?
1) victim blaming
2) why can’t they form strong institutions? (I’m sure it’s nothing to do with putting them in a ghetto where nobody can enter or leave without Israel’s say-so, controlling their air and sea, and water supply and electricity, right?)
Your “national socialists” analogy is tortured. a better analogy is the US and their genocide of the native americans.
So victims by your book are only allowed to speak up if (and only if) they never did anything wrong and showed inhuman restraint in not defending themselves?
yeah, similar to russia which can not play the "saviour of the oprrssed card" because it showed itself to be monstrous . There are no demonstrations for the dead of isis , the hanged queers in teheran, the genocide in sudan. Its a mimicry of western values with no depth.
There are no demonstrations for the hanged queers in teheran,
Actually there've been large demonstrations in major Western cities against the Mullah regime, organized by exile groups, targeting all its forms of oppression, including the persecution of "queers" (not all of whom would agree with that peculiar Western-centric identity that you seem to implicitly assume is univeral, but that's a side matter).
Not nearly as frequent as the Palestine protests of course, but they do happen at least a few times a year and their numbers have been quite sizable.
If you haven't been aware of this, perhaps you need to start reading from more diverse sources. Or if you happen to live in one of these cities, it might help to get out more often.
It's beyond me how someone can believe you can carpet bomb a city where 2 million people live and kill fewer than 40,000 people. In fact, I don't find myself able to believe that people genuinely think that.
I don't get what this statistic truly signify. between 90,000–166,000 people died in Hiroshima - almost all civilians naturally, while way fewer people died in Gaza - many civilians but also many Hamas people. I'm not denying a lot of bombing went on in Gaza but obviously it was way less lethal and way more surgical than what happened in Hirsohima, otherwise you can't really explain the death toll difference.
Did you notice how there's a difference of 70,000 people between the low and high estimates for Hiroshima, despite the fact that there's been ample opportunity to study the site and records during peacetime?
You're comparing a) the number of named, positively identified deceased people counted during an active conflict [1] where Gaza's healthcare system has been targeted on a daily basis with b) the final body count [2] from something that took place 79 years ago and has been studied by historians for decades. They're not comparable. In actual fact, fatality counts of Palestinians have been subjected to a standard far more stringent than anything applied during other ongoing conflicts, at least in "western" media.
It will probably be a decade before anyone is able to dig up the mass graves, sort through the rubble, interview families (that haven't been entirely wiped out), and come to a more complete list, and even then there will be a large number of unidentified deaths and the estimate will be a range.
[1] Really the word "conflict" is inappropriate here, because most of what's taking place is attacks on Palestinian civilian. The actual military conflict appears to be only a small percentage of the overall violence.
[2] Incidentally, both the high and low estimates for Hiroshima deaths also include people who died from the after-effects of the bombing, not just people who died during the attack itself.
Well, I'm pretty certain by any reasonable (UN, AI, HRN, etc.) standard, it became genocide quite some time ago when Israel:
1. Used precision guided weapons in unguided-mode to take out entire buildings including schools and hospitals
2. Used precision guided weapons in guided-mode to take out cars and food supply trucks of the World Central Kitchen workers when the cars were clearly demarcated as UN
3. Blocked I18n (not just UN) food & water aid
4. Precisely demolished water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure
5. Denied PoWs fundamental rights under the UN charter
I'm not so sure - a standard definition is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.
I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.
Genocide as defined in international law is very broad, it also includes cases where 0 people are killed:
- displacing a group in a wider region to try and dilute the ethnicity/culture is genocide
- trying to increase infertility in a group can be genocide
- forcing children from a group to attend schooling of another culture can be genocide
Any action or set of actions that causes going from condition "this cultural/ethnic/national group exists in some state" to condition "the same group is has suffered irreparable damage" can be genocide if done with that objective.
For example when Canada was sending Native American children to boarding school it was clearly a genocidal act, the only uncertainty would be around the intentions:
1) if the Canadian government was trying to improve the standard of education and literacy then it wasn't a genocide
2) if they were trying to bring some good old Christianity to new continent pagans then it was genocide.
In general forced boarding school of a minority definitely would sound like genocide.
You can guess how starving a country while bombing it to scraps scores on this scale
We correctly expected future governments to occasionally want to get rid of undesirable ethic groups and created a definition that would leave them a few loopholes as possible.
If genocide was "kill more than half of a population" or "kill more than 100k people" it would be easy to erase minorities simply by forced sterilization.
The Genocide convention was not created to stop people from dying it was created to stop entire populations from dying out.
Raphael Lemkin, the person who invented the term Genocide, also helped craft its definition in international law. The Rome Convention was based on his proposals, so the idea that his own definition of the term that he created "waters it down" is simply ignorant.
1. I'm going to state outright that I don't think rounding up Palestinian civilians and shooting them is happening. Israel does a lot of things I disagree with and there are, I'm sure, many war crimes being committed, but rounding people up and shooting them is far, far away from anything anyone has any proof for (or any reason to think is happening).
2. While you seem to imply that your article proves the opposite, it doesn't - it just shows Palestinians being "rounded up", or as the IDF says, arrested. There is no reason to think (that I saw) that this is anything other than a mass arrest of Palestinians, possibly terrorists, possibly civilians that are sometimes arrested and later released.
If you think literally any picture of the IDF arresting many people is proof that those people are killed, then I understand why you're sure that the IDF is going around killing Palestinian civilians.
Huh. The bar of proof for the IDF to be rounding up and killing people is so high, but you’re quick to suggest that the people they round up are likely terrorists.
> Huh. The bar of proof for the IDF to be rounding up and killing people is so high, but you’re quick to suggest that the people they round up are likely terrorists.
Yes. This exactly captures my thoughts. The bar for proving that the IDF is committing this kind of crime is pretty high. And yes, I think the IDF is generally trying to arrest terrorists, hence my thinking that if they detained a bunch of people, they are possibly terrorists. I think what is likely happening is that a bunch of people were arrested because they were in a zone where the IDF can't know if they are militants or not, they will be investigated, and most will be released. That's what almost always happens.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that if the IDF is detaining a bunch of people, it's in order to mass execute them, despite there being no actual evidence of this ever happening. There are a lot of problems people have with that the IDF is doing, and there's a lot of credible reasons to think war crimes are being committed, but as far as I know, mass detaining and execution of random civilians is not something anybody says is actually happening.
Once again, a lot of insinuation with very little actual proof. The IDF alleged, and there are credible reasons to think it's true, afaik, that those are just Palestinian graves, not people killed by the IDF.
Look, I understand we have different prior beliefs about what is likely here. For an Israeli, I am relatively far left and relatively distrustful of both the IDF and the Israeli government. I think that much of the conduct of Israel is deeply immoral, very possibly war crimes, and I'm fairly certain that multiple cases of war crimes have been committed by some soldiers, though not as a matter of policy.
That all said, the things you (and many people) are saying are very implausible. Israel is so often portrayed as evil with absolutely no merit, that Israelis barely pay attention to it anymore, which is not good for anyone.
Israel rounding up and shooting people is absolutely real. The whole of Gaza is basically a open air concentration camp where the Israelis control water and electricity and which part gets bombed on which day basically depends on the mood of the IDF.
You are depicting yourself as on the "progressive" side of the Israeli society. If your view is representative, it's evident your country is irreversibly running down the slippery Nazi road and it does not bode well for Israel.
Just to be clear, you think this, not because we disagree about values, but because we disagree on facts. You think one thing is true, I think another - and therefore, I am proof that Israel is "running down the slippery Nazi road".
I could be wrong about things. I believe I am more informed, and better informed, than most people I interact with online, both in terms of the amount of attention I pay to this topic, and because I'm literally closer to everything that is happening, can talk with IDF soldiers regularly, etc. Nevertheless, me being (in my mind) more informed doesn't mean I can't be wrong.
But neither you, nor anyone else, has ever actually shown me real reasons to think I am wrong. Others in this thread have shown pictures of the IDF detaining hundreds of people, and just assume that it's proof that the IDF is rounding up and shooting people, despite this being a claim that no one is actually making, not even the people who are literally accusing Israel of genocide in court.
So yes, I think I am more correct about the facts. And apparently, disagreeing about factual statements is proof that I am somehow evil?
And then you'd wonder if things like the bombing of Dresden count as genocide.
Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if we count all the other terror bombings conducted by the Allies - Dresden was but one of many) the size of the vastly larger genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. But there's little point in arguing that that's what the deliberate targetting of civilian populations in Germany (both during and after the war, considering the mass expulsions that followed) did not effectively amount to a "mini" genocide, nonetheless.
And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.
No, pointing out this fairly obvious fact does not, by any stretch, imply that "all war" is genocide.
Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.
That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content.
That's a valid point, and indeed the article should probably be flagged on that basis.
> Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.
So given you so much care about "mini" details, surely you would admit that the latest Hamas attack where so many anihilated villages close to the Gaza strip, killing Israeli Jews and Arabs alike as well as several foreigners, killing babies, women and the elderly indiscriminately, burning buildings and taking hostages is, by your own definition, very much to be considered to be a genocide?
Dude, hamas beheading your babies is a lie and that has long been debunked. The IDF bombing schools and hospitals, on the other hand, was live streamed. You guys are the real baby killers, what else do you expect us to admit?
Waving that antisemitism flag won't change the facts, just makes people sick of that very word.
I never said anything about beheaded babies, so don't paint me as someone spreading fake news.
If you want a taste of Hamas live streams and videos, feel free to peruse this website: https://www.thisishamas.com/
Proceed at your own risk, graphic details.
If you want to learn how Hamas uses civilians as human shields every step of the way, how ingrained blanket hate for Jews and genocide of Israel is ingrained in Gazan life and culture and what they do to people in the streets who are considered to be cooperating with Israel, I challenge you to watch this mini-documentary of a Gaza-born Muslim who became an Israeli citizen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqzAsFIIrL0) or literally any interview with released hostages.
> You guys...
Wonderful blanket term. Do you have an issue with Jews in general?
I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, but someone who sees things as they are.
There were no deaths in Gaza prior to October 7th, there is only one side publicly hell bent on anihilating the other and that has spent billions of dollars on weapons and bunkers instead of their own people.
> Waving that antisemitism flag won't change the facts
I agree, just makes it clear to everyone who reads this who is one and who isn't.
You know, you could have asked your question in a normal, straightforward manner -- e.g. "Would you say the Oct 7th attack was also genocidal in nature, per these criteria?" -- and you would have gotten a straightforward answer.
But as it is, you've chosen a weird, pretentious way of formulating your question.
So I'll have to pass, and let you think whatever you want to think.
Your framing was disingenuous, straight up -- it was a baiting question in the classic mold -- and that's why it was necessary to shut it down.
When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing (as if you think there's grounds to believe they would be reluctant to give a normal, sensible answer to that question). You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day.
No one needs to answer questions like this.
Always telling to see ...
I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.
> When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing
No, it does not.
You were fervent in your argumentation, so it is fair to equally fervently ask for a reply?
> You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day.
I literally do not know anything about you or your level of subject matter expertise.
> I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.
I'm not insinuating anything.
Again, I don't know much about you other than you were very vocal about the definition of genocide as it pertains to the Israeli defensive response to the worst mass murder of Jewish life since the Holocaust and your abject silence and avoidance of answering a simple question, when asked about the other direction.
Again, I don't know much about you other than you were very vocal about the definition of genocide as it pertains to the Israeli response
You're hallucinating. In this particular thread, I haven't touched on the genocide definition in the Oct 7th context at all. Someone switched the focus to Dresden, and I started chiming in on that.
and your abject silence and avoidance of answering a simple question.
Because it was a leading question, as already explained.
And the fact that you immediately whipped out the antisemitism accusation after I refused to take the bait proves that this was the stick you were carrying all along.
I get what you are saying and it's about definitions of words but if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter.
Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
This is seeing the morality of the situation upside down:
Committing genocide is bad, whether it's by your enemy, ally, or you own does not change that.
If you allow I would like to rephrase your conclusion differently
> The Nazis committed genocide but so did the USA, the USSR, the CCCP so they should not act all high and mighty as a paragon of morality.
Incorrect -- the "genocide" in Dresden killed only 20,000 germans but helped the war effort for the allies -- preventing our causalities and mitigating further nazi atrocities (auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw). Of course the efficacy of the raid is another matter.
(auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw)
Perhaps in its record week. But "each week", no. In fact its average was 4-5k per week.
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the Dresden bombing (occuring as it did just 3 months before the end of the war, after Auschwitz and nearly all the other camps in the East had been liberated) did much of anything to hasten the end of the war, let alone to mitigate any further atrocities.
That's why it gets so much attention. From just the sheer senselessness of it.
These post-hoc determinations of senselessness are retarded.
You are at war with Nazi Germany and you're doing everything in your power to bring the war to a close and in war sometimes your attacks aren't as effective as you'd like.
There's more to it than that. Many responsible historians have looked into the question of why the Allies found it necessary to make a point of deliberately targeting civilians during the strategic campaign (while not even attempting to target the actual killing machinery of the Final Solution itself). The bombings were really quite horrific, too. Dresden was by no means an outlier, in this regard.
But if you want just say that this investigation is just all retarded, then that's your right I guess.
But if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter.
I don't think that follows. In terms of implying the "so they're all basically the same, and the distinction doesn't really matter" part. On its own terms, the definition just doesn't do that.
Granted, some (many) people might think that way, but I think that's a subset of the broader problem of people being hopelessly caught up in muddled thinking patterns generally, these days.
Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
"Partial genocide," "smaller-scale", "mini" etc would seem to do the trick. But unfortunately boring language of that sort doesn't trigger people's dopamine levels, and so content discussing recent events in these more measured tones doesn't get promoted and shared as often.
(BTW, the genocide definition under discussion refers not just to "excessive" killings of civilians, but the specific targeting of civilians of a particular group. If the Allies had only targeted military facilities, even with the greatly more imprecise munitions in use at the time, then it would be much more difficult to say that these bombings were "genocidal". It's the fact that the Allies deliberately targeted residential areas, at a massive scale and with the specific intent of spreading terror in the civilian population, which made these bombings arguably genocidal).
> I’ve seen absolutely no evidence for this. Can you share evidence that Israel is precisely destroying water, sewer and electrical infrastructure?
Google is your friend here. I didn't (couldn't initially) believe it myself until details of this (initial) BBC report came out in May. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68969239 What, indeed, could possibly be the anti-terrorism purpose of destroying solar panels?
> Why in the world would Israel fire expensive precision guided missiles in unguided modes instead of using unguided missiles instead in the first place?
Because, apparently, a preponderance of exigent circumstances dictated a rapid response--collateral damage be damned. Being more than passingly familiar with guidance systems technology and avionics in "smart" glide-bombs, and their exorbitant costs relative to "dumb iron", this is just stupid. Additionally, the IDF has the most highly trained urban assault force and undercover (Duvdevan) anti-terrorist commando (Egoz) units in the world and yet they somehow _must_ bomb an entire hospital to (potentially) take out a single cell?!
> For the most part, the failure of aid reaching where it needs to go has been a result of Israel being unable to provide security. We’ve seen what happens when Israelis don’t provide security for aid workers.
I completely concur on "genocide" being an attempted "Day 1 PR-flank", but far too many precise and planned actions have since been taken. In a perverse way, the Israel government played into Hamas' hands at the expense of the Palestinian people, trade, the quality of life of the Israeli people and further instability in the region.
As I mentioned in a prior thread, see the actions of the British in east Africa against the Kikuyu for a close historic analog.
I had hopes that Gallant's official ouster would be a political pole-star/umbrella under which the Knesset could rally, but that (sadly) appears not to be the case.
> 5. Hamas fighters are not fighting in uniform. They do qualify as Prisoners of War.
this is not adequate cover for Israel's indiscriminate killing of civilians. the geneva conventions do not work this way.
> Israel has blocked aid for short periods of time in certain areas. For the most part, the failure of aid reaching where it needs to go has been a result of Israel being unable to provide security. We’ve seen what happens when Israelis don’t provide security for aid workers. They get looted and killed.
> the pro Palestinian sides have absolutely destroyed the opportunity for moderation and negotiation by labeling Israel’s actions as genocide from day 1
yes, because the genocide has been occuring since 1947. i would highly recommend reading the history of this conflict as it started long before Oct 7 2023.
I know this is a controversial issue. But honest question: what is a ceasefire going to do?
Hamas refuses to surrender, so it’s only a few years until another Oct 7, and then it starts again. What other option does Israel have? They’ve been fighting these wars for years and they’ve now decided to continue this one vs waiting for a new one in three years
They could stop persecuting and murdering Palestinians, stop occupying Palestine, and agree to either a one state or two state solution that recognizes Palestinians as human beings with a right to live.
While all of these should be done (well not the one-state solution, but nobody really considering it anyway), how do you think it will stop the terrorist attacks?
I'm assuming that the average Palestinian feels persecuted, and is willing to support Hamas as the only group they see actively trying to do something about that, even if they don't love Hamas's methods. This support would evaporate quickly if they felt they were being treated like human beings.
If I were Palestinian and terrified for my family, I could see actively donating to and supporting Hamas, while also absolutely hating them and their methods, and longing for some other option.
Exactly! Remember when Hamas was elected? In 2006, a year after Israel disengaged, removed all Israeli settlements, gave up control of Gaza-Egypt border.
Gaza elects Hamas, whose charter (at least then, 2017 version is toned down) is openly antisemitic, talks about jihad, killing Jews, protocols of elder Zion and Palestine from the river to the sea.
Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane, however bad you feel for Palestinians. That's why the first step is the removal of Hamas, whatever the next steps are.
How can they hate their methods if far worse methods are being used against them?
Besides, do you think someone in a war zone has the capability to support, or better yet, donate to a militant group when they’re on the brink of starving?
How, exactly? Israel was in negotiations with the official representative of the Palestinians, the PA, and they refused all offers and walked away from the negotiations.
The opposite approach happened in Gaza - Israel just unilaterally walked away. They then elected Hamas, who is bent on Israel's destruction, and who proceeded to wage war on Israel for twenty years, culminating in the October 7th attacks.
What now?
Edit: I'm not saying I agree with your framing of the question.
There is problematic framing all around this issue.
eg: As I recall 20 odd years ago perhaps 40% of the eligable voters cast in favour of a Hamas who explicitly ran on a platform of seeking peace with Israel and were considered at the time to be more moderate than the alternatives.
Today almost no one who voted for that Hamas of long long ago is still alive which undermines all arguments of the form "well, they voted for them".
That's an english translation of the charter position in 1988. Sure.
A disputed translation.
What were the concessions in the 2006 election that Hamas made to form a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas (ie. the declaration by Hamas prior to the election that saw them gain a majority number of seats)?
As I said above, this issue is fraught with problematic framings.
People like to say it does, but this stance is largely based on a single line (up at the very top) which is frequently mistranslated, as in the version you are unfortunately citing.
In particular it mistranslates a key verb as "obliterate". When you yourself can verify, right now, that that verb pretty much only translates as "nullify" or "abolish". It is also clear that this refers to the State of Israel, not the Jewish people.
This far more correct interpretation being much more consistent with Hamas's ideology, which holds that Zionism simply lacks legitimacy, and will eventually be seen as irrelevant.
There's also that line about the Gharqad tree. Say what you want about it, but it unambiguously refers to Islamic eschatology, and Islamic scholars at least say it should be interpreted allegorically (as in a conflict will come between right and wrong, those who defend the truth and those who oppose it and all that).
In any case it doesn't refer to the State of Israel, or present a literal call for extermination.
First of all, the way "well, they voted for them" is sometimes used is morally repugnant. It's true that Hamas is the current elected government and military of Gaza, with all that implies, but that says nothing morally about the duty to not target civilians (and the duty to protect them).
That all said I think you're wrong about the history here. Hamas was always very anti Israel, they specifically stem from an islamist tradition which consideres all of Israel to be occupied territory and that all Jews must be removed. They are one of the big factors in destroying the Peace process by launching many terror attacks to destroy it.
I'm very disappointed in people flagging everyone that disagrees with me. What is the point of even coming on here if you won't have a discussion with people you disagree with, but want to censor their ability to participate? Echo chambers are useless for everyone.
Even more concerning is the Israeli tech industry's role. For example, this is what is said in a Hebrew article about Bright Data (formerly Luminati), which AFAIK owns one of the largest (legal) pools of residential IP addresses and is demonstrably capable of making a massive amount of fake social media accounts for the purposes of scraping at scale (translated by Claude):
>The Israeli company Bright Data developed the TrendTrack system for promoting social intervention in support of Israel, providing tools to identify, report, and respond to posts gaining traction on social media. As a company specializing in global collection of public information from the internet, Bright Data has extensive infrastructure and public data collection capabilities. Based on these, they rapidly created massive databases that form the foundation for the new system, which aims to assist Israeli advocacy efforts during this difficult time.
Interestingly the same company also helps in investigation of state-sponsored influencing campaigns of Western adversaries (China, Russia, and Iran).
It seems to be the other way around- only the pro-Palestinian posts are being allowed and the other side is being flagged and downvoted. Despite my comments being on the side that isn't being silenced, it seems very much against HN ethos to silence any side of a discussion when the people are discussing in good faith, as seems to be the case.
> as they said: "They could stop persecuting and murdering Palestinians, stop occupying Palestine, and agree to either a one state or two state solution that recognizes Palestinians as human beings with a right to live."
There's really barely any evidence Hamas would agree to a 2 state solution. The overwhelming evidence is it won't agree to it. Same for one state solution - Hamas would of course agree to cancel the state of Israel (thus creating something you could call a one state, slowly or quickly driving the Jews away) but definitely not to any kind of shared power democracy.
To truly appease Hamas Israel needs to commit national suicide. That's quite a big ask for a people as persecuted as the Jews.
I don't want to pick on you because I think you raise reasonable points, but I see frequently the notion that if you have a one state solution, the Arab majority would treat the Israel minority in the way that the Israelis have been treating the Arab. I think this is spurious, we have no indication that this would actually be the case. I believe that this isn't a religious conflict and that an the to apartheid and occupation could actually bring peace. But it bothers me that people see the Arab Palestinian population as one incapable of accepting peace and driven by revenge or antisemitism.
> But it bothers me that people see the Arab Palestinian population as one incapable of accepting peace and driven by revenge or antisemitism
What do you think drives the Palestinian movement and what are its main goals? If it was simply to get their own state surely they could have achieved it by now (as far back as in 1947). So there seems to be much more going on than simply attaining statehood - there is a very strong irredentist force among Palestinians that wants to go back to the way things were 80 or a 100 years ago. Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').
To me that does seem to be motivated at least partly by revenge. As for antisemitism among Palestinians, it's there and widely documented (you could come up with good reasons why it's there, but denying it's there is wrong).
>If it was simply to get their own state surely they could have achieved it by now
The PLO has accepted a two-state solution since 1981, for nearly 44 years. This is what Avner Yaniv called the "peace offensive", and is especially dangerous because it weakens Israeli attempts to deny a Palestinian state. The solution to this is simple: provocation to encourage extremist elements. Of course in 1982 Israel went a bit further and used provocation to set a precedent to invade Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO entirely.
>Which means returning to their original homes (I don't see how you could do that without throwing out the Jewish 'colonists').
This is not what the right to return is. This is what Amnesty has to say about return:
>Where possible, Palestinians should be able to return to their original home or lands. If this is not possible -- because they no longer exist, have been converted to other uses, or because of a valid competing claim -- they should be allowed to return to the vicinity of their original home.
"Valid competing claim" includes the modern-day owner of the home.
So Amnesty decides for the Palestinians what the right of return means? Nice. Yeah, sounds super realistic that's what Hamas means when they talk about the right of return.
Do they need to appease Hamas, or just the average, and presumably more moderate Palestinian enough to make them stop feeling persecuted, and stop supporting Hamas themselves? This is a sincere question, I think it is worth stating that outright as I feel it could be read as trolling or disingenuous.
Israel hasn't been an occupying force. They left Gaza in 2005. Palestinians decided to spend their time preparing for terrorist attacks against Israel.
Israel has indisputably been an occupying force in Palestine continuously since 1967, at the latest.
> They left Gaza in 2005.
They did not stop exerting control of Gaza at any point, continuing to regularly murder unarmed civilians within Gaza, without provocation, control its waters, and otherwise exercise dominion even after their tactical redeployment. Not that even if they had withdrawn from that part of Palestine it would change that they were occupying Palestine.
If they left Gaza in 2005, how come that that they always controlled water, electricity, movement of people, air space, sea space, and all resources access?
The international community regarded Gaza as always under occupation. You can have your own (unqualified) opinions about this; that judgement is a fact.
Palestine doesn't just consist of Gaza, doing so is playing a bad faith word trick. I can't imagine you're unfamiliar with the continuous annexations and illegal settlements in the West Bank, along with the continuous razing of Palestinian buildings there. If not, you're one of today's lucky 10,000. Here's a basic introduction [1].
Israel hasn't been an occupying force. They left Gaza in 2005.
That's the narrative that the State of Israel promotes. But as with many things it says, it is wildly disconnected from reality.
Israel never fully "left" Gaza. It pulled its settlements and internal troop deployments, but still maintained control of the Strip's borders, martime access and air space. And continued to bomb and invade sporadically ("mowing the lawn"), according its whimsy and pleasure.
That's why it still considered to be under Israeli occupation according to UN statutes.
Palestinians decided to spend their time preparing for terrorist attacks against Israel.
Some did, the vast majority did not but were retaliated against anyway.
What the fuck you talking about, democratically elected Hamas has "the complete destruction of Israel" as their official policy, and polls show that only after being bombed to oblivion most Palestinians started to think that Oct 7 might've been a bad move. It's clear to me that Palestinians do not accept peace as a practical solution.
I would like to know the names of these professors and their respective quotes. I suspect that they don't really exist but are just a convenient excuse to paint the perpetrators as victims.
Besides this, even if Hamas and Likud are identical in the intentions, only one side is illegally occupying and annexing the other's territory, and almost all deaths and destruction are on the other side. The situation on the ground matters- people who are oppressed have a right to defend themselves, and this comes before any stated intention.
Sure, not their "stated goal", but remember that Hamas is a reactive organisation. There would be no Hamas without Israel.
I don't think there is a solution other than diplomacy as long as there are people who gain material benefit from war. Even nuking all Palestinians would not finish Hamas or its derivatives.
Hamas' stated goal is not "to kill"- remember that everything you know about Hamas you know from Israel's perspective and according to Israel's interests.
Hamas' stated goal is "to free Palestine"- it means gaining its political control, not murdering people.
Almost all regimes in the Middle East (and even other Arab regimes) are having a very well relationship with Israel, even those who do not publicly do normalization of relations. Historically Israel (as well as the US.) supported these regimes to ensure its interest. Not many books written about that so far, but I recommend people to check William Blum's "Killing Hope", it studies a very similar case of supporting dictatorships by Israel's key sponsor (the United States).
Fundamental to Israel's problem is that they want "security" while they keep oppressing Palestinians and grabbing more land. They do not want peace- quite the opposite, peace means establishing fixed borders, possibly evacuating illegal settlements, not having an excuse for further expansion, etc. They want a permanent state of attrition that allows them to keep doing what is convenient to them while being safe from all reprisals.
This was said clearly by one of Sharon's advisors explaining the motives for Israel removing settlements from Gaza:
"The significance of the disengagement plan [from Gaza] is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem."
And not to mention Hamas got so big because of Israel actually funding them.
Why fund them? Because for whatever reasons, in his later years, Arafat and the PLO were becoming tired of endless conflict and far more diplomatic and open to negotiation. This lead to increasing criticism of Israel because now they were being seen as the stubborn party, refusing to compromise, and increased sympathies for the plight of Palestine.
Israel's hard-right plan for responding to that? Fund Hamas to "beat" the PLO and provide a better target/focus of attention for disdain.
> Why fund them? Because for whatever reasons, in his later years, Arafat and the PLO were becoming tired of endless conflict and far more diplomatic and open to negotiation.
Whatever else you think, let's be clear-eyed about the history of Arafat here. Arafat walked away from his negotiations with Israel, despite what many think were fairly good offers for peace and a two-state solution. (It's common nowadays to think the offers weren't very good, but I disagree, and in any case walking away from negotiations is the opposite of pursuing peace.)
There is very little reason to think that the Palestinians wouldn't have a state today, if Arafat was willing to compromise more with Israel (even after potentially more negotiation).
> Whatever else you think, let's be clear-eyed about the history of Arafat here.
I definitely don't intend to make Arafat out to be some peace-loving martyr. Maybe not emphasized enough, but my intent in describing him as I did was to say that it was only after decades of violent resistance (regardless of the merit) that he "softened" near the end. And certainly around then there were some decent offers and proposals.)
seriously? yeah, so lets just reduce Gaza to rubble, ruin the lives of 1.5M people and kill 45,000 men, women and children in order to root out remaining fighters who refuse to lay down their arms. In fact why don't we just go ahead and nuke the whole place -- that should get rid of Hamas once and for all.
-- except that it won't actually get rid of Hamas--or whatever comes out of the ashes of Hamas. When a population has been oppressed as long as the Palestinians in Gaza have, it gives rise to people who don't care anymore, people who have seen their families and loved ones killed. Even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter today, how many 10 year old boys do you think there are today who are going to take up weapons to avenge their fathers and older brothers as soon as they are able? Just like today's fighters want to avenge their fathers from the last intifada? So yeah, Israel will be fighting this again in 5 year's time (unless of course they just kill most everyone or make Gaza unlivable, which seems to be the case now that this has gone on for over a year, thus ... genocide). The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with, but that it is unwilling to do. So the cycle will continue.
Look, I can’t turn on the news here without hearing something about it, there’s been protests here in support of Palestine, the public broadcaster is all over it with interviews in Palastine, and people seem only as indifferent to this far away issue as any of the other handful of purported genocides I can recall in living memory.
Meanwhile I can't even find this reported in any major newspaper. If MSF was making this statement about Syria or something I would think it would be newsworthy. So a fringe is protesting (in some places at high personal cost) while most of society shrugs their collective shoulder even though this is not Darfur or Rwanda and involves one of the US's biggest allies.
>The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with,
That would be good. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's a little too late since IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists. And with hesitation from Israel, only after terrorists proved repeatedly to have too much freedom of movement outside of Gaza.
Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression, and what now looks like for the first time (or maybe finally?) an equally hateful genocidal response from Israel.
But "equal" is now more lopsided than ever since Israel had to bolster its defenses so much for so long that it's now incredibly destructive when deployed as an offensive force.
We shouldn't lose sight of what could have been, even though so much has been lost already.
If they want to stop the killing as seriously as possible, every day since Oct 7 Hamas continues to have the opportunity to surrender the hostages and lay down their arms.
Hamas clearly started this present war whether it was intended to get out of hand or not. What kind of conclusion is supposed to be possible other than complete vanquishment unless they surrender beforehand and agree to more effective security demands going forward?
As a neutral observer you just have to accept that initiating a war like this directly establishes Hamas in at least a slight moral deficit compared to whom they viciously attacked.
All other things being equal, it does point the finger of responsibility at Hamas for all subsequent destruction until the war is completely over.
Even if things are not equal at all, Hamas could always end it any time they wanted.
It would have saved a lot of lives, but not as many as if Hamas refrained from slaughtering civilians to begin with.
The situation will eventually settle and judgment will coalesce whether it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to trigger a response-in-kind from the IDF the way they did.
for a neutral observer, these are some pretty demeaning statements which don't seem to question the Israeli narrative whatsoever. the underlying assumption to your comments also seems to be that Palestinians have brought this upon themselves, which is an interesting argument - "if they stopped resisting and just let the Israelis subjugate them, there would be peace."
> IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists
you're recalling incorrectly.
> Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression
we're talking about civilians, not combatants, not "evildoers" - normal human beings living their lives and being oppressed and murdered by an occupying force.
separating humans into "evil" and "good" is how we get into nation-states targeting children with precision weapons. unfortunately it's not that clear-cut.
>for a neutral observer, these are some pretty demeaning statements
I knew that in advance but not as bad as someone who is not sympathetic to both sides as much as possible, while being equally disappointed in their behavior.
>you're recalling incorrectly.
OK it wasn't a complete stalemate, once the suicide bombings were better prevented, jihadists continued to terrorize by shooting rockets at Israel.
Try and point out any decade of the 70's, 80's, 90's and on when there have been no hate crimes committed by jihadists. And the response from Israel has amounted to gradually tightening the screws to protect their citizens, ending up with a more deplorable situation for Palestinians overall every time. Not without fatalities either. In a cruel tit-for-tat that has been easily followed over these last 6 decades for me.
That's all Israel's fault, and the need for tightening their security is due to the fault of Hamas these days.
Now there's war crimes on both sides.
I don't mean peace-loving civilians at all, it's the bloodthirsty killers on both sides who are the evildoers.
That's a clear enough line for me, I'm not willing to paint those who are "less evil" with the same broad brush as the real killers.
And everybody can recognize that the number of killers in the IDF has skyrocketed over the last year, but can anybody be sure when this matches or exceeds the number of Palestinians who are fully dedicated to killing Israelis?
One thing's for sure, the number of Palestinian casualties is the biggest tragedy and they should have stopped shooting way before it got this far.
That's what this article is all about and I believe these doctors and their first-hand accounts.
again, you're only looking far back enough in history to solidify your own point. look back further - where did these "proud jihadists" and "evildoers" come from? the implication here is that there is no precipitating historical events for the current day situation - the hate came from nowhere and they have so much of it that it's ingrained in their DNA. if you believe that, i suppose it's simple to justify extermination of children.
> One thing's for sure, the number of Palestinian casualties is the biggest tragedy and they should have stopped shooting way before it got this far.
again - "if only the victims would stop resisting, then we could have peace."
> And everybody can recognize that the number of killers in the IDF has skyrocketed over the last year, but can anybody be sure when this matches or exceeds the number of Palestinians who are fully dedicated to killing Israelis?
how does someone engage with this question? here's my attempt: "everyone can recognize that there's a lot of violence on both sides, but how can we be sure that the IDF isn't actually doing this because they're super duper evil?"
Not me, people don't expect it, but I admit I actually don't have a point.
Except maybe world peace, but people aren't trying for that any more.
Still just observing, not truly involved. For decades.
Since there are abundant haters on both sides, I can't expect to go unhated ;) Perhaps worse than if I favored one or the other :\
That doesn't mean it's "pointless" to consider what the current destruction is about and what led up to it.
Whether it's a political initiative or the actions of certain military members only, the outcome looks the same.
Good terminology does help. Super-duper evil may be the most accurate description of the IDF if it is carrying out genocide as a political policy. Which would be expected to be handed down from politicians of some type. Which could be happening. OTOH policy may be to avoid casualties as completely as possible, but if too many members of IDF defy that the outcome could trend in the same direction anyway. Still genocide, or bent on genocide, when they try to completely destroy an opposing population either way, whether they are innocent civilians or not. Sounds like something for war crime investigators which may happen someday.
I'm the first to admit it looks like genocide to me before the doctors report adds its own information.
That's why I comment on this article to begin with.
In response, Hamas I would say is not committing genocide. Nope. Not at all from what I see.
It's no secret that Hamas wishes they could, and prays for it, but they are not actually committing genocide at this point.
Certainly there are more than zero Israelis who pray for compete elimination of their adversaries in kind too.
Whenever any of these type prayers come true, that's when it's certainly been the worst, whether in prehistoric times or right now.
There's a lot of vengeance on both sides that goes back stupidly too far into the past any way you look at it.
There's bound to be Arabs & Jews who have never even been to the Mideast who hate each other religiously just for traditional reasons or spite.
Lots of people call it "human nature". I'm no George Carlin but to me it looks like inhuman nature.
There is not supposed to be a subtle difference but one passes for the other all the time, there's got to be some kind of disconnect here.
Or wherever.
After all this I haven't really answered your points very much, mostly adding more of my observations which may be appreciated.
Edit: well added another big comment "below" which will be a different post if it's too long to fit.
There's no need to rebuff anything because you make sense, but here's what I've got.
I may go back too far into the past in an additional comment coming soon, look for it, while also trying to focus most on this exact generation and what is happening now.
Proud jihadists is an accurate description of religious fanatics who relish doing damage to Israel, is it not? Nobody denies that Israel has its own equivalent on every level of hate in the opposite direction. Perhaps embodied in today's IDF. So it's theoretically like a two-way street between Israel & Palestine. Too bad for Israel that there's always been jihadists on all sides in addition to Palestine within. This has never been handled well once modern destructivity fell into the hands of those retaining prehistoric low-humanity religious motivation.
I better explain this.
By prehistoric I mean anything before almost all things started to get written down, almost anywhere, any time. Like when accurate records had already existed for a millennium or more, but the vast majority of a community was still illiterate, and/or everything about their past beyond a certain point, or even sometimes during a certain period in the distant enough past, has been completely lost.
I think it can be accepted that the further you go back with prehistoric cultures, the more likely their activities would be dominated by superstition. You know, where they don't need an earthly reason to hate anybody who does not share the same superstition. So that's what they do, they hate for no "earthly" reason. These were not cavemen, this is modern man, no different than us with the same level of intellect, whenever they would act uncivilized it was usually because they actually were not civilized. They may or may not have had widely different respect for humanity than we would recognize today. Yes there are some records that exist from such early times in different areas but they are almost completely incomplete. People are going to work with what they got anyway.
I would say the evildoers are the ones who actually carry out the destruction, that's not very nuanced but it is a judgment that people know when they see it even if they've never seen it before. Could be anybody doing the damage, not one side or the other, although IIRC this is the exact terminology used by these same two parties in previous decades.
So evildoers involved in this conflict come from either side, whenever destructive action is actually taken.
With everything I've seen over the decades, it's my own fault when I don't have enough awareness that for a while I've been looking back much further than the period of many younger peoples' lifetimes, so they haven't seen what I have in real time. I guess it's too easy to get the idea that people already know all the precipitating events that have been recorded. There's a lot of smart people around. And I must apologize for giving the impression that I don't think the history is important when the opposite has been true for most of my life. Which makes me put different weights on different epochs, but I can't help it.
When you get a wrong idea like that, this is a valid response:
>the hate came from nowhere and they have so much of it that it's ingrained in their DNA.
Good call, which is absurd as it should be so it can't be real. But wait a minute, if something like that is ingrained in some other way could the same type present situation be arrived at? Remember, I'm not talking about one-sided hate here, there's more than enough to go around for thousands of miles. From any of the sources, whichever you may prefer. It doesn't have to be DNA to be passed down from previous decades or millennia, sometimes with mutation, sometimes not. When the root goes back to when nobody living was ever born, it could be hard to tell the difference.
You got me thinking, uh oh, what if there was an unfortunate mutation in the distant past which introduced an evil component?
With DNA they're getting better all the time at locating the most probable time or place for it to have occurred, even in the prehistoric past. With history, technology won't help much, plus the further back you go the more blurry. And of course disinformation can arise for many reasons, usually more over time, and is a factor not shared by DNA.
So I think we've come to a little bit of common terms here, almost nobody has ever justified extermination, but "almost" is not zero so it can occur, and that really is super-duper evil. That's why I don't think it's human nature at all, even though it has surely occurred more times than records exist for. You can't paper over this, too much inhumanity has taken place. People need to emphasize how much of a complete non-killing culture there needs to be for this to be avoided forever. Perhaps because extermination has surely occurred some time or another without any of the perpetrators thinking about any kind of justification one way or the other. Not exactly accidentally but if it can occur without extreme intention, everybody needs to really watch it more than they think.
Imagine how bad it could it get when a single perpetrator escalates to super-duper? You don't want to start the ball rolling, but it could happen and I think it depends on a hierarchy and the position that individual plays in that hierarchy.
I suppose you assumed I was imploring Hamas to stop returning fire at Israeli aggression. Not an accurate assumption when I think everyone should stop shooting (never start actually) and whoever is shooting most should stop the most. But that's just me.
This is so bad there are victims all over the place, thousands of miles away on occasion.
But the genocide risk is right there in Gaza, could be getting worse, and distorted information is proliferating.
When you say this:
"everyone can recognize that there's a lot of violence on both sides, but how can we be sure that the IDF isn't actually doing this because they're super duper evil?"
I'm almost sure that every year since 1948 Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestine has killed Israelis. Even if you compare only Israeli air strikes and all Israeli casualties from Palestine.
You could be right, maybe in total or every year. Somebody may be able to do the math, you can't do scorekeeping on things like this though.
Isn't this the bloodiest year since Hamas took over Palestine?
There are definitely different epochs.
I think over the centuries they occasionally take turns terrorizing, but most of the time they don't bug each other even if they are not the least bit fond of such a dissimilar culture.
We just happen to be 3/4 of the way into a century that started when the world halted (but failed to reverse) the direct expressway to total destruction. The first time the human race ever had that happen and the lessons are supposed to be a gift only obtainable from a generation who grew up before that level of total human extermination was possible.
It quit mattering who the enemy was any more.
No more enemies were supposed to be allowed.
And nobody will ever grow up like that any more either.
Who wants to squander that gift which can never be replaced?
The main difference between Gaza and other conflicts (such as Ukraine or Iraq) is that Hamas has and uses the willing (even if coerced) cooperation of the civilian population as part of its military strategy. Using humans as meat shields and using teenagers and young men in offensive combat roles is exactly what Hamas does. In comparison, in Iraq or Ukraine, the Iraqi and Ukrainian militaries made/make a clear distinction between military and civilian personnel (which their adversaries didn't respect). Even the Taliban makes sure to not use civilians as part of their military strategy (if we're going by the comparison with resistance fighter groups).
The Gaza situation is more akin to Vietnam, where also the civilian population was actively integrated with the military and helped them in more ways direct than indirect. The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US, while Hamas were the ones who stirred up the hornet's nest in Israel.
> The main difference between Gaza and other conflicts (such as Ukraine or Iraq) is that Hamas has and uses the willing (even if coerced) cooperation of the civilian population as part of its military strategy.
I find this IoW report of the situation a compelling expansion of that line of thinking[1], for anyone interested; excerpt:
> Hamas’ long-term effort to embed itself in Palestinian society and politics makes defeating and replacing it very difficult, but not impossible. Hamas’ combination of social services and outreach with coercive measures have ensured that Hamas retains significant support in Gaza relative to the very limited number of other entities that could replace it, despite the extremely destructive war that Hamas initiated. Hamas’ coercive apparatus makes it extremely difficult for possible Hamas alternatives in the Gaza Strip to begin to build their own governance system because to do so while Hamas remains militarily active risks near-certain death. It is not impossible to destroy Hamas’ political and military system, but doing so will require Hamas’ military defeat and a long transition to a new Palestinian-led government in the Gaza Strip.
> The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US, while Hamas were the ones who stirred up the hornet's nest in Israel.
Doesn’t this depend on when you define the conflict as starting? When do you think it started?
Tbf this isn't Hamas' first rodeo. They've been firing rockets into Israel since their conception. Then there was that ceasefire and the pullout by Israel from the Strip, but Hamas never really believed in a ceasefire. 15 years later, we ended up here.
To me you're making sense a lot, and that's hard to do in a case like this, where the choices are worse or far worse.
What's tops on the list of things "you can't fix" anyway?
You've got to draw the line somewhere, recent past or way back, you've got to declare peace, give & accept forgiveness, starting some number of years back and going forward from there. You could even start right now. Forget everything bad that came before. That's got to be the most meaningful blessing any faithful or spiritual person could have. All blessing and no cursing makes Jack a real holy man. When he grows up.
Look at how the relationship between Vietnam and the rest of the world is now, compared to how it was at its worst. There was a time when it was under consideration for annihilation. "The dogs of war won't negotiate."
The only thing left in the toolbox is to visualize world peace and quit running the other way.
Almost the whole world tried this after World War II, under the worst of conditions, and it really worked. Almost everywhere for a very long time.
Tragic operators in leadership positions do so much damage because they can't visualize anything that could lead them anywhere good, but people follow them anyway. This seems hard to fix too.
After thousands of years, and everything in the 20th century, why are there still kings being unceremoniously overthrown at the same time armies massing in the desert, building "bravery" in the face of potential extermination themselves, in the same old "holy land", in biblical proportions relative to the known world today?
Is that too much of a coincidence? Why can't people get over it?
Doesn't that make it the longest running conflict zone anywhere, coincidentally one that is more likely to exterminate a population within their "known world" when much less of it was known the further you go back? Since it was more cutthroat when civilization was not very advanced -- ancient times it looks like? Surely over that much period of time and that far back.
Is that the holiest land this planet is ever going to have, or what? That's as embarrassing as can be, surely we could have done better. Hell, it's been done before, same shit different century. How does that represent us in the universe anyway?
We know there were times people failed to try hard enough to prevent extermination, not nearly as far back as biblical times so I guess it's always been a lurking possibility, for how many centuries nobody knows.
What? Since the dawn of time?
There was no humanity whatsoever back then . . .
OTOH I remember a significant leap in humanity when Vietnam ended, and for the country as a whole, since then saw no equivalent step downward, just a gradual grinding away. With occasional off-ramps on the road to prosperity, but nothing to refuel on or any way to continue meaningfully toward a receding destination that has never been completed yet, and not open for full occupancy at all. This is what people feel and I can't put it into words very well.
Nothing like my father had after World War II ended, he said it was great afterwards like nobody had ever seen. Not for everybody everywhere I know, but almost everywhere people were so much better off not having such a military burden. It was like a roll of the dice though, which hadn't really ended right when the major powers quit shooting. You had to make the best of what you got and go from there. Nobody who had been through WWII, soldier or not, was going to roll those dice again. The stakes were too high, and unfortunately have gotten higher since then.
Who wants to take the chance of it coming up snake eyes and you lose everything because you started WWIII. Shouldn't give anybody ideas I guess :\
Of course the US had confiscated gold from Americans not that many years before the war, and all but the very few high-rollers had recovered financially that quickly. Then there was war and people were really ready for it to be over, so they could utilize the same level of effort, on something that's not destructive and it would be great.
Anything has got to be great after you've faced Kamikazes too, so there is that.
Also looks like to stop the madness some people will use enough force to make the power of suicide missions seem insignificant by comparison, if there is no other way.
And stop the madness instantly. In "biblical proportion" to the known world today. Not much differrent than god was widely reported to do. This should not be necessary.
Too bad almost no fighters in the whole Middle East any more even have grandfathers who went through WWII, much less fought in it as teenagers. For some it's not even in their great-grandfather's generation.
The history of ancient times is now more vivid in some cultures than what remains of the lessons of a truly planet scale war, where there are just now almost no veterans remaining anywhere. Not only in the Middle East, or related to this conflict, but scattered all around and none of the total hesitation was supposed to be allowed to fade. People on a group basis are not as wary as they used to be. Even some of the same people who once were more cautious.
Go back a thousand years or two, and there were bound to be a couple adversaries who exterminated each other "as much as they could" while still being there centuries later. Otherwise at least one of them wouldn't be there centuries later. What about focusing on exterminations that did happen, but were never recorded whether they happened in the holy land or not? That would be the "regular kind" of extermination, since very few things were recorded that far back anyway, or those records don't exist because even if they did, almost all records are always completely lost. You know it, without a record of course. You never know, from time to time there might be a tendency to cover up something like this. History is more of a mystery than anything else after you go back different amounts in different places.
The more powerful the force, the more rapidly extermination could take place. Sounds pretty final to me.
Who would want that?
Wait, it's the 21st century, probably somebody by now?
Have you seen what some people do to get attention on Twitter? And that was when it was Twitter :\
But could it even happen unintentionally, or completely accidentally, which are two different things themselves?
> The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US
Not quite. Indochina was a French colony which rebelled and escalated into open conflict. The rebellion was successful, the French were expelled, and Vietnam was formed.
However conflict in the area continued as a civil war between the two dominant factions in Vietnam (communist vs capitalist) for control of the new country.
The US intervention was a failed attempt at suppressing the communist faction.
Gaza is different in that it was conquered by Israel during their war with Egypt. The Israelies even started building settlements there.
Israel then got out of Gaza and removed all their settlers as part of a peace accord (if memory serves).
However Gaza never really accepted peace with Israel and kept on attacking them, culminating in the Oct 7th attack that got us in this mess.
It never fully pulled out of Gaza, only partially. It continued to maintain control of borders, maritime and airspace, to maintain control over key resources, and to bomb and invade the territory on multiple occasions. That's why the territory is considered to be "occupied" per UN statutes.
"We pulled the settlements, therefore it's all good and people don't know what they're complaining about" is just the government's spin.
Your answer is unrealistic, but I didn’t provide a long enough question. I’m not justifying genocide obviously. The initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza.
Im asking why “not continuing to fight” (a ceasefire) is even a viable option for Israel’s politicians per the article’s demands. I am a realist not an optimist. Give a viable alternative. The cycle continues
One of the saddest things is the religious hatred that underlies the ongoing animosity over the centuries.
There have been a few generations since 1945-1948 but not a significant number compared to way back when this all started.
It is difficult to be sure how the balance of actual oppression swung between the hating parties over that much time. I would imagine that during times of no oppression there was still lingering hatred which has risen and fallen, most likely in a political way. Always available to be stoked into destructive action by populists and/or mobs who favor that type of inhumanity. Actual oppressive action was probably taken more often during times when one hating faction is much more capable of destruction than the other. Whether or not violence still existed during times when there was not true oppression occurring simultaneously.
Compared to that, the 20th century was already incredibly advanced up until World War II, great progress had been made but worldwide inhumanity had of course not been overcome, and the ultimate destruction would finally be enough to end the world. Ever since. As we are not supposed to forget. But before the war the people of the Mideast seemed to be so much more advanced than they are now in the way that so many Arabs & Jews had been living in relative "complete harmony" for centuries in a lot of places, scattered throughout the Mideast, compared to how it is between Israel & Palestine recently. There was still scattered hatred too, and if that could have been addressed back then the situation would not be as bad now.
By 1948 it was already too late, WWII came and went without a complete cessation of hostilities in the Mideast. Like almost no where else. Missed it by that much.
When most of the world is fighting truly evil political parties in WWII because those parties are an existential threat to the entire world, you're going to have to build up some kind of a defense just in case the threat comes your way, regardless of whether you are completely non-aggressive and totally neutral otherwise.
Most of the world is fighting, the whole thing is threatened, practically that means the whole world is at war. This had never happened before or since, not nearly with WWI even though it was quite international too.
A HUGE dividing line for the existence of human beings which makes EVERYTHING that happened before the war far less meaningful in some ways. Or makes absolutely meaningless any hatred which existed in the pre-war world, or anything else which could possibly lead in any other direction than world peace.
No matter what anybody's ancestors thought before that, some of them almost destroyed the world and that was more widely recognized as stupid than it is now. It was more unanimous back in the 20th century that those kind of political parties would never have a chance again after such a devastating worldwide war. Because if another world war comes, there will be nothing left. Remember what it was like during the "Cold War"? If it had gotten hot none of us would even be here to oppress or be oppressed.
If you can come out on the other end after the most-evil political parties have been overcome, and the whole world is supposed to relax and quit fighting, you are supposed to quit fighting too if you had participated. And if you never did face a direct enough threat which required you to participate in the destruction, the stupidest thing you could do with your strengthened defense apparatus would be some saber-rattling or to start fighting when the "smart money" has quit for good reason. Well hard-core humanity is just not yet universal enough to fix stupid, and stupid or inhumanity may or may not have been more prevalent then than now.
Not everybody will be able to make the connection between stupidity, inhumanity, and ego, but it's there more prominently sometimes than others too.
People have pinpointed a critical dividing line of 1948 which can not be denied or ignored, and I'll add something generic that not everyone considers which doesn't apply more to the Mideast than anywhere else. It's not the number of years since WWII that allows the forgetfulness of maximized inhumanity to occur, it's the number of human generations since. And some cultures, intentionally or not, beget numerous more generations over the same number of decades than others.
Remember I wasn't born yet in 1948, but when the 6-day war took place in 1967, I first recognized the significance of that much-earlier 1948 upset, and have been exposed to all kinds of opinions and facts about it ever since. Some from people who were actually supporting either side before they were too elderly. Mostly one-sided one way or the other, which is not easy to navigate. I have always refused to take a side, and admit that my distillation has not yielded an unchanging response to either extreme yet.
Now when I say human generations that means human beings, but look at it even deeper and an almost-separate element of "humanity" has its own generations. I guess there's a certain amount of forgetfulness that accrues through time on either terms.
So really I'm worried about the oppression of the current generation more so than going back to 1948 most of the time any more.
Now the WWII generation worldwide, which picked up after the war by declaring the most prosperous peacetime in living history, has dwindled to almost non-existence, it is naturally no longer a political force.
While they were still influential might have been why civilization has lasted this long since 1948.
When I take sides I try to make it humanity over inhumanity, and brilliance over stupidity.
When all you have left is inhumanity and stupidity do you really want to be on one side or the other?
Sorry for the long messages but this is more serious than ever and it's been on my mind for a while now.
The enlightened option from a felicific calculus method it seems to me would require putting the destiny of Israel democratically in the hands of the Levantine majority; scaling back its territory occupied and settled illegally. But of course, this is not an option. This risks the genocide of the Israelis by putting power in its neighbors, when they have the wealth and US support to ensure that it is their more numerous enemies that risks genocide instead
Let's see... one airport... runways bombed and Palestine told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to repair, rebuild, or build an airport would be met with military response.
The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
"Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Not now. In 2000 and in 2008. You clearly don't know the history.
> The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
If that blockade didn't exist Oct 7th would have been fought with tanks on both sides. Hamas were given plenty of chances to show they don't want war, they kept building rockets and digging tunnels while firing constantly for the past 17 years at civilian population.
Let me ask you this, your neighbor keeps firing and throwing grenades at your home... Do you tare down the wall to his property? That's an insane argument.
> The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
Again. Same thing. They smuggled literal slaves through the tunnels they built into Egypt. On the eve of Oct 7th there were over 10k Palestinians from Gaza working in Israel. There was an active border pass which is how countries are separated. With borders. Especially if the neighboring country doesn't believe you have the right to exist and keeps firing at you.
> "Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
Yes. It was a very generous offer. They were offered part of Jerusalem and 94% of the territories. It was spectacularly generous and probably won't come back.
> It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Well... To carry that stupid analogy... It's the equivalent of parents whose son is a mass murderer offering him a way to prove that he's changed his ways.
The problem is that you're ignoring the agency Palestinians had in the matter. Hamas made conscious choices every step of the way, but so did the more moderate Palestinian authority and unfortunately a lot of the populace. Right now the current terrible state of affairs is a result of two sides being terrible. The difference is that the Israeli side is far more powerful and has nothing to lose other than its soul. The Palestinian side has everything to lose and yet their leaders and populace made the wrong choices along the way.
No offence, yours is an effective altruist take on any problem: <If there is no final solution that can be achieved fast and with minimal effort, it is not worth doing anything.>
There is NO FINAL SOLUTION to any human problem: not hunger, not disease, not poverty, not racism. All effort counts and smart effort contributes more, but it is not a once and done deal. We must eat everyday, we must not shit plastic in our air, all children must get polio vaccine, and taxes have to be paid one way or the other.
Words do not have magic attached to them. They do not inherit sins. 'Solution' and 'final' have definitions, use those... don't gasp in shock and insist on synonyms when someone happens to use a combination of words happened to be used somewhere else and some other time by an evil man.
There's nothing about sodomizing children in your JPost article. There is however mention of sodomizing a Hamas member, which going by your assertion would mean that Hamas is recruiting and using children?
The raw fact is that were the sides turned, you wouldn't be reading that news article in the first place. You wouldn't seriously think that Hamas would launch an investigation against their own members for sodomy now, would you?
Hamas has no plans to recognize Israel whatsoever, unless you're so naive to take their word for it. Their call for 1967 borders is basically a sorry excuse for establishing a violent attack front on both sides of Israel so that they can fight more efficiently.
>There's nothing about sodomizing children in your JPost article. There is however mention of sodomizing a Hamas member, which going by your assertion would mean that Hamas is recruiting and using children?
Perhaps I misremembered, because you're right that the article doesn't support my claim. Either way, sodomizing adults is not really justice, is it?
Either way the population of Palestine was 43+% children before Oct 7th so Israel has surely killed multiple thousands of children. Death must surely be as bad as rape?
No - that's my point. You're seriously comparing the allegations of sexual misconduct by MSF employees with the bombing of Gaza and killing of 45K people?
In my comment, I made no mentions of bombs nor Gaza nor war. I was pointing out that the MSF are not the harbingers of world peace.
My issues with the MSF are orthogonal to the Israeli-Palestinian War. Has the MSF ever done good? Absolutely, but they have also done some rather unethical things as well.
The criticism in the Wikipedia you linked lists various cases where unethical things were happening, and the article explains how the other employees and the organization took apparently strong corrective action to deal with them.
That hardly seems like something worth mentioning to claim they have no right to call out genocide.
While I am in no way condoning the events that were listed, it is inappropriate to even bring that up in this context.
No, that is what it means when a person or organization raises a concern and you reply like you did- that they have no right to raise the concern because you’re implying they are just as guilty.
Genocide requires proving intentionality. Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This is a serious and complex standard, and it’s central to the legal definition.
It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria.
That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed.
Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..
There's no shortage of material in print calling for the destruction of Gaza, the non personhood of
Palestinians, etc. from Israel ministers and commentators from before the October attacks by Hamas.
You can, for example, look to the Journal of Genocide Research at articles that draw parallels between Holocaust scholar Eugene's Finkel's declaration of Ukraine as a genocidal event and his point by point justification and similar parallels with Israel and Gaza.
They destroy or steal art and books each time they invade. The places with the most Palestinian pre-israel books and art are Israelian archives, where only Israeli historians have access if the government authorize them (i.e if they're not critical of the current politics).
Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin.
Not the 97 percent who were non-Jewish.
Who were a diverse group of folks, including a significant minority (20 percent or more seems a good estimate) whose recent ancestors were non-indigenous migrants in the latter (but still pre-Aliyah) stages of the Ottoman Empire. Including a good chunk from Egypt and other places nearby, as well as from far-off places like Bosnia, Circassia etc.
The long-term resident (i.e. "indigeous") component in turn had also steadily mixed with other populations over time. DNA evidence does suggest that a good chunk of their ancestry pool would probably have been classed as Jewish/Israelite way back when, before converting to Christianity and other religions before the Islamic conquest. A fact which the myth-making industry in modern Israel painfully ignores.
In sum they make for a complex group with a mix of influences. To say that they were "mostly of Jewish origin" smells strongly of overstretch.
And in any case they definitely were not "Jewish" by the time the Nakba rolled around. So what this (or footnotes about the origin of the term Palestinian) has to do with the Israeli government's continuing to hoard their stolen ("abandoned") posessions is unclear.
We don’t need to label a conflict as genocide to recognize the urgency of ending it. Armed conflicts, regardless of labels, demand immediate efforts to stop the violence and protect civilians. The focus should be on saving lives, not semantics.
Ending this conflict should start with demanding that Hamas abandon its illegitimate and destructive aims. They must lay down their weapons, release all hostages, and dismantle their oppressive regime. Hamas’s actions and ideology stand in the way of peace for both Palestinian and Israeli civilians
Anyhow, there are so many companies in the US that are complicit including in particular Google - it knew its software was likely to be used for human rights violations in Israel and they valued getting money over going the right thing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-said-worried-contract-w...
EDIT: Instantly downvoted to -2 on a factual comment that links to high quality resources? Feels like bots to me.
so was the dam-busters raid by england in ww2 against nazi germany also “genocide”? or were they both just “warfare”
as the events of Rwanda showed, it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide. So are the israelis really incompetent at genocide, to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out? or is this just the usual propaganda and hyperbole?
> to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out
What about the times they tell the civilians to move to, say, Southern Gaza, because they're going to start bombing Northern Gaza more heavily, and then when they do, they increase bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%?
> it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide
I didn't realize you had to "complete" a genocide within a certain time limit. Besides, what's the rush? The global reaction so far is that there'll be loud words and fists thumped on tables, but that they'll let Israel do largely whatever it wants.
I can think of many understandable reasons that might happen, so those facts without additional context don't mean much to someone that hasn't already had their mind made up, which is the problem with reporting them and expecting everyone to just see what you see as obvious.
Ah, because that's what was said that I was responding to?
See, this is the problem. I can't even point out that the way this is being communicated is counterproductive without you assuming I have some allegiance I'm expressing, and using a bad faith argument to try to get me to defend an assertion which is (as presented) undefensible.
I assume you feel this bad faith response is justified because you see a genocide and therefore why would you show constraint, but the other side is doing the same thing, for similar reasons, and nobody is actually trying to communicate, just yell at each other.
Congratulations on being the problem. I doubt you'll see yourself that way though, because again, why would you care how you're acting when you can tell yourself whatever you do is justified to stop a genocide?
I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43. Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft given the historical precedent on dealing with these kinds of movements.
On the surface this is just another callous comment but you are making a few dangerous implications here:
1. Gaza is not as bad as Hamburg (for which no proof was provided)
2. Gaza has to be as bad as Hamburg for it to be called a genocide
3. You want Israel to make Gaza look like Hamburg ‘43
4. The historical precedent (without even getting into land occupation) of movements justifies a genocide.
I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43.
In fact the numbers of civilians killed are roughly similar (probably 30k for Gaza vs. 40k for Hamburg 43-45) against roughly equal pre-war population size (about 1.5M for each). And the pictures are of course awfully similar as well (depending on where one wishes to zoom in). And Israel's not anywhere near done with Gaza yet.
But of course you were just hand-waving, which is why you started off with "I dunno".
Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft
An incredibly crass and nasty thing to say about a largely innocent population being steadily bombed into the ground.
Another day, another organization redefines genocide to fit their narrative, doesn't mention hostages held in Gaza and gets manually unflagged by admins. Business as usual.
> almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).
> This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide
This post mentions intent once:
> While we don't have legal authority to establish intentionality
But anyway somehow
> What our medical teams have witnessed ... is consistent with the descriptions ... that genocide is taking place in Gaza
and then the title was changed from "Gaza death trap: MSF report exposes Israel’s campaign of total destruction" to "Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide"
Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants.
MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.
Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide?
> the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives.
Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
> Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for?
There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped.
> Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would.
However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide.
To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
> What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about:
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
> The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
HN often covers major news events, and wars fall into that category. Their impact is wide-ranging and of large import. I don't see an issue with the occasional HN coverage of it.
I could see an argument that this conflict might be getting a disproportionate amount of posts, because it seems to have aroused a lot of passion among some of the HN audience. Would Doctors Without Borders condemning Russia in Ukraine warrant a HN post? Don't know, probably not.
It wasn't the moral condemnation, but their weighing in on a hotly disputed case (along with the fact that they're a highly respected organization with first-hand knowledge of what's been happening on the ground) that makes the post interesting and relevant.
Unfortunately the poster botched/distorted the article title, but that's a separate issue.
Not entirely new, but certainly interesting and relevant in the sense of one of the world's most highly respected organizations weighing in on one of the most flagrant large-scale violation of human rights in our time (that many prefer to pretend to believe isn't happening at all).
Political content of all kinds often gets flagged on HN as lots of people don't like it and flagging is the easiest way to express that disapproval and impact front page placement.
Yes, flagging is a way for some people to express disapproval of what THEY don't like. A major organization makes a big statement about a major conflict. This is of general interest and would normally make front page headlines, even on HN.
Quotes a guy as an example of a sweeping generalization who is massively controversial in his own country, is facing domestic charges and has tens of thousands of citizens protesting against him regularly.
Your choice of quotes is indeed not very interesting, but rather shows how little you know about Israel.
You should visit some time it's a beautiful and diverse country.
I’ll try to answer my following research questions:
If Palestinians want a state so badly, why didn’t they accept one in 1948?
In the following decades, when Gaza was Egyptian, the West Bank was Jordanian and the Golan heights Syrian, why didn’t their Arab brothers give them their own state?
Where were the Palestinians in ‘67 when these Arab leaders decided to attack Israel, got a bloody nose and created the mess we’re in today?
Where were the Palestinians in the 90s, when Arafat could have given them their own state with East Jerusalem as their capital?
Where were the demonstrations, streets filled with crowds, demanding peace and their own state?
My history and just observing current events with my eyes are telling me that instead of making their state a reality as they could have multiple times, Palestinians are weirdly obsessed with the existence of Israel as a whole and streets are only filled with cheering crowds if Israeli hostages or bodies are paraded through them.
Meanwhile, Israel has two Supreme Court judges of Arab descent, one of whom sent two Jewish Prime Ministers to prison, the recent head of Israel’s oldest and largest bank was an Israeli Arab, Arab citizens are part of the national soccer team, the police, the medical services, the judiciary, the list goes on and on.
Looks like it’s the same in Israel as the rest of the world: If you’re not hellbent on killing your neighbor because you discriminate them based on their creed, looks, whatever, people welcome you to take part in society.
SCIAF, Christian Aid, Age International , Trocaire, Plan International, Bond and Cafod, and many other 'charities'[1] (MSF is obviously not a charity, you at least could have opened the link but you clearly do not know what you are talking about) declared what's have been going in Gaza as genocide. Amnesty International made in January a UN call consisted of 250 global charities, organizations and institutions to stop the genocide in Gaza, either you are not actually giving money to charity or you are having a very hard time fining one.
The invasion of Lebanon and Syria by Israel shows that it's not about the hostages. There are no hostages in Lebanon or Syria. It's about acquiring more land.
> The invasion of Lebanon and Syria by Israel shows that it's not about the hostages. There are no hostages in Lebanon or Syria. It's about acquiring more land.
It doesn't show any such thing. The invasion of Lebanon was because Hezbollah, who are in Lebanon, declared war on Israel on October 8th, and had been bombing Israel for almost a year. Israel invaded to put a stop to this war.
Syria is (at least currently) a preemptive move to protect Israel from a potentially-adversarial enemy on its borders.
When is understandable when a terrorist standing on the boarder is within rocker range of major population centers—and have been firing those rockets. Seems like they’d be stupid not to expand their territory to get better buffer zone to protect their citizens.
Israel is holding large numbers of women and children in jails without trial. They're hostages too, which is why Hamas has been able to occasionally exchanged hostages with Israel.
This is wrong in many ways, and is a "talking point" I really hate. I'm not a fan of military detention without trial, but it is time-limited and has to be proven to an Israeli court to be necessary for security reasons.
> They're hostages too, which is why Hamas has been able to occasionally exchanged hostages with Israel.
So first of all, they're not hostages. They're maybe temporary prisoners of war, though really they're security detainees. They are largely treated far better than the hostages that Hamas holds are treated, and are eventually released if there is no real reason to hold them. I don't think there are many that are held for a year.
Secondly, even if you disagree with all the above, that has nothing to do with why Hamas is able to exchange hostages with Israel. Hamas is able to do it because they have leverage by taking hostages. That's the whole reason. The people Hamas wants freed are not the security detainees you're talking about - it's the people serving life sentences after being tried and convicted on terrorism charges, usually people that have killed many civilians.
This is literally a big part of the negotiation - Hamas demanding "worse" offenders be released, Israel trying to have veto so it won't have to release the worst offenders.
The war could be over to tomorrow if Israel stops illegally occupying Palestinian territory. The consequences for creating illegal settlements should be massive to let the world know that stealing others people land is not acceptable.
A lot of people like to point to Palestinians and organizations saying "From the River (Jordan) to the (Red) Sea" as "evidence" of this.
Most of those people are unaware that Palestinians and those organizations directly took that saying from Likud, the hard right political party currently in power in Israel - the saying was a literal election campaign of Likud in the 1970s.
I don’t think anyone uses a saying to back claims over land.
In any case, your comment seems to suggest that Palestinians /could not/ have come up with this phrase, and had to resort to stealing the occupier’s, which is wildly misleading.
In any case, the origin of the phrase is ascertain.
This is pretty apologist. The PLO started using it while referring to Likud, so it was their version of taking it back, in the 1980s.
I'm sure they could have come up with it themselves had they wished.
But whitewashing it as just a saying on Israel's part, but a threat on Palestine's... given that multiple members of Likud, often in official capacities, openly espouse and encourage exactly that, taking more land from Palestine.
This guy has a very accessible take on the proper United Nations definition of genocide and how it applies to the Gaza and Ukraine war.
Gemini summary:
>>>>
This video discusses the definition of genocide and its application to current events. The speaker argues that many people misuse the term to describe any atrocity, while genocide specifically refers to the intent to eliminate a group of people. The speaker uses the examples of the war in Gaza and the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin to illustrate this point. They argue that while there are many civilian casualties in Gaza, it's unclear if there's an intent to eliminate the entire Palestinian people. In contrast, Putin's forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia aligns more clearly with the definition of genocide. The speaker emphasizes the importance of using the term accurately to avoid diluting its meaning and to properly address serious crimes.
<<<<
This take is only possible if you trust anything Tel Aviv says with no fact checking
Israel is:
- blockading humanitarian aid
- targeting UN and aid workers (more that half of all deaths of UN personnel in war zones happened in Gaza in the last 14 months)
- starving the population by blocking food from entering Gaza
- bombing every hospital
- destroying almost every building in the strip.
- already selling beachfront land for planned settlements
- Holding thousands of children hostage in administrative detention without any charges
- carrying terror campaign in the West Bank
- explicitly applying a strategy of collective punishment against the entire population (matching the definition of terrorism)
This computing over the already inhuman apartheid regime in the West Bank
I would posit that counting all children Putin illegally deported you get less that half of the numbers of children killed or kidnapped by the Israeli army
Anders Puck Nielsen is a Danish military analyst and naval captain at the Royal Danish Defence College, he is not a human rights lawyer. I will trust the organisations and experts that have studied human rights in deciding if a genocide is occuring.
Isn’t this the standard in all fields? I trust the top scientists at the Large Hadron Collider to define the presence of a Higgs boson, I trust the doctors of the WHO to define if a pandemic is occurring. These strongly defined terms need experts.
> https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2024/gaza-before-after...
> https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/gaza-is-i...
The strip is bombed out and half in ruins. With the import of construction material into Gaza highly restricted, I wonder how, or if, it'll be rebuilt. It is becoming a true open-air wasteland prison, barely capable of supporting life. So it's hard to dispute the conclusion drawn by Doctors Without Borders, even if the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.