> Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all.
It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment?
> This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place?
I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
> Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too?
The Palestinians who live in Palestine and want to remain living and in Palestine? Those Palestinians? No they are not committing a genocide.
> Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours.
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Think you could argue a solid case for all five. Certainly the first three.
> Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so?
I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding...
Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
> It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment?
The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. If you are arguing that this is the case, then prove it.
> I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you.
> I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding...
> Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
Can you show me a war without bombed hospitals and/or dead civilians?
Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it.
Yes, social media is like 100% reliable source. Did elections of 2016 thought you nothing?
> colonizing their land
Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer!
Israelis at least may claim some sort of belonging to the land, you can’t.
> The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide.
Genocide and war are two distinct things. One is not required for the other, hence saying: the norm is a genocide is contained within a war. A norm is not a requirement or a fact of any sort. I even went on to cite a genocide that did not, in fact, occur during a war. I don't see how this is being misunderstood.
> If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you.
I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians. That much is evident by their actions.
The intricacies of their motivations aren't really something I care about. That doesn't make my desire to not see a pile of dead Palestinians "like a religion" and I have no idea what on earth this line of argument could possibly be driving at.
> Why did you omit the key word (intent) though?
Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket. I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have. You are unconvinced. I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation.
> Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it.
Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that.
I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you.
> Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer!
Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making.
"AHA! Then you have benefitt-" Yes, I have, and if some time in the future when we have a more progressive leadership I am asked to give up an amount of my wealth, my land, hell, my ability to live here so as to create a more equitable world, I will do that.
And yes, were I present during Nazi Germany, I would've said the same things I'm saying now. I wasn't alive then, nor during the colonial era, nor during any other time of mass human atrocity that is now factually human atrocity because it's far enough in the rear view mirror that the Powers That Be are comfortable with it being called that. But I AM alive and present during THIS ONE, which is why I'm out here saying: Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.
> I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians.
This understanding of yours contradicts reality. If Israel wanted more dead Palestinians and their territory, then why wait? Why leave Gaza?
> Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket.
Without intent, you cannot prove its genocide.
> I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have.
You have nothing beyond anecdata. Dead civilians are not genocide.
> You are unconvinced.
Because there is no evidence.
> I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation.
If they want territory, whey did they leave in the first place?
Can there be an alternative explanation?
> Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that.
Each instance has to be investigated. Just screaming out loud that "they bomb hospitals just for fun!!!" without any evidence of targeted and systemic policy just shows that for you its a matter of religious belief and not reality.
> I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you.
Please show me that Israel engages in exactly the same level of xenophobic rhetoric as the nazis. You guys just can't, you have to compare Israel to Nazis, right?
> Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making.
So... It seems to me that you are like this rapist that says that others can't rape, it is bad, and yet continues to rape.
> Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.
Intent is impossible to prove, it's unfalsifiable. I can't prove they intend it, you can't prove they don't intend it. It's a worthless data point.
> Because there is no evidence.
All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region. Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric. Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.
Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.
> Can there be an alternative explanation?
Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.
> Please show me that Israel engages in exactly the same level of xenophobic rhetoric as the nazis.
Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.
> So... It seems to me that you are like this rapist that says that others can't rape, it is bad, and yet continues to rape.
A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.
You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.
> Intent is impossible to prove, it's unfalsifiable. I can't prove they intend it, you can't prove they don't intend it. It's a worthless data point.
It is absolutely possible to prove intent. This is how prosecutors prove that that homicide was a first degree murder as opposed to reckless manslaughter.
If we are talking about governments and states, you can absolutely prove intent based on the enacted policies. For example, treatment of Uighurs in China is borderline genocide. You have intentional state policy where a specific minority cannot use their language, live according to their traditions and culture, placed into labor/re-education camps, and, as a result, have declining birth rates, which will eventually lead to no Uighurs in China at all. Another example is Red Khmers with their policy of Year Zero. So, you can absolutely prove intent beyond any reasonable doubt.
> All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region.
Israelis are dying too. When Palestinians launched rockets, some Israelis died. As happens when two sides engage in war. Has nothing to do with genocide.
> Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric.
Same as Palestinians. If we base our argument on “rhetoric”, then everyone is committed genocide basically everywhere in the world.
> Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.
Numerous jewish activists say otherwise. How does identity of an activist determine if something is a genocide or not? There are numerous Palestinians who support Israel’s war in Gaza. So?
Identity politics is very bad argument.
I can also mention some Palestinians that are claiming similar things about Palestinian policy. Would you accept their testimonies because they are Palestinians, or you will discard it because it is not aligned with what you believe?
> Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.
Ah, so, basically, without any evidence you simply decided it is genocide, and that’s it?
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.
Yeah. I am sure this kind of argument holds, and is not a double-edged sword at all.
> Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.
This is not the simplest explanation. Your explanation is based on a single interpretation of some observed evidence, completely disregarding similar conflicts, military practices, etc. Again, very similar to how religious people believe in their things — they are not interested to hear alternative explanations. Why should they — the book says it all.
> Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.
Identity politics again.
> A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.
Ah :) So, you can rape, but others can’t? ;)
I would say that rapist’s testimony is not trustworthy due to them being rapists. There is a reason why in the court of law the witnesses are better be of good moral character — otherwise, why would anyone believe them?
> You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.
It is not an ad hominem. This issue for you is a matter of beliefs and not reason. There is nothing “ad hominem” about acknowledging this fact.
Some Israelis died. Like David Ben Avraham, an Israeli Jew who was ethnically Palestinian. He was stopped arbitrarily by an Israeli soldier, asked his name, then immediately shot dead.
It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment?
> This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place?
I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
> Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too?
The Palestinians who live in Palestine and want to remain living and in Palestine? Those Palestinians? No they are not committing a genocide.
> Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours.
From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Think you could argue a solid case for all five. Certainly the first three.
> Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so?
I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding...
Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.