Itās not genocide until the government DECLARES IT genocide, a la Michael Scott.
K.
The prosecutor in The Hague and all the learned professors, from Omer Bartov on down, who talk about a genocide, are wrong.
This line made me think the author was being sarcastic. āItās not genocide, because Israel hasnāt decided to commit genocide! All of these experts on the subject agree that it is, but clearly it isnāt!ā, but no, they appear to actually genuinely hold this belief, which is justā¦ I donāt even know what to say. The mental gymnastics required here is just wild.
They found a crazy loophole - this one neat trick that humanitarians hate! If you just keep saying āWeāre not committing genocide!ā, you arenāt! Wow!
If you continue reading, he makes an argument.
The government has no policy of genocide, there is no decision by Israeli leaders to commit genocide, there is no deliberate intention to wipe out the Palestinians, and there are no orders coming from the government to the army, or from the army chiefs to the operative ranks to murder āthe Palestinians.ā Many of them have been killed, but this is no policy.
The intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a group is an essential requirement for something to be considered a genocide.
So their āmagic weasel wordsā are we donāt kill Palestinians, we just kill everyone who happens to be in a space coincidentally occupied by Palestinians?
What about the Amalek comments? Which soldiers on the ground also chanted.
Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear. Amalek chants can be interpreted as incitement because of this ambiguity, I guess.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks with extreme views, who are more likely to commit warcrimes, or be flexible with rules of engagement. However even they need at least a plausible pretext before they can take action. Otherwise they can and are disciplined or prosecuted. The IDF has a well functioning internal investigation unit Military Advocate General. It even publishes investigations and their state on their website.
IDF soldiers can get away with excessive violence, but they always need at least a plausible military objective. Gaza had been converted into a fortress for two decades, so finding a military objective isnāt difficult. If a house has been used by a Hamas sniper, has a tunnel entrance, weapons were found in it, blocks a line of sight, it can be destroyed as a military objective.
Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
Yeah I know what it means!
āāI will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.āā
I bolded some for a hopefully obvious reason. Clearly the Amalekites were genocided. Worse they even killed the fucking animals.
So Netanyahu, not some random person with no importance, saying this is a sign of intent.
And it being repeated by soldiers on the ground means the message was received and embraced by the people with the weapons.
And all of this is ignoring a probably bigger point: intent is not usually stated openly. Even if they hadnāt said it, the intent is clear in the nature of the attacks: choosing to kill supposed Hamas operatives in their homes along with their families rather than during military operations, destroying hospitals, holding up aid, shooting the people bringing the aid, shooting people collecting aid, damaging or destroying vital water facilities. Need I go on?
You donāt need a signed affidavit to prove what is happening or to prove intent. Everyone knows what happens if you deprive people of the essentials of life on purpose.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear.
Come on now.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks ā¦
All of this is just a bit weird. I can tell that you trust the IDF, yes, but arenāt we talking about intent to commit genocide?
The fact that you can pick a āplausible targetā is not exactly proof this isnāt intentional genocide is it? Iām sorry to have to be the one to tell you but if youāre committing a genocide itās probably a fair bet you will also lie about it. The tunnels etc are the perfect wishy washy defence for which no evidence is presented.
Read the Guardian article linked above. The choice to kill innocents is INTENTIONAL. It was done for the sake of ease.
The tunnels
Hereās Sinwar himself boasting about the size of Hamasā tunnel network.
Please understand that I am aware of Gazaās tunnel network
Sure Netanyahu is a bad guy. He intentionally uses this statement to leave room for interpretation. The context for this is Netanyahu repeatedly stressing that the war is against Hamas, not the Palestinian people
intent is not usually stated openly
Intent for genocide is always stated very openly and publicly in historic cases. Check out Rwanda, where the radio called people to butcher their neighbors.
You donāt need a signed affidavit to prove what is happening or to prove intent.
Paper trails exist for historic genocides. The Holocaust is probably the best to show this. The documentation by the perpetrators was minute.
choosing to kill supposed Hamas operatives in their homes along with their families rather than during military operations,
Israel doesnāt know where every Palestinian combatant is at every moment. Palestinian militants are very aware of Israeli surveillance and have lots of techniques to evade it. For example fighters walk around in civilian clothes and without weapons. Weapons depots have been propositioned in houses all over the place. Using civilian infrastructure like schools, mosques, hospitals as cover for military operations is standard and well documented.
When they move underground in tunnels and pop out a minute for an attack, they are hard to hit. Attacking them while on the move has a high risk of collateral damage and errors during targeting. Killing them in their homes is often a way to minimize risk to uninvolved civilians. It also destroys any weapons, information, and other terrorist equipment stored in their home. Militants know going to their houses risks their families lives. Use of human shields is a war crime and does not protect a military objective from attack.
destroying hospitals, shooting the people bringing the aid, shooting people collecting aid,
Hospitals are well documented to have been used as military bases by Hamas and other groups. Itās part of the pattern how they use civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This makes them valid military objectives. For all attacks on hospitals, there have been evacuation calls and periods beforehand. Hospitals etc. could have just been handed over without a fight to minimize damage.
holding up aid,
The biggest obstacle to aid delivery is internal distribution inside Gaza. International aid organizations had reduced their activities in northern Gaza because of repeated highjacking of their convoys by armed groups. So you had aid piling up behind the Israeli checkpoints inside Gaza.
Thereās lots of other misleading reporting about this. For example trucks, who were blocked from entering because of contraband items. These simply drove to the back of the queue, unloaded, remove some items, reloaded, and then waited for the next inspection. This lead to delays, but almost everything got in in the end. Yes, some of the soldiers involved in this were abusing their power for this.
The overall delivery of aid was pretty good compared to other war zones. Of course there was widespread suffering and aid delivery could have been better.
shooting people collecting aid
There are a handful of incidents you might refer to here. Some of them were crowds rushing soldiers, others were known terrorist gunmen hired as security or guides by aid NGOs.
That said, the IDF has been much less restrained in this war compared to previous ones. There are numerous cases of excessive violence and war crimes.
There are many things that make this war different from other wars. Usually people flee war zones. This wasnāt really possible for Gazans that much. The border to Egypt and Israel was closed expect small numbers. Hamas also hindered civilians from leaving their homes at times. Hamas whole strategy for this war was to embed as deeply into the civilian infrastructure as possible and use the civilian population as shield. The Hamas administration has an outright disregard for dead Palestinians. They even celebrate them as martyrs and use them as tools in the media war. The more dead Palestinians, the more sympathy they can get. Itās a perverse incentive. However it tracks with Hamas strategy to focus on making Gaza a fortress by building the biggest bunker and tunnel system in the history of warfare.
That means Gazans are fucked by both the disregard of their own government as well the enemy armed forces.
choice to kill innocents
Killing innocents is legal under international humanitarian law, if a military objective is present and proportionality is respected. Hiding among civilians does not protect combatants from attack. It happens in every war. Proportionality assessment is difficult and in wartime information is usually incomplete and decisions need to be made quickly.
The tunnels etc are the perfect wishy washy defence for which no evidence is presented.
Hamas itself has shown plenty of video footage of both the construction and the use of tunnels for military operations and weapons storage. Check out the martyred Hamas fighters from previous wars. They very often have tunnel builder on their rƩsumƩs.
you can pick a āplausible targetā is not exactly proof this isnāt intentional genocide is it?
Canāt prove a negative. Israel has been accused of genocide for decades. You show the same way of thinking, where the judgment is already passed before seeing the evidence.
If Israel was trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, the numbers of dead would be much higher. Palestinians with small arms were able kill more than 1000 Israelis in two days on October 7th.
The numbers of dead reported by Hamas (including missing) Gazans is now at 62,000. The IDF claims 15,000 killed militants. If you believe both numbers that comes out as a ratio of civilians to militants of around 1:3. For warfare in a dense urban environment 1:10 is more typical.
Now, the war is terrible and has caused extreme suffering. Warcrimes definitely happened, possibly crimes against humanity as well. Itās not a genocide though.
Interesting that you offer standard hasbara explanations for all of this and yet you acknowledge lots of crimes and questionable activities. In these two comments youāve saidā¦
- Amalek comments may be incitement to genocide
- IDF has soldiers with extreme views who are more likely to commit war crimes or be āflexibleā with rules of engagement.
- IDF soldiers can get away with excessive violence and itās easy to find a āmilitary objectiveā to justify it.
- Netanyahu is a bad guy.
- the IDF has been much less restrained in this war compared to previous ones.
- There are numerous cases of excessive violence and war crimes.
- some soldiers were āabusing their powerā to delay aid with inspections etc
- The war has caused extreme suffering
- War crimes definitely happened
- āPossiblyā crimes against humanity too.
Itās not a genocide though.
Of course you canāt doubt theyāve committed acts of genocide. That is undeniable. And yet you can list all of this and still seem totally confident that there is no intent. Itās weird.
Intent for genocide is always stated very openly and publicly in historic cases. Check out Rwanda, where the radio called people to butcher their neighbors.
Not true, according to an actual genocide scholar: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Indeed, Israelās genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open, and unashamed. Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly, though there are exceptions.
And also this includes more of these examples of intent, including the media pushing for genocide as in your example.
Itās not only Israelās leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on theĀ pro-Netanyahu Channel 14Ā called for Israel to āturn Gaza to Dresden.ā Channel 12, Israelās most-watched news station, publishedĀ a reportĀ about left-leaning Israelis calling to ādance on what used to be Gaza.ā Meanwhile, genocidal verbsācalls to āeraseā and āflattenā Gazaāhave become omnipresent onĀ Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading āZero Gazansā was seen hanging from a bridge.
_
Hospitals are well documented to have been used as military bases by Hamas and other groups. Itās part of the pattern how they use civilian infrastructure for military purposes.
And yet there is no evidence of this in the current conflict? Unless you mean the calendar on the wall that definitely listed terrorists and not the days of the week and the gun in the MRI room?
The biggest obstacle to aid delivery is internal distribution inside Gaza.
Funny how Israel announces a ācomplete siegeā including no food and water allowed in, people start to starve as a result, and somehow you donāt think this is Israelās fault?
Human rights watch, Oxfam, Bātselem, the EU, a UN special committee , the IPC and many others have either described this as avoidable, or in most cases, have explicitly said Israel is/was using starvation as a weapon of war. So if the aid delivery was āgood compared to other war zonesā why all of the alarm? You are distorting the truth.
There are a handful of incidents you might refer to here. Some of them were crowds rushing soldiers, others were known terrorist gunmen hired as security or guides by aid NGOs.
Lol yeah there were plenty of flour massacres, but somehow you think none of it is Israelās fault. You say crowds rushing soldiers, but someone opened fire AND THEN people started running, understandably. Theyāre a fucking solider with a gun, how can you possibly get spooked by hungry people wanting food? Itās a pathetic excuse. The link also details how the story was changed. Really interesting how you blame the crowds, because that what Israel decided to do too. Why is that? Do you just believe their story?
Killing innocents is legal under international humanitarian law, if a military objective is present and proportionality is respected.
Yeah the article about the lavender AI really calls proportionality into question. I donāt know how to tell for sure but I fucking doubt 20 innocents:1 possibly Hamas person, possibly not, is good enough.
Hamas itself has shown plenty of video footage of both the construction and the use of tunnels for military operations and weapons storage
I know tunnels exist, I just pointed out that Israel justifies specific military objectives based on tunnels but basically never show them. One case they used an animation. One case (I think from one of the
blatant war crimestotally legal and normal sieges of hospitals) they refused to show journalists.You show the same way of thinking, where the judgment is already passed before seeing the evidence.
I have presented evidence. Read the definition of genocide. Look at the evidence. Look at the public comments for intent. It is not hard.
If Israel was trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, the numbers of dead would be much higher.
You mean "If Israel was trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible AND THEY DIDNāT CARE ABOUT HOW THEY LOOKED ON THE WORLD STAGE OR CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS OF GENOCIDE, the numbers of dead would be much higher. " Yeah no shit.
If you believe both numbers that comes out as a ratio of civilians to militants of around 1:3. For warfare in a dense urban environment 1:10 is more typical.
Do you know the civilian to militant ratio on October 7th? 797 civilians, 379 militants. Around 2:1. So was that a very restrained and perfectly fine attack or all of a sudden is this argument totally fucking insane?
more of these examples of intent, including the media pushing for genocide as in your example
You simply donāt understand the requirements of intent for genocide, dolus specialis.
Incitement is not enough. There are people in Israel, who want a genocide, but itās neither policy, nor are the acts conclusive.
Funny how Israel announces a ācomplete siegeā including no food and water allowed in, people start to starve as a result
The numbers of death attributed to starvation in Gaza amounts to less than a dozen. Compare that to what happened at the same time in Sudan.
Look, thereās undeniably a bunch of terrible stuff happening, but itās not a genocide.
Do you know the civilian to militant ratio on October 7th? 797 civilians, 379 militants. Around 2:1. So was that a very restrained and perfectly fine attack or all of a sudden is this argument totally fucking insane?
A music festival is not a valid military objective. You seem confused about this idea.
I suspect your efforts here might be wasted
Lemmys collective view amounts to i) Israel is deliberately, capriciously, methodically committing genocide āisnāt it obviousā ii) anything Hamas does is Israelās fault iii) the solution is āobviouslyā for Israel to make peace with a group consisting of some 25,000 psychopathic islamic extremists.
Lemmyās plan for extremist Jews and Arabs to coexist isā¦ waitā¦ it was around hereā¦ somewhereā¦ whereās it gone?..
(Downvotes if you canāt articulate a plan, please)
We (including you, unless youād care to share some credentials) are all laymen here. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to look to the opinions of experts. The experts and scholars generally agree that Israel is committing genocide. The article even admits that (in the sentence I quoted above). Are you, like the articleās author, suggesting that your expertise trumps these experts and scholars?
I agree with their findings, it bears all the hallmarks of genocide. I just find it a bit pedestrian for the report (or anyone else) to not deal with the overall narrative when making that conclusion. Specifically, that what Israel inflicts on Gaza is disproportionate and illegal. Yet it perversely remains under Hamasā control too. Not a feature of your usual genocide. Does anyone seriously doubt the situation wouldnāt immediately improve if Hamas surrendered and returned hostages? That doesnāt justify Israel inflicting high collateral damage, but it remains true. Israel punishes the population because a proportion of the population are Hamas jihadists. Thatās unambiguously against international law. But it wouldnāt be happening if Hamas wasnāt holding 150 civilians hostage after invading Israel and murdering 1700 - which is also against international law. Calling for Israel to stop what itās doing is a necessary intervention but is pointless if it doesnāt also find a method to make the instigator return their civilian hostages.
Lemmyās dominant view amounts to Israel evil.
make peace
Talking about peace has become more rare. Calls for the destruction of Israel are leading the pack.
The whole I/P situation is complex, terrible, polarized, heavily propagandized, and on a bad trajectory.
Actually trying to understand the situation and listening to all voices is difficult. Itās much easier to westsplain the situation with ācolonizerā, ājusticeā, āracismā, and āoppressionā. This serves really well to paint oneself in the most morally virtuous light.
Just a little bit of nuance would be helpful.
Itās not genocide becauseā¦an internet discussion group canāt come up with any solution?
Thatās taking the goalposts and shoving them off the cliff.
Theyāre connected. Lemmy canāt come up with a solution because there isnāt a solution. And because thereās no solution, any warfare with Hamas ends up looking like total war. Of course total war is bad. But calling out for it to stop doesnāt work if the āpeaceā is a greater threat. And no-one has a solution to that.
