[flagged]
Please don't abuse this word. If Israel was conducing genocide there wouldn't be Arab Israelis, and the population of Gaza would not grow over time.
Ethnic cleansing and insufficient proportionality consideration, likely. Not genocide. The Israelis don't want to remove Palestinians from the face of the earth, they want political and physical safety for the Jews, and history has worked out such that they feel they need an Jewish-majority ethnostate.
That has nothing to do with anything. If I steal from you, I steal from you, doesn't matter if you get more than I stole from elsewhere. By that logic, not even the Shoa would be a genocide. So how can people say this, and not even once, but over and over? It just means you're not even treating the charge seriously.
> The Israelis don't want to remove Palestinians from the face of the earth
It's nothing to do with "the Israelis". It's about the specific people and organizations espousing genocidal rhetoric and engaging in respective actions, such as starving off civilians. Whoever is guilty of that doesn't get to invoke all other Israelis as a blanket. Specific people are guilty of specific things. All Israelis want safety, but not all Israelis dance and sing "there are no schools in Gaza, because there are no kids in Gaza".
More importantly, wanting to wipe someone "off the face off the Earth" is not required to meet the standard of genocide, not even close. It might be required for the whole "Amalek" thing, but not for genocide.
Just take this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
> 8,372 killed (Srebrenica)
> 25,609–33,071 Bosniaks and Croats killed (wider definition of genocide)
Not only are those "low" numbers compared to the survivors, not even in their wildest dreams would anyone ever claim the goal was to "wipe Croats off the face of the Earth".
Those who want to annex Palestine don't care if it's via ethnic cleansing or genocide, and made that clear in word and deed. There's no getting away from that.
And Bosnian Muslims did not initiate a pogrom that killed 1200 people, out of the blue, against Bosnians when that happened.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
This israeli scholar of genocide could see that just a few weeks into this escalation. Why can't you?
From a military perspective, Israel is highly useful to the United States and many other Western countries. Israel is basically the Guam of the Middle East. So, genocide or not, I bet good money not a single thing will happen to Israel. Sure, there might be some theatrical cases in which some soldiers are imprisoned for war crimes and some high-rankers being dishonorably discharged. But it's all just for show.
Israel basically is what keeps Iran from overstepping too much. To the West, that is far more valuable than the lives of Palestinians. I am not trying to be insensitive, and I truly feel empathy for all the poor Palestinian people that lost their lives over this senseless conflict. However, if the rest of the world cared, then the rest of the world would have intervened.
Point being, call it whatever you want. It won't make a difference.
It does make a difference. If it didnt, Israel wouldnt be fighting back against the accusations so vehemently. They wouldnt be accusing the ICJ of anti semitism.
US and EU leaders wouldnt be going out of their way to downplay this.
It makes a difference becausr undermines US and European moral legitimacy. This makes it harder for us to get what we want out of diplomacy. This wouldnt be such a problem if western economic and military global primacy were maintained but they're also collapsing. Ukraine is a military disaster for us and China's industrial might eclipses ours.
The worst time to be seen to be the bad guy is when you are showing weakness.
> US and EU leaders wouldnt be going out of their way to downplay this.
Again, theatrics.
> It makes a difference becausr undermines US and European moral legitimacy.
To whom? Neither care about the opinions of 3rd world countries. The countries that matter do not mind, and the countries that mind do not matter.
How is Ukraine a military disaster? The US and Europe have been trying to tip-toe the line, but it's not like the US nor Europe has lost much of value -- excluding poor Ukraine obviously.
I do not think the West is showing weakness, but rather restraint.
Equal to the amount Israel spends on PR, lobbying and astroturfing to try and downplay this. Which is a ginormous amount.
>To whom?
All of the world that isnt in a western, Chinese or Russian club.
This group is routinely ignored, taken for granted and generally treated with disdain and so far that hasnt backfired too badly.
>How is Ukraine a military disaster?
They've thrown billions of weapons and drastically drained their inventories, achieving nothing except slowing Putin down after jubilantly declaring that he would be soundly defeated on the battlefield. It's transitioned the west's image from that of an unchallenged global hegemon to something of a military paper tiger. This has already resulted in a number of countries transitioning out of the western sphere of influence.
Interesting. I drew the opposite conclusion. Using (mostly) just NATO's old equipment, Ukraine has fought basically to a standstill what was previously considered the second greatest army on earth. That army and the security guarantees it provides to various dictators are greatly humiliated, especially after Russian allies Armenia and Syria were defeated with their backer Russia lifting hardly a finger in defense, due to it's great commitments and losses in Ukraine.
Meanwhile the US is still ready to fight and win a war in the Pacific and Atlantic simultaneously.
Which countries are transitioning out of the western sphere of influence due to security concerns?
Not true since 2023. Plenty of the high end stuff was sent - abrams, leopard 2s, patriots.
There's also a dire shortage of shells to send - the meat and potatoes of a war like this.
Some of the high end stuff (e.g. F-35s) were also arguably not sent because western military planners were afraid of them performing badly (F-16s performed very badly).
>fought basically to a standstill
That's how wars of attrition are. The front line is 1) static for months/year and a half. Then it moves 2) slowly. Then 3) fast. Then collapse.
It's between 2 and 3 now.
Unless a peace deal is secured (unlikely, there is no zone of possible agreement) a Ukrainian military collapse is coming and it will be a humiliation for western hegemony to see Russia sweep forward unchallenged on their front door.
Trump seems to know that it's coming and wants to wash his hands of it while European establishment are freaking out and doing stupid, rash and even Putinesque shit like canceling the Romanian election.
Not unless the Russian economy collapses first. Last I heard, industry leaders from key sectors like metallurgy were saying that with a 21% interest rate, the market economy is effectively dead because their margins are nowhere near sufficient to service such debts. They either need government handouts (a thinly veiled return to a planned economy, and we both know what that looked like) or face a complete crash and burn in the currently unfolding corporate debt crisis: https://static.themoscowtimes.com/image/1360/35/Screenshot20...
> Plenty of the high end stuff was sent - abrams, leopard 2s, patriots.
Reagan-era Leopard 2A4s are not "high end". The truly high end stuff has performend beyond expectations, particularly the Patriot missile defense system. Quite a few planes were lost, including two rare and prized radar planes, before Russians finally understood that unlike their overhyped "has no analogues in the world" wonder weapons, western tech actually meets and often exceeds offical specs.
> Some of the high end stuff (e.g. F-35s) were also arguably not sent because western military planners were afraid of them performing badly (F-16s performed very badly).
Quite the opposite story. The F-35 is treasured so much that no-one wants to risk it being lost, especially with the limited experience UAF has flying western planes. As to F-16s, a single pilot shooting down 6 cruise missiles while equipped with only 4 AA missiles was nothing short of spectacular, and according to seasoned F-16 pilots, shows that Ukrainian air force is developing rapidly: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-record-f16-win-shows...
> Trump seems to know that it's coming and wants to wash his hands of it while European establishment are freaking out and doing stupid
Trump is doing (and seems, more effectively) what every single American president since at least GWB has attempted: to get Europe to increase military spending. If you think this predicts anything positive for you, better brace for a surprise.
Last I heard in 2022 the overwhelming consensus in 2022 was that it was supposed to collapse at the end of 2022. I think it's time to put this neocon fantasy to bed rather than keep making fresh wrong predictions based upon the same wrong dogma.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and people knowing what actually happened matters a lot more in the long term than any indifference and apathy in the short term.
> Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined by “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,” as noted in the December 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
So can we also say Hamas is genocidal? Because complete success is not necessary, intent matters and magnitudes don't matter. Right? My disagreement is just that - We cannot just accuse one side in this unfortunate event.
No, because intent matters, and Hamas do not have genocidal intent - all they want is freedom from Israeli occupation and dehumanisation, and their stolen land back.
The killing of 800 civilians and ~400 soldiers in a single military attack isnt a genocide it's at worst a terrorist attack.
If they committed that kind of atrocity once every 3-4 days for over a year - as Israel did to them in retaliation for that attack then yeah, genocide.
Realistically some of the Jews in Polish ghettoes probably had genoidal intent against the Germans too. Doesnt matter.
I'm not the genocide decider, I have no particular reason or expertise from which to judge whether any other specific conflict is a genocide.
The person I was responding to was quibbling about the use of this word, and I'm pointing to a subject expert's opinion that the use is correct.
Please be careful when using the word genocide
Gaza population: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1422981/gaza-total-popul...
Jews in before/after WW2 in Germany: 500k before, 200k after, 100k now. 6M European jews killed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany
What Palestinians went through in the last 15 months is grotesque and unforgivable, but their "elected government" could have completely avoided this.
I am using the term legally.
Genocide does not require success in exterminating the whole race. The holocaust was not successful, Bosnia wasnt successful, neither was Gaza. Roughly 7-10% of Gaza were killed, mostly women and children, and the intent to kill them because of their race was clear and well evidenced by South Africa.
Please, dont deny genocide -not the holocaust. Not the armenian genocide. Not the bosnian genocide. Not this either. It is disrespectful to every victim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_P...
Everything that happened since October 7th was avoidable. You can't expect to murder 1200 Israelis in this fashion and think nothing will happen. It would only invite more murders and more murders.
Netanyahu is on record saying that he intended to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the Palestinians and never stop.
Israel will not give up on its ethnic cleansing dreams unless it is forced to . That may require the end of Israel - just as South African apartheid was ended once it lost support from racist western backers.
A side effect of this slaughter is that it has ripped off the mask of liberal, egalitarian Israel. The liberal, egalitarians in the west no longer support the country - only racists who believe that genocide is provokable still do.
> For Israel this a racial problem, and whilst theyd prefer expulsion (like Hitler), theyre not above extermination (like Hitler) if the "dump them all in africa" project falls through.
Right, Israel doesn't want any Arabs within its borders. If there are any Arabs living in Israel they are there as a class of indentured servants who can't vote or serve in the government. Are there any Arabs in Israel?
I am personally sorry for what happened in Gaza, but Hamas chose to start a war and civilian deaths are an unavoidable fact of war. What would you want done if your family had been the victims of a barbaric, unprovoked attack, or if your family were kidnapped and taken from you?
And you're stating your opinion as if it were fact. You believe that no one on the left still supports Israel except if they are racist. That's just your opinion. It's not a fact. You believe that anyone who does support Israel is a racist. That's your opinion. It's not a fact.
You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but it's very telling that your opinion seems to deny and disregard quite a lot of facts.
> A side effect of this slaughter is that it has ripped off the mask of liberal, egalitarian Israel.
Is Israel a democracy? Can women vote in Israel? Can women serve in the army? Is it illegal to be gay in Israel? Can Israeli Arabs vote? Can they serve in parliament? Do they serve in parliament? What happens to gay men and women in Gaza and the West Bank? Why do they want to flee to Israel?
Again, you can have whatever opinion you want but the facts don't agree with you.