> You can defend yourself without genocide.
People also need to stop conflating a war with genocide.
People also need to stop conflating a war with genocide.
Anyone claiming Israel is committing genocide is quite obviously conflating the two.
Why should I believe a random HN comment warrior over literally hundreds of organizations and governments whose jobs include identifying genocide when it happens? What makes your case so compelling it stands up against all that and what my own eyes see?
No. It's a genocide.
I think we'd typically call that bias.
> And secondly, is your claim that every single one of these hundreds of large orgs are historically politically or religiously anti Israel?
Plenty of those organizations/countries do have historical problems when it comes to antisemitism which is obviously highly correlated with an anti-Israel bias. Which of these organizations/countries don't have a history of either blatant anti-Israel bias(i.e. clear double standards) and/or outright antisemitism?
I could list organizations with the opposite view as well, but I don't really consider arguments from authority to be all that strong.
> the international association of genocide scholars
They have certainly had some interesting members[0].
> China
Because they would be the ones to know?[1]
> all... got it wrong?
Obviously.
> Why should I believe a random HN comment warrior over literally hundreds of organizations and governments whose jobs include identifying genocide when it happens?
Facts actually do matter and when you look into the details it's clear that the claims of genocide are simply not backed up by the evidence.
> What makes your case so compelling it stands up against all that and what my own eyes see?
My case is simply that the evidence is insufficient to support the claim.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250903112024/https://genocides...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...
> Because they would be the ones to know?[1]
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...
Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide?
Based on the publicly available evidence I would consider it to potentially be genocide, certainly it's more plausible than the accusations against Israel since China isn't at war with the Uyghurs from my understanding.
However keep in mind International law requires Dolus Specialis(special intent) for something to be considered Genocide which is a very high bar. Note that war crimes or crimes against humanity alone would be insufficient to reach that bar.[0]
Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir.
Saying Ben-Gvir has genocidal intent(which I'd probably largely agree with) is not remotely the same as saying Israel has genocidal intent. The power dynamics in Israel are much more complicated and one should not conflate things said by the most extreme ministers as actual policy.
Just as an example hypothetical, if there were evidence that the Israeli government was implementing as a clear matter of top down government policy the deliberate extermination/targeting of Palestinian civilians with no plausible military/security justification then that would probably be considered genocidal intent by a state. I think such a policy would also then have to be successfully implemented for it to be considered an actual genocide.
Merely being say careless when it comes to civilian casualties in a war would not reach the bar of genocide by itself(although that could still be a war crime). The evidence I've seen so far indicates Israel operates with reasonable care to avoid civilian casualties where feasible(similar if not better than United States when say the United States fought ISIS).
Genocide in international law is an extremely high bar. Wars(even ones with many war crimes) generally do not reach that threshold.
Destroying the military infrastructure of Hamas is obviously not genocide, that is something one would expect to happen during a war.
It's a war, military strategy doesn't tend to put much emphasis on making wars a fair fight. Israel isn't under any obligation to go out of their way to preserve structures built on top of military infrastructure(i.e. tunnels). There were certainly not tunnel networks in Iraq like there were in Gaza.
According the laws of war military infrastructure(i.e. tunnels) is a valid reason.
> Let's arm both sides equally if you want to talk about a war.
Nobody at war wants the fight to be fair, they will always want to be on the winning side.
> What would happen in a equal fight, do you think?
If a fight were truly equal then neither side would win, so I guess if it were equal then the conflict would be even more endless since neither side would win.
Iraq had well over 10 times the population (26-27 million) and the war lasted about 10 years.
"Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation"[pubmed] put the figure at about 132,000 war related deaths. "Iraq body count" was about 158,000. Taking the highest figure that's about 0.6% of the population over the 10 years.
I think the estimates for Gaza, with a population of about 2.2 million, are between 70 to 75,000. That's over 3% of the population over 2 years.
So on a 'per year' basis for % of population - that's 0.06% for Iraq versus 1.6% for Gaza.
That's over 25 times higher in Gaza than Iraq.
Some groups do put the figures above 1 million.[0]
> I think the estimates for Gaza, with a population of about 2.2 million, are between 70 to 75,000.
Keep in mind these figures are not civilian casualty figures, they are overall casualty figures.
Data quality issues do make comparisons rather tricky. Generally you would also want to compare against similar battles that have mainly urban conflict rather than a war in a large country where the amount of fighting varied much more.
In any case looking at raw casualty numbers doesn't really give one the best picture by itself, analyzing combatant to civilian death ratios is probably better than population death ratios as that gives you a better idea at how careful parties are at reducing civilian casualties. Unfortunately Hamas also uses tactics that are designed to increase civilian casualties as well which further complicates comparative analysis.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualt...
That said, if someone is going to make a contentious claim, referencing the evidence or using some data to work up a basic attempt to substantiate the claim is the only to look like you aren't just making up claims.
If data just on deaths is varying by a whole factor of 10, I can't see how you could possibly get anywhere near any meaningful figure for 'combatant to civilian death ratios' in Iraq. You're adding another layer ontop of data that you already recognise is hugely flawed.
Add to that the issue that, in Gaza, Israel has completely sealed off the area from international observers, so credible data on "combatant to civilian death ratios" just won't exist.
All I can say is that based on the data, the claim made is absolutely not supported by the evidence. [Edit - even if the million figure were credible, it's still at least double, and actually indicating the opposite of what was claimed]
Yeah, I'm not sure how credible it is, I only pointed that one out since you were comparing generally upper range estimates with other upper range estimates.
> I can't see how you could possibly get anywhere near any meaningful figure for 'combatant to civilian death ratios' in Iraq.
I mean, it's the figure that I think matters the most. I agree it's probably also one of the most difficult figures to accurately determine.
> Add to that the issue that, in Gaza, Israel has completely sealed off the area from international observers, so credible data on "combatant to civilian death ratios" just won't exist.
International observers can't operate in Gaza without what is effectively the consent of Hamas. Hamas deliberately doesn't properly differentiate civilian deaths from combatant deaths so it seems not particularly likely that international observers could get accurate data on combatant to civilian death ratios if they are being watched by Hamas.
> All I can say is that based on the data, the claim made is absolutely not supported by the evidence. [Edit - even if the million figure were credible, it's still at least double, and actually indicating the opposite of what was claimed]
Overall deaths is not really the figure I would focus on regardless.
In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza.
If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes.
The UN Human Rights Office described the restriction as lasting more than 18 months by June 2025, with only a few IDF-controlled visits.
The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters.
This isn't exactly a hall of fame...
I guess my point was more just that one should be careful with these sort of comparisons, because even if you have accurate data you can still be simply measuring the wrong thing entirely. Raw death counts can be useful as part of the analysis, but they also don't tell the entire story.
> In terms of my statement about intenational observers / journalists- I don't think it's contentious to suggest that the overwhelming reason they can't operate in Gaza is because Israel won't allow them into Gaza.
It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas.
> If Israel let them in and they were impeded or detained or killed by Hamas, then those would be possible outcomes.
Outcomes that Israel would probably get blamed for even if the fault was entirely due to Hamas. It's a no-win scenario.
Keep in mind I'm not neccesarially saying Israel's making the best decisions here, I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth.
> The list of countries that grant chaperoned journalistic access to places includes: North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eritrea for starters.
What countries allow reporters unimpeded/uncontrolled access to war zones? I don't think Ukraine does and I don't think any of the gulf coast countries attacked by Iran were allowing free reporting either. I would think it's not very many as the security reasons alone are highly problematic.
I'm simply challenging obvious bullshit with back of the fag packet numbers.
Please note, you have said nothing about the bullshit claim, you instead are going after me challenging the bullshit by using actual data.
You can argue about how it's used, but it's absolutely sufficient to demonstrate the claim is nonsense.
If you want to evidence the unsupported (out of thin air) claim, please by all means go ahead. I encourage people to connect their claims to reality.
>It's kind of a moot point regardless because even if Israel didn't impede international observers/journalists from operating in Gaza, they still couldn't operate freely due to Hamas.
Interestingly, that's another claim for which you have provided no evidence.
>What countries asks reporters unimpeded/ uncontrolled access to war zones?
Why don't you research this question yourself, and see where Gaza pops up in the list.
>I'm just pointing out that allowing international observers isn't some magic bullet for getting to the truth.
Based on your reasoning, I'm guessing you're satisfied with everything China has to say about the situation of the Uyghars and how it treats them.
I'm starting to find it difficult to take things you say in good faith.
But the way, the British spell words you've used like "analyzing", "organization" and "de-radicalizing" with an 's' not a 'z'. But you know this because, as you claimed, you are British, right?
Isn't this just common sense?
> Why don't you research this question yourself, and see where Gaza pops up in the list.
No country AFAIU allows entirely unimpeded access to war zones for international observers/journalists.
> Based on your reasoning, I'm guessing you're satisfied with everything China has to say about the situation of the Uyghars and how it treats them.
No, I'm just saying you can't always expect using international observers/journalists to get to the truth to be a realistic strategy depending on the situation. OSINT and other reporting is also useful.
> But the way, the British spell words you've used like "analyzing", "organization" and "de-radicalizing" with an 's' not a 'z'. But you know this because, as you claimed, you are British, right?
I said I was a British citizen among a couple others, I did not grow up in the UK, I grew up in the US. I am also not a citizen of the country I was born in either.
No, it's a claim.
Common sense is the ability to make practical, reasonable judgments in ordinary situations using basic experience. Basic experience would be establishing this happens first.
>No, I'm just saying you can't always expect using international observers/journalists to get to the truth to be a realistic strategy depending on the situation.
Okay, so whose statements are you trusting more on what's going on with the Ughurs? <The Chinese government> or <anyone who is not the Chinese government>.
I think it's fairly apparent that you aren't British (except by passport), and it's likely you are digesting largely US news sources. When you said you were British, I assumed you were claiming that what you identified as, but perhaps that itself is a British colloquialism.
I'm going to stop responding here. I'm sure you're a decent person, and you think you think you are seeing the other side.
I mean, there's plenty of reports by journalists confirming Hamas restricts access/press freedom, often using threats.[0]
> Okay, so whose statements are you trusting more on what's going on with the Ughurs? <The Chinese government> or <anyone who is not the Chinese government>.
Probably those that are not the Chinese government, but one would still take into account information the Chinese government puts out as well while factoring in their obvious bias.
> I think it's fairly apparent that you aren't British (except by passport)
I mean, having a British passport means you are British by definition I think.
> it's likely you are digesting largely US news sources.
I try to get my news from a diverse range of sources.
> When you said you were British, I assumed you were claiming that what you identified as
I mean, the reason I have multiple passports is because my family background is very diverse, one of my parents was born in the UK but that parent also had one of their parents born in a different country as well, so likewise my own identity has a high level of diversity.
> but perhaps that itself is a British colloquialism.
Yeah, technically my other passports are from countries that were historically controlled by the British at some points in time, although that's probably a fairly large percentage of the countries in the world.
[0] https://cpj.org/2025/05/gaza-journalists-speak-out-about-ham...
That there were wars going on at the time does not make it any less of a genocide.
If some act is in pursuit of a legitimate war goal then that typically negates it being considered an act of genocide from my understanding of international law.
Even if there was a dual-intent exception for acts that would be within the laws of war if done without genocidal intent (which there is not), it wouldn't apply to all the acts that are war crimes or crimes against humanity even aside from genocidal intent, such as those (including killings) done in the context or as part of collective punishment of civilian populations under occupation, use of starvation as a method of warfare, both deliberate and indiscriminate direct killing of civilians, etc.
AFAIU per international law either war crimes or crimes against humanity do not by themselves mean there is a genocide. Almost all wars will see these crimes in isolated instances at a minimum, but that doesn't translate to genocide without the dolus specialis(special intent) factor as a deliberate policy(i.e. Nazi's implementing the Holocaust as policy).
Correct, and I didn't say that they did.
I said that even if enumerated acts of genocide in the convention, committed with genocidal intent, were excluded as being genocide by some “dual intent” rule—which I can find no evidence of ever existing or being theorized by any serious authority on international law—if they were in the context of war and would be legitimate acts of war when done without genocidal intent, that still wouldn’t stop all the acts Israel has done with genocidal intent, even if during war, that include acts enumerated as genocidal acts in the Convention and which are, even aside from genocidal intent, war crimes or crimes against humanity and, therefore, not legitimate acts of war even before considering whether they constitute genocide, from satisfying the defintion of genocide in the Convention.
You are basically arguing that you can never have genocide during a war because otherwise legitimate acts of war, committed with genocidal intent, don’t count even if they are enumerated genocidal acts in the convention, and war crimes and crimes against humanity done with genocidal intent that are or include enumerated genocidal acts also don’t count as genocide when committed during war because “all wars will see these crimes”.
But aside from the fact that no basis for the claim that either of these exceptions actually exists in international law has been offered, this ignores that the specific genocides that motivated the convention were committed during wars; its bizarre to argue that the Convention should be read to sub silentio exclude all enumerated genocidal acts perpetrated with the described genocidal intent that happen to occur during war from the scope of the prohibition on genocide.
I'm arguing that the genocidal intent is really the crux of the issue and that the genocidal intent needs especially strong evidence in a war.
Legitimate war goals existing for a conflict generally raise the evidentiary bar for something to be considered a genocide as they tend to serve as the plausible alternate non-genocidal intent.