Hacker News Reader

Comment by forestrywat | Hacker News Reader

Not at all obviously. Israel is committing a genocide. This is not really a matter of discussion... you think several parts of the UN, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the international association of genocide scholars, the international federation for human rights, Human Rights Watch, the Hague Group, the governments of Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, China, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Ireland, (and dozens of others), the African Union, the Jewish voice for peace, and dozens of small orgs just all... got it wrong?

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.

View on HN

Nations and organizations with known old pre-existing political/religious animosity towards Israel do not count as valid opinions on the matter.

Don't we typically call that ad hominem? And secondly, is your claim that every single one of these hundreds of large orgs are historically politically or religiously anti Israel? I get that of course Iran is not a valid opinion, but all the rest? That stretches credulity.

> Don't we typically call that ad hominem?

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?

> Not at all obviously. Israel is committing a genocide. This is not really a matter of discussion... you think several parts of the UN, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the international association of genocide scholars, the international federation for human rights, Human Rights Watch, the Hague Group, the governments of Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, China, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Ireland, (and dozens of others), the African Union, the Jewish voice for peace, and dozens of small orgs just all... got it wrong?

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...

>> China

> 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?

> 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]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent

One, China is also committing genocide.

Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir.

> 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.

What would you count as sufficient evidence of genocidal intent, then?

In terms of an individual or a state itself?

The state of Israel.

> The state of Israel.

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.

Where do you fall on "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" ? Israel saying things, the thing happening, but no clear orders from the top.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com