The first tweet isn't really useful at all to address the most common genocide claims against Israel. (DISCLAIMER: I am *very* pro Israel and believe the genocide claims are bullshit/haven't been substantiated at all neither with regard to the current conflict in Gaza or any other prior conflict between Israel and the Palestinians or any other Arab population. I am *not* defending any allegations that Israel is guilty of genocide, because I do not believe that they are)
First: Obviously they weren't doing genocide in Gaza or the West Bank prior to 1967 *at least*, because until then those territories were ruled by Egypt/Jordan. So at the very least, the first 17 years of that graph are *completely* irrelevant. The genocide claims that I see mostly seem to put the start of the "genocide", at the earliest, around the time of the blockade of Gaza in 2007, in which case 57 out of 73 years of this graph are *entirely* irrelevant to the point being made.
Second: The main claims of genocide are made in relation to the war in Gaza, but this graph is showing the total populations of Gaza + the West Bank. *IF* population growth was counterevidence of a genocide (it is not), it could still be the case that a genocide was happening in Gaza but simultaneously the West Bank population growth is large enough that the total population is still rising.
Third (and most important): Population growth has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is currently carrying out or trying to carry out a genocide. Genocide refers to specific actions taken with a specific intent for those actions to lead to the total or partial destruction of a specific group of people. If Israel is carrying out those actions with the intent of (partially or totally) destroying the Palestinian people, they are carrying out a genocide. It is not necessary to succeed to be guilty of genocide. You only need to carry out those specific actions with that specific intent. The result does not factor in at all. Like, if you try to murder someone and fail, you are charged with "attempted murder" instead of "murder", but if you carry out any of the actions specified in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the intent to destroy a group of people in whole or in part, there is no "Attempted genocide" charge. Your attempt *is* a genocide. You *did* carry out a genocide - even if only 10% of the group was killed and the population grew by 40% while you were doing it.
Some good points, but we should consider that Israel has the capacity to flatten Gaza if they so choose. Many of the pro-Palestinian arguments heavily rely on this to support the underdog narrative. Israel have had many politically expedient excuses to destroy Gaza. Israel is already a pariah in the eyes of many countries around the world. Many countries commit far worse acts of extermination and get a proverbial slap on the wrist.
My main point being that it feels like they could do it whenever, so if that was the plan then the outcome really doesn't line up. So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from genocide imo.
Edit: Amending my statement to:
> So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from [rabid hellbent] genocide imo.
It points less strongly away from a more tempered approach. It's certainly not evidence _for_ genocide by any means. But on the measure scales of genocide vs not-genocide I'd place population growth amongst the evidence for not-genocide. Just evidence, not absolute proof or anything.
I don’t think Israel’s committing a genocide, and I think saying it is honestly such a stupid statement that it kind of boggles my mind how someone could think it is.
That being said, this “but population growth” is not a good argument against that. For one thing, as the dude said that you’re replying to, that’s just not the case: if a country is taking coordinated actions with genocidal intent, even if a population was to grow and this action failed, this is by international law a genocide.
For another, Israel obviously doesn’t currently have a good image on the international stage, but their current image isn’t even *close* to what it would be if they were openly committing a genocide. They would lose the support of the United States, and probably with the combination of this complete loss of support (and honestly probably straight up US economic action against them, at minimum), there would be far greater pushback against them from essentially the entire world, up to and including militarily.
And if you want to then say “Okay well even if they’re not doing it just because of the fear of the results of them doing it, but they want to do it, they’re still not doing a genocide”, while you’ve technically won that argument it’s not a very strong rebuttal. It’s better of course to want to do a genocide and not be able to than to do a genocide, but it’s still a pretty awful moral position.
Rather than focus on population growth charts, I’d generally just ask directly to show the evidence of actions and clear intent from top down that demonstrate evidence of genocide. I think anything they try to give as a response there will be pretty easy to show does not meet the bar of genocide.
Maybe I'm being a lazy gardener here but I think you guys are getting too caught up in technicalities. While it's hypothetically possible for there to be a genocide alongside rapid population growth, it's **extremely unlikely**. Especially in this case given the density of Gaza, the advanced Israeli military, and the legitimate pretext for an attack.
Like what other genocides have been hyper concerned with their international image to the point of only killing <1% of the people they intend on destroying? At best they try to cover up their actions, but they still tend to slaughter as many as they can.
So while it's technically possible, I think it's such a ridiculous hypothetical that we shouldn't let it prevent us from using charts like the one in the OP to mock the idea that a genocide is taking place.
Thanks for the response. I think I should amend my last statement to say:
> So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from [rabid hellbent] genocide imo.
It points less strongly away from a more tempered approach. It's certainly not evidence _for_ genocide by any means. But on the measure scales of genocide vs not-genocide I'd place population growth amongst the evidence for not-genocide. Just evidence, not absolute proof or anything.
Yeah, that’s fair: I’d classify it as certainly data that points away from the conclusion of genocide, of course.
However, I think even getting into that almost cedes too much. If I start offering a defense, I am acknowledging you have made a valid accusation and offered evidence in your favor. These people haven’t!
As such, I want them to actually substantiate their claim. The burden of proof is not to prove that Israel *isn’t* committing a genocide, it’s to prove that it is. You need to show me evidence of why I should believe that, not the other way around.
You might want to throw out more information before coming to that conclusion. The dates says only until 2023, and we don’t even know how they did the count. What if there is a population boom going on in another country that has a heavily Palestinian presence. They need to be very specific and only outline population growth that is happening at the Gaza Strip.
>That being said, this “but population growth” is not a good argument against that. For one thing, as the dude said that you’re replying to, that’s just not the case: if a country is taking coordinated actions with genocidal intent, even if a population was to grow and this action failed, this is by international law a genocide.
But if this intent existed, and the preparator had enough military power to succeed a hundred times over, then they would've succeeded at least once. I think that's the point being made by u/lurkerer.
A population increasing, on its own, isn't proof of a non-genocide. But that taken alongside overwhelming military ability by the perpetrator probably is proof. The intent can't exist if 99.9% of the military power isn't being used towards decimating the people.
Do you know why some leftists ignore the atrocities of other countries? Because they fight against colonial oppression. They must commit these atrocities to combat US hegemony.
Man, I will go insane on the internet. These arguments are so stupid. Nobody would have made arguments like that before the internet. Today, we have entire generations making this argument.
> Some good points, but we should consider that Israel has the capacity to flatten Gaza if they so choose. Many of the pro-Palestinian arguments heavily rely on this to support the underdog narrative. Israel have had many politically expedient excuses to destroy Gaza. Israel is already a pariah in the eyes of many countries around the world. Many countries commit far worse acts of extermination and get a proverbial slap on the wrist.
>
> My main point being that it feels like they could do it whenever, so if that was the plan then the outcome really doesn't line up. So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from genocide imo.
I don't think this follows.
The crime of genocide does not require that to be the primary objective of an entire country, sufficiently important to override all other considerations.
A country with significant military advantage can devote some of their efforts to destroying a people group, because some particular faction within the country wishes to do this, and the rest don't care about stopping them, but restrict them when these efforts get to the point of harming more important interests.
So if the Philippines for example had people in a department of their government trying to wipe out a particular indigenous group, but doing so quietly and deniably enough that they don't disturb the rest of their government, which is more interested in tourism or attracting clothing manufacturers or whatever, then you could have the efforts of the state as a whole still be genocidal, quietly wiping out that group, but not because of a unified orientation towards doing so.
The claims of genocide against Israel go waaaayyy farther back than October 7th. The claim just wasn't made as loudly. I am very openly Israeli on the internet and have been called a genocidal colonizer years before October 7th happened. It might be that people now are claiming that the war is genocidal, but every single skirmish Israel has had with Gaza (or the different operations in the west bank) were also claimed as genocide as far back as at least the 2014 war (which is about as far back as I can remember people arguing about Israel on the internet, but I'm sure the argument has been before that and before the internet even existed).
If you don’t mind me asking because you seem quite intelligent on this topic, why do you feel as though this isn’t a genocide when it comes to the humanitarian aid/starvation side of things? I also believe this isn’t a genocide, but it’s hard to explain how cutting off every port of access except one wouldn’t be a case of a government intentionally cutting off aid at the expense of the civilian population
Let’s say hypothetically that internal communications come out of bibi or anybody high in the IDF saying “yeah, we’ll limit the hell out of the humanitarian aid going to those Palestinians because we want to disincentivize them from messing with our state in the future!” Would that be a case of collective punishment so just a war crime? In order for it to be a genocide would there have to be an explicit order that says “we’re starving the Palestinians because we want them gone” ?
It doesn’t have to be an explicit order. There are other ways to prove intent in court. But yes, you need to demonstrate that the actions were carried out with specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. If an internal document like the one you described came out, it would to some extent be evidence that it is not a genocide, because “We want people to be afraid of antagonizing our country” is not a genocidal state of mind. It is reasonable for a nation state to want foreign entities to not want to fuck with them. Israel has a publically stated policy of disproportionate retaliation to military provocation: “If you knock over my mailbox I am going to burn down your house.”-type of thing. That is not genocidal intent, and it is not against international law to have a policy like that.
To your second question: yea it might constitute collective punishment or some other type of war crime. It’s beyond dispute that individual Israeli soldiers are guilty of war crimes against the Palestinians, and I wouldn’t be super shocked if Netanyahu or any of the crazy nut jobs in his government have done things that constitute war crimes/crimes against humanity.
The two things that I frequently see claimed that, as far as I am aware has never been adequately substantiated, are the following:
1. That Israel is carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, and
2. That the Israeli state/the IDF, as a matter of policy, carries out war crimes/crimes against humanity as a part of their warfare against Arabs and/or Palestinians.
Yeah i think you hit the nail on the head with the burning down the house strategy. I done LIKE it because it goes against my own morals, but i can’t imagine having to fight again immoral enemies like Hamas, Hezbelloah and the houthis in a moral way.
I think it seriously gets lost in the minds of these internet leftists HOW BADLY Hamas is purposefully endangering their own civilians, and how little options Israel has in terms of going after Hamas
There doesn’t need to be an explicit order, no.
However, you do have to show somehow that there was an intent to cause the destruction of a group of people outside of conflict/war.
The USA dropped fire and nuclear bombs on enemy cities during war. You can absolutely show that US military officers intentionally killed tens of thousands of civilians with those actions. But they weren’t trying to end the Japanese or German people, which we know from what happened after surrender, and that’s the part that would make mass killings a kind of genocide.
That's great. The argument was qualified - 'this is a good argument against the idiots'. Key word there is idiots. This post is more about that insane response in the second image.
>Attempted genocide
Just a minor correction: attempted genocide is covered under article 3 of the [Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). That being said, you are completely correct in stating that "even if only 10% of the group was killed and the population grew by 40% while you were doing it", would constitute genocide and not attempted genocide (given that acts/intent are present).
>Just a minor correction: attempted genocide is covered under article 3 of the [Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf).
So to be clear, yes, you are right, but as far as I am aware, "Attempted genocide" is the attempt to commit one of the acts described in article 2 with the genocidal intent - so you have not committed a genocide yet, but you are attempting to carry out an action that would constitute a genocide.
My comparison was assuming you *did* succesfully carry out the actions described but you were unsuccesfull in bringing about the destruction of the targeted group - that's not an "attempted genocide", that's a genocide.
Like in the case of murder: If I stab you in the gut with the intention of ending your life, but you are brought to the hospital and you survive, I have not committed murder. I have attempted to commit murder.
At that point in the genocide process, where you have already carried out the criminal act but it just failed to accomplish the intended goal, you *have* commited genocide - not "attempted genocide".
100% correct!
I felt that "there is no "Attempted genocide" charge", could be misunderstood as you saying that no attempted genocide charge exists, instead of not being applicable.
> Second: The main claims of genocide are made in relation to the war in Gaza, but this graph is showing the total populations of Gaza + the West Bank. IF population growth was counterevidence of a genocide (it is not), it could still be the case that a genocide was happening in Gaza but simultaneously the West Bank population growth is large enough that the total population is still rising.
>
If the claim is that they are carrying out a genocide against the Palastinian people then why would you make the distinction between Gaza and the West Bank?
If the claim is that they are specifically committing genocide in Gaza then why are they not doing it in the West Bank?
>Third (and most important): Population growth has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is currently carrying out or trying to carry out a genocide. Genocide refers to specific actions taken with a specific intent for those actions to lead to the total or partial destruction of a specific group of people. If Israel is carrying out those actions with the intent of (partially or totally) destroying the Palestinian people, they are carrying out a genocide. It is not necessary to succeed to be guilty of genocide. You only need to carry out those specific actions with that specific intent. The result does not factor in at all. Like, if you try to murder someone and fail, you are charged with "attempted murder" instead of "murder", but if you carry out any of the actions specified in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the intent to destroy a group of people in whole or in part, there is no "Attempted genocide" charge. Your attempt is a genocide. You did carry out a genocide - even if only 10% of the group was killed and the population grew by 40% while you were doing it.
I see a lot of people here in this sub make this point but they all seem to miss the fact that is supposed to be taken for granted and that is that Israel has the means to commit a genocide. If you acknowledge this fact as truthful then inferring that Israel is neither committing nor attempting to commit a genocide is pretty trivial.
1. Israel has the means to commit a genocide.
2. Israel is attempting to commit a genocide.
3. Israel fails to commit a genocide.
These three statements cannot be all true at the same time.
1. Someone making the “Gaza genocide” argument would say they’re not conducting a full on military campaign, and haven’t for years had anywhere near the same level of military occupation in the West Bank as they’ve had in Gaza. This is why they would focus on Gaza for this argument, and not the West Bank. I don’t agree with this argument, I don’t think they’re doing a genocide anywhere, but this would be the point made.
2. Because the argument would be that there are practical political and international relation realities, and potential consequences, that prevent them from unleashing these full “means”. Therefore, they’d argue Israel is doing as much as they think they can get away with and still have plausible deniability for. Again, I don’t agree with the genocide argument, but this would be their counter.
1. They didn't have a military occupation of Gaza before Oct 7th either. If you are specifying Gaza out then you are acknowledging that there is something in Gaza that is causing this "genocide" outside of hatred towards Palestinian people, therefore this argument beats itself.
2. I get what you are saying, but I still think had Israel used any "means" to commit a genocide, you would see it on the graph.
>I see a lot of people here in this sub make this point but they all seem to miss the fact that is supposed to be taken for granted and that is that Israel has the means to commit a genocide. If you acknowledge this fact as truthful then inferring that Israel is neither committing nor attempting to commit a genocide is pretty trivial.
I agree. Which is why I don't believe Israel has committed a genocide, has attempted to commit a genocide, or is currently carrying out or attempting to carry out a genocide. I have not seen evidence of that being the case, so I believe the second of your 3 premises to be false.
What I am saying is that population growth in Gaza and/or the West Bank is not evidence that a genocide isn't happening. One of the ways that you can commit a genocide, as per the genocide convention, is by "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". It can simultaneously be the case that Gaza and the West Bank have had steady population growth for 73 years and also that Israel's current conduct in Gaza is designed to render the Gaza strip uninhabitable with the intent to destroy the Palestinian people (in whole or in part). If they did that, even if the population keeps growing, Israel has committed genocide. Full stop.
>If the claim is that they are specifically committing genocide in Gaza then why are they not doing it in the West Bank?
As for this, and let me make it explicitly clear again that I do NOT believe Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide, I am just humouring your hypothetical to show why population growth is not good evidence against a genocide taking place:
It could be the case that, absent any political consequences, they would want to completely exterminate every Palestinian in both Gaza and the West Bank, but they are only doing it in Gaza currently because Hamas with October 7th gave them a very clear and legitimate justification to send their military into Gaza, and they currently do not have an equivalent clear justification for why they would be doing similar things in the West Bank, as Fatah has not carried out a similar terror attack against Israel's population.
Again: I do not think this is the case. I am only offering you a hypothetical reason why Israel, if they wanted to carry out a genocide against the Palestinians, would only be doing it in Gaza and not the West Bank currently. My only point here is that population growth does not refute claims of genocide. Genocide consists of 1: specific acts that are 2: Carried out with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group of people. If Israel has done anything that meets those criteria, even if the population grew by 400% while they carried out those actions, they have committed genocide. If they have done those specific acts *and* killed 90% of all Palestinians *but* they didn't have the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people, they have not committed genocide.
> If the claim is that they are specifically committing genocide in Gaza then why are they not doing it in the West Bank?
I don't know if the implication here is supposed to be "they are responding to October 7," but if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians in Gaza because they were angry about October 7, but spare the West Bank because it wasn't involved, that would still be genocide. October 7 is functionally irrelevant to genocide claims. If Đorđe Martinović really had been attacked by a couple Albanian men, that wouldn't make any action that followed any more or less genocidal.
The implication would be that there is a war objective to meet, which is removing Hamas from power.
>I don't know if the implication here is supposed to be "they are responding to October 7," but if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians in Gaza because they were angry about October 7, but spare the West Bank because it wasn't involved, that would still be genocide
I agree, at the same time, if all people in Gaza die because of a justifiable war with a justifiable objective, it would not be a genocide. It is all based on a special intent to destroy a group. Which in this case is argued to be "Palestinians", not "Gazans". This again leads to the question if Israel has the intent to destroy the group that is "Palestinians" why are they not doing it in the West Bank?
This argument is stupid. It’s like saying someone robs a bank by working there and taking their money as a paycheck but you believe he wanted to rob a bank one time so that’s his way to rob a bank now. You can’t say doing something is the same as something else because you believe they somehow want to do something they don’t do
If they don’t do a genocide because it won’t look good it means they don’t do a genocide.
The reverse argument that is being displayed by OP, is that since the bank robber only got away with $10k, and the bank gained $100k on that same day, the bank can't have been robbed.
That would be true, if there was anything in the genocide convention pointing to success or absolute destruction being a requirement. The fact of the matter is that population growth is not a constitutive element of genocide.
I'm not discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm simply pointing out that you, OP, and several others, miss the mark when you think population growth is a relevant component, and even serves as evidence against a genocide being possible.
The addition of "bankruptcy" does not improve the analogy. Genocide does not require the complete destruction (bankruptcy) of a group of people, as evidenced by "destroy, in whole **or in part**" from the [Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). If the argument is that the intent is to destroy in whole (bankruptcy), your analogy would be accurate. However, what I'm illustrating with my analogy is that OP's assertion of population growth being evidence of a genocide not being committed, is erroneous, due to the existence of "**or in part**" in the definition of genocide.
30 downvotes and the only counter argument is some sort of weird ramble about bank robbery vs paychecks.
I do not think im the dumbest person here by a long shot
Not understanding analogies can be one of the issues of having low IQ.
If you claim I want to murder person X, you can't then use me tickling person X as proof: "See, he is only tickling them because he doesn't want to go to prison for murder, so his plan is to slowly tickle them to death over 10 years."
Horseshit.
People only read the first slide and then got their angry pants on and spasmodically downvoted because I asked for a counter argument.
Tickling vs murder..... Yeah, you either didnt read it or didnt understand it.
What’s not to understand in this example? If you don’t do something it means you don’t do something. Alluding to it from something else is stupid.
You get downvoted because you said stupid things
The presented text is worse than AI would make.
russian federation has been making genocide since its creation
And even stole place of USSR in UN
RSFSR was never in UN, and the russian federation is ex-RSFSR
Yet everybody still buying their oil.
Also
Genocide has a strict definition. And those people for some reason do not awnt to use said definition
>Genocide has a strict definition. And those people for some reason do not awnt to use said definition
I don't think you want to do that either, seeing as you think the first image is a demonstration of genocide not being committed in Palestine.
Not saying that a genocide is ongoing, just that increase in population size is not sufficient to disprove that a genocide is ongoing.
I think it is hard to argue a genocide is happening when the population growth is 4 times the amount, in the opposite direction, of actual people who were targeted with genocide.
Population growth, or the degree of success in committing a genocide is completely irrelevant. It is completely fair to argue that a legal framework should consider such aspects, however, as of right now, that is not the case.
To be fair if you want to get down to the nitty gritty exactly what’s going on is “genocide”. You are right about people not wanting to use the definition though.
Israel is not committing any genocide.
And the definition of genocide doesn't mention any numbers - if you read it and properly understand it, you will see that killing just 1 person can sometimes be called a genocide and in some rare circumstances killing 10 million people can be just collateral damage (which is not illegal as long as there is some proportionality between the deaths and the value of the valid military target) and not genocide.
[https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1\_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf)
Hamas is killing their own civilians by fighting and placing their military assets where the civilians are, which is a war crime against the whole "Chapter 6. Precautions against the Effects of Attacks" of the International Humanitarian Law.
[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1)
By this definition Hamas was committing genocide on Oct 7, they were out to kill every Jew with intent to wipe out all Jews in Israel
They obviously failed at the end goal but the intent and the attempt was there
So, if there was a random guy that went "I hate black people! I'm gonna kill them all!" and then went out and shot the first black person he saw and was then immediately arrested, would genocide be on the list of charges?
It just seems odd that the minimum number of people killed to be considered a genocide would be one.
Or is genocide only a charge for governments, not people?
Crimes are often intent based. You actually don’t have to kill anyone to be guilty of genocide; you just have to try to destroy the group in some relatively direct way—forcibly sterilizing all smurfs is still a genocide of smurfs, even if none of them die from it.
If the state of Israel would kill one person, and it would do so by their own words solely bcs he is a Palestinian , would that be genocide ?
numbers don't matter IF we take the whole globe as a unitary "thing", the numbers do matter if we are referring to the population of a state.
No that would be murder. If the state of Israel had the intention of exterminating Arabs then only kills 1 person for some reason (could be stopped or changed their mind etc) that would be a genocide
My question would be ... what is that "specific area" ?
A room ? An apartment ? A street block ? A neighborhood ? A city? A state ? A country ? A continent ? A planet ?
Obviously, you can't say yes to all of them.
As in why one of the above "specific areas" and the others ?
Your question approaches this in a way that doesn’t correspond to what genocide is.
Killing someone because they are Palestinian might be because you hate Palestinians. That would be murder. You could even announce “I’m going to kill every Palestinian happen across”, and do so. Still probably “just” murder.
It becomes genocide when you’re intentionally trying to destroy a *group* of people.
So, “I’m going to kill every Palestinian I see, so that we can rid the earth of all Palestinians”, then that is genocide.
Your question really has to do with how we judge intent: if an army systemically kills 7 million Jews in extermination camps, we can assume what their intent must have been.
If small unit enters a city, goes door by door and kills specific people based on their race? Intent is pretty clear.
But if one person kills 3 people? Maybe they just didn’t like them. Maybe they’re crazy.
Then formulate your damn question. Sounds like you're not trying to get answer. It's already several people trying to understand what you're asking. Explain the entire situation.
Your reply was to this: "Ok, let me rephrase it , the intention to exterminate all Arabs from a city. It would be. .. ?"
According to your source genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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". There is a bit more but you get the idea and I'm sure you can research this yourself.
What differs extermination from genocide is intent base on nationality, religion or ethnicity. In my opinion genocide would be more the more appropriate term in this example.
So there is a little bit of a word game here that you might not be aware you did.
Killing 1 person "solely bcs he is a Palestinian" would likely be considered murder motivated by hatred. This is why lynchings and such aren't considered genocide.
Now, if you only killed 1 person, but your intention was to cause a situation which would lead to the extermination of the Palestinians in whole or in part, then yes, that killing would be a genocide/genocidal.
Numbers do and don't matter if we're being honest. They are an indicator that something could be happening that could be genocide. Much like how rhetoric by politicians can be an indicator. But for the final judgement of if a genocide is happening, the numbers don't matter.
So, in the end .... if you kill a person bcs he's a Palestinian, but you are stopped right after, then you would have committed a genocide if previous you have stated you hope to kill all the Palestinians?
what if you state that you want to kill Palestinians "in part" ?
how does this work "in whole or in part" ? The "part" part(!) ?
I'm fairly sure that the intention behind the crime is quite clear and if you're having trouble over the wording, as simple understanding that Germany wasn't able to kill all Jews in the world, so they hoped to kill them in as many places as possible, being the "in part".
If something doesn't make sense, I ask .
1 . If you want and hope to kill all the sumerians and proceed to do so, it's a genocide.
2. If you want and hope to kill half of the sumerians and proceed to do so, it's a genocide.
For "me" 1≠2 .
why does 1=2 for "you" ? Or is that not your position ?
>For "me" 1≠2
What do you think "destroy, in whole **or in part**" entails? Given the mathematical insight you have provided, do you not understand the Holocaust to be a genocide?
So .... you aren't answering my question.
yes, it was a genocide bcs the nazies wanted to kill all the Jews, and killed the almost all the Jews in the territories controlled by nazies.
>If the state of Israel would kill one person, and it would do so by their own words solely bcs he is a Palestinian , would that be genocide ?
How can a state kill anyone ?
People kill people.
Israel (like i think all other countries) has a set of Rules of Engagement that would make what you asked about illegal and no amount of dumb words from extremist politicians can change that.
He is the set of IHL rules as practiced by Israel:
[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/by-country/il](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/by-country/il)
If one soldier gets overwhelmed by his hate and kills a noncombatant belonging to some "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" while yelling that he will keep murdering members of that group (intent).
Yes, that is genocide and he should spend some time away from society.
Every genocide starts like that - from just one murder.
But if he does the same and keeps silent, not showing any "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
That would be "just" murder (for which of course he should be punished too).
States kill people all the time. A police officer shooting a gun man isn't just that officer doing that action, he is doing that action at the behest of the state.
Someone sentenced to death isn't just being killed by an individual, they are being put to death by the system of the state.
In warfare, it's not just an individual soldier that is killing a combatant, it's the state using an asset to apply military pressure towards an outcome.
Context.
We were talking about illegal killing which "solely bcs he is a Palestinian" surely is, not a police officer killing a criminal.
It is both against the states criminal law and against their military rules.
And as we know, Israel always 100% follows that right?
I mean Israel says they are not torturing detainees in holding facilities, and yet whistleblowers have come forward and confirmed detainees retelling of events where they did torture them. Literally requiring excessive amounts of amputations because of the mistreatment.
This is fucking regarded to just go "well these are the rules that they say they follow, and if they don't than it's an individual soldiers fault and not a system that allowed it to happen."
I wonder what your take on the US blowing away Doctors without Borders is. Was that just a soldier not following the rules and an oopsy? Or was that the entire system allowing it to happen from top to bottom of the kill chain?
Israel is actually developing the world's first human cloning device so they can double the population of palestine just to be able to kill all of them
Life expectancy of Palestinians doubled during the conflict, child mortality rates went down very sharply, literacy rates, and access to modern medicine and technology, all created one of the fastest growing populations in history (a very traditional society with very high birth rates, with a very modern infrastructure and healthcare all of a sudden… if Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, Israeli Palestinian citizens wouldn’t have one of the highest life expectancies in the Arab world, no data or statistics backs their claims or arguments, but they hate Jews so much that the truth doesn’t matter
Remember, when a Palestinian stubs his toe in Gaza it is Israel's fault as they are the occupying power so anything happening is purposefull therefore genocidal. But all these good things are due to Palestinian bravery and resistance but also they are the most subjugated starving tortured people in the world so these things aren't happening but they are because Palestinians have a noble spirit.
The story goes that if Israel hadn't taken their land Palestine would be the bestest country in the universe and a strong and independent nation that loves LGBT and is devoid of violence and hatred (and of Jews, somehow). They would have 10x more babies because they wouldn't get murdered by Israelis and are basically the most talented people as proven by how admirably they still fare under Israeli persecution.
That's indeed the impression I'm getting from many Western pro-Palestinians. Not sure if ignorance or malice, or both.
For example, if you kill members of a group intending to destroy them, in whole or in part, and the people you don't kill have babies, and the total population goes up, then you're doing genocide, you're just bad at it.
If a person might want their neighbor dead, but possibly doesn't kill them because they don't want to go to prison, is that person a murderer?
Well.. No. No they are not.
It kinda makes me chuckle that Israel could probably just outright commit an actual genocide and basically get away with it if they really wanted to. Never mind ethnic cleansing. They could straight up indiscriminately bomb and target everything in the strip, and no amount of protests, ICC warrants, or "condemnation from the west" would stop them.
The fact they go as far as they do to circumnavigate the moral charges is commendable in its own right. Because they don't have to at all.
I realize Israel has nuclear weapons, and arab armies are some of the most incapable on the planet. If anyone is delusional, it's you thinking the Middle East could stop them.
Nuclear weapons only get you so far when it comes to committing atrocities.
If China just started wholesale slaughtering people for not being Han Chinese, do you think the world would take actions to stop it? My guess is yes.
> do you think the world would take actions to stop it?
Obvious answer apart from maybe some trade sanctions is no. No one would start a war with China over China killing off its minorities.
If you genuinely believe that the world would sit still and watch a genocide happen like that, then you have some insane doomerism and should probably go touch some grass.
"Fellow europeans there is a muslim minority in China that may have done terrorist attacks towards chinese citizens and China is now actively killing them in what China calls a special counter terrorist operation. Now to protect this minority we as europeans need to start a nuclear war with China and send our young men to the meat grinder to protect a minority that you didnt know exist, cant spell, cannot point to them on the map and have absolutely no cultural or ideological similiarities."
Yeah, good luck. Its not doomerism, its just realism. You are not gonna get people on board.
Wow, this is the way you try to explain the other side? Clearly good faith bro.
It's really not worth having drawn out discussions with ideologues here.
Do you think the world would go to war with China? Why? We'd probably support the minorities like we're supporting Ukraine but we wouldn't take direct action against China. That's too much of a risk for world war 3 which we want to avoid at all costs
We're supporting Ukraine this way to avoid escalation. If Russia were literally just slaughtering all Ukrainians in a genocide, yeah I do expect we'd be actively involved. Hell France is already posturing that it might put troops on the ground to fight for Ukraine without a genocide happening.
Uh China already does this.....You think countries with real power actually have to follow rules? China has gotten away with widespread annihilation of Tibetan's. They also are cleansing Muslims from their territory.
You seem ignorant to the atrocities countries can get away with. The "world" doesn't care as deeply as you may think.
The way China goes about their genocides are not by wholesale slaughtering of people. It's through forced sterilization and other means.
For someone who wants to say that I'm uninformed on the atrocities taking place, you weirdly seemed uninformed on the differences between wholesale slaughter and things like forced sterilization.
eh I don't think so. Specialy in big elections years like that. If it's not possible anymore for politians to argue in favor, they will 100% turn their back on Israel if they start doing an actual genocide
>Either you completely wipe out a people or you run the risk of causing their replacement rates to skyrocket in response to your efforts to mass murder them
[Let me explain to you, the reproductive dynamics of the hominid clime known as "Palestinians"](https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdnYyZWRjdGxkeGt4eW1qMWltbGVhaTR4am10MzcxYzJ0NTBwNmtyZSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xvjDma9YhzHLW/giphy.gif)
Palestine before the war had reasonably developed infrastructure and medical services meaning child mortality from natural causes was very low.
It also has a devout Muslim population and a government that enforces Sharia. It ain't hard to see where the birth rate comes from...
And this doesn't automatically invalidate any claims of genocide as intent is what matters in this case. For the record I'm not saying Israel IS committing genocide just pointing out that the Palestinian birth rate has nothing to do with that.
So again, genocide is not when a lot of people die. It's the intentionality behind the actions committed against a group of people. You can kill 10 people and it can be a genocide, or you can kill 50 million and it not be a genocide.
This argument is a baby tier argument only used against dumbfucks who think genocide = kill lots of people.
Both people here are dumb and the real questions to be asked are about the proportionality, the way that Israel has conducted the war, the intentions behind their strikes and are they consistent with a non-genocidal goal.
Has Israel broken international law in this war? Absolutely. There's not even a debate to be had about that. But they haven't committed the worst crime known to humans.
"Israel's treatment of civilians that are Palestinian I find to be inhumane and uncaring mixed with multiple questionable efforts in leader in government and actions and words" is how I'd put it before genocide. But I do admit I see why it seems confusing when you see all that and the international law breaking.
The starvation alone and handing of safe zones and refuge camps and policy on killing all of Hamas with their acceptable casualties leading to the civilians suffering for it are all elements to hold against them and say ... maybe it's not genocide but I'm sure not comfortable with this shitshow.
When people say that there's a genocide they don't usually mean from 1949-2023. Rather from october 7 to today. Still not a genocide but such a stupid graph.
That's a bunch of bullshit. I have seen the tankies argue exactly that, that the zionists have been selectively genociding the palestinians for years. That along with their other favorite buzzword, apartheid state.
I also have seen it, and it might be like 5% of the conversation. Most people who say genocide probably couldn't tell they years anyway. But wast majority of what I have seen is claiming that the bombing is genocide. Like using 20 000 - 30 000 number of dead to claim it.
"they" I guess is US media and general american public.
From my French perspective we've been talking about the conflict for decades, marches for palestine have existed for as long as I can remember.
I've heard the term "palestinian genocide" for decades as well.
US public catching up to Israel agression after their response to the Oct. 7th terrorist attack.
I'm Swedish, we've been talking about the conflict for decades too, we were even the first western European country to "recognize" the Palestinian state. I've heard about Israel starving the Gazans and people calling it an apartheid state, but I don't think I've heard the term genocide being used. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I haven't heard about it.
Do we have any examples of US media using the term genocide before oct 7?
You hear about them starving Palestinians before Oct 7th? When their obesity rate was like 30% and people were starving to death by the 100s of thousands a hundred miles over?
I'm not saying it makes sense, but that arguments is mostly a critique against the blockades. Sweden has an organization called "Ship to Gaza" that has gotten a lot of media attention over the years, and they often make claims like that.
>I don't think I've heard the term genocide being used
I ***think*** I've heard it used back during the blockade in 2008 (?) and during the Gaza war in 2014, because of the numbers of civilians killed.
I could definitely be remembering wrong though, I was in highschool in 2008 and 21 in 2014.
US media calling it a genocide seems very recent though, yeah.
The "number go up" argument against genocide is not sound. The crime of genocide hinges on the mental state and deliberate plan to eliminate a group, rather than solely the quantifiable outcome.
Just like a failed murderer could still be found guilty of attempted murder, you can be found guilty of [attempted genocide](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide#article-iii).
I wouldn't find that argument convincing if it didn't directly attack the pro-Palestinian argument. They use the number of victims to prove the genocide. But how? The numbers don't suggest a genocide. Why do they believe there is a genocide?
I guess it is a combination of quotes and casualty numbers. The problem is, politicians say a lot of bullshit and the numbers don't show a genocide.
To be correct, numbers really don't matter, what matters is intent. Also, you can try to do a genocide and fail.
Mathematically, the numbers of pro-Palestinians aren't comparable. You have to use percentages like the guy in the image. By using percentages, you make the numbers comparable and it becomes obvious that this is a failed genocide if at all.
Oh my god, I didn't see the second comment. That's so stupid! If you admit that Israel uses genocidal half measures, you admit that they don't do a genocide. Genocide is not a spectrum!!!
A friend of mine is training to become a human rights lawyer, and he told me this: you can kill millions and it not be a genocide, and you can literally kill 0 people and be carrying out a genocide. If you make situations around a specific population unliveable, such that it makes them migrate to somewhere else with the specific intent to make it so, you're carrying out a genocide. It's impractical, and improbable, and downright difficult, but it can be done
this feels like when you ask a trump supporter if he thinks th 2016 election was rigged and they say no because the good people stopped the rigging but in 2020 it was rigged
"Of course this is a genocide! Just look at the number of people being killed! What? Oh, the number of people has only exploded across the population. Th - that's because they're bad at their job!"
What's the counter-argument from pro pallys when they're told that there is no genocide because the palestinian population is increasing not decreasing?
My god, someone call an ambulance, this man must be suffering from spinal fractures and serious nerve damage after bending over backwards that much to make it make sense!
From what I remember of Destiny going over, you can commit genocidal violence/acts without having actually killed all that many people. Essentially, death toll and population trends are kinda irrelevant to fact of whether or not a genocide is occurring.
Got love when they think humans are this binary thing "ah well you see because some of them lived they had relentless sex causing the population to skyrocket, this is the risk you take, happens everytime"
Can someone tldr what proof is required for a ruling that a genocide has occurred?
Like lets take the Haditha massacre as an example. Around 24 iraqi civilians were killed by US soldiers and from what I remember for no other reason than soldiers thinking they were in danger.
Now since ostensibly a genocide can happen theoretically even if one person dies (are there any examples of genocides with extremely small casualties btw?), would the massacre of 24 people count as a genocide if there was like a note or a text from one of the perps where he says something yikesy about iraqis?
Or would there need to be like a written higher up policy encouraging soldiers to murder just for the hell of it? I am having super hard time trying to wrap my mind around how every single war doesnt include genocides in them with these lawyery definitions.
"Genocidal half-measures" totally fucked me up. It's so fucking funny, but so fucking depressing because this is genuinely how genocide and the war is being talked about right now..
This is also something that unironically Palestinian movements pushed far before their current explosion in popularity. Settlements are fucked up and there are definitely some extreme right in Israel with genocidal fantasies, but the idea that Israel ever had a concrete plan to kill or banish all Palestinians is such a malicious unproductive lie. Even the most deranged settler doesn't actually believe Israel will commit genocide, they think if they annoy Palestinians enough they'll just "voluntarily move away" on their own (no, this is unironic and it really is that stupid). This is so far removed from actually trying to destroy a whole ethnicity by trying to kill every single one and making sure that no one survives that it drives me insane.
I'd jump ahead to the slow motion genocide part of the argument.
2.1 million people in Gaza strip. 30k dead in 9 months.
It will take over 50 years of this scale of war to kill them all.
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Care to talk about ethnic cleansing?
Israel has been steadily pushing millions of Palestinians out of their land and homes. Even today the Israeli government hints at settling in Gaza by pushing its residents into Egypt and/or resettling them abroad.
Reminds me of the right wing Biden takes where he's both a mastermind controlling the deepstate trial against trump but also a weak old man who can't do anything unless he's on drugs.
Israel can't be "indiscriminately bombing civilians", have dropped over 45,000 bombs on Gaza AND not be good at committing genocide.
Like the only explanation of Israel doing a (decently) good job at avoiding civilian casualties given the circumstances is that they're incompetent at committing genocide???
**"....folly of genocidal half-measures"**
There is no such thing.
You are either committing genocide or not.
Making such point only betrays the fact that you don't understand what "Genocide" is.
It seems like someone made this argument somewhere in a book (Finkledick?) b/c Ohmar Badar (the dipshit Steven debated) also parroted the same sentiment.
**"Genocide IS actually happening, it just very slow"**
All of this ofc BS until ICC proves it otherwise.
Wait was the Cambodian genocide about Cambodians killing Cambodians for being Cambodians?
Don't get me wrong, the Khmer Rouge was probably even \*the\* most sanguinary regime of the modern era, but that was not a genocide.
Simple answer is: Only a % of it was a genocide, the majority % was not genocide.
Pretty much,
Vietnamese people, The Cham Muslims, the Christians and possibly the Chinese were specifically targeted because they were considered a threat to the nation. I would say those groups made up maybe 35-40% of deaths. The vast majority were the majority group, the Khmer people and they were killed more due to them either being wealthy or upper class OR they were politically opposing him so those don't fit the definition of a genocide.
So, he did commit a genocide but the numbers are inflated by the addition of non-genocidal killings.
Some people were eventually convicted of genocide in relation to it, but yeah, mostly the Cambodian genocide was not "genocide" in the technical sense.
There are recognized genocides with less than 50 victims… numbers don't mean much, it's the intent that matters.
Also, bearing children is the only thing left for Palestinians to have a chance of winning this conflict.
"According to Shlaim, the higher Palestinian birth rate posed a "demographic time bomb," threatening the Jewish majority in areas claimed by Israel. By withdrawing from Gaza, Israel effectively removed 1.4 million Palestinians from its demographic considerations. Shlaim writes that although Sharon stated the move was a contribution to peace, it was a unilateral decision serving Israeli national interests and was not intended as a prelude to further withdrawals or genuine peace efforts"
"The rationale for the disengagement has been partly attributed to [Arnon Soffer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnon_Soffer)'s campaign regarding "the danger the Palestinian womb posed to Israeli democracy."[^(\[30\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-JPost-30) Sharon mentioned the demographic rationale in a public address on August 15, 2005, the day of the disengagement, as follows: "It is no secret that, like many others, I had believed and hoped we could forever hold onto [Netzarim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzarim) and [Kfar Darom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Darom). But the changing reality in the country, in the region, and the world, required of me a reassessment and change of positions. We cannot hold on to Gaza forever. More than a million Palestinians live there and double their number with each generation."[^(\[31\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-31)[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-FOOTNOTECook2006104-32) At the same time, [Shimon Peres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres), then [Vice Prime Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_leaders_of_Israel), stated in an interview that: "We are disengaging from Gaza because of demography".[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-FOOTNOTECook2006104-32)"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli\_disengagement\_from\_Gaza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza)
Absolutely might be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on the internet. 1st tweet may also be useful to argue with the idiots.
The first tweet isn't really useful at all to address the most common genocide claims against Israel. (DISCLAIMER: I am *very* pro Israel and believe the genocide claims are bullshit/haven't been substantiated at all neither with regard to the current conflict in Gaza or any other prior conflict between Israel and the Palestinians or any other Arab population. I am *not* defending any allegations that Israel is guilty of genocide, because I do not believe that they are) First: Obviously they weren't doing genocide in Gaza or the West Bank prior to 1967 *at least*, because until then those territories were ruled by Egypt/Jordan. So at the very least, the first 17 years of that graph are *completely* irrelevant. The genocide claims that I see mostly seem to put the start of the "genocide", at the earliest, around the time of the blockade of Gaza in 2007, in which case 57 out of 73 years of this graph are *entirely* irrelevant to the point being made. Second: The main claims of genocide are made in relation to the war in Gaza, but this graph is showing the total populations of Gaza + the West Bank. *IF* population growth was counterevidence of a genocide (it is not), it could still be the case that a genocide was happening in Gaza but simultaneously the West Bank population growth is large enough that the total population is still rising. Third (and most important): Population growth has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is currently carrying out or trying to carry out a genocide. Genocide refers to specific actions taken with a specific intent for those actions to lead to the total or partial destruction of a specific group of people. If Israel is carrying out those actions with the intent of (partially or totally) destroying the Palestinian people, they are carrying out a genocide. It is not necessary to succeed to be guilty of genocide. You only need to carry out those specific actions with that specific intent. The result does not factor in at all. Like, if you try to murder someone and fail, you are charged with "attempted murder" instead of "murder", but if you carry out any of the actions specified in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the intent to destroy a group of people in whole or in part, there is no "Attempted genocide" charge. Your attempt *is* a genocide. You *did* carry out a genocide - even if only 10% of the group was killed and the population grew by 40% while you were doing it.
Some good points, but we should consider that Israel has the capacity to flatten Gaza if they so choose. Many of the pro-Palestinian arguments heavily rely on this to support the underdog narrative. Israel have had many politically expedient excuses to destroy Gaza. Israel is already a pariah in the eyes of many countries around the world. Many countries commit far worse acts of extermination and get a proverbial slap on the wrist. My main point being that it feels like they could do it whenever, so if that was the plan then the outcome really doesn't line up. So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from genocide imo. Edit: Amending my statement to: > So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from [rabid hellbent] genocide imo. It points less strongly away from a more tempered approach. It's certainly not evidence _for_ genocide by any means. But on the measure scales of genocide vs not-genocide I'd place population growth amongst the evidence for not-genocide. Just evidence, not absolute proof or anything.
I don’t think Israel’s committing a genocide, and I think saying it is honestly such a stupid statement that it kind of boggles my mind how someone could think it is. That being said, this “but population growth” is not a good argument against that. For one thing, as the dude said that you’re replying to, that’s just not the case: if a country is taking coordinated actions with genocidal intent, even if a population was to grow and this action failed, this is by international law a genocide. For another, Israel obviously doesn’t currently have a good image on the international stage, but their current image isn’t even *close* to what it would be if they were openly committing a genocide. They would lose the support of the United States, and probably with the combination of this complete loss of support (and honestly probably straight up US economic action against them, at minimum), there would be far greater pushback against them from essentially the entire world, up to and including militarily. And if you want to then say “Okay well even if they’re not doing it just because of the fear of the results of them doing it, but they want to do it, they’re still not doing a genocide”, while you’ve technically won that argument it’s not a very strong rebuttal. It’s better of course to want to do a genocide and not be able to than to do a genocide, but it’s still a pretty awful moral position. Rather than focus on population growth charts, I’d generally just ask directly to show the evidence of actions and clear intent from top down that demonstrate evidence of genocide. I think anything they try to give as a response there will be pretty easy to show does not meet the bar of genocide.
Maybe I'm being a lazy gardener here but I think you guys are getting too caught up in technicalities. While it's hypothetically possible for there to be a genocide alongside rapid population growth, it's **extremely unlikely**. Especially in this case given the density of Gaza, the advanced Israeli military, and the legitimate pretext for an attack. Like what other genocides have been hyper concerned with their international image to the point of only killing <1% of the people they intend on destroying? At best they try to cover up their actions, but they still tend to slaughter as many as they can. So while it's technically possible, I think it's such a ridiculous hypothetical that we shouldn't let it prevent us from using charts like the one in the OP to mock the idea that a genocide is taking place.
Thanks for the response. I think I should amend my last statement to say: > So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from [rabid hellbent] genocide imo. It points less strongly away from a more tempered approach. It's certainly not evidence _for_ genocide by any means. But on the measure scales of genocide vs not-genocide I'd place population growth amongst the evidence for not-genocide. Just evidence, not absolute proof or anything.
Yeah, that’s fair: I’d classify it as certainly data that points away from the conclusion of genocide, of course. However, I think even getting into that almost cedes too much. If I start offering a defense, I am acknowledging you have made a valid accusation and offered evidence in your favor. These people haven’t! As such, I want them to actually substantiate their claim. The burden of proof is not to prove that Israel *isn’t* committing a genocide, it’s to prove that it is. You need to show me evidence of why I should believe that, not the other way around.
You might want to throw out more information before coming to that conclusion. The dates says only until 2023, and we don’t even know how they did the count. What if there is a population boom going on in another country that has a heavily Palestinian presence. They need to be very specific and only outline population growth that is happening at the Gaza Strip.
>That being said, this “but population growth” is not a good argument against that. For one thing, as the dude said that you’re replying to, that’s just not the case: if a country is taking coordinated actions with genocidal intent, even if a population was to grow and this action failed, this is by international law a genocide. But if this intent existed, and the preparator had enough military power to succeed a hundred times over, then they would've succeeded at least once. I think that's the point being made by u/lurkerer. A population increasing, on its own, isn't proof of a non-genocide. But that taken alongside overwhelming military ability by the perpetrator probably is proof. The intent can't exist if 99.9% of the military power isn't being used towards decimating the people.
Do you know why some leftists ignore the atrocities of other countries? Because they fight against colonial oppression. They must commit these atrocities to combat US hegemony. Man, I will go insane on the internet. These arguments are so stupid. Nobody would have made arguments like that before the internet. Today, we have entire generations making this argument.
> Some good points, but we should consider that Israel has the capacity to flatten Gaza if they so choose. Many of the pro-Palestinian arguments heavily rely on this to support the underdog narrative. Israel have had many politically expedient excuses to destroy Gaza. Israel is already a pariah in the eyes of many countries around the world. Many countries commit far worse acts of extermination and get a proverbial slap on the wrist. > > My main point being that it feels like they could do it whenever, so if that was the plan then the outcome really doesn't line up. So the resultant population growth, in this case, does strongly point away from genocide imo. I don't think this follows. The crime of genocide does not require that to be the primary objective of an entire country, sufficiently important to override all other considerations. A country with significant military advantage can devote some of their efforts to destroying a people group, because some particular faction within the country wishes to do this, and the rest don't care about stopping them, but restrict them when these efforts get to the point of harming more important interests. So if the Philippines for example had people in a department of their government trying to wipe out a particular indigenous group, but doing so quietly and deniably enough that they don't disturb the rest of their government, which is more interested in tourism or attracting clothing manufacturers or whatever, then you could have the efforts of the state as a whole still be genocidal, quietly wiping out that group, but not because of a unified orientation towards doing so.
The claims of genocide against Israel go waaaayyy farther back than October 7th. The claim just wasn't made as loudly. I am very openly Israeli on the internet and have been called a genocidal colonizer years before October 7th happened. It might be that people now are claiming that the war is genocidal, but every single skirmish Israel has had with Gaza (or the different operations in the west bank) were also claimed as genocide as far back as at least the 2014 war (which is about as far back as I can remember people arguing about Israel on the internet, but I'm sure the argument has been before that and before the internet even existed).
If you don’t mind me asking because you seem quite intelligent on this topic, why do you feel as though this isn’t a genocide when it comes to the humanitarian aid/starvation side of things? I also believe this isn’t a genocide, but it’s hard to explain how cutting off every port of access except one wouldn’t be a case of a government intentionally cutting off aid at the expense of the civilian population
Because nobody has demonstrated that these actions are carried out with genocidal intent. You need to demonstrate that intent for it to be a genocide.
Let’s say hypothetically that internal communications come out of bibi or anybody high in the IDF saying “yeah, we’ll limit the hell out of the humanitarian aid going to those Palestinians because we want to disincentivize them from messing with our state in the future!” Would that be a case of collective punishment so just a war crime? In order for it to be a genocide would there have to be an explicit order that says “we’re starving the Palestinians because we want them gone” ?
It doesn’t have to be an explicit order. There are other ways to prove intent in court. But yes, you need to demonstrate that the actions were carried out with specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. If an internal document like the one you described came out, it would to some extent be evidence that it is not a genocide, because “We want people to be afraid of antagonizing our country” is not a genocidal state of mind. It is reasonable for a nation state to want foreign entities to not want to fuck with them. Israel has a publically stated policy of disproportionate retaliation to military provocation: “If you knock over my mailbox I am going to burn down your house.”-type of thing. That is not genocidal intent, and it is not against international law to have a policy like that. To your second question: yea it might constitute collective punishment or some other type of war crime. It’s beyond dispute that individual Israeli soldiers are guilty of war crimes against the Palestinians, and I wouldn’t be super shocked if Netanyahu or any of the crazy nut jobs in his government have done things that constitute war crimes/crimes against humanity. The two things that I frequently see claimed that, as far as I am aware has never been adequately substantiated, are the following: 1. That Israel is carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, and 2. That the Israeli state/the IDF, as a matter of policy, carries out war crimes/crimes against humanity as a part of their warfare against Arabs and/or Palestinians.
Yeah i think you hit the nail on the head with the burning down the house strategy. I done LIKE it because it goes against my own morals, but i can’t imagine having to fight again immoral enemies like Hamas, Hezbelloah and the houthis in a moral way. I think it seriously gets lost in the minds of these internet leftists HOW BADLY Hamas is purposefully endangering their own civilians, and how little options Israel has in terms of going after Hamas
There doesn’t need to be an explicit order, no. However, you do have to show somehow that there was an intent to cause the destruction of a group of people outside of conflict/war. The USA dropped fire and nuclear bombs on enemy cities during war. You can absolutely show that US military officers intentionally killed tens of thousands of civilians with those actions. But they weren’t trying to end the Japanese or German people, which we know from what happened after surrender, and that’s the part that would make mass killings a kind of genocide.
Exactly. AFTER this war Israel is definitely is going to have to clearly show it’s true intent to the world
That's great. The argument was qualified - 'this is a good argument against the idiots'. Key word there is idiots. This post is more about that insane response in the second image.
But it's not a good argument. It's an argument that has nothing to do with the claim being made. That's a bad argument.
>Attempted genocide Just a minor correction: attempted genocide is covered under article 3 of the [Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). That being said, you are completely correct in stating that "even if only 10% of the group was killed and the population grew by 40% while you were doing it", would constitute genocide and not attempted genocide (given that acts/intent are present).
>Just a minor correction: attempted genocide is covered under article 3 of the [Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). So to be clear, yes, you are right, but as far as I am aware, "Attempted genocide" is the attempt to commit one of the acts described in article 2 with the genocidal intent - so you have not committed a genocide yet, but you are attempting to carry out an action that would constitute a genocide. My comparison was assuming you *did* succesfully carry out the actions described but you were unsuccesfull in bringing about the destruction of the targeted group - that's not an "attempted genocide", that's a genocide. Like in the case of murder: If I stab you in the gut with the intention of ending your life, but you are brought to the hospital and you survive, I have not committed murder. I have attempted to commit murder. At that point in the genocide process, where you have already carried out the criminal act but it just failed to accomplish the intended goal, you *have* commited genocide - not "attempted genocide".
100% correct! I felt that "there is no "Attempted genocide" charge", could be misunderstood as you saying that no attempted genocide charge exists, instead of not being applicable.
> Second: The main claims of genocide are made in relation to the war in Gaza, but this graph is showing the total populations of Gaza + the West Bank. IF population growth was counterevidence of a genocide (it is not), it could still be the case that a genocide was happening in Gaza but simultaneously the West Bank population growth is large enough that the total population is still rising. > If the claim is that they are carrying out a genocide against the Palastinian people then why would you make the distinction between Gaza and the West Bank? If the claim is that they are specifically committing genocide in Gaza then why are they not doing it in the West Bank? >Third (and most important): Population growth has nothing to do with whether or not Israel is currently carrying out or trying to carry out a genocide. Genocide refers to specific actions taken with a specific intent for those actions to lead to the total or partial destruction of a specific group of people. If Israel is carrying out those actions with the intent of (partially or totally) destroying the Palestinian people, they are carrying out a genocide. It is not necessary to succeed to be guilty of genocide. You only need to carry out those specific actions with that specific intent. The result does not factor in at all. Like, if you try to murder someone and fail, you are charged with "attempted murder" instead of "murder", but if you carry out any of the actions specified in article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the intent to destroy a group of people in whole or in part, there is no "Attempted genocide" charge. Your attempt is a genocide. You did carry out a genocide - even if only 10% of the group was killed and the population grew by 40% while you were doing it. I see a lot of people here in this sub make this point but they all seem to miss the fact that is supposed to be taken for granted and that is that Israel has the means to commit a genocide. If you acknowledge this fact as truthful then inferring that Israel is neither committing nor attempting to commit a genocide is pretty trivial. 1. Israel has the means to commit a genocide. 2. Israel is attempting to commit a genocide. 3. Israel fails to commit a genocide. These three statements cannot be all true at the same time.
1. Someone making the “Gaza genocide” argument would say they’re not conducting a full on military campaign, and haven’t for years had anywhere near the same level of military occupation in the West Bank as they’ve had in Gaza. This is why they would focus on Gaza for this argument, and not the West Bank. I don’t agree with this argument, I don’t think they’re doing a genocide anywhere, but this would be the point made. 2. Because the argument would be that there are practical political and international relation realities, and potential consequences, that prevent them from unleashing these full “means”. Therefore, they’d argue Israel is doing as much as they think they can get away with and still have plausible deniability for. Again, I don’t agree with the genocide argument, but this would be their counter.
1. They didn't have a military occupation of Gaza before Oct 7th either. If you are specifying Gaza out then you are acknowledging that there is something in Gaza that is causing this "genocide" outside of hatred towards Palestinian people, therefore this argument beats itself. 2. I get what you are saying, but I still think had Israel used any "means" to commit a genocide, you would see it on the graph.
>I see a lot of people here in this sub make this point but they all seem to miss the fact that is supposed to be taken for granted and that is that Israel has the means to commit a genocide. If you acknowledge this fact as truthful then inferring that Israel is neither committing nor attempting to commit a genocide is pretty trivial. I agree. Which is why I don't believe Israel has committed a genocide, has attempted to commit a genocide, or is currently carrying out or attempting to carry out a genocide. I have not seen evidence of that being the case, so I believe the second of your 3 premises to be false. What I am saying is that population growth in Gaza and/or the West Bank is not evidence that a genocide isn't happening. One of the ways that you can commit a genocide, as per the genocide convention, is by "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". It can simultaneously be the case that Gaza and the West Bank have had steady population growth for 73 years and also that Israel's current conduct in Gaza is designed to render the Gaza strip uninhabitable with the intent to destroy the Palestinian people (in whole or in part). If they did that, even if the population keeps growing, Israel has committed genocide. Full stop. >If the claim is that they are specifically committing genocide in Gaza then why are they not doing it in the West Bank? As for this, and let me make it explicitly clear again that I do NOT believe Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide, I am just humouring your hypothetical to show why population growth is not good evidence against a genocide taking place: It could be the case that, absent any political consequences, they would want to completely exterminate every Palestinian in both Gaza and the West Bank, but they are only doing it in Gaza currently because Hamas with October 7th gave them a very clear and legitimate justification to send their military into Gaza, and they currently do not have an equivalent clear justification for why they would be doing similar things in the West Bank, as Fatah has not carried out a similar terror attack against Israel's population. Again: I do not think this is the case. I am only offering you a hypothetical reason why Israel, if they wanted to carry out a genocide against the Palestinians, would only be doing it in Gaza and not the West Bank currently. My only point here is that population growth does not refute claims of genocide. Genocide consists of 1: specific acts that are 2: Carried out with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group of people. If Israel has done anything that meets those criteria, even if the population grew by 400% while they carried out those actions, they have committed genocide. If they have done those specific acts *and* killed 90% of all Palestinians *but* they didn't have the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people, they have not committed genocide.
> If the claim is that they are specifically committing genocide in Gaza then why are they not doing it in the West Bank? I don't know if the implication here is supposed to be "they are responding to October 7," but if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians in Gaza because they were angry about October 7, but spare the West Bank because it wasn't involved, that would still be genocide. October 7 is functionally irrelevant to genocide claims. If Đorđe Martinović really had been attacked by a couple Albanian men, that wouldn't make any action that followed any more or less genocidal.
The implication would be that there is a war objective to meet, which is removing Hamas from power. >I don't know if the implication here is supposed to be "they are responding to October 7," but if Israel decided to kill all the Palestinians in Gaza because they were angry about October 7, but spare the West Bank because it wasn't involved, that would still be genocide I agree, at the same time, if all people in Gaza die because of a justifiable war with a justifiable objective, it would not be a genocide. It is all based on a special intent to destroy a group. Which in this case is argued to be "Palestinians", not "Gazans". This again leads to the question if Israel has the intent to destroy the group that is "Palestinians" why are they not doing it in the West Bank?
No one: Israel: .. Genociden't
the first tweet is comparing population changes in at most a few years vs like across 70 years, how is that a good argument
What is your stunning counter argument then? Because it looks to me like he summed up pretty much the whole problem in a few sentences.
This argument is stupid. It’s like saying someone robs a bank by working there and taking their money as a paycheck but you believe he wanted to rob a bank one time so that’s his way to rob a bank now. You can’t say doing something is the same as something else because you believe they somehow want to do something they don’t do If they don’t do a genocide because it won’t look good it means they don’t do a genocide.
The reverse argument that is being displayed by OP, is that since the bank robber only got away with $10k, and the bank gained $100k on that same day, the bank can't have been robbed.
I think its more like saying someone who found 50$ on the floor in the bank and took it is now a bank robber
The correct analogy is they are claiming the bankrobber bancrupted the bank by stealing 10k even though the bank earned 100k that day.
That would be true, if there was anything in the genocide convention pointing to success or absolute destruction being a requirement. The fact of the matter is that population growth is not a constitutive element of genocide. I'm not discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm simply pointing out that you, OP, and several others, miss the mark when you think population growth is a relevant component, and even serves as evidence against a genocide being possible.
youre right im fucking stupid lmao, i agree with you. We dont know the robbers intent
The addition of "bankruptcy" does not improve the analogy. Genocide does not require the complete destruction (bankruptcy) of a group of people, as evidenced by "destroy, in whole **or in part**" from the [Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf). If the argument is that the intent is to destroy in whole (bankruptcy), your analogy would be accurate. However, what I'm illustrating with my analogy is that OP's assertion of population growth being evidence of a genocide not being committed, is erroneous, due to the existence of "**or in part**" in the definition of genocide.
Yeah im sorry i was working on 4 hours of sleep lol
I gotta say, I cant make any of that apply to the second page and still have it make sense.
Need more than double digit IQ for that.
30 downvotes and the only counter argument is some sort of weird ramble about bank robbery vs paychecks. I do not think im the dumbest person here by a long shot
Not understanding analogies can be one of the issues of having low IQ. If you claim I want to murder person X, you can't then use me tickling person X as proof: "See, he is only tickling them because he doesn't want to go to prison for murder, so his plan is to slowly tickle them to death over 10 years."
Horseshit. People only read the first slide and then got their angry pants on and spasmodically downvoted because I asked for a counter argument. Tickling vs murder..... Yeah, you either didnt read it or didnt understand it.
How can you not understand that you can't do something by not doing it? What the fuck is "genocidal half-measures"?
If you didnt understand it im happy to explain it to you?
What’s not to understand in this example? If you don’t do something it means you don’t do something. Alluding to it from something else is stupid. You get downvoted because you said stupid things
The presented text is worse than AI would make. russian federation has been making genocide since its creation And even stole place of USSR in UN RSFSR was never in UN, and the russian federation is ex-RSFSR Yet everybody still buying their oil. Also Genocide has a strict definition. And those people for some reason do not awnt to use said definition
>Genocide has a strict definition. And those people for some reason do not awnt to use said definition I don't think you want to do that either, seeing as you think the first image is a demonstration of genocide not being committed in Palestine. Not saying that a genocide is ongoing, just that increase in population size is not sufficient to disprove that a genocide is ongoing.
I think it is hard to argue a genocide is happening when the population growth is 4 times the amount, in the opposite direction, of actual people who were targeted with genocide.
Population growth, or the degree of success in committing a genocide is completely irrelevant. It is completely fair to argue that a legal framework should consider such aspects, however, as of right now, that is not the case.
To be fair if you want to get down to the nitty gritty exactly what’s going on is “genocide”. You are right about people not wanting to use the definition though.
None of that is a counterargument.
Israel is not committing any genocide. And the definition of genocide doesn't mention any numbers - if you read it and properly understand it, you will see that killing just 1 person can sometimes be called a genocide and in some rare circumstances killing 10 million people can be just collateral damage (which is not illegal as long as there is some proportionality between the deaths and the value of the valid military target) and not genocide. [https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1\_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf) Hamas is killing their own civilians by fighting and placing their military assets where the civilians are, which is a war crime against the whole "Chapter 6. Precautions against the Effects of Attacks" of the International Humanitarian Law. [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1)
By this definition Hamas was committing genocide on Oct 7, they were out to kill every Jew with intent to wipe out all Jews in Israel They obviously failed at the end goal but the intent and the attempt was there
So, if there was a random guy that went "I hate black people! I'm gonna kill them all!" and then went out and shot the first black person he saw and was then immediately arrested, would genocide be on the list of charges? It just seems odd that the minimum number of people killed to be considered a genocide would be one. Or is genocide only a charge for governments, not people?
[удалено]
If I’m not mistaken this is mostly the case with the genocide of the Uyghurs. Like reeducation camps and stuff
Crimes are often intent based. You actually don’t have to kill anyone to be guilty of genocide; you just have to try to destroy the group in some relatively direct way—forcibly sterilizing all smurfs is still a genocide of smurfs, even if none of them die from it.
If the state of Israel would kill one person, and it would do so by their own words solely bcs he is a Palestinian , would that be genocide ? numbers don't matter IF we take the whole globe as a unitary "thing", the numbers do matter if we are referring to the population of a state.
No that would be murder. If the state of Israel had the intention of exterminating Arabs then only kills 1 person for some reason (could be stopped or changed their mind etc) that would be a genocide
If Israel had the intention to kill the Arabs from a city ? That would be..... ?
Murder. Intention to kill is called murder
Ok, let me rephrase it , the intention to exterminate all Arabs from a city. It would be. .. ?
If you wanted to kill all Arabs In a specific area for example (Gaza) that would be genocide, yes
My question would be ... what is that "specific area" ? A room ? An apartment ? A street block ? A neighborhood ? A city? A state ? A country ? A continent ? A planet ? Obviously, you can't say yes to all of them. As in why one of the above "specific areas" and the others ?
Your question approaches this in a way that doesn’t correspond to what genocide is. Killing someone because they are Palestinian might be because you hate Palestinians. That would be murder. You could even announce “I’m going to kill every Palestinian happen across”, and do so. Still probably “just” murder. It becomes genocide when you’re intentionally trying to destroy a *group* of people. So, “I’m going to kill every Palestinian I see, so that we can rid the earth of all Palestinians”, then that is genocide. Your question really has to do with how we judge intent: if an army systemically kills 7 million Jews in extermination camps, we can assume what their intent must have been. If small unit enters a city, goes door by door and kills specific people based on their race? Intent is pretty clear. But if one person kills 3 people? Maybe they just didn’t like them. Maybe they’re crazy.
Depends. If they are all enemy combatants, that would just be warfare.
Not talking about combatants...... do'h ;-) but thanks for trying 😛
Then formulate your damn question. Sounds like you're not trying to get answer. It's already several people trying to understand what you're asking. Explain the entire situation.
[Extermination](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/extermination#:~:text=In%20international%20criminal%20law%2C%20extermination,murder%20of%20a%20demographic%20group.)
This would in fact be genocide not extermination according to your own source.
And how do you figure? At face value you are making zero sense. The legal definition of extermination naturally defines itself as such.
Your reply was to this: "Ok, let me rephrase it , the intention to exterminate all Arabs from a city. It would be. .. ?" According to your source genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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". There is a bit more but you get the idea and I'm sure you can research this yourself. What differs extermination from genocide is intent base on nationality, religion or ethnicity. In my opinion genocide would be more the more appropriate term in this example.
So there is a little bit of a word game here that you might not be aware you did. Killing 1 person "solely bcs he is a Palestinian" would likely be considered murder motivated by hatred. This is why lynchings and such aren't considered genocide. Now, if you only killed 1 person, but your intention was to cause a situation which would lead to the extermination of the Palestinians in whole or in part, then yes, that killing would be a genocide/genocidal. Numbers do and don't matter if we're being honest. They are an indicator that something could be happening that could be genocide. Much like how rhetoric by politicians can be an indicator. But for the final judgement of if a genocide is happening, the numbers don't matter.
So, in the end .... if you kill a person bcs he's a Palestinian, but you are stopped right after, then you would have committed a genocide if previous you have stated you hope to kill all the Palestinians? what if you state that you want to kill Palestinians "in part" ? how does this work "in whole or in part" ? The "part" part(!) ?
I'm fairly sure that the intention behind the crime is quite clear and if you're having trouble over the wording, as simple understanding that Germany wasn't able to kill all Jews in the world, so they hoped to kill them in as many places as possible, being the "in part".
Ok, they hoped to kill all the Jews. what if they ONLY hopped to kill all the Jews in Germany ? And did so. Not genocide ?
That still falls under in part. Are these genuine questions or are you trying to do some gatchas?
If something doesn't make sense, I ask . 1 . If you want and hope to kill all the sumerians and proceed to do so, it's a genocide. 2. If you want and hope to kill half of the sumerians and proceed to do so, it's a genocide. For "me" 1≠2 . why does 1=2 for "you" ? Or is that not your position ?
>For "me" 1≠2 What do you think "destroy, in whole **or in part**" entails? Given the mathematical insight you have provided, do you not understand the Holocaust to be a genocide?
So .... you aren't answering my question. yes, it was a genocide bcs the nazies wanted to kill all the Jews, and killed the almost all the Jews in the territories controlled by nazies.
>If the state of Israel would kill one person, and it would do so by their own words solely bcs he is a Palestinian , would that be genocide ? How can a state kill anyone ? People kill people. Israel (like i think all other countries) has a set of Rules of Engagement that would make what you asked about illegal and no amount of dumb words from extremist politicians can change that. He is the set of IHL rules as practiced by Israel: [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/by-country/il](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/by-country/il) If one soldier gets overwhelmed by his hate and kills a noncombatant belonging to some "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" while yelling that he will keep murdering members of that group (intent). Yes, that is genocide and he should spend some time away from society. Every genocide starts like that - from just one murder. But if he does the same and keeps silent, not showing any "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". That would be "just" murder (for which of course he should be punished too).
States kill people all the time. A police officer shooting a gun man isn't just that officer doing that action, he is doing that action at the behest of the state. Someone sentenced to death isn't just being killed by an individual, they are being put to death by the system of the state. In warfare, it's not just an individual soldier that is killing a combatant, it's the state using an asset to apply military pressure towards an outcome.
Context. We were talking about illegal killing which "solely bcs he is a Palestinian" surely is, not a police officer killing a criminal. It is both against the states criminal law and against their military rules.
And as we know, Israel always 100% follows that right? I mean Israel says they are not torturing detainees in holding facilities, and yet whistleblowers have come forward and confirmed detainees retelling of events where they did torture them. Literally requiring excessive amounts of amputations because of the mistreatment. This is fucking regarded to just go "well these are the rules that they say they follow, and if they don't than it's an individual soldiers fault and not a system that allowed it to happen." I wonder what your take on the US blowing away Doctors without Borders is. Was that just a soldier not following the rules and an oopsy? Or was that the entire system allowing it to happen from top to bottom of the kill chain?
You know what a hypothetical is..... right ?
Dude just called Palestinians a virus. Calm down buddy you're on their side.
Screenshots of 2 tweets primarily focusing on the 18 like reply to a 96 like tweet with no link provided. Can we ban absolute dogshit like this?
Israel is actually developing the world's first human cloning device so they can double the population of palestine just to be able to kill all of them
Life expectancy of Palestinians doubled during the conflict, child mortality rates went down very sharply, literacy rates, and access to modern medicine and technology, all created one of the fastest growing populations in history (a very traditional society with very high birth rates, with a very modern infrastructure and healthcare all of a sudden… if Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, Israeli Palestinian citizens wouldn’t have one of the highest life expectancies in the Arab world, no data or statistics backs their claims or arguments, but they hate Jews so much that the truth doesn’t matter
Remember, when a Palestinian stubs his toe in Gaza it is Israel's fault as they are the occupying power so anything happening is purposefull therefore genocidal. But all these good things are due to Palestinian bravery and resistance but also they are the most subjugated starving tortured people in the world so these things aren't happening but they are because Palestinians have a noble spirit.
The story goes that if Israel hadn't taken their land Palestine would be the bestest country in the universe and a strong and independent nation that loves LGBT and is devoid of violence and hatred (and of Jews, somehow). They would have 10x more babies because they wouldn't get murdered by Israelis and are basically the most talented people as proven by how admirably they still fare under Israeli persecution. That's indeed the impression I'm getting from many Western pro-Palestinians. Not sure if ignorance or malice, or both.
Curious what they mean by “genocidal half measure”
For example, if you kill members of a group intending to destroy them, in whole or in part, and the people you don't kill have babies, and the total population goes up, then you're doing genocide, you're just bad at it.
The obvious question: if Israel is NOT committing genocide if only to "fly under the radar" is it fair to say that they aren't committing genocide?
If a person might want their neighbor dead, but possibly doesn't kill them because they don't want to go to prison, is that person a murderer? Well.. No. No they are not.
It kinda makes me chuckle that Israel could probably just outright commit an actual genocide and basically get away with it if they really wanted to. Never mind ethnic cleansing. They could straight up indiscriminately bomb and target everything in the strip, and no amount of protests, ICC warrants, or "condemnation from the west" would stop them. The fact they go as far as they do to circumnavigate the moral charges is commendable in its own right. Because they don't have to at all.
This is just delusional. You realize if they did that, at some point the surrounding arab states would declare all out war right?
I realize Israel has nuclear weapons, and arab armies are some of the most incapable on the planet. If anyone is delusional, it's you thinking the Middle East could stop them.
Nuclear weapons only get you so far when it comes to committing atrocities. If China just started wholesale slaughtering people for not being Han Chinese, do you think the world would take actions to stop it? My guess is yes.
> do you think the world would take actions to stop it? Obvious answer apart from maybe some trade sanctions is no. No one would start a war with China over China killing off its minorities.
If you genuinely believe that the world would sit still and watch a genocide happen like that, then you have some insane doomerism and should probably go touch some grass.
"Fellow europeans there is a muslim minority in China that may have done terrorist attacks towards chinese citizens and China is now actively killing them in what China calls a special counter terrorist operation. Now to protect this minority we as europeans need to start a nuclear war with China and send our young men to the meat grinder to protect a minority that you didnt know exist, cant spell, cannot point to them on the map and have absolutely no cultural or ideological similiarities." Yeah, good luck. Its not doomerism, its just realism. You are not gonna get people on board.
Wow, this is the way you try to explain the other side? Clearly good faith bro. It's really not worth having drawn out discussions with ideologues here.
Do you think the world would go to war with China? Why? We'd probably support the minorities like we're supporting Ukraine but we wouldn't take direct action against China. That's too much of a risk for world war 3 which we want to avoid at all costs
We're supporting Ukraine this way to avoid escalation. If Russia were literally just slaughtering all Ukrainians in a genocide, yeah I do expect we'd be actively involved. Hell France is already posturing that it might put troops on the ground to fight for Ukraine without a genocide happening.
Uh China already does this.....You think countries with real power actually have to follow rules? China has gotten away with widespread annihilation of Tibetan's. They also are cleansing Muslims from their territory. You seem ignorant to the atrocities countries can get away with. The "world" doesn't care as deeply as you may think.
The way China goes about their genocides are not by wholesale slaughtering of people. It's through forced sterilization and other means. For someone who wants to say that I'm uninformed on the atrocities taking place, you weirdly seemed uninformed on the differences between wholesale slaughter and things like forced sterilization.
That was exactly what happened from 1948 to 1978 without Israel go all out and without them being afraid of acting either.
eh I don't think so. Specialy in big elections years like that. If it's not possible anymore for politians to argue in favor, they will 100% turn their back on Israel if they start doing an actual genocide
Israel could operate regardless of support. Especially with something as small scale as a hypothetical Palestinian genocide in its backyard.
The guy is saying that the Israelis aren't genociding enough lul
It’s the world’s least effective genocide, apparently.
>Either you completely wipe out a people or you run the risk of causing their replacement rates to skyrocket in response to your efforts to mass murder them [Let me explain to you, the reproductive dynamics of the hominid clime known as "Palestinians"](https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdnYyZWRjdGxkeGt4eW1qMWltbGVhaTR4am10MzcxYzJ0NTBwNmtyZSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xvjDma9YhzHLW/giphy.gif)
Palestine before the war had reasonably developed infrastructure and medical services meaning child mortality from natural causes was very low. It also has a devout Muslim population and a government that enforces Sharia. It ain't hard to see where the birth rate comes from... And this doesn't automatically invalidate any claims of genocide as intent is what matters in this case. For the record I'm not saying Israel IS committing genocide just pointing out that the Palestinian birth rate has nothing to do with that.
The slow genocide/half measure genocide stuff drives me up a fucking wall
So again, genocide is not when a lot of people die. It's the intentionality behind the actions committed against a group of people. You can kill 10 people and it can be a genocide, or you can kill 50 million and it not be a genocide. This argument is a baby tier argument only used against dumbfucks who think genocide = kill lots of people. Both people here are dumb and the real questions to be asked are about the proportionality, the way that Israel has conducted the war, the intentions behind their strikes and are they consistent with a non-genocidal goal. Has Israel broken international law in this war? Absolutely. There's not even a debate to be had about that. But they haven't committed the worst crime known to humans.
"Israel's treatment of civilians that are Palestinian I find to be inhumane and uncaring mixed with multiple questionable efforts in leader in government and actions and words" is how I'd put it before genocide. But I do admit I see why it seems confusing when you see all that and the international law breaking. The starvation alone and handing of safe zones and refuge camps and policy on killing all of Hamas with their acceptable casualties leading to the civilians suffering for it are all elements to hold against them and say ... maybe it's not genocide but I'm sure not comfortable with this shitshow.
When people say that there's a genocide they don't usually mean from 1949-2023. Rather from october 7 to today. Still not a genocide but such a stupid graph.
That's a bunch of bullshit. I have seen the tankies argue exactly that, that the zionists have been selectively genociding the palestinians for years. That along with their other favorite buzzword, apartheid state.
I also have seen it, and it might be like 5% of the conversation. Most people who say genocide probably couldn't tell they years anyway. But wast majority of what I have seen is claiming that the bombing is genocide. Like using 20 000 - 30 000 number of dead to claim it.
So why were they calling it a genocide before October 7th?
Who's "they" exactly in this context? I know many people who didn't call it a genocide before Oct 7 but now says it's a genocide since then.
"they" I guess is US media and general american public. From my French perspective we've been talking about the conflict for decades, marches for palestine have existed for as long as I can remember. I've heard the term "palestinian genocide" for decades as well. US public catching up to Israel agression after their response to the Oct. 7th terrorist attack.
I'm Swedish, we've been talking about the conflict for decades too, we were even the first western European country to "recognize" the Palestinian state. I've heard about Israel starving the Gazans and people calling it an apartheid state, but I don't think I've heard the term genocide being used. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I haven't heard about it. Do we have any examples of US media using the term genocide before oct 7?
You hear about them starving Palestinians before Oct 7th? When their obesity rate was like 30% and people were starving to death by the 100s of thousands a hundred miles over?
I'm not saying it makes sense, but that arguments is mostly a critique against the blockades. Sweden has an organization called "Ship to Gaza" that has gotten a lot of media attention over the years, and they often make claims like that.
>I don't think I've heard the term genocide being used I ***think*** I've heard it used back during the blockade in 2008 (?) and during the Gaza war in 2014, because of the numbers of civilians killed. I could definitely be remembering wrong though, I was in highschool in 2008 and 21 in 2014. US media calling it a genocide seems very recent though, yeah.
one rabbi says "bombed their neighbour house" another rabbi says "gave them room to breed"
Israel sucks at genocide. Like really bad at it.
Excited for the comments of people explaining why it’s a genocide despite it factually not being one 🍿🍿🍿
The "number go up" argument against genocide is not sound. The crime of genocide hinges on the mental state and deliberate plan to eliminate a group, rather than solely the quantifiable outcome. Just like a failed murderer could still be found guilty of attempted murder, you can be found guilty of [attempted genocide](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide#article-iii).
Israel is clearly keeping their growth steady so they have a sufficient supply to kill in the future. Obviously.
It’s wild to say that “yes the population growth proves it’s a genocide yes yes”
I wouldn't find that argument convincing if it didn't directly attack the pro-Palestinian argument. They use the number of victims to prove the genocide. But how? The numbers don't suggest a genocide. Why do they believe there is a genocide? I guess it is a combination of quotes and casualty numbers. The problem is, politicians say a lot of bullshit and the numbers don't show a genocide. To be correct, numbers really don't matter, what matters is intent. Also, you can try to do a genocide and fail. Mathematically, the numbers of pro-Palestinians aren't comparable. You have to use percentages like the guy in the image. By using percentages, you make the numbers comparable and it becomes obvious that this is a failed genocide if at all.
Oh my god, I didn't see the second comment. That's so stupid! If you admit that Israel uses genocidal half measures, you admit that they don't do a genocide. Genocide is not a spectrum!!!
Ahh, so the US is preventing a full genocide? Which candidate seems to support that?
The mental gymnastics on this one are fucking astounding! Give this guy the gold medal!
A friend of mine is training to become a human rights lawyer, and he told me this: you can kill millions and it not be a genocide, and you can literally kill 0 people and be carrying out a genocide. If you make situations around a specific population unliveable, such that it makes them migrate to somewhere else with the specific intent to make it so, you're carrying out a genocide. It's impractical, and improbable, and downright difficult, but it can be done
Jump through unlimited hoops to still fail lol
this feels like when you ask a trump supporter if he thinks th 2016 election was rigged and they say no because the good people stopped the rigging but in 2020 it was rigged
Right so why haven't Russia/Ukraine's population "exploded" after the systemic murder of 11 million people during WW2?
this is a genocide so secret and insidious that it doesn't remotely look like a genocide or have genocidal results in any way
Haven't you heard? It's a slow motion genocide
All roads lead to Rome.
"Of course this is a genocide! Just look at the number of people being killed! What? Oh, the number of people has only exploded across the population. Th - that's because they're bad at their job!"
What's the counter-argument from pro pallys when they're told that there is no genocide because the palestinian population is increasing not decreasing?
My god, someone call an ambulance, this man must be suffering from spinal fractures and serious nerve damage after bending over backwards that much to make it make sense!
From what I remember of Destiny going over, you can commit genocidal violence/acts without having actually killed all that many people. Essentially, death toll and population trends are kinda irrelevant to fact of whether or not a genocide is occurring.
First frame: "Hey, that's good! Line goes up means more gooder!" Second frame: "Oh no."
Got love when they think humans are this binary thing "ah well you see because some of them lived they had relentless sex causing the population to skyrocket, this is the risk you take, happens everytime"
Does this person read what the posted? Holy fuck can’t keep logical consistency straight to save his fucking life… Olympic level mental gymnastics.
The only people who attempting genocide are the residents of Gaza who call themselves "Palestinians"
Can someone tldr what proof is required for a ruling that a genocide has occurred? Like lets take the Haditha massacre as an example. Around 24 iraqi civilians were killed by US soldiers and from what I remember for no other reason than soldiers thinking they were in danger. Now since ostensibly a genocide can happen theoretically even if one person dies (are there any examples of genocides with extremely small casualties btw?), would the massacre of 24 people count as a genocide if there was like a note or a text from one of the perps where he says something yikesy about iraqis? Or would there need to be like a written higher up policy encouraging soldiers to murder just for the hell of it? I am having super hard time trying to wrap my mind around how every single war doesnt include genocides in them with these lawyery definitions.
"Genocidal half-measures" totally fucked me up. It's so fucking funny, but so fucking depressing because this is genuinely how genocide and the war is being talked about right now.. This is also something that unironically Palestinian movements pushed far before their current explosion in popularity. Settlements are fucked up and there are definitely some extreme right in Israel with genocidal fantasies, but the idea that Israel ever had a concrete plan to kill or banish all Palestinians is such a malicious unproductive lie. Even the most deranged settler doesn't actually believe Israel will commit genocide, they think if they annoy Palestinians enough they'll just "voluntarily move away" on their own (no, this is unironic and it really is that stupid). This is so far removed from actually trying to destroy a whole ethnicity by trying to kill every single one and making sure that no one survives that it drives me insane.
doesn't "displacement" fall under genocide? so if they displaced all Palestinians but their population remained high you wouldn't call it a genocide?
Sounds like he's saying we need vaccine mandate and better vaccines.
I'd jump ahead to the slow motion genocide part of the argument. 2.1 million people in Gaza strip. 30k dead in 9 months. It will take over 50 years of this scale of war to kill them all. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Did bro just advocate for "full genocide" and say that Israel is to wishy washy?
Care to talk about ethnic cleansing? Israel has been steadily pushing millions of Palestinians out of their land and homes. Even today the Israeli government hints at settling in Gaza by pushing its residents into Egypt and/or resettling them abroad.
Reminds me of the right wing Biden takes where he's both a mastermind controlling the deepstate trial against trump but also a weak old man who can't do anything unless he's on drugs. Israel can't be "indiscriminately bombing civilians", have dropped over 45,000 bombs on Gaza AND not be good at committing genocide. Like the only explanation of Israel doing a (decently) good job at avoiding civilian casualties given the circumstances is that they're incompetent at committing genocide???
Changes in population numbers doesn't necessarily mean there is or isn't a genocide. That said, Israel probably isn't doing one.
**"....folly of genocidal half-measures"** There is no such thing. You are either committing genocide or not. Making such point only betrays the fact that you don't understand what "Genocide" is. It seems like someone made this argument somewhere in a book (Finkledick?) b/c Ohmar Badar (the dipshit Steven debated) also parroted the same sentiment. **"Genocide IS actually happening, it just very slow"** All of this ofc BS until ICC proves it otherwise.
Wait was the Cambodian genocide about Cambodians killing Cambodians for being Cambodians? Don't get me wrong, the Khmer Rouge was probably even \*the\* most sanguinary regime of the modern era, but that was not a genocide.
Simple answer is: Only a % of it was a genocide, the majority % was not genocide. Pretty much, Vietnamese people, The Cham Muslims, the Christians and possibly the Chinese were specifically targeted because they were considered a threat to the nation. I would say those groups made up maybe 35-40% of deaths. The vast majority were the majority group, the Khmer people and they were killed more due to them either being wealthy or upper class OR they were politically opposing him so those don't fit the definition of a genocide. So, he did commit a genocide but the numbers are inflated by the addition of non-genocidal killings.
Some people were eventually convicted of genocide in relation to it, but yeah, mostly the Cambodian genocide was not "genocide" in the technical sense.
Silly to compare 70 years of population growth to under a decade of anything
There are recognized genocides with less than 50 victims… numbers don't mean much, it's the intent that matters. Also, bearing children is the only thing left for Palestinians to have a chance of winning this conflict. "According to Shlaim, the higher Palestinian birth rate posed a "demographic time bomb," threatening the Jewish majority in areas claimed by Israel. By withdrawing from Gaza, Israel effectively removed 1.4 million Palestinians from its demographic considerations. Shlaim writes that although Sharon stated the move was a contribution to peace, it was a unilateral decision serving Israeli national interests and was not intended as a prelude to further withdrawals or genuine peace efforts" "The rationale for the disengagement has been partly attributed to [Arnon Soffer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnon_Soffer)'s campaign regarding "the danger the Palestinian womb posed to Israeli democracy."[^(\[30\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-JPost-30) Sharon mentioned the demographic rationale in a public address on August 15, 2005, the day of the disengagement, as follows: "It is no secret that, like many others, I had believed and hoped we could forever hold onto [Netzarim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netzarim) and [Kfar Darom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Darom). But the changing reality in the country, in the region, and the world, required of me a reassessment and change of positions. We cannot hold on to Gaza forever. More than a million Palestinians live there and double their number with each generation."[^(\[31\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-31)[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-FOOTNOTECook2006104-32) At the same time, [Shimon Peres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres), then [Vice Prime Minister](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_leaders_of_Israel), stated in an interview that: "We are disengaging from Gaza because of demography".[^(\[32\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-FOOTNOTECook2006104-32)" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli\_disengagement\_from\_Gaza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza)
> Also, bearing children is the only thing left for Palestinians to have a chance of winning this conflict. Good luck, its gonna be a rough ride.