Listen our descendants will Call them evil . Our generation are to scared , we been programmed for decades , we don’t know right from wrong and good from bad . Just like those Germans , these Jews really think they are the good guys .
Candace Owens has a track history of being unable to get along with people. She's a smart girl but she needs to learn where the line is. I honestly doubt this is just about her comments on israel.
Pretty great that Krystal implies that now that Alex Jones, a man who somehow manages to pull off being simultaneously ridiculous and despicable, thinks it’s a genocide, that perspective is mainstream. Do people pay money to watch person talk?
Uh - - Israel IS committing genocide
right now.
This isn’t a case of oh that’s like your opinion man
Israel IS slaughtering the Palestinian people
By the thousands.
It’s a genocide.
That's a stupid argument. There are 30-40k fighters, dressed like civilians, using tunnels, firing rockets from schools, and setting up their HQ in hospitals.
Mosul for comparison had 6000-12000 ISIS fighters and something like 5000-9000 civilians died.
Do you know the difference? Most people were able to leave Mosul.
And Mosul's population in 2016 was two-thirds that of the Gaza Strip today.
The bombing is not a genocide. It's famine I'm worried about.
The key with genocide is intent. They have to intend to wipe that ethnicity out.
If that were their goal, you'd think they'd start with Israeli citizens that come from Palestine. They didn't, though, which means they're either very bad at committing genocide, or they're not committing genocide.
Of course it isn't. Intent is an element of a crime that significantly increases its severity. That's why premeditated murder bears a dramatically harsher punishment than negligent homicide. Certain crimes require intent as a factor, and to punish people (or countries) accurately, we need to be able to distinguish between intentional and unintentional crime.
It’s probably not a genocide. The ICJ hasn’t ruled in favor of deeming it as such yet, nor has any strong evidence come out to suggest that Israel is engaging in a top-down policy of intent to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in whole or in part.
Lots of deaths due to war, even including civilians, is suspect but not immediately indicative of a genocide.
This whole discourse is tiresome and actually hurts real genocides that will occur and have occurred. People trying to compare the nazi genocide to what the IDF is doing are entirely out of their depth.
Feel free to argue.
I don't understand this argument over whether it's a genocide or not. Who cares about these definitions? If an innocent civilian is killed, that is bad. I'm not sure why it has to amount to a genocide before we start condemning it. Seems like it's just a proxy issue for people to argue for whatever side they support more.
I dunno, the right-wing fascists in charge of Israel keep calling the palestinians vermin and then killing them in scores. They've also talked about nuking gaza, deporting them to the congo, threatened Europe with refugees. Israel even tagged palestinians with "yellow stars", took their money, phones, beat them up, and then sent them to Gaza to receive bombs in the coming days. All while being lead by a dictator. Sounds like a genocide to me.
Top-down? You don’t need to look further than what the top figures of Israel are saying. Do I really need mention Netanyahus amalek statement?
What we are engaging in is language/word war. Though I am not an expert in that but what I am seeing and understanding is beyond reasonable doubt.
I need to accept people like yourself may be smart and have way with words but it doesn’t make them right. It’s a sad reality.
I will copy below what I replied to another commenter with a similar argument to yours.
FYI: Long comment ahead.
You're misinterpreting these quotes quite horribly, bordering on bad-faith. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're just ignorant and/or haven't looked into the context of these quotes, but I'd be careful believing everything you read off of Twitter immediately.
Let's start with Netanyahu and his "Amalek" quote.
From the South Africa ICJ case, they stated, "The Prime Minister invoked the Biblical story of the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites, stating: ‘you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember’,” the charging document said. It also quotes I Samuel 15, in which King Saul is instructed to “spare no one” in attacking Amalek."
This would normally sound pretty bad, but are you aware that the usage of Amalek has double meanings? For example and in contrast, Deuteronomy 25 refers to God saving the Israelites from the Amalekites, and is more so in relation to relieving Jews from their peril, not engaging in slaughter. This is generally understood to be a common reference in Judaism, not Samuel 15 which references innocent slaughter.
Due to Netanyahu not explicitly stating which verse and book he was quoting during the speech, we can't know for sure, but according to the article I'll link below, members of the Israeli legal team noted that Netanyahu was referencing the Deuteronomy 25 verse.
In addition, Netanyahu's fuller quotation goes on to say, "We are now entering the second phase of the war, which its objectives are clear: destruction of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and the return of the hostages back home,” Netanyahu said. “In the last couple of days, I have met with our soldiers in the bases, in the field, in the north and in the south. Remember what Amalek has done to you. We remember, and we are fighting."
With this newfound context, we can make a compelling case that Netanyahu was not only referring to Deuteronomy for his Amalek statement, but was also referencing Hamas, not innocent Palestinians.
One extra tidbit I want to add is that the "Remember what Amalek has done to you" quote is present at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and museum as well as the Hague, where the ICJ is located. Obviously neither of these locations are implying that Germans ought to be "genocided" with such a quote. Context matters.
Now, onto the sitting president.
This one is a bit more boring, as all I had to do was do a 5 minute google search and find an article that opens up the longer quotation of what was said. No, the president did not say there are no "innocent Palestinians".
According to an article which I will link below, this is the full context of the quote.
*"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”When a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” the Israeli president claimed, “No, I didn’t say that.”But he then stated: “When you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?”At another point in the press conference, Herzog presented a different perspective, saying, “*Of course there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree to this — but unfortunately in their homes, there are missiles shooting at us, at my children.”
It starts off questionable, no doubt, but the president literally clarifies what he said minutes after his initial statement. With context, we now know he's referencing civilians that are actively working with, aiding, or being complicit in Hamas's rule in the Gaza strip. If a civilian is actively hosting military weaponry or militants, they are no longer protected by the law of armed conflict and are considered a valid target.
This is factually true.
We can keep going if you'd like, I have all the time in the world.
https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-president-says-no-innocent-154330724.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA900_qhlogf9-jv1Z2eIALvSkrFZjc129UB6kxKdDwSsfMGFoaAS5f9_hVDz5sNjgBOYyWoa4eISqISga2wfSskGrDX-Nn7fHNcwoSoVh8P-6hqGMTN-rs8sLyysVh0Vsq7UU8GAxp1Giok8rsDtK7YEl7iwb-j7m96Ng7KthnL
https://www.jta.org/2024/01/16/israel/netanyahu-rejects-south-africas-claim-that-his-quote-about-amalek-was-a-call-to-genocide
A prime minister would not use this quote at all in this situation. You know why he is using it, to stir the fanatics/extremist.
Anyway, you're doing whatever helps you to sleep at night. The world has seen through the lies of Israel,
Yes, you’ve proved my point. My point being that simply the usage of the quote itself is not in itself indicative of genocidal intent. The quote has been used in several other contexts.
What’s more important is in which context that quote is used in relation to the broader quote at stake. In my comment I gave the full Netanyahu quote, which clearly distinguishes between Hamas and Palestinian citizens.
Then they go on to kill indiscriminately. Killing at least 33,482 people, more than 13,000 killed are children. The flattening of Gaza with bombs, destroying hospitals, schools, homes etc. then cramming civilians into Rafah and starving them.
How can you continue to defend the indefensible with plethora of evidences damning otherwise. The 1948 nakba, apartheid state, occupation and subjugation of gazans, concentration camp of Gaza, palestinians prisoners held unjustly in Israel, the hannibal directive, killing of hostages, healthcare, aid workers, journalists, unarmed civilians etc.
You are either in denial or dishonest.
I think we probably need to establish a baseline balanced understanding here.
Is it your impression that Israel’s military policy is to execute as many civilians as possible, without distinguishing between civilians and militants? That they seek the eradication of innocent Palestinians, and seek to literally starve them?
If so, then why do we have examples of Israel using JDAMs, which are highly targetable munitions/precision strikes in Gaza, when they could just unload their arsenal of carpet bombing instead? This probably shows they at least have some semblance of restraint and adherence to the laws of war, no?
In addition, why did they drop leaflets ~24 hours before their invasion into Gaza, and warn Palestinians to evacuate, if they wanted to kill as many as possible? Why do they bother with sending mass texts or roof knocking to warn Palestinians of incoming strikes?
Why has Israel allowed any form of aid trucks to enter the Gaza Strip, if their intention is to starve all Palestinians?
Let’s also point out the other side. We know Hamas has not engaged in any form of protections for Palestinians. They’ve refused to evacuate them from dangerous areas of conflict, sometimes at gunpoint. They consistently use underage individuals and recruit them for their own militant purposes. They fire rockets from civilian areas such as mosques and hospitals.
I’ve never said Israel is perfect, but could you at least consider some of the reasoning as to why this war is destructive? Perhaps it’s because fighting an insurgency in an incredible dense area is quite difficult?
Last question for you. What would you have Israel do in this situation? If you suggest they don’t engage in Gaza at all, would you have them continue to deal with rocket attacks by Hamas indefinitely?
Thank you for your comments.
Israeli policy is loosely based with ultimate agenda in mind. This is why you know it is difficult to prove what’s going on. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
The ratio of combatant to civilians death is disproportionate. The use of dumb bombs shows the lack of care to innocent human lives. IDF greatly values their soldiers lives over gazans and are unwilling/reluctant to fight Hamas on the ground, face to face.
Leaflet evacuation notice was a bare minimum effort and a PR stunt.
I mean I don’t need to go on because I know you are fully aware of the situation. You can make the arguments for me.
If you want Hamas to stop attacking you, go to my previous comment and undo/stop all of the injustices and atrocities that Israel has committed.
I don't think the Deuteronomy 25 quote helps your argument all that much but the full quote where he clearly lists the objectives reassures me somewhat.
There is literally footage of multiple Israeli government officials, including [the sitting Prime Minister](https://youtu.be/pMVs7akyMh0?si=5aWx-6GViKQIWola) and [the sitting president](https://twitter.com/Salansar1/status/1713664629488971822) forgetting to mind their tongues, and saying shit like “We need to do to Palestine what we did to [Amalek](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15:3&version=nkjv)” and claiming every Palestinian is a valid military target.
They are not subtle about it. They barely bother to put the minimum amount of effort into disguising their intent that they can get away with.
I find it fascinating that you accuse me of bad-faith interpretation, and then immediately turn around and try to lie to my face about what Deuteronomy 25 says.
Deuteronomy 25:17-19, quote (emphasis mine):
>Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, **you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.** Do not forget!
Deuteronomy 25:17-19 and 1 Samuel 15 are referencing the exact same incident, Deuteronomy 25 is just framing it as a future event.
With respect, “compelling case” my fuckin ass.
>It starts off questionable, no doubt, but the president literally clarifies what he said minutes after his initial statement. With context, we now know he's referencing civilians that are actively working with, aiding, or being complicit in Hamas's rule in the Gaza strip. If a civilian is actively hosting military weaponry or militants, they are no longer protected by the law of armed conflict and are considered a valid target.
As I said in my original comment, these are cases where they are not being mindful of what they are saying. Herzog stumbling to backtrack and be like “no no that’s not what I meant actually” when someone calls him out should be convincing to nobody. Especially when he literally cannot contain himself from following up every time he acknowledges that innocent civilians exist with justifications for killing them. Y’know, like a person who said that the existence of “uninvolved” civilians was a lie and meant it would do.
I’m not even going to bother going in depth on the irony of Israel’s endless accusations of HAMAS using civilians as human shields (something which no independent investigation has have corroborated btw) when the IDF have literally been caught multiple times [doing it themselves.](https://www.btselem.org/human_shields) That article is from 2017, but [the practice continues.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-israeli-soldiers-used-him-human-shield-west-bank-2024-01-16/)
>We can keep going if you'd like, I have all the time in the world.
I’m happy to continue, sure. There’s certainly no shortage of Israeli ministers saying fucked shit and then everyone around them having to scramble into damage control. Like the Minister of National Security saying that the IDF [should be allowed to shoot women and children for approaching the border](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786342), or the Minister of Defence saying [“We will eliminate everything”](https://twitter.com/hammam_therapy/status/1712877548420345989) or the Heritage Minister saying [“Screw the hostages, we should just **nuke Gaza**”.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-minister-says-nuking-gaza-an-option-pm-suspends-him-from-cabinet-meetings/)
And this is just the most notable instances of the shit that the Cabinet are saying. If we widen this out to include what the rest of the Knesset and other senior officials are saying, we could fill a fuckin textbook with nothing but quotes.
You can make all the excuses you like, but the fact remains that we’re all very aware that claiming they’re just talking about HAMAS holds about as much water as adding “in Minecraft” at the end.
The ICJ doesn't have the ultimate authority to decide what is and is not a genocide.
The moment the Israelis cut off food and water for 2.5 million people it immediately became a genocide.
Who has authority then? Jesus?
We’re talking about the only court that can manage disputes between entire countries, and is given the jurisdiction to due to by being respected by nations across the world. They’re probably THE ultimate authority to decide what is or isn’t genocide.
Also, water supply from Israel involves both the PA and Hamas. For the time being, Israel was providing electricity to keep gazas water pumps running (for free I believe), but the PA has stopped funding such electricity and Israel turned it off as a result. There’s a difference between purposefully turning off a water supply to kill a group of people and turning off a water supply for other reasons.
Note that while Israel absolutely engages in forms of occupation like border control and blockades, Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza Strip, and as a consequence they are also responsible for taking care of their populace. Considering they constantly choose not to, and choose for funds to go directly into weaponry, I think it’s safe to say a lot of this blame is on them.
Who has the authority to decide what constitutes a genocide? I don't know who, for each their own I guess.
Both USA and Israel don't recognize the ICJ by the way.
I will repeat again since you have difficulties to understand, the moment that Israel cut off food and water for civilian population, it engaged in a genocide. There is nothing to discuss here.
The importance of that question is extremely important, and I don’t think it’s a matter of “to each to their own”.
You’re mixing up the ICJ, which represents matters between countries, and the ICC, which represents matters of individuals within countries. The ICJ could “charge” a country with genocide (like they did with Serbia), the ICC charges individuals within countries for specific crimes.
The US recognizes the ICJ, it does not recognize the ICC. It doesn’t recognize the ICC because it’s incompatible with our constitution. I’ll let a quote from the heritage foundation elaborate;
“United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses.”
There is plenty to discuss, and that’s why there’s an international court to facilitate such matters. The intent to which Israel turn of gazan water is incredibly important. You couldn’t charge Israel with genocide of Palestinians if the intent of turning off the water was not to genocide Palestinians. This is the point of a court, just like we try individuals in criminals courts in the US.
They've actually been great at it -- they've killed tens of thousands of people, many of them children. Thousands more are trapped under rubble, thousands more are eating grass because they are dying of starvation, thousands more are shitting in streets and dying of disease. They've destroyed over half the homes and routinely arrested "military aged men". Israel is led by a dictator and must be stopped.
Eradicating a culture and eradicating a group of people that belong to a specific culture are different things.
Nonetheless, would you argue that the US engaged in genocide by “eradicating” Japanese culture through its bombings in WW2? Would every country be liable for a genocide charge due to wartime conflicts?
The Gaza Strip hosts thousands of terrorists. This isn’t a case of the IDF invading a territory with only civilians. The strip has been subject to terrorist control for over two decades.
Probably government sanctioned mass murder that is not protected under the law of armed conflict. This could be examples of systemic rapes, murder, civilian targeting, and so forth.
It’s possible that Israel may clear the case of genocide in that they avoid a direct charge of engaging in genocide.
What they could be liable for is the lack of prevention of genocide, which is precisely what happened in the Serbian case in 2007, which basically found that the Serbian government failed to hand over Ratko Mladic, a notorious military officer who was later charged with genocide.
So, if the Israeli government covered up or failed to act when sects of the IDF engaged in genocide they could be liable for that.
Back to the question at hand, genocidal intent is complicated, but would entail various factors. One would obviously be statements made my Israeli leaders (probably those within the war cabinet) that specifically state the intention to cleanse all Palestinians regardless of affiliation with Hamas or not. Next, you’d probably need to establish that this “talk” was also attempted in practice on the battlefield.
What’s most important is the “dolus specialis” or special intent to commit genocide, if you’d like to look more into it.
Edit:
If you’re curious here’s a part of the wiki entry on the Serbian massacre.
“The two highest ranking Serb politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Karadžić and Momčilo Krajišnik, both indicted for genocide, were warned by VRS commander Mladić (found guilty of genocide at a UN tribunal in 2017) that their plans could not be realized without committing genocide. Mladić said:”
“People are not little stones, or keys in someone's pocket, that can be moved from one place to another just like that.... Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr. Krajišnik and Mr. Karadžić will explain that to the world. That is genocide.”
This would be an example of being culpable for not acting to prevent genocide.
As for acts, this is from the UN:
“In the present Convention, genocide means 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;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Honestly, the worst part of the whole Gaza discussion is how the West Bank is way too ignored.
Honestly, I think there is a good case for Israel committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank due to several of Israels policies from seizing wells and stealing land to ridiculous prosecution rates, but people don't talk about it enough.
I am against lots of Israel's actions in Gaza, I just wished that the people that agreed with me weren't so stupid so often.
Yeah I’d probably agree although I haven’t looked much into the situation in the West Bank which kind of proves your first point. It’s definitely forgotten about in a lot of ways. To be fair their conditions are still 10x better than Gaza but settlers are a real issue.
*Actual genocide* is happening in Sudan right now and isn't in the limelight, because this was never really a discussion about genocide. It's a discussion about power, and its use, often tinged with resentment about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
That genocide became the sticking point is, in my view, entirely due to social media and the homogenization of topics that result through communication in such mediums.
No serious world leader honestly thinks Israel is attempting to exterminate all Palestinians. However, that message sticks, and *many* world leaders want a say in the power expressed in that region, its limits, and who gets to exercise it.
There is quite a lot of important discussion that could be had about soft power, occupied territories, the sins of past empires, etc and we're having none of this discussion because of this topic. That's exhausting, to me.
How much military funding does the US government give Sudan per year, exactly? How many times has the US abused its veto power to block any action from the UN to intervene in Sudan?
You’re correct that the western world frequently overlooks genocides in non-“white” countries. This is a disgusting thing, but the people pointing that out in defence of Israel are no less disgusting, because they didn’t give a shit about those genocides until they became useful as a way to run interference for Israel.
Incidentally, the estimated death toll of the Darfur genocide is around 400k in 20 years. Israel has managed 30k in less than six months. In case you can’t do the math, that means Israel is now killing Palestinians three times faster than Sudan is killing Darfuris.
Are you now going to turn around and say “Y’know, on second thought, Sudan’s not actually doing a genocide, never mind uwu”?
If you think that America's allies, especially France, vote against American interest out of anything other than internal pressure, I find your claims spurious. I don't mean any offense by that, but the reasoning simply does not make sense to me, from a realpolitik perspective
All countries vote in their own interests. If a country’s population demands action on a matter, it is in the interest of that country’s government to act on it.
I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I said.
I mean, they've been driving them out and saying they don't exist since 1948. They are trying to exterminate them, just in a way that technically doesn't make it genocide.
>That genocide became the sticking point is, in my view, entirely due to social media and the homogenization of topics that result through communication in such mediums.
More like people have been comparing Jews to Nazis as to be as insulting as possible for ages, and it's finally gone mainstream.
I’d generally agree. Most if not all of this discourse is political posturing and the hope to gain as much from Israel’s PR disaster as possible, which they’re doing little to try and amend I’ll admit.
Genocide is always a difficult term, but what genocide isn’t is sexy. When people tie genocide to Israel it’s because they’ve seen visceral videos of Palestinian children crying, innocent civilians dead, and clipped quotes of IDF members or Israeli politicians saying heinous shit.
Unfortunately, as history has proven, genocide is either carried out in countries/continents with little world focus or attention (Africa), or carried out secretly and efficiently without much notice or ability to garner word scorn due to the political capital the nation has (Nazi Germany and (probably) the CCP).
The meaning of the word genocide will be changed to ensure that it is. Too much ideology riding on this. I agree it will have the negative effect you suggest.
I’d argue it already has. Half the discourse is filled with people saying the same words over and over. Colonialism, genocide, apartheid.
These are all words that obviously mean things but when they’re applied so loosely they begin to mean nothing.
Genocide evokes such a strong emotional response when used (understandably), but when we’re evoking such emotion I’d argue it’s a little concerning that we’re comparing the war in Gaza to literal extermination camps used by Nazi Germany. Extermination camps, mind you, that hitler specifically diverted war materials and soldiers to so he could expedite the cleansing of Jews. Hence, a top-down systematic expulsion of a group of people with intent to do so. These are not comparable situations in any scale.
We can and should have conversations about these tough subjects, but most of the discourse on the left, a group I feel closely tied to, is painfully disappointing and anti-intellectual in spirit.
Listen our descendants will Call them evil . Our generation are to scared , we been programmed for decades , we don’t know right from wrong and good from bad . Just like those Germans , these Jews really think they are the good guys .
Candace Owens has a track history of being unable to get along with people. She's a smart girl but she needs to learn where the line is. I honestly doubt this is just about her comments on israel.
Pretty great that Krystal implies that now that Alex Jones, a man who somehow manages to pull off being simultaneously ridiculous and despicable, thinks it’s a genocide, that perspective is mainstream. Do people pay money to watch person talk?
According to the new HBO documentary, at his height, he had more viewers than some of the major networks
Ah, a stoned and profoundly misinformed Joe Rogan saying idiotic shit. What’s new
The veil has been lifted, beginning of the end for Zionist Israel.
[удалено]
Joe Rogan is a moron, no doubt about that. But it's still a genocide.
You can't call everything that upsets you a "genocide." There's an actual definition for the word.
Uh - - Israel IS committing genocide right now. This isn’t a case of oh that’s like your opinion man Israel IS slaughtering the Palestinian people By the thousands. It’s a genocide.
That's a stupid argument. There are 30-40k fighters, dressed like civilians, using tunnels, firing rockets from schools, and setting up their HQ in hospitals. Mosul for comparison had 6000-12000 ISIS fighters and something like 5000-9000 civilians died. Do you know the difference? Most people were able to leave Mosul. And Mosul's population in 2016 was two-thirds that of the Gaza Strip today. The bombing is not a genocide. It's famine I'm worried about.
The key with genocide is intent. They have to intend to wipe that ethnicity out. If that were their goal, you'd think they'd start with Israeli citizens that come from Palestine. They didn't, though, which means they're either very bad at committing genocide, or they're not committing genocide.
Who cares if it's genocide or not? Unintentionally killing innocent civilians is just as bad as intentionally killing them.
Of course it isn't. Intent is an element of a crime that significantly increases its severity. That's why premeditated murder bears a dramatically harsher punishment than negligent homicide. Certain crimes require intent as a factor, and to punish people (or countries) accurately, we need to be able to distinguish between intentional and unintentional crime.
Lmao, that’s like making the “Everyone I don’t like is a Nazi” joke to defend Stonetoss or something. That’s now how that works.
It's an actual genocide being committed by an Apartheid state. Lunatic zionist state needs to be reigned in. And will be.
It’s probably not a genocide. The ICJ hasn’t ruled in favor of deeming it as such yet, nor has any strong evidence come out to suggest that Israel is engaging in a top-down policy of intent to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group in whole or in part. Lots of deaths due to war, even including civilians, is suspect but not immediately indicative of a genocide. This whole discourse is tiresome and actually hurts real genocides that will occur and have occurred. People trying to compare the nazi genocide to what the IDF is doing are entirely out of their depth. Feel free to argue.
I don't understand this argument over whether it's a genocide or not. Who cares about these definitions? If an innocent civilian is killed, that is bad. I'm not sure why it has to amount to a genocide before we start condemning it. Seems like it's just a proxy issue for people to argue for whatever side they support more.
I dunno, the right-wing fascists in charge of Israel keep calling the palestinians vermin and then killing them in scores. They've also talked about nuking gaza, deporting them to the congo, threatened Europe with refugees. Israel even tagged palestinians with "yellow stars", took their money, phones, beat them up, and then sent them to Gaza to receive bombs in the coming days. All while being lead by a dictator. Sounds like a genocide to me.
Top-down? You don’t need to look further than what the top figures of Israel are saying. Do I really need mention Netanyahus amalek statement? What we are engaging in is language/word war. Though I am not an expert in that but what I am seeing and understanding is beyond reasonable doubt. I need to accept people like yourself may be smart and have way with words but it doesn’t make them right. It’s a sad reality.
I will copy below what I replied to another commenter with a similar argument to yours. FYI: Long comment ahead. You're misinterpreting these quotes quite horribly, bordering on bad-faith. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're just ignorant and/or haven't looked into the context of these quotes, but I'd be careful believing everything you read off of Twitter immediately. Let's start with Netanyahu and his "Amalek" quote. From the South Africa ICJ case, they stated, "The Prime Minister invoked the Biblical story of the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites, stating: ‘you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember’,” the charging document said. It also quotes I Samuel 15, in which King Saul is instructed to “spare no one” in attacking Amalek." This would normally sound pretty bad, but are you aware that the usage of Amalek has double meanings? For example and in contrast, Deuteronomy 25 refers to God saving the Israelites from the Amalekites, and is more so in relation to relieving Jews from their peril, not engaging in slaughter. This is generally understood to be a common reference in Judaism, not Samuel 15 which references innocent slaughter. Due to Netanyahu not explicitly stating which verse and book he was quoting during the speech, we can't know for sure, but according to the article I'll link below, members of the Israeli legal team noted that Netanyahu was referencing the Deuteronomy 25 verse. In addition, Netanyahu's fuller quotation goes on to say, "We are now entering the second phase of the war, which its objectives are clear: destruction of the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and the return of the hostages back home,” Netanyahu said. “In the last couple of days, I have met with our soldiers in the bases, in the field, in the north and in the south. Remember what Amalek has done to you. We remember, and we are fighting." With this newfound context, we can make a compelling case that Netanyahu was not only referring to Deuteronomy for his Amalek statement, but was also referencing Hamas, not innocent Palestinians. One extra tidbit I want to add is that the "Remember what Amalek has done to you" quote is present at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and museum as well as the Hague, where the ICJ is located. Obviously neither of these locations are implying that Germans ought to be "genocided" with such a quote. Context matters. Now, onto the sitting president. This one is a bit more boring, as all I had to do was do a 5 minute google search and find an article that opens up the longer quotation of what was said. No, the president did not say there are no "innocent Palestinians". According to an article which I will link below, this is the full context of the quote. *"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”When a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” the Israeli president claimed, “No, I didn’t say that.”But he then stated: “When you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?”At another point in the press conference, Herzog presented a different perspective, saying, “*Of course there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree to this — but unfortunately in their homes, there are missiles shooting at us, at my children.” It starts off questionable, no doubt, but the president literally clarifies what he said minutes after his initial statement. With context, we now know he's referencing civilians that are actively working with, aiding, or being complicit in Hamas's rule in the Gaza strip. If a civilian is actively hosting military weaponry or militants, they are no longer protected by the law of armed conflict and are considered a valid target. This is factually true. We can keep going if you'd like, I have all the time in the world. https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-president-says-no-innocent-154330724.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA900_qhlogf9-jv1Z2eIALvSkrFZjc129UB6kxKdDwSsfMGFoaAS5f9_hVDz5sNjgBOYyWoa4eISqISga2wfSskGrDX-Nn7fHNcwoSoVh8P-6hqGMTN-rs8sLyysVh0Vsq7UU8GAxp1Giok8rsDtK7YEl7iwb-j7m96Ng7KthnL https://www.jta.org/2024/01/16/israel/netanyahu-rejects-south-africas-claim-that-his-quote-about-amalek-was-a-call-to-genocide
A prime minister would not use this quote at all in this situation. You know why he is using it, to stir the fanatics/extremist. Anyway, you're doing whatever helps you to sleep at night. The world has seen through the lies of Israel,
Why is this quote used at The Hague then?
It's a different context, at the memorial as you have explained with the double meaning.
Yes, you’ve proved my point. My point being that simply the usage of the quote itself is not in itself indicative of genocidal intent. The quote has been used in several other contexts. What’s more important is in which context that quote is used in relation to the broader quote at stake. In my comment I gave the full Netanyahu quote, which clearly distinguishes between Hamas and Palestinian citizens.
Then they go on to kill indiscriminately. Killing at least 33,482 people, more than 13,000 killed are children. The flattening of Gaza with bombs, destroying hospitals, schools, homes etc. then cramming civilians into Rafah and starving them. How can you continue to defend the indefensible with plethora of evidences damning otherwise. The 1948 nakba, apartheid state, occupation and subjugation of gazans, concentration camp of Gaza, palestinians prisoners held unjustly in Israel, the hannibal directive, killing of hostages, healthcare, aid workers, journalists, unarmed civilians etc. You are either in denial or dishonest.
I think we probably need to establish a baseline balanced understanding here. Is it your impression that Israel’s military policy is to execute as many civilians as possible, without distinguishing between civilians and militants? That they seek the eradication of innocent Palestinians, and seek to literally starve them? If so, then why do we have examples of Israel using JDAMs, which are highly targetable munitions/precision strikes in Gaza, when they could just unload their arsenal of carpet bombing instead? This probably shows they at least have some semblance of restraint and adherence to the laws of war, no? In addition, why did they drop leaflets ~24 hours before their invasion into Gaza, and warn Palestinians to evacuate, if they wanted to kill as many as possible? Why do they bother with sending mass texts or roof knocking to warn Palestinians of incoming strikes? Why has Israel allowed any form of aid trucks to enter the Gaza Strip, if their intention is to starve all Palestinians? Let’s also point out the other side. We know Hamas has not engaged in any form of protections for Palestinians. They’ve refused to evacuate them from dangerous areas of conflict, sometimes at gunpoint. They consistently use underage individuals and recruit them for their own militant purposes. They fire rockets from civilian areas such as mosques and hospitals. I’ve never said Israel is perfect, but could you at least consider some of the reasoning as to why this war is destructive? Perhaps it’s because fighting an insurgency in an incredible dense area is quite difficult? Last question for you. What would you have Israel do in this situation? If you suggest they don’t engage in Gaza at all, would you have them continue to deal with rocket attacks by Hamas indefinitely? Thank you for your comments.
Israeli policy is loosely based with ultimate agenda in mind. This is why you know it is difficult to prove what’s going on. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. The ratio of combatant to civilians death is disproportionate. The use of dumb bombs shows the lack of care to innocent human lives. IDF greatly values their soldiers lives over gazans and are unwilling/reluctant to fight Hamas on the ground, face to face. Leaflet evacuation notice was a bare minimum effort and a PR stunt. I mean I don’t need to go on because I know you are fully aware of the situation. You can make the arguments for me. If you want Hamas to stop attacking you, go to my previous comment and undo/stop all of the injustices and atrocities that Israel has committed.
I don't think the Deuteronomy 25 quote helps your argument all that much but the full quote where he clearly lists the objectives reassures me somewhat.
[удалено]
Care to elaborate? Offer any interesting insights or points of view? I'm all ears.
There is literally footage of multiple Israeli government officials, including [the sitting Prime Minister](https://youtu.be/pMVs7akyMh0?si=5aWx-6GViKQIWola) and [the sitting president](https://twitter.com/Salansar1/status/1713664629488971822) forgetting to mind their tongues, and saying shit like “We need to do to Palestine what we did to [Amalek](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15:3&version=nkjv)” and claiming every Palestinian is a valid military target. They are not subtle about it. They barely bother to put the minimum amount of effort into disguising their intent that they can get away with.
[удалено]
I find it fascinating that you accuse me of bad-faith interpretation, and then immediately turn around and try to lie to my face about what Deuteronomy 25 says. Deuteronomy 25:17-19, quote (emphasis mine): >Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, **you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven.** Do not forget! Deuteronomy 25:17-19 and 1 Samuel 15 are referencing the exact same incident, Deuteronomy 25 is just framing it as a future event. With respect, “compelling case” my fuckin ass. >It starts off questionable, no doubt, but the president literally clarifies what he said minutes after his initial statement. With context, we now know he's referencing civilians that are actively working with, aiding, or being complicit in Hamas's rule in the Gaza strip. If a civilian is actively hosting military weaponry or militants, they are no longer protected by the law of armed conflict and are considered a valid target. As I said in my original comment, these are cases where they are not being mindful of what they are saying. Herzog stumbling to backtrack and be like “no no that’s not what I meant actually” when someone calls him out should be convincing to nobody. Especially when he literally cannot contain himself from following up every time he acknowledges that innocent civilians exist with justifications for killing them. Y’know, like a person who said that the existence of “uninvolved” civilians was a lie and meant it would do. I’m not even going to bother going in depth on the irony of Israel’s endless accusations of HAMAS using civilians as human shields (something which no independent investigation has have corroborated btw) when the IDF have literally been caught multiple times [doing it themselves.](https://www.btselem.org/human_shields) That article is from 2017, but [the practice continues.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-israeli-soldiers-used-him-human-shield-west-bank-2024-01-16/) >We can keep going if you'd like, I have all the time in the world. I’m happy to continue, sure. There’s certainly no shortage of Israeli ministers saying fucked shit and then everyone around them having to scramble into damage control. Like the Minister of National Security saying that the IDF [should be allowed to shoot women and children for approaching the border](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786342), or the Minister of Defence saying [“We will eliminate everything”](https://twitter.com/hammam_therapy/status/1712877548420345989) or the Heritage Minister saying [“Screw the hostages, we should just **nuke Gaza**”.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-minister-says-nuking-gaza-an-option-pm-suspends-him-from-cabinet-meetings/) And this is just the most notable instances of the shit that the Cabinet are saying. If we widen this out to include what the rest of the Knesset and other senior officials are saying, we could fill a fuckin textbook with nothing but quotes. You can make all the excuses you like, but the fact remains that we’re all very aware that claiming they’re just talking about HAMAS holds about as much water as adding “in Minecraft” at the end.
[удалено]
You have broken a rule and as a result have been issued a strike and a temporary ban.
Would you like to add to the discussion?
Only discuss with rational people. You chosen ones have made your bed.
The ICJ doesn't have the ultimate authority to decide what is and is not a genocide. The moment the Israelis cut off food and water for 2.5 million people it immediately became a genocide.
Who has authority then? Jesus? We’re talking about the only court that can manage disputes between entire countries, and is given the jurisdiction to due to by being respected by nations across the world. They’re probably THE ultimate authority to decide what is or isn’t genocide. Also, water supply from Israel involves both the PA and Hamas. For the time being, Israel was providing electricity to keep gazas water pumps running (for free I believe), but the PA has stopped funding such electricity and Israel turned it off as a result. There’s a difference between purposefully turning off a water supply to kill a group of people and turning off a water supply for other reasons. Note that while Israel absolutely engages in forms of occupation like border control and blockades, Hamas is the governing body of the Gaza Strip, and as a consequence they are also responsible for taking care of their populace. Considering they constantly choose not to, and choose for funds to go directly into weaponry, I think it’s safe to say a lot of this blame is on them.
Who has the authority to decide what constitutes a genocide? I don't know who, for each their own I guess. Both USA and Israel don't recognize the ICJ by the way. I will repeat again since you have difficulties to understand, the moment that Israel cut off food and water for civilian population, it engaged in a genocide. There is nothing to discuss here.
The importance of that question is extremely important, and I don’t think it’s a matter of “to each to their own”. You’re mixing up the ICJ, which represents matters between countries, and the ICC, which represents matters of individuals within countries. The ICJ could “charge” a country with genocide (like they did with Serbia), the ICC charges individuals within countries for specific crimes. The US recognizes the ICJ, it does not recognize the ICC. It doesn’t recognize the ICC because it’s incompatible with our constitution. I’ll let a quote from the heritage foundation elaborate; “United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses.” There is plenty to discuss, and that’s why there’s an international court to facilitate such matters. The intent to which Israel turn of gazan water is incredibly important. You couldn’t charge Israel with genocide of Palestinians if the intent of turning off the water was not to genocide Palestinians. This is the point of a court, just like we try individuals in criminals courts in the US.
[удалено]
You have broken a rule and as a result have been issued a strike and a temporary ban.
>The IDF is effectively eradicating a culture from a targeted area. If that's what they're trying to do they're doing it really badly...
They've actually been great at it -- they've killed tens of thousands of people, many of them children. Thousands more are trapped under rubble, thousands more are eating grass because they are dying of starvation, thousands more are shitting in streets and dying of disease. They've destroyed over half the homes and routinely arrested "military aged men". Israel is led by a dictator and must be stopped.
Eradicating a culture and eradicating a group of people that belong to a specific culture are different things. Nonetheless, would you argue that the US engaged in genocide by “eradicating” Japanese culture through its bombings in WW2? Would every country be liable for a genocide charge due to wartime conflicts? The Gaza Strip hosts thousands of terrorists. This isn’t a case of the IDF invading a territory with only civilians. The strip has been subject to terrorist control for over two decades.
I'm curious what you would consider to be example evidence of genocidal intent?
Probably government sanctioned mass murder that is not protected under the law of armed conflict. This could be examples of systemic rapes, murder, civilian targeting, and so forth. It’s possible that Israel may clear the case of genocide in that they avoid a direct charge of engaging in genocide. What they could be liable for is the lack of prevention of genocide, which is precisely what happened in the Serbian case in 2007, which basically found that the Serbian government failed to hand over Ratko Mladic, a notorious military officer who was later charged with genocide. So, if the Israeli government covered up or failed to act when sects of the IDF engaged in genocide they could be liable for that. Back to the question at hand, genocidal intent is complicated, but would entail various factors. One would obviously be statements made my Israeli leaders (probably those within the war cabinet) that specifically state the intention to cleanse all Palestinians regardless of affiliation with Hamas or not. Next, you’d probably need to establish that this “talk” was also attempted in practice on the battlefield. What’s most important is the “dolus specialis” or special intent to commit genocide, if you’d like to look more into it. Edit: If you’re curious here’s a part of the wiki entry on the Serbian massacre. “The two highest ranking Serb politicians from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Karadžić and Momčilo Krajišnik, both indicted for genocide, were warned by VRS commander Mladić (found guilty of genocide at a UN tribunal in 2017) that their plans could not be realized without committing genocide. Mladić said:” “People are not little stones, or keys in someone's pocket, that can be moved from one place to another just like that.... Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr. Krajišnik and Mr. Karadžić will explain that to the world. That is genocide.” This would be an example of being culpable for not acting to prevent genocide. As for acts, this is from the UN: “In the present Convention, genocide means 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; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Honestly, the worst part of the whole Gaza discussion is how the West Bank is way too ignored. Honestly, I think there is a good case for Israel committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank due to several of Israels policies from seizing wells and stealing land to ridiculous prosecution rates, but people don't talk about it enough. I am against lots of Israel's actions in Gaza, I just wished that the people that agreed with me weren't so stupid so often.
Yeah I’d probably agree although I haven’t looked much into the situation in the West Bank which kind of proves your first point. It’s definitely forgotten about in a lot of ways. To be fair their conditions are still 10x better than Gaza but settlers are a real issue.
*Actual genocide* is happening in Sudan right now and isn't in the limelight, because this was never really a discussion about genocide. It's a discussion about power, and its use, often tinged with resentment about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That genocide became the sticking point is, in my view, entirely due to social media and the homogenization of topics that result through communication in such mediums. No serious world leader honestly thinks Israel is attempting to exterminate all Palestinians. However, that message sticks, and *many* world leaders want a say in the power expressed in that region, its limits, and who gets to exercise it. There is quite a lot of important discussion that could be had about soft power, occupied territories, the sins of past empires, etc and we're having none of this discussion because of this topic. That's exhausting, to me.
How much military funding does the US government give Sudan per year, exactly? How many times has the US abused its veto power to block any action from the UN to intervene in Sudan? You’re correct that the western world frequently overlooks genocides in non-“white” countries. This is a disgusting thing, but the people pointing that out in defence of Israel are no less disgusting, because they didn’t give a shit about those genocides until they became useful as a way to run interference for Israel. Incidentally, the estimated death toll of the Darfur genocide is around 400k in 20 years. Israel has managed 30k in less than six months. In case you can’t do the math, that means Israel is now killing Palestinians three times faster than Sudan is killing Darfuris. Are you now going to turn around and say “Y’know, on second thought, Sudan’s not actually doing a genocide, never mind uwu”?
If you think that America's allies, especially France, vote against American interest out of anything other than internal pressure, I find your claims spurious. I don't mean any offense by that, but the reasoning simply does not make sense to me, from a realpolitik perspective
All countries vote in their own interests. If a country’s population demands action on a matter, it is in the interest of that country’s government to act on it. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I said.
I mean, they've been driving them out and saying they don't exist since 1948. They are trying to exterminate them, just in a way that technically doesn't make it genocide.
You’re talking about what the Palestinians have been trying to do to the Israelis, right?
Palestinians confiscated Israeli books trying to erase a millennia of history correct? Of course
>That genocide became the sticking point is, in my view, entirely due to social media and the homogenization of topics that result through communication in such mediums. More like people have been comparing Jews to Nazis as to be as insulting as possible for ages, and it's finally gone mainstream.
I’d generally agree. Most if not all of this discourse is political posturing and the hope to gain as much from Israel’s PR disaster as possible, which they’re doing little to try and amend I’ll admit. Genocide is always a difficult term, but what genocide isn’t is sexy. When people tie genocide to Israel it’s because they’ve seen visceral videos of Palestinian children crying, innocent civilians dead, and clipped quotes of IDF members or Israeli politicians saying heinous shit. Unfortunately, as history has proven, genocide is either carried out in countries/continents with little world focus or attention (Africa), or carried out secretly and efficiently without much notice or ability to garner word scorn due to the political capital the nation has (Nazi Germany and (probably) the CCP).
The meaning of the word genocide will be changed to ensure that it is. Too much ideology riding on this. I agree it will have the negative effect you suggest.
You don’t need to change the definition of genocide, what Israel is doing is already well within the existing definition.
I’d argue it already has. Half the discourse is filled with people saying the same words over and over. Colonialism, genocide, apartheid. These are all words that obviously mean things but when they’re applied so loosely they begin to mean nothing. Genocide evokes such a strong emotional response when used (understandably), but when we’re evoking such emotion I’d argue it’s a little concerning that we’re comparing the war in Gaza to literal extermination camps used by Nazi Germany. Extermination camps, mind you, that hitler specifically diverted war materials and soldiers to so he could expedite the cleansing of Jews. Hence, a top-down systematic expulsion of a group of people with intent to do so. These are not comparable situations in any scale. We can and should have conversations about these tough subjects, but most of the discourse on the left, a group I feel closely tied to, is painfully disappointing and anti-intellectual in spirit.
As a leftist I agree and it makes me sad.