Your country is complicit of Genocide

[principians]

Quite honestly, that's rather lazy. If you are going to make claims like "Hamas is in favor of a two state solution," at least know what you are talking about. It's not a long read, and to me it just demonstrates your lack of real knowledge on the subject. It is very clear about the fact that Hamas does not want a two state solution, so whoever reported that it is ambiguous, again, lied to you.

I wonder who do you think has 'real knowledge' on the subject. I simply was not prioritizing reading a hamas declaration, but you know what, I might end up reading it just out of curiosity (probably it won't happen in the next couple of days though).

Churchill said that all Germans are Nazis in WW2, and used that as a propaganda tactic. This dehumanized the Germans and made the public more supportive of the war.

And I guess you think it was a ethically a correct thing by Churchill (especially when I hope we can agree that it was totally false that 'all germans were nazis')? And you say "all germans are nazis" was propaganda but sure "all palestinians are hamas" isn't?

There have been war crimes, yes, but other than Netanyahu, you haven't shown how the people or military (by which I mean the soldiers themselves) are genocidal, which is what it takes to cause genocide.

The Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said Israel is "fighting human animals" and "Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will
eliminate everything . . . we will reach all places." (and he was not the only one talking about "human animals")

Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, said that Israel "must find ways for Gazans that are more painful than death"

The Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, "when we say that Hamas should be destroyed, it also means those who celebrate, those who
support, and those who hand out candy - they’re all terrorists, and they should also be destroyed"

No guys, unfortunately, it's not just Netanyahu.

they have informed the Gazans to evacuate areas before bombing them

and later they bombed some of the places where they said people they could refuge

Conceptually, they are both just as evil as each other.

Ok, I appretiate your inputs about this. Here I'll just say I disagree, I think they are very different things conceptually.

I personally don't think a two state solution is feasible

It's a bit ironic you say that when before you seemed to argue that Hamas does not want a two state solution and that seemed to be the reason you gave to label them genocidal.

And anyways, you entirely disregarded my point that regardless of "who was there first," Israel is doing a much better job governing the land than the Palestinians ever have.

Ok, so you really think this is a good argument.

First I want to say that one of the reasons palestinians originally supported hamas, was because the other party, the ANP was percieved as very corrupt and that it was not really making anything to improve their lives.

Anyway, which criteria are you considering to talk about "good government"? and, are you considering at all the context in which side has been governing?

Then, the spaniards would say "see, we are better governors than the american natives", and man, you could perfectly agree with them since while spaniards had a lot of material advantages, plus they would not sacrifice other human beings, nor keep the state of war that seemed prevalent before their arrival (talking about the situation in Mexico and Peru). And so you had spaniards putting natives under a system very similar to slavery and they ended up being so bad governors in Mexico at least, that in 300 years the population never recovered.

One side has to win

I'll finish with this, because this is the string of words where I definitely disagree the most with you. What, for the sake of what you most love, what do you mean by "win" here? This is not a game. The way things are evolving THERE IS NO WIN HERE, for no one.

[CaptainFritz28]

I wonder who do you think has 'real knowledge' on the subject. I simply was not prioritizing reading a hamas declaration, but you know what, I might end up reading it just out of curiosity (probably it won't happen in the next couple of days though).

I suggest you do. You claimed that Hamas' intent is a two state solution, and that the 2017 charter is at the least ambiguous, and thus I would define real knowledge as having actually read something before citing it as your primary source for a claim.

And I guess you think it was a ethically a correct thing by Churchill (especially when I hope we can agree that it was totally false that 'all germans were nazis')? And you say "all germans are nazis" was propaganda but sure "all palestinians are hamas" isn't?

They are both propaganda. That's exactly my point.

Churchill didn't want every German to die, nor did he want a genocide of the Germans. He said what he did to bolster public support to win a war begun by the Germans.

I don't know if the Israeli Ministers you referenced want every Gazan to die, nor if they want a genocide of the Gazans. They say what they do to bolster public support to win a war begun by Hamas.

The Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said Israel is "fighting human animals" and "Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will
eliminate everything . . . we will reach all places." (and he was not the only one talking about "human animals")

Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, said that Israel "must find ways for Gazans that are more painful than death"

The Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, "when we say that Hamas should be destroyed, it also means those who celebrate, those who
support, and those who hand out candy - they’re all terrorists, and they should also be destroyed"

No guys, unfortunately, it's not just Netanyahu.

Again, it requires a large majority of the people and the military (the soldiers themselves) to be in favor of genocide for genocide to actually happen. The Nazis needed a lot more than just Hitler, Göring, Goebbels, and Himmler to cause the Holocaust.

and later they bombed some of the places where they said people they could refuge

Which specific instance(s) are you referring to?

Ok, I appretiate your inputs about this. Here I'll just say I disagree, I think they are very different things conceptually.

While it doesn't really matter, since Hamas is both genocidal and terroristic and if what you claim is true Israel is just genocidal, I am rather curious as to your thoughts on this. Why do you disagree?

It's a bit ironic you say that when before you seemed to argue that Hamas does not want a two state solution and that seemed to be the reason you gave to label them genocidal.

I want a two state solution, but I recognize that it wont happen, largely because:
Hamas will only accept the full elimination of Israel so that Palestine can be "liberated."

Ok, so you really think this is a good argument.

I was referring specifically to Jamie here, but yes, yes I do. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made it.
The alternative is the conclusion that we should make things worse for both Jews and Arabs alike so that the Palestinians can be "liberated."

First I want to say that one of the reasons palestinians originally supported hamas, was because the other party, the ANP was percieved as very corrupt and that it was not really making anything to improve their lives.

Hamas is also very corrupt and not making anything to improve their lives. This is exactly my point.

Anyway, which criteria are you considering to talk about "good government"? and, are you considering at all the context in which side has been governing?

I am not talking about good government v bad government. I'm talking about less than ideal government v horrificly bad government.

Then, the spaniards would say "see, we are better governors than the american natives", and man, you could perfectly agree with them since while spaniards had a lot of material advantages, plus they would not sacrifice other human beings, nor keep the state of war that seemed prevalent before their arrival (talking about the situation in Mexico and Peru). And so you had spaniards putting natives under a system very similar to slavery and they ended up being so bad governors in Mexico at least, that in 300 years the population never recovered.

This doesn't change things. If the Spaniards were truly a better government then the natives, then things are better now than they would be had the natives remained in power.

And anyways, we must look at how things are, not how they could be. Israel is currently in power. They have done much, much better with the power which they have had than the Palestinians' government has done with the power which they have had. In the end, either the Palestinian or Israeli government will remain in power, but not both. It is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, and in this case that is Israel.

I'll finish with this, because this is the string of words where I definitely disagree the most with you. What, for the sake of what you most love, what do you mean by "win" here? This is not a game. The way things are evolving THERE IS NO WIN HERE, for no one.

Generally, wars are said to have been "won" by one side or another (i.e. "The Allies won WW2"). In reality, every side suffers loss. Obviously war is bad, and no one benefits from a war. But one side does "win" a war, and this is generally considered to be the side which suffers least from the outcome. Hence, one side has to suffer least from the outcome in this war, and they are the side which will win.

[Jamiet99uk]

The fact of the matter is that both sides claim the land for their own, and both sides are willing to kill for it. I personally don't think a two state solution is feasible, so it comes down to a question of - which side has historically taken care of their citizens better? If one side has to win, which is better to their people?

Put simply, history shows it to be Israel. I'm certainly not saying that Israel is by any means perfect, but what I am saying is that the governments that the Palestinians have chosen for themselves have been far worse than Israeli governments.

One side has to win. There really can't be a long term two state solution. Looking at the way Hamas treats their people and the way that Israel treats their people (even the Arabs), we see that Israel's government is by far the better choice.

Which side was living peacefully there in the fucking first place?

Was it the Zionists?

No it fucking was not. The Zionists arrived and forced the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint. How can you fucking reconcile the morality of that action, please?? This is the basic injustice that you ignore.

Do you really want to go back in time? How about the Ottoman Empire, which oppressed Jews in Israel for centuries, or the Romans, who initially gave the land the name "Palestine"? Do you not realize that the very name of Palestine is a symbol of oppression against Jews, albeit by an empire long gone?

Why do the Palestinians deserve a homeland but not the Jews? Why do we fault Israel for their oppression, but not the Ottomans of only 30 years before? Why the double standard?

I condemn the racist policies of the Ottoman Empire and call for it to be abolished.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Which side was living peacefully there in the fucking first place?

Was it the Zionists?

No it fucking was not. The Zionists arrived and forced the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint. How can you fucking reconcile the morality of that action, please?? This is the basic injustice that you ignore.

Do you really want to go back in time? How about the Ottoman Empire, which oppressed Jews in Israel for centuries, or the Romans, who initially gave the land the name "Palestine"? Do you not realize that the very name of Palestine is a symbol of oppression against Jews, albeit by an empire long gone?

Why do the Palestinians deserve a homeland but not the Jews? Why do we fault Israel for their oppression, but not the Ottomans of only 30 years before? Why the double standard?

I condemn the racist policies of the Ottoman Empire and call for it to be abolished.

Okay, but there still seems to be a real problem here.

The Levant has been controlled, at various points, by Canaanites, *Israelites*, The Assyrian Empire, The Babylonian Empire, The Persian Empire, The Roman Empire, The Byzantine Empire, an Islamic Caliphate, crusading Christians, Mamluks, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, and now modern Israel and Palestinian governments. Most likely, the "original" Canaanites displaced some group that was there before them too.

Some Palestinians are believed to be descended from the Canaanites, but so too are some Jews. And that's not the whole story. Palestinians also descend from those Arabs who *conquered* the land in the 7th century. Modern Palestinians likewise descend from other Arabs moving around the Ottoman Empire (i.e., Arabs moving onto a conquered land they were not original to).

Europeans are obsessed with the Aztecs because that's who they met first upon contact. But the Aztec's had somewhat recently dispossessed the Zapotecs with violent conquest. I suspect modern day Palestinians, who are an amalgam of groups living on conquered land, feel "original" to the West because that's who happened to be there when the British ruled.

I am also strongly repulsed by what happened in 1948 and by the continuation of that movement to take over Palestinian land. My concern with the Nakba and the modern settler movement isn't predicated on Palestinians originality to the land, but simply stems from the fact that people who have made a home and life themselves were/are being killed and/or uprooted. Likewise, while I agree that modern Israelis are an imposition on the people who immediately predated them, I look at millions of people living in modern Israel, many for several generations, and I think it's already too late to tell them to go away.

[CaptainFritz28]

Which side was living peacefully there in the fucking first place?

Was it the Zionists?

No it fucking was not. The Zionists arrived and forced the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint. How can you fucking reconcile the morality of that action, please?? This is the basic injustice that you ignore.

Do you really want to go back in time? How about the Ottoman Empire, which oppressed Jews in Israel for centuries, or the Romans, who initially gave the land the name "Palestine"? Do you not realize that the very name of Palestine is a symbol of oppression against Jews, albeit by an empire long gone?

Why do the Palestinians deserve a homeland but not the Jews? Why do we fault Israel for their oppression, but not the Ottomans of only 30 years before? Why the double standard?

I condemn the racist policies of the Ottoman Empire and call for it to be abolished.

Great. And what will you do for the people of Israel now, who were forced off their land by the Ottomans? Do they not have a "right to return" to their homeland?

[orathaic]

It seems everyone is bogged down in history and definitions.

The Israeli state is not the people of Israel.

Hamas is not the Gazans or Palestinian people.

Complicit means supporting or aiding in the actions.

So first, the US and UK are complicit in the actions of the Israeli government (which many people in Israel are protesting against).

Second the holocaust is not the only example of how a genocide can be committed and I have learned recently it is only used to refer to the mass industrial slaughter of Europe's Jewish population - yes there were other groups targeted (Roma, homosexuals, trans people) - some of which were left imprisoned after the Nazi death camps were liberated (homo-phobic bigotry among the liberators). But the holocaust is a specific trans used only for one sub-section of Nazi Germay's genocidal project.

Lastly, Israel being guilty of genocide doesn't take away from the fact of Hamas's terrorism. The act of collective punishment is a war crime. So punishing Palestinians for the actions of Hamas is a war crime in itself.

Post script: Terrorist, in it current usage, means groups the western powers don't like who use or threaten to use violence. It is entirely a political term which ignored the state terrorism committed regularily by Imperialist powers.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It seems everyone is bogged down in history and definitions.

The Israeli state is not the people of Israel.

Hamas is not the Gazans or Palestinian people.

Complicit means supporting or aiding in the actions.

So first, the US and UK are complicit in the actions of the Israeli government (which many people in Israel are protesting against).

Second the holocaust is not the only example of how a genocide can be committed and I have learned recently it is only used to refer to the mass industrial slaughter of Europe's Jewish population - yes there were other groups targeted (Roma, homosexuals, trans people) - some of which were left imprisoned after the Nazi death camps were liberated (homo-phobic bigotry among the liberators). But the holocaust is a specific trans used only for one sub-section of Nazi Germay's genocidal project.

Lastly, Israel being guilty of genocide doesn't take away from the fact of Hamas's terrorism. The act of collective punishment is a war crime. So punishing Palestinians for the actions of Hamas is a war crime in itself.

Post script: Terrorist, in it current usage, means groups the western powers don't like who use or threaten to use violence. It is entirely a political term which ignored the state terrorism committed regularily by Imperialist powers.

I agree with most of this. The Israeli state could commit a genocide without the express permission of its citizens, at least for a while. There is certainly a lot of Israeli state violence against Palestinian civilians. And I definitely don't agree with the point Fritz keeps making about how Israel is the better government and so just deserves to "win" this conflict.

I agree with your critique that more affluent states give an air of legitimacy to actions that, if they were taken by a weaker group, would be called "terrorism". But I don't think there is no such thing as terrorism. And Oct. 7 was terrorism and I wholesale reject the idea this is what legitimate freedom fighting looks like.

And I remain hung up by the term "genocide". The Holocaust wasn't the only genocide, but it was a crystal clear example of a distinctively exterminationist type of violence. Darfur, of course, is another. The situation in Gaza, to me, doesn't look like these conflicts. 300,000+ Iraqis died in the 2003 Iraq war, 2.2 million were displaced, much of their infrastructure was destroyed, but I suspect the US and its allies had a callous disregard for Iraqis lives, not that they were engaged in an anti-Iraqi genocide.

[CaptainFritz28]

And I definitely don't agree with the point Fritz keeps making about how Israel is the better government and so just deserves to "win" this conflict.

Of note, I don't think anyone "deserves" to win here. I'm simply saying that a two state solution is infeasible, and thus it is a matter of one side or the other "winning." I'm saying that based on history, the lesser of two evils is Israel.

[CaptainFritz28]

It seems everyone is bogged down in history and definitions.

The Israeli state is not the people of Israel.

Hamas is not the Gazans or Palestinian people.

Complicit means supporting or aiding in the actions.

So first, the US and UK are complicit in the actions of the Israeli government (which many people in Israel are protesting against).

Second the holocaust is not the only example of how a genocide can be committed and I have learned recently it is only used to refer to the mass industrial slaughter of Europe's Jewish population - yes there were other groups targeted (Roma, homosexuals, trans people) - some of which were left imprisoned after the Nazi death camps were liberated (homo-phobic bigotry among the liberators). But the holocaust is a specific trans used only for one sub-section of Nazi Germay's genocidal project.

Lastly, Israel being guilty of genocide doesn't take away from the fact of Hamas's terrorism. The act of collective punishment is a war crime. So punishing Palestinians for the actions of Hamas is a war crime in itself.

Post script: Terrorist, in it current usage, means groups the western powers don't like who use or threaten to use violence. It is entirely a political term which ignored the state terrorism committed regularily by Imperialist powers.

First off, as I said before, no matter what, the US government is complicit of genocide. Whether that is by giving funds to Israel or to Iran, which we know gives that money to Hamas, the US has financially supported both sides, even if one is indirect.

I agree about the point regarding the holocaust. Yes, there have been other genocides committed, and there were others committed by the Nazis. The Holocaust is just the largest of these genocides.

As I've said, Israel has committed war crimes, and so I totally agree. However, I don't believe that the extermination of the Gazans is Israel's goal. Sure, a few government leaders said that, but as I previously mentioned, government leaders say a lot of things for the purpose of propaganda. And again, it took a lot more than just some top Nazi officials to make the Holocaust happen.

If Israel wanted to exterminate the Gazans, they could do it. It would be very easy for them to, as Hamas did on Oct. 7, go on a rampage and kill or kidnap all civilians in sight. This would be genocide. Sure, I don't agree with every action they have taken, but when they fire on neighborhoods or hospitals it is because they believe that Hamas is there, and they're almost always right. That doesn't mean that it is good that they kill civilians, but it does mean that their purpose is not genocide.

And the use of the word "terrorism" as something only committed by the enemies of the west, I think, is irrelevant here. It's a double standard, yes, but as Esq. Bert noted, that doesn't mean Hamas hasn't done it (which I think is a point you recognize).

In the end, I believe that Hamas has committed terrorism with the intent of eliminating Israel both ethnically and nationally, these being genocidal intentions. Israel has committed war crimes, with the intent of eliminating Hamas as a terrorist organization.