Your country is complicit of Genocide

[Octavious]

Fine, have it your way. I'm done.

[principians]

without answering any of my questions, while I tried to answer your, thanks

[CaptainFritz28]

What is your definition of "Genocide"?

I'll go with ICJ definition:

genocide is a crime that can take place both in time of war as well as in time of peace. The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.

What is your definition of "Terrorism"?

An awful crime that intends to terrify civils to influence on political situations (mainly aiming civil lives). Let me repeat myself: I KNOW HAMAS HAS DONE HORRIBLE THINGS. This is not even the discussion I'm interested in.

Before answering the third questions I'd like you to answer at least this:
Do you consider terrorism is worse than genocide?

Thanks for defining them. I just wanted to make sure we are all on the same track.

I don't think that either is "worse" than the other; both are evil, murderous, and horrific. Saying that one is worse implies that the other is better, which I simply don't believe to be true.

Per your definitions, Hamas is a terrorist genocidal organization, and Israel is acting to destroy said organization. The way in which they are going about it is somewhat reckless, leading to civilian deaths that are unnecessary. I also believe that some Israeli leaders are genocidal (every country has their share of genocidal leaders).

I'll put it this way: Hamas wants Israel gone, and are willing to act terroristically and genocidally. Israel doesn't like that. Israel has thus overreacted in a manner that is exactly what Hamas wants, killing more civilians than necessary.

The war crimes that Israel has committed are just that - war crimes. They should be condemned as such and aid should only be given to Israel on the condition of their ceasing these war crimes. However, that does not imply that the people of Israel, Israel's military, or even the majority of Israel's government is genocidal.

[CaptainFritz28]

And if you want to know more about why my uncertainty about the lightness (not the correctness) of the 'terrorism' labeling I'll give you this:

I think mexican cartels are terrorism, I could provide evidence about that, however they have not been labeled as that oficially by the US. You know why? Because that would make the mexican - US relations very akward. In the case of hamas, however, that seems to justify genocide so nicely

I agree wholeheartedly. But how does that change the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization? Sure, Mexican cartels are too, and the US is thus complicit of terrorism in Mexico.

Edit: I see now why you added the "not the correctness" part. Yeah, I agree, the US has double standards.

[CaptainFritz28]

Before we continue this, let's define what we are talking about.

Seeing as principians made the initial post, I ask principians:

What is your definition of "Genocide"?
What is your definition of "Terrorism"?
What is your definition of "Complicit"?

Do we really want to let him define these concepts so he can say that he was right all along?

He made the claims, so let's let him tell us what he means by them. If we find that what he defines as "genocide" really means "kicking puppies" then we can correct his initial claim to really mean that our nations are complicit of kicking puppies.

[CaptainFritz28]

One more note - in any case, the US is complicit of genocide. If Israel is determined genocidal, the US is supporting Israel and thus genocide. If Hamas is determined genocidal, then the US, by providing Iran with the funds needed to support Hamas, is indirectly complicit of genocide. If both are genocidal, then the US is double convicted of being complicit of genocide.

[learnedSloth]

The ICJ definition of genocide seems rather broad. The word makes me think of something like the holocaust, which it was coined to describe, but apparently killing any fraction of a recognizable "national, ethnic, racial or religious group" would count. It makes accusing easy.

[principians]

The ICJ definition of genocide seems rather broad. The word makes me think of something like the holocaust, which it was coined to describe, but apparently killing any fraction of a recognizable "national, ethnic, racial or religious group" would count. It makes accusing easy.

Well ICJ definition came up precisely with the holocaust as precedent (btw nazis didn't just tried to finish jews, but gypsies too).

And though it may seem easy to accuse, it's not so easy to prove that some power is actually committing genocide because you need to show not only the crimes, but also the intention of those crimes.

[principians]

Per your definitions, Hamas is a terrorist genocidal organization,

Here we can see an interesting example of what I said in my previous post. While it's true that when hamas was created they talked about the destruction of Israel, in 2017 they published another declaration where they say they're fine with a 2 states solution, so how would you really prove that the today's hamas intention is genocidal?

Now, before people starts suggesting that I'm trying to defend or support hamas in any way, I'd like to state this clearly: I think hamas is a NOT DEFENSIBLE foundamentalist group that has actually brought nothing but tragedy to the palestinian people.

I also believe that some Israeli leaders are genocidal (every country has their share of genocidal leaders).

The problem here is that one of those genocidal israeli leaders is the very prime minister, the chief of the state, as one may infer from his declaration from november 3, where he referenced the Amalek biblical passage that literally reads:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants

I'll put it this way: Hamas wants Israel gone, and are willing to act terroristically and genocidally. Israel doesn't like that. Israel has thus overreacted in a manner that is exactly what Hamas wants, killing more civilians than necessary.

So, when trying to justify a genocide against the palestinian people you use hamas as if hamas and the palestinian people were the same thing. If you say hamas is terrorist and Israel is doing as hamas would do, what does it convert Israel into?

I don't deny the right of Israel to defend itself or to try to avoid something like October 7 to repeat. But to punish the assassination of 1200, you proceed to an operation that takes lives of 33000 and makes the live of hundreds of thousands more miserable to point of starvation. And you refuse to stop even when number 1 adn number 2 of hamas already fell and you have virtual control of the north of Gaza, because you want to 'totally anihilate hamas'. To be honest I'm amazed how there's people that seems unable to see the lack of proportion here.

I don't think that either is "worse" than the other

Really? ok

[CaptainFritz28]

Here we can see an interesting example of what I said in my previous post. While it's true that when hamas was created they talked about the destruction of Israel, in 2017 they published another declaration where they say they're fine with a 2 states solution, so how would you really prove that the today's hamas intention is genocidal?

From Hamas' 2017 Charter:

"Palestine symbolises the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital."
"Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people."
"Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished."
"The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression."
"The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah"
"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."

"Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people."

" A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital."

I don't know who told you that Hamas is in favor of a two state solution, but whoever it is lied.

Hamas intends to destroy the national, religious, and ethnic group of what they refer to as Zionists, which they define as the entity of Israel, in totality. They intend to do this by using awful crimes aimed at terrifying civilians for political ends, which includes the intentional targeting and killing of civilians.

This is, per your definitions, genocide and terrorism.

Now, before people starts suggesting that I'm trying to defend or support hamas in any way, I'd like to state this clearly: I think hamas is a NOT DEFENSIBLE foundamentalist group that has actually brought nothing but tragedy to the palestinian people.

I agree. I am not claiming that you believe this, but I am claiming that you are misguided if you claim that Hamas is not a terroristic genocidal organization when they claim that they are just that.

The problem here is that one of those genocidal israeli leaders is the very prime minister, the chief of the state, as one may infer from his declaration from november 3, where he referenced the Amalek biblical passage that literally reads:

Again, Israel has their share of genocidal politicians. Thus far, they have only been genocidal in word, and have not been wiping mass amounts of Gazans of the face of the Earth for fun as a genocidal politician would do in deed. Sure, more civilians have been killed than necessary. You seemed to miss my point about war crimes.

So, when trying to justify a genocide against the palestinian people you use hamas as if hamas and the palestinian people were the same thing. If you say hamas is terrorist and Israel is doing as hamas would do, what does it convert Israel into?

A) I am not justifying the unnecessary killing of civilians. Again, see my point about war crimes.

B) A good majority of the Palestinian people agree with Hamas. I cite a public opinion poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development, an organization based out of Palestine:
https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf

I don't deny the right of Israel to defend itself or to try to avoid something like October 7 to repeat. But to punish the assassination of 1200, you proceed to an operation that takes lives of 33000 and makes the live of hundreds of thousands more miserable to point of starvation. And you refuse to stop even when number 1 adn number 2 of hamas already fell and you have virtual control of the north of Gaza, because you want to 'totally anihilate hamas'. To be honest I'm amazed how there's people that seems unable to see the lack of proportion here.

Israel knows that if they do what they've done in the past, and assassinate a few leaders and do a few airstrikes, they will not have solved the problem. This is what they've tried in the past, and it didn't work. Also, again, see my point about war crimes.

Really? ok

Neither is inherently worse than the other. Terrorism can be genocide, and vice versa. You may kill 100 million people in a terrorist attack without the purpose of targeting a specific ethnic, national, or religious group, or you may kill 10 people with genocidal intent. Neither terrorism or genocide inherently kills more than the other, nor is either inherently more evil than the other. They're both disgusting, horrific things, and they're both evil.

[principians]

"The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression."

I just want to say that Sout Africa case has provided arguments that would back up this one.

I don't know who told you that Hamas is in favor of a two state solution, but whoever it is lied.

Since I don't plan to read the full document, which is reportedly ambiguous, I'll just admit that I was not accurately informed about it. Still I see adifference when comparing this

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea

with

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants

Which, btw, is far from being the only similar declaration by members of the government and idf, that not only use political terms like 'liberation' but seem blatantly aiming to dehumanize palestinian people. Just a couple of days ago, Netanyahu said, for instance: "This is a war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness".

And you know why I have a particular problem with genocide vs. terrorism (though of couse I won't deny there can be genocidal terrorism). When there's a political intention of erasing a people, the leader usually won't say "let's kill the frenchmen, I so command you". There's always a previous dehumanization process, which history shows us tends to create mass murders much easier than just terrorism.

[principians]

Just one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times

[CaptainFritz28]

Since I don't plan to read the full document, which is reportedly ambiguous, I'll just admit that I was not accurately informed about it. Still I see adifference when comparing this

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.

Which, btw, is far from being the only similar declaration by members of the government and idf, that not only use political terms like 'liberation' but seem blatantly aiming to dehumanize palestinian people. Just a couple of days ago, Netanyahu said, for instance: "This is a war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness".

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.

So yeah, Netanyahu is going to say stuff like that. It's propaganda. Again, we don't see actual genocide going on. 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 fact that more Gazans have died than is necessary (which is something I've conceded but is not actually a proven point) does not imply genocide. Why are civilians dying? Because Hamas puts themselves under hospitals and neighborhoods. There is evidence of that. To take out Hamas, the instigators of a genocidally intended terrorist attack, Israel has been forced to make choices that have killed civilians. However, they have informed the Gazans to evacuate areas before bombing them, they have not gone around killing Gazans for fun, and they are fighting an organization who wants as many civilians to die as possible.

And you know why I have a particular problem with genocide vs. terrorism (though of couse I won't deny there can be genocidal terrorism). When there's a political intention of erasing a people, the leader usually won't say "let's kill the frenchmen, I so command you". There's always a previous dehumanization process, which history shows us tends to create mass murders much easier than just terrorism.

That still doesn't make one as an idea any more inherently evil than the other. Typically, yes, genocides usually kill more people. In that sense, genocide is worse, because it has historically been used for more harm. Conceptually, they are both just as evil as each other.

[CaptainFritz28]

Just one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times

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.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I wonder if the definition of "genocide" is really that revealing.

My country (Canada) has agonized endlessly over whether the word "genocide" applies to its historical and, separately, its modern relationship with First Nations peoples. Ultimately, recognizing the past and present harm to Indigenous people caused by settlers seems important regardless of whether or not any particular case is widely agreed to meet the criteria of "genocide".

Consider three harms being caused to groups of Muslims today:
- China interns Muslims, denies them all sorts of personal freedoms, and seeks to erase their identity and faith, but stops short of killing them en masse (although there is some forced sterilization)
- Pakistan is forcibly and violently displacing hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees
- Israel is committing war crimes as part of its war on Hamas, resulting in the displacement and death of many Palestinian civilians

Each of these plausibly meets the ICJ's definition for genocide (directly killing members of the group; creating conditions that kill or displace members of the group; creating conditions that will prevent births within the group). Yet none of these look like the Holocaust and it will be hard in each case to know whether the goal is truly extermination, or just some other goal (counter insurgency, cracking down on undocumented migrants, etc.) that also entails state-sanctioned violence against particular groups.

Whether Israel's war against Gaza is "genocidal" seems like something that won't ever be settled. Either this current war is a clumsy effort to improve Israel's security, or it's a nefarious effort to displace and murder as many Palestinians as possible. But what evidence would we accept in either direction?

Disgusting things said by some Israeli politicians, including the PM, are less than conclusive - the views of other politicians, the IDF, and the Israeli public matter, and they are not aligned in this vision. If it is a genocide today because of Bibi, will it still be a genocide if a less horrible PM is elected but similar military actions continue? I suspect any other Israel PM would have conducted a ground war in Gaza following Oct. 7.

The Palestinian civilian death count is high and rising, but some amount of this is the inevitable consequence of urban warfare against Hamas, a fundamentalist government known to maximize civilian casualties on its own side in certain circumstances. How many deaths would make us sure the goal is genocide and not security?

If the war ends today and Gaza remains inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, it won't be clear whether this was just a partial genocide or not a genocide at all. IThe goal may have been to kill or displace as many Palestinians as possible, but it just wasn't easy to finish the job. Or maybe Israel refrained from killing every Gazan, even though it has the firepower to do so quite easily, because this military operation really is aimed at securing Israel from terror attacks.

I personally lean towards the idea that the conflict in Gaza isn't clearly "genocidal", since it seems to be aimed at something other than just some "final solution" to the Palestinian problem. I think some amount of conflict against Hamas was a necessary consequence of Oct. 7 and that any conflict of this nature would incur terrible civilian costs. And yet, I don't know how many Palestinian civilian deaths I could countenance as being justified by Israel's approach to obliterating Hamas.

Even if Israel's conduct doesn't meet the bar of "genocidal", I would still want to say that extreme disregard for Palestinian lives (e.g., war crimes, restricting civilian aid, etc.) in the course of an anti-terror operation is unacceptable.

[Jamiet99uk]

That's the conclusion. Israel's conduct is oppressive and murderous. Israel is the aggressor and the oppressor. They need to allow Gaza and the West Bank to breathe; they refuse to do so. Israel is intent on genocide, it's happening before our eyes.

[Jamiet99uk]

Just one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times

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.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Just one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times

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.

Are colonizers forever deserving of violence against them until they leave?

I'm not trying to be glib. I agree it's relevant that the Palestinians were dispossessed in the recent past, and that an active settler movement continues to take their land. I just don't think that's the only relevant lens to see the current conflict from. Generations of Israelis, many of whom descend from refugees kicked out of nearby countries, can't be wished away.

The logical conclusion of "Jews existence on that land is inherently genocidal" is "so they have to leave", which is its own genocide.

[CaptainFritz28]

Just one more note. You're probably right, maybe we are in a (very disproportionate) war between 2 genocidal entities. Which to me at least, seems the saddest situation we've watched in our times

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?

[CaptainFritz28]

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.