Current Events > Is Israel doing a genocide against the Palestinian people?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

Yes

I don't see how they aren't.

I mean cutting off energy and water while the government claims they want "Total Victory" over the Palestinian people as they are being thrown into camps.

That's pretty clear cut

Rosstin316 posted...

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

I see where you're coming from, but do you think it's even possible for the average person to gain enough of an understanding to answer this question definitively?

I'm man enough to admit to the 3rd option

They're certainly committing a lot of war crimes at the least

The reporting we get is filled with doubt in the source, but I give the reporters credit for admitting that doubt

Rosstin316 posted...

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607.amp

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-suffers-famine-level-shortages-mass-death-imminent-un-backed-monitor-says-2024-03-18/

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/15/massacre-israel-forces-attack-crowds-waiting-for-aid-in-gaza-killing-21

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gaza-voluntary-migration-plan/amp/

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/israel-defying-icj-ruling-to-prevent-genocide-by-failing-to-allow-adequate-humanitarian-aid-to-reach-gaza/

https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-journalists-killed-in-2023-died-in-gaza-war-per-cpj/

The only way a well informed person can justify options 2 or 3 is if they're only concerned about the question as a formal one in regards to strict & specific definitions of genocide per various definitions of international treaties. But "will the ICJ rule that sufficient evidence shows Israel fully met the current accepted definitions of genocide" is a separate question. Netanyahu is used to operating through the boundaries of international law and knows where his strategic allies are & are not willing to look the other way. He understands how to accomplish the intent of a genocide without forcing unanimous international intervention.

Yes and it's very obvious

UnfairRepresent posted...

I mean cutting off energy and water while the government claims they want "Total Victory" over the Palestinian people as they are being thrown into camps.

That's pretty clear cut

They just shelled another aid truck and killed at least 20 starving persons that tried to get some food.

Rosstin316 posted...

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

When will you stop making alts and get the hint that you aren't welcome here?

If the same things were happening to Israel that they are doing to the Palestinians, everybody would be tripping over themselves to condemn it as a genocide and America/the West would be there in force to put down Hamas/the Palestinian people

So I don't see why you can't, in short hand, call it at least what it looks like.

At the bare minimum, the IDF are committing war crimes that no developed nation should stand for from its military forces.

Then you have stories of Israeli/Jewish settlers moving into Palestinian homes. Taking their homes, taking their lands, taking their resources, forcing them to move elsewhere under threat of or acts of violence. If it isn't a genocide, then it is exactly what America did to the Native Americans.

Rosstin316 posted...

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

I have enough more than enough knowledge, but mods don't like it when you say that it is an apartheid state as defined by international law, and that their own rhetoric, goals, and acts do constitute a genocide.

Starving out a population you have isolated, restricting movements, subjecting them to police brutality, literally murdering children that get too close to walls and gates with state approved sniper fire - and, openly cutting power and water while bombing hospitals and residential neighborhoods - really supports the accusations well.

Unknown5uspect posted...

When will you stop making alts and get the hint that you aren't welcome here?

You may ignore and/or block me if you want to stay in your echo chamber safe space full of snuggles and unanimous agreement. I encourage it actually. Please. Block me right now.

Rosstin316 posted...

You may ignore and/or block me if you want to stay in your echo chamber safe space full of snuggles and unanimous agreement. I encourage it actually. Please. Block me right now.

Then what would you call it, if not genocide?

Ethnic cleansing?

Isreal reaction is overreach and denial of their actions, but how many have studied the middle east to know that region intimately. I can't say that I studied it for long. That region has never known peace and the number of wars has been like that for centuries. That area never developed beyond always fighting. The brief history that I know.

Scardude posted...

Isreal reaction is overreach and denial of their actions, but how many have studied the middle east to know that region intimately. I can't say that I studied it for long. That region has never known peace and the number of wars has been like that for centuries. That area never developed beyond always fighting. The brief history that I know.

It was peaceful under the ottomans.

Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinian people out of the Occupied Territories.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It was peaceful under the ottomans.

It was peaceful under a military regime. Interesting take. They were a melting pot in terms of religions but they were always at war to their expanded border and internal strife... Okay. Let's say that was peaceful.

Scardude posted...

It was peaceful under a military regime. Interesting take. They were a melting pot in terms of religions but they were always at war to their expanded border and internal strife... Okay. Let's say that was peaceful.

Given that that part(Europe/Northern Africa/Eurasia) of the world had never or rarely known extended peace... yeah, calling it peaceful is fair.

Rosstin316 posted...

You may ignore and/or block me if you want to stay in your echo chamber safe space full of snuggles and unanimous agreement. I encourage it actually. Please. Block me right now.

Every time we have alts peddling this same nonsense and trolling they get banned!

How long will you tippie toe through the gamefaqs minefield of bigotry before you lose a proverbial leg?

This is almost as fun as watching Looney Tunes.

Scardude posted...

It was peaceful under a military regime. Interesting take. They were a melting pot in terms of religions but they were always at war to their expanded border and internal strife... Okay. Let's say that was peaceful.

They were around for centuries. They had a very long peace that caused them to fall behind in military power because they weren't using it. Just because the beginning and ending featured conflict doesn't mean it was never peaceful.

Serious Question: It possible to have a total war against a homogeneous country that does not meet the current UN definition of genocide?

I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to answer that question...

But yes. Yes, they are.

tankboy posted...

Serious Question: It possible to have a total war against a homogeneous country that does not meet the current UN definition of genocide?

Yes.

tankboy posted...

Serious Question: It possible to have a total war against a homogeneous country that does not meet the current UN definition of genocide?

a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.

Unless there are strict orders against targeting of civilians (which would start to call into question of if it is a 'total' war), it would be particularly hard to make what you're doing not look like a genocide.

Tyranthraxus posted...

They were around for centuries. They had a very long peace that caused them to fall behind in military power because they weren't using it. Just because the beginning and ending featured conflict doesn't mean it was never peaceful.

They were the strongest. The only reason for the current division is their choice during world War 1. Which itself is a complicated war based on treaties between nation.

The regions that are divided this way is the work that while they had peace. People were tolerate of the stronger power that they didn't act and rebellion squashed. That's why I said sure. A stronger nation forcing tribes to live together is the version of peace that worked. The divided nations, as they are now, won't go back to that way. Balance shifted. I'm not sure you can go back to an empire version for the middle east. Basically saying one group should have control of the region again for it to be peaceful.

Scardude posted...

They were the strongest. The only reason for the current division is their choice during world War 1. Which itself is a complicated war based on treaties between nation.

The regions that are divided this way is the work that while they had peace. People were tolerate of the stronger power that they didn't act and rebellion squashed. That's why I said sure. A stronger nation forcing tribes to live together is the version of peace that worked. The divided nations, as they are now, won't go back to that way. Balance shifted. I'm not sure you can go back to an empire version for the middle east. Basically saying one group should have control of the region again for it to be peaceful.

You could get it back that way. You'd likely just have to crush millions of people and eradicate beliefs. You would basically have to commit genocide against multiple groups in order to have another Ottoman Empire that was remotely as peaceful as it was.

Smackems posted...

I'm man enough to admit to the 3rd option

They're certainly committing a lot of war crimes at the least

This is how I see it.

Also there is a distinctive difference between "Israel" and "Israel's government". The path Netanyahu and his government chose to go is clearly wrong and should be condemned. However, forgetting about what Hamas did to innocent Israeli civilians as well as the historically difficult situation for jews on the Arabic peninsula should not be forgotten as well.

Too many people, even on this site, are simplyfying this conflict and its complexity. It is absolutely human to feel sad for Palestine civilian casualties and it is absolutely right to condemn the way Netanyahu and his government acts. But it is not okay if it leads to general hate against "Israel" (the whole state) or jews, because there are also many innocents among them!

It is a typical phenomenon of the internet, that people take a side and are either for or against something. But conflicts aren't always so easy to explain and solve.

wackyteen posted...

You could get it back that way. You'd likely just have to crush millions of people and eradicate beliefs. You would basically have to commit genocide against multiple groups in order to have another Ottoman Empire that was remotely as peaceful as it was.

Considering this topic is about not going the route of genocide. You are saying the only way for peace in that area is genocide.. Okay. What is my take away here.

Yes.

gu-gohan posted...

Also there is a distinctive difference between "Israel" and "Israel's government". The path Netanyahu and his government chose to go is clearly wrong and should be condemned. However, forgetting about what Hamas did to innocent Israeli civilians as well as the historically difficult situation for jews on the Arabic peninsula should not be forgotten as well.

"Israel" is already enough distinction.
If referring to the people of Israel, generally the word "Israeli" is used.

We never had this problem with Russia/Russian or China/Chinese, why this one is an exception?

wackyteen posted...

You could get it back that way. You'd likely just have to crush millions of people and eradicate beliefs. You would basically have to commit genocide against multiple groups in order to have another Ottoman Empire that was remotely as peaceful as it was.

"Everyone is dead" is not peace just because the fighting stopped. It is the complete failure at an attempt at achieving peace.

Rosstin316 posted...

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

When they are fucking blocking food and medical aid. It is pretty clean answer.

when you're killing 20K + civilians in half a year, its not really an accident anymore.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I agree that intent makes it tricky. It simply doesn't matter how loud people shout "stop genociding Palestinians!". It definitely doesn't matter how many Palestinians are killed. All that matters is whether the IDF is _intentionally_ (as opposed to incidentally or negligently) attempting to destroy Palestinians, as a group. And to prove intention, we can't say things like, "oh they shot up a hospital full of civilian patients", because the IDF can say, "yeah, because we were trying to kill Hamas and we don't especially care how many civilians are in the way", and that's actually a valid defense against genocide (but not other war crimes, of course).

Instead, we basically have to prove opposite: That there is a pre-conceived official plan to kill all Palestinians, and the fact that some of them are Hamas is of secondary importance. Because the victim doesn't get a "say" in the charge, genocide is conceptually very different from most other crimes.

Rosstin316 posted...

Everyone here should choose option 3, but they wont.

No, it's clearly 'yes'.

*Snape voice* Obviously.

Openly and with evil glee.

All while using the very same rhetoric and dehumanising language of another certain group of monsters.

Tyranthraxus posted...

"Everyone is dead" is not peace just because the fighting stopped. It is the complete failure at an attempt at achieving peace.

I never said it was ideal or something that should even be considered as a realistic or legitimate scenario.

Just stating that in order to achieve what once was, would more than likely take a lot of bloodshed.

wackyteen posted...

I never said it was ideal or something that should even be considered as a realistic or legitimate scenario.

Just stating that in order to achieve what once was, would more than likely take a lot of bloodshed.

So you basically say Israel can't live in peace through peaceful means by negotiations. That the area is too divided and their current methods are in line with the only solution at work. This is what your line of thinking leads to. Because bloodshed is the only thing that the area will accept.

I voted that I do not have enough knowledge, and I say that because of hearing people talk about the ordeal. Most of the time the conversations devolve into "this thing happened" "no it didn't!" People say Hamas are liars while posting video edited by the IDF. People say the IDF are liars while posting video directly from Hamas.

Ultimately my opinion doesn't matter, because I don't engage in debates about it and I haven't really taken a side. But my perspective is really how could I know a definitive answer with what I've been presented?

argonautweakend posted...

I voted that I do not have enough knowledge, and I say that because of hearing people talk about the ordeal. Most of the time the conversations devolve into "this thing happened" "no it didn't!" People say Hamas are liars while posting video edited by the IDF. People say the IDF are liars while posting video directly from Hamas.

Ultimately my opinion doesn't matter, because I don't engage in debates about it and I haven't really taken a side. But my perspective is really how could I know a definitive answer with what I've been presented?

You listen to the literal things that Israeli have said. You can look at have parties to stop food from coming in.

Ricemills posted...

"Israel" is already enough distinction.
If referring to the people of Israel, generally the word "Israeli" is used.

We never had this problem with Russia/Russian or China/Chinese, why this one is an exception?

English is not my native language, so I'm not familiar with spelling nuances like that. It should be clear what I meant, though.

Scardude posted...

Isreal reaction is overreach and denial of their actions, but how many have studied the middle east to know that region intimately. I can't say that I studied it for long. That region has never known peace and the number of wars has been like that for centuries. That area never developed beyond always fighting. The brief history that I know.

Long ago it held the most advanced societies, or so i thought. Progress is math, science, etc. Wasn't perfect by any means and definitely still had human rights issues obviously, but where in the world didn't back then by today's standards.

Scardude posted...

So you basically say Israel can't live in peace through peaceful means by negotiations. That the area is too divided and their current methods are in line with the only solution at work. This is what your line of thinking leads to. Because bloodshed is the only thing that the area will accept.

I was explicitly talking about a hypothetical reunification of the Ottomon Empire/unification of the Middle East in the modern day. We're talking about a pretty massive region with conflicting belief systems that have, historically, not allowed for long term peaceful coexistence.

You would need a strong, central, ideally not foreign, power that can enforce laws and (forcefully) keep the peace. You would ultimately wind up subjecting people to suppression and oppression in the name of peace.

It would take massive amounts of money, effort and heartbreak basically all around. And you would need to maintain that peace/lack of conflict and enact, in effect, a near continent sized culture shift towards respecting coexistence for many decades, as the world grows ever physically hotter and the areas of the middle east are likely to set to become increasingly uninhabitable.

America spent trillions trying to give Iraq and Afghanistan stable governments and failed. While American efforts were not specifically there to unite the entirety of the Middle East by any stretch, it indicates to me that it would take an effort the world has yet to see anywhere and there is no promise that it would work.

Also, I'm not nearly versed enough to give a meaningful answer to this in regards to Israel's current situation.

I would like to think that peace is possible, but it increasingly seems the Israeli government are not interested in it at the moment. When there was peace/no active conflict, it seems the Israeli government had no interest in acting in the interests of the Palestinians in Gaza, in order to hopefully maintain peace. Which, to my understanding, is why Palestinians, in part at least, turn(ed) to Hamas. So they could have some agency and influence over their own lives.

Beyond that, the fact that this conflict has gone on for so long (overall, not just the recent flare up) indicates that (some) on both sides will never get over the tragedies they've suffered as a result of the conflict so you will always have (bad) actors that seek to reignite the conflict.

So while I think it's possible in a theoretical sense, in a current practical sense I wouldn't hold my breath over it. It's tragic all around, but if there was an answer one of us could come up with, we probably wouldn't be discussing this

Now, I'm probably wrong about some of that. It is based off random articles and anecdotes I've seen since the conflict started.

Yo_D_oY posted...

Long ago it held the most advanced societies, or so i thought. Progress is math, science, etc. Wasn't perfect by any means and definitely still had human rights issues obviously, but where in the world didn't back then by today's standards.

Technology shouldn't be used as a gold standard that way. If you want to use that route, then you must understand that those who were educated during those times were the rich. The gap of rich and poor were more prevalent. Literacy only increased in the last century to this point but it would be very few in comparison back then. Being educated was part of being a ruler. That really begs the question of what people consider peaceful times.