3 ms·

> How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid? Let me talk specifically about the "genocidal" aspect, because Apartheid is a separate topic. If y

by edanm 3y ago

> How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid? Let me talk specifically about the "genocidal" aspect, because Apartheid is a separate topic. If you're coming from a place of "of course Israel is committing genocide", I don't think it very likely that I'm going to convince you otherwise. That is the "default" narrative in many circles (just like the opposite narrative also exists in many circles). That said, I'll do my best to explain why I think that claims of genocide are very wrong. > There are literally hundreds of videos and witness testimony evidencing war crimes perpetrated by Israel. First, there are for sure war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers. Every war crime should be condemned, investigated and prosecuted. Though I don't think there are hundreds of war crimes documented, at least not serious war crimes (serious as in causing bodily harm or death to someone). That said, war crimes, while horrible, are an unfortunate reality that happens in almost every war. War crimes and genocide are separate things. Genocide requires Israel intentionally trying to kill Gazans, or at least part of Gaza. That's a big accusation, and it isn't backed up, at all, by the actual actions of Israel. Israel maybe kills "too many" civilians for the amount of militants it kills (though even that is debateable), but it is targeting militants. It isn't going in there and purposefully killing civilians, for the most part, though horrible mistakes do happen all the time. If you compare the amount of dead in Gaza to almost any modern war, there are far less dead in Gaza. And considering that Israel could do what other countries have done, which is intentionally kill civilians - the fact that there aren't more dead isn't a question of ability, but of will. Israel doesn't want to kill innocent civilians. Most of the videos you cite are either the kinds of terrible things that happen in every war, or genuine war crimes (which do happen), or, as is often the case, an incident which looks different without having context. This is a war in an urban environment, in which Hamas is doing everything in its power to cause more Palestinian casualties, not less. > Humanitarianaid is being held back or bombed by IDF. This is partially true, and I'm very angry at Israel for not allowing even more aid in. But aid isn't being bombed (except for mistakes, which do unfortunately happen). And it's not accurate to blanket say "aid is being held back" - Israel lets in hundreds of aid trucks every day. I think Israel should do a lot more, don't get me wrong, but if your impression is that literally no aid is getting in, that's very very far from reality. > There are even mass graves being uncovered which is reported by mainstream media. This is a story that's only a few days old. I don't think it's fair to draw conclusions on it just yet. The media has a terrible track record of taking claims against Israel at face value, only a few days later backing up the Israeli version, which often vindicates Israel. E.g. the infamous "hospital bombing" in which Israel killed 500 people, which after the fact turned out to be not even an Israel bomb, and only a few dozen died there anyway.

licebmi__at__ 3y ago
>but it is targeting militants. This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families. Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party. If you also add that most important humanitarian organizations are ringing alarms, they are not allowing investigations from independent parties, and the domestic discourse is definitely not dovish. You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless.
- edanm 3y ago
  > This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families. You're right. And absent further context, I'd consider that to be a war crime. However, there's very little evidence that that is happening - afaik it was one article, which quoted a couple of people in the intelligence units without a clear understanding of their exact position. For all we know, they are junior analysts who don't have the full context. > Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party. This is kind of true. However, worth noting a few things: 1. Many of these points are backed up by the US. Not all - the US also criticizes some of Israel's actions (as do I). But this only gives it more credibility in the cases where it backs up Israel. Other countries do so as well, and as I pointed out elsewhere, IIRC multiple democracies denounced the ICJ case of genocide against Israel (with multiple autocracies backing it - I certainly know which conclusion I draw from this). 2. Israel is a democracy with a free press. Hence articles like the one about targeting militant's families. There are some very leftist organizations in Israel, and multiple leftist newspapers/journalists. Investigating in real time in a war zone is hard, but most information is eventually discovered and revealed, often by Israeli journalists themselves. That's paradoxically why democracies sometimes "look worse" compared to autocracies, but also why I trust that many abuses/crimes do eventually get discovered. 3. Everything negative we know is also something we take at face value from an interested party - Hamas itself. This includes the total number of casualties, and some semblance of what is the split between civilians vs militants (though they don't actually provide the number of militants killed). These numbers are far harder to verify, because Hamas can just make things up and no one really holds them accountable. Again, paradox of autocracies vs democracies. (That's not to say I think everything is made up or anything - there are obviously tragedies as evidenced by many individual accounts of terrible deaths, including of many civilians!) > You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless. Even taking the Hamas death toll numbers totally at face value, and likewise taking Israel's estimates of militants killed also at face value, we can compare the rate of civilian deaths in Gaza vs. in other similar wars fought by the West. And the rates in Gaza are fairly in line with e.g. US war against ISIS in Urban combat. And the situation in Gaza is far harder, as attested by most military experts, because Hamas has had 20 years of rule to entrench themselves in the civilian population. I think any honest look at the numbers shows that there isn't anything to actually justify calls of genocide, unless you also call the US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan, or the fight against ISIS, also genocide. If you do - ok, that's at least consistent, but I think that's actively misusing that word. If we just look at the number of dead in most conflicts - they're orders of magnitude more than killed in Gaza. (Obvious tragic exmaple being the Syrian civil war, in which iirc 600k civilians were killed, but also again, Iraq/Afghanistan war in which 150k civilians were killed.) (And let me caveat this - all human lives lost are tragedies. Even Hamas militants and IDF soldiers are tragic losses, mostly young people thrown into this situation by circumstance. I only talk about this in terms of broad numbers because that's necessary for understanding this war compared to similar wars, which is the only valid yardstick for what is happening.)

by edanm 3y ago

licebmi__at__ 3y ago

>but it is targeting militants. This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families. Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party. If you also add that most important humanitarian organizations are ringing alarms, they are not allowing investigations from independent parties, and the domestic discourse is definitely not dovish. You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless.

edanm 3y ago
> This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families. You're right. And absent further context, I'd consider that to be a war crime. However, there's very little evidence that that is happening - afaik it was one article, which quoted a couple of people in the intelligence units without a clear understanding of their exact position. For all we know, they are junior analysts who don't have the full context. > Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party. This is kind of true. However, worth noting a few things: 1. Many of these points are backed up by the US. Not all - the US also criticizes some of Israel's actions (as do I). But this only gives it more credibility in the cases where it backs up Israel. Other countries do so as well, and as I pointed out elsewhere, IIRC multiple democracies denounced the ICJ case of genocide against Israel (with multiple autocracies backing it - I certainly know which conclusion I draw from this). 2. Israel is a democracy with a free press. Hence articles like the one about targeting militant's families. There are some very leftist organizations in Israel, and multiple leftist newspapers/journalists. Investigating in real time in a war zone is hard, but most information is eventually discovered and revealed, often by Israeli journalists themselves. That's paradoxically why democracies sometimes "look worse" compared to autocracies, but also why I trust that many abuses/crimes do eventually get discovered. 3. Everything negative we know is also something we take at face value from an interested party - Hamas itself. This includes the total number of casualties, and some semblance of what is the split between civilians vs militants (though they don't actually provide the number of militants killed). These numbers are far harder to verify, because Hamas can just make things up and no one really holds them accountable. Again, paradox of autocracies vs democracies. (That's not to say I think everything is made up or anything - there are obviously tragedies as evidenced by many individual accounts of terrible deaths, including of many civilians!) > You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless. Even taking the Hamas death toll numbers totally at face value, and likewise taking Israel's estimates of militants killed also at face value, we can compare the rate of civilian deaths in Gaza vs. in other similar wars fought by the West. And the rates in Gaza are fairly in line with e.g. US war against ISIS in Urban combat. And the situation in Gaza is far harder, as attested by most military experts, because Hamas has had 20 years of rule to entrench themselves in the civilian population. I think any honest look at the numbers shows that there isn't anything to actually justify calls of genocide, unless you also call the US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan, or the fight against ISIS, also genocide. If you do - ok, that's at least consistent, but I think that's actively misusing that word. If we just look at the number of dead in most conflicts - they're orders of magnitude more than killed in Gaza. (Obvious tragic exmaple being the Syrian civil war, in which iirc 600k civilians were killed, but also again, Iraq/Afghanistan war in which 150k civilians were killed.) (And let me caveat this - all human lives lost are tragedies. Even Hamas militants and IDF soldiers are tragic losses, mostly young people thrown into this situation by circumstance. I only talk about this in terms of broad numbers because that's necessary for understanding this war compared to similar wars, which is the only valid yardstick for what is happening.)