6 ms·

what's literally genocide here? Taking over Gaza with U.S. forces? Relocating the population? (hint, neither is actually genocide, literally or otherwise if you

what's literally genocide here? Taking over Gaza with U.S. forces? Relocating the population? (hint, neither is actually genocide, literally or otherwise if you bother to look at any legitimate definition of the term) As for calling Netenyahu's ferocious bombing campaign genocide, things get blurrier. That it was grotesquely inhumane and violent, absolutely, that it could be called a war crime? I'd say yes, though good luck finding any western power willing to genuinely prosecute. That it was a literal genocide? Not quite so certain. Motive matters. Genocides are a very particular type of tragedy, and re-defining every barbarity of war into one risks diluting the import of unambiguous genocide when it does happen.

talldayo 2y ago
If it wasn't genocide, then the world would have an easier time supporting them. Israel has used their "defense" forces since the beginning to attack, disable and displace ethnic Arabs living in their claimed territory. They did it in the 40s and 50s, they did it through the 60s and then again in the 80s, and in the 90s they did it once again with the Golan Heights law. It's a genocide as we know it, unless you're of the Chomsky brand of denial a-la Bosnia. Ordinarily, nations with a preeminent claim to "living there" have a stronger defense when they say they were protecting themselves. Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily, ignoring international outcry and playing victim when the natives fight back.
- ashirusnw 2y ago
  That's an very one-sided view, which entirely ignores that every single one of the Israeli wars were defensive (yes, including 1967 per historical consensus and eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-years-war-israel-and-the-arabs https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-ye...). The alternative view is that in every single war the neighbouring enemy had openly declared that it wanted to destroy the whole of Israel proper, and either attacked or were massed on its borders waiting to attack. No "natives" have a right to pursue terrorism in order to grab land (Israel proper) back that they lost through war and international consensus, which is what the Palestinians and other neighbouring enemies have been doing for in the 30s (Hebron massacre 1930s, Sefad massacres 1830s), 40s (multi pronged war on the just-declared Israel), 50s (1953), 60s (1967), 70s (1973), 80s (Lebanon, PLO), 90s (intefada), etc etc This is not defence by the natives, this is the grandchildren of a small population proving time and time again that allowing them independence will simply increase their continuous existential on threat to the established neighbouring state. I decry the 25,000 civilian deaths in Gaza and even the 15,000 terrorist deaths but I put the blame for this on Hamas for committing true genocidal acts against Jews and then turning civilians into legitimate (proportional to the threat) military targets, and for the international community for very misguidedly hammering Israel with 10x times ferocity that they reserved for the terrorist who instigated this war.
- USTECHWORKER 2y ago
  [dead]
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Yid Council
    - USTECHWORKER 2y ago
      [dead]
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Why is "defense" in quotes as if israel started any of the wars theyve been involved in? > Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily Losing has consequences. Israels neighbors shouldnt keep attacking them if they want to keep all their land
mongol 2y ago
You are right it is not genocide. It is however ethnic cleansing.
lawn 2y ago
Forced relocation is actually considered genocide of done with genocidal intent. With Trump it's hard to tell, but I'd say Netenyah and Israel has been operating with genocidal intent and considering Trump said this sitting next to him, then yeah I'd be inclined to classify this as genocide.
- ashirusnw 2y ago
  Accusation of genocide is simply ridiculous considering this was without question an entirely defensive war against an enemy Hamas who wanted to commit the same atrocity repeatedly and embedded itself in civilians. International law as it exists today in allows civilian infrastructure to be targeted when it is used for military means, and each and every Israeli strike had to be approved by its legal team and were proceeded by warnings in the many situations when the military value would not be lost by pre-warning. Having consumed far too much content and arguments throughout the past 16 months I have not once seen those that accuse Israel of war crimes being able to suggest and effective and reasonable alternative way to uproot the hamas threat (and suggesting that the two state solution which has remained elusive for 75 years and in the context of October the 7th would reward terrorism, is not a reasonable suggestion to an immediate threat)

talldayo 2y ago

If it wasn't genocide, then the world would have an easier time supporting them. Israel has used their "defense" forces since the beginning to attack, disable and displace ethnic Arabs living in their claimed territory. They did it in the 40s and 50s, they did it through the 60s and then again in the 80s, and in the 90s they did it once again with the Golan Heights law. It's a genocide as we know it, unless you're of the Chomsky brand of denial a-la Bosnia. Ordinarily, nations with a preeminent claim to "living there" have a stronger defense when they say they were protecting themselves. Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily, ignoring international outcry and playing victim when the natives fight back.

ashirusnw 2y ago
That's an very one-sided view, which entirely ignores that every single one of the Israeli wars were defensive (yes, including 1967 per historical consensus and eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-years-war-israel-and-the-arabs https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-ye...). The alternative view is that in every single war the neighbouring enemy had openly declared that it wanted to destroy the whole of Israel proper, and either attacked or were massed on its borders waiting to attack. No "natives" have a right to pursue terrorism in order to grab land (Israel proper) back that they lost through war and international consensus, which is what the Palestinians and other neighbouring enemies have been doing for in the 30s (Hebron massacre 1930s, Sefad massacres 1830s), 40s (multi pronged war on the just-declared Israel), 50s (1953), 60s (1967), 70s (1973), 80s (Lebanon, PLO), 90s (intefada), etc etc This is not defence by the natives, this is the grandchildren of a small population proving time and time again that allowing them independence will simply increase their continuous existential on threat to the established neighbouring state. I decry the 25,000 civilian deaths in Gaza and even the 15,000 terrorist deaths but I put the blame for this on Hamas for committing true genocidal acts against Jews and then turning civilians into legitimate (proportional to the threat) military targets, and for the international community for very misguidedly hammering Israel with 10x times ferocity that they reserved for the terrorist who instigated this war.
USTECHWORKER 2y ago
[dead]
- talldayo 2y ago
  Yid Council
  - USTECHWORKER 2y ago
    [dead]
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Why is "defense" in quotes as if israel started any of the wars theyve been involved in? > Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily Losing has consequences. Israels neighbors shouldnt keep attacking them if they want to keep all their land

mongol 2y ago

You are right it is not genocide. It is however ethnic cleansing.

lawn 2y ago

Forced relocation is actually considered genocide of done with genocidal intent. With Trump it's hard to tell, but I'd say Netenyah and Israel has been operating with genocidal intent and considering Trump said this sitting next to him, then yeah I'd be inclined to classify this as genocide.

ashirusnw 2y ago
Accusation of genocide is simply ridiculous considering this was without question an entirely defensive war against an enemy Hamas who wanted to commit the same atrocity repeatedly and embedded itself in civilians. International law as it exists today in allows civilian infrastructure to be targeted when it is used for military means, and each and every Israeli strike had to be approved by its legal team and were proceeded by warnings in the many situations when the military value would not be lost by pre-warning. Having consumed far too much content and arguments throughout the past 16 months I have not once seen those that accuse Israel of war crimes being able to suggest and effective and reasonable alternative way to uproot the hamas threat (and suggesting that the two state solution which has remained elusive for 75 years and in the context of October the 7th would reward terrorism, is not a reasonable suggestion to an immediate threat)