Israel-Gaza war

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

With things like this, words matter a lot.  There is no “technically” here regarding genocide.  It simply isn’t one.  I agree with what Dave said.  I’d personally like less discussion of the word genocide and more on what both Israel and Hamas are actually doing.  Because things like the 10/7 massacre or what happened in Rafah yesterday should horrify anyone with a soul on either side.  We can disagree on whether this word or that word is the right term, but getting lost in the weeds of that distracts from the bigger issue.  Alas, when folks misuse the word “genocide,” one feels compelled to pushback even though I’d prefer discussion center on what’s actually happening on the ground and the crimes that I’d hope most of us can agree are being committed by both sides here.

Sorry for posting three times in a row btw

[Ancestral Republican]

Not sure if this got posted already but, damn. This sure won't improve Bibi's position.

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51108le52xo

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

With things like this, words matter a lot.  There is no “technically” here regarding genocide.  It simply isn’t one.  I agree with what Dave said.  I’d personally like less discussion of the word genocide and more on what both Israel and Hamas are actually doing.  Because things like the 10/7 massacre or what happened in Rafah yesterday should horrify anyone with a soul on either side.  We can disagree on whether this word or that word is the right term, but getting lost in the weeds of that distracts from the bigger issue.  Alas, when folks misuse the word “genocide,” one feels compelled to pushback even though I’d prefer discussion center on what’s actually happening on the ground and the crimes that I’d hope most of us can agree are being committed by both sides here.

Sorry for posting three times in a row btw

Genuine question: Do you consider what happened in Sabra and Shatila to have been a form of genocide, or do you believe the same lack of care was used with the etymology of the crimes that happened there, too?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Not sure if this got posted already but, damn. This sure won't improve Bibi's position.

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51108le52xo

This seems to be pretty well-documented as a rogue Egyptian soldier shooting at the Israelis - the giveaway is the lack of immediate threats from Egypt. But it's a general sign of how bad things are getting in the region.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

With things like this, words matter a lot.  There is no “technically” here regarding genocide.  It simply isn’t one.  I agree with what Dave said.  I’d personally like less discussion of the word genocide and more on what both Israel and Hamas are actually doing.  Because things like the 10/7 massacre or what happened in Rafah yesterday should horrify anyone with a soul on either side.  We can disagree on whether this word or that word is the right term, but getting lost in the weeds of that distracts from the bigger issue.  Alas, when folks misuse the word “genocide,” one feels compelled to pushback even though I’d prefer discussion center on what’s actually happening on the ground and the crimes that I’d hope most of us can agree are being committed by both sides here.

Sorry for posting three times in a row btw

Genuine question: Do you consider what happened in Sabra and Shatila to have been a form of genocide, or do you believe the same lack of care was used with the etymology of the crimes that happened there, too?

Not only do I believe that it was an act of genocide by the Phalange (and I don’t see how anyone can argue it wasn’t an act of genocide), but I also believe Ariel Sharon and Rafael Eitan should’ve been tried before a special international tribunal as war criminals.

[GoTfan]

The chickens are finally coming home to roost. There is only so much that Gantz is going to tolerate from here; his six point ultimatum to Netanyahu has made that clear.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The chickens are finally coming home to roost. There is only so much that Gantz is going to tolerate from here; his six point ultimatum to Netanyahu has made that clear.

I believe Gallant signed off on that ultimatum as well, although I could be misremembering

[KaiserDave]

I'll elaborate somewhat. I do not think Israel is committing a genocide, but it also does not terribly bother me when people accuse them of such, I do not feel a great obligation to dissuade them of this notion. There are obviously those in bad faith, antisemites, and those irreconcilable detestable extremists who applauded 10/7 among this crowd, but on the whole, the accusations of genocide do not bother me. It is better that people are awake and furious by the crimes of the last few months than sticking their heads in the sand. I would prefer for people to be overzealous in their condemnation of injustice then to ignore it completely.

Furthermore, the word "genocide" has sort of become a byword in our discourse for the ultimate evil. This isn't true at all. There's no hierarchy here with war crimes and then crimes against humanity and then genocide at the top. Genocide is a specific legal term defined in the Genocide Convention, it's not meant to define the absolute evil. Just because Israel isn't committing a genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged. I do not believe Israel is committing a genocide, yet still I am outraged! No more bombing of Gaza, no more invasion of Rafah, cease-fire immediately!

[KaiserDave]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

This is a much more concise way of putting what I just said.

[TheReckoning]

Furthermore, the word "genocide" has sort of become a byword in our discourse for the ultimate evil. This isn't true at all. There's no hierarchy here with war crimes and then crimes against humanity and then genocide at the top. Genocide is a specific legal term defined in the Genocide Convention, it's not meant to define the absolute evil. Just because Israel isn't committing a genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged. I do not believe Israel is committing a genocide, yet still I am outraged! No more bombing of Gaza, no more invasion of Rafah, cease-fire immediately!

The problem is that Hamas refuses to release the hostages alive. Should Israel just give up on them?

I don’t necessarily buy that Hamas has to be removed from power militarily- after all, only a suicidal Ukraine  would support military action to remove the Russian government because of their invasion of Ukraine- but at the same time, anything less than a full defeat of the Nazis was an unacceptable outcome during WW2.

[KaiserDave]

Furthermore, the word "genocide" has sort of become a byword in our discourse for the ultimate evil. This isn't true at all. There's no hierarchy here with war crimes and then crimes against humanity and then genocide at the top. Genocide is a specific legal term defined in the Genocide Convention, it's not meant to define the absolute evil. Just because Israel isn't committing a genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged. I do not believe Israel is committing a genocide, yet still I am outraged! No more bombing of Gaza, no more invasion of Rafah, cease-fire immediately!

The problem is that Hamas refuses to release the hostages alive. Should Israel just give up on them?

I don’t necessarily buy that Hamas has to be removed from power militarily- after all, only a suicidal Ukraine  would support military action to remove the Russian government because of their invasion of Ukraine- but at the same time, anything less than a full defeat of the Nazis was considered the only acceptable outcome during WW2.

I continue to believe that negotiation is the only way to free the hostages, it may require concessions but it's the only way that doesn't result in the death of the hostages and thousands more of Gazan civilians. I believe that ideally, Hamas would be removed from power, it is, after all, the only way to resurrect a two-state solution, but the current Israeli government has no intention to pursue this solution. My perspective is that Israel has no idea how to, or no intention to, construct a lasting peace in the region, so the overwhelming majority of the present violence (which is caused by the IDF) must be brought to an end via a humanitarian cease-fire. I'll put it like this, we need a total and complete shutdown on the war until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Egyptian Soldier shot dead by Israeli forces at Rafah border.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/05/27/egyptian-soldier-killed-in-cross-border-fire-near-rafah/

"An Egyptian soldier was killed and three others were injured in cross-border fire with Israeli forces near the Rafah crossing on Monday, sources told The National, in an incident that could further damage relations between Egypt and Israel."

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Furthermore, the word "genocide" has sort of become a byword in our discourse for the ultimate evil. This isn't true at all. There's no hierarchy here with war crimes and then crimes against humanity and then genocide at the top. Genocide is a specific legal term defined in the Genocide Convention, it's not meant to define the absolute evil. Just because Israel isn't committing a genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged. I do not believe Israel is committing a genocide, yet still I am outraged! No more bombing of Gaza, no more invasion of Rafah, cease-fire immediately!

The problem is that Hamas refuses to release the hostages alive. Should Israel just give up on them?

I don’t necessarily buy that Hamas has to be removed from power militarily- after all, only a suicidal Ukraine  would support military action to remove the Russian government because of their invasion of Ukraine- but at the same time, anything less than a full defeat of the Nazis was considered the only acceptable outcome during WW2.

I continue to believe that negotiation is the only way to free the hostages, it may require concessions but it's the only way that doesn't result in the death of the hostages and thousands more of Gazan civilians. I believe that ideally, Hamas would be removed from power, it is, after all, the only way to resurrect a two-state solution, but the current Israeli government has no intention to pursue this solution. My perspective is that Israel has no idea how to, or no intention to, construct a lasting peace in the region, so the overwhelming majority of the present violence (which is caused by the IDF) must be brought to an end via a humanitarian cease-fire. I'll put it like this, we need a total and complete shutdown on the war until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

I don’t think you can have an end to this round of fighting until Hamas is crushed and completely out of power in Gaza permanently and Deif as well as both of the Sinwar brothers are dead.  You can certainly do a temporary humanitarian ceasefire before then, but definitely not a long-term or permanent shutdown of the war.  

Also, I disagree that the present violence is being caused primarily by the IDF.  At the end of the day, this is ultimately a defensive war caused by Hamas’ unprovoked campaign of rape, murder, and kidnapping against Israeli civilians on 10/7.  There is no equivalency there.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

Edit: Yeah, “Amalek” is often used in Israel as a catch all term for folks like the Iranian regime, the Nazis, Hamas, etc who seek to wipe out the Jewish people.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

>Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

That sure as hell isn't only talking about Hamas.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

>Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

That sure as hell isn't only talking about Hamas.

I’m talking about modern usage of the term in Israel.  Context matters.  But again, we’re getting bogged down in irrelevant debates about exact terms and language. 

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

>Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

That sure as hell isn't only talking about Hamas.

I’m talking about modern usage of the term in Israel.  Context matters.  But again, we’re getting bogged down in irrelevant debates about exact terms and language.  

It's clear as day what he meant.

Obviously, he wasn't going to say "now go and commit genocide!"

Again, these are not "irrelevant debates" as they establish the "intent" in Article II of the Genocide Convention.

[KaiserDave]

Furthermore, the word "genocide" has sort of become a byword in our discourse for the ultimate evil. This isn't true at all. There's no hierarchy here with war crimes and then crimes against humanity and then genocide at the top. Genocide is a specific legal term defined in the Genocide Convention, it's not meant to define the absolute evil. Just because Israel isn't committing a genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged. I do not believe Israel is committing a genocide, yet still I am outraged! No more bombing of Gaza, no more invasion of Rafah, cease-fire immediately!

The problem is that Hamas refuses to release the hostages alive. Should Israel just give up on them?

I don’t necessarily buy that Hamas has to be removed from power militarily- after all, only a suicidal Ukraine  would support military action to remove the Russian government because of their invasion of Ukraine- but at the same time, anything less than a full defeat of the Nazis was considered the only acceptable outcome during WW2.

I continue to believe that negotiation is the only way to free the hostages, it may require concessions but it's the only way that doesn't result in the death of the hostages and thousands more of Gazan civilians. I believe that ideally, Hamas would be removed from power, it is, after all, the only way to resurrect a two-state solution, but the current Israeli government has no intention to pursue this solution. My perspective is that Israel has no idea how to, or no intention to, construct a lasting peace in the region, so the overwhelming majority of the present violence (which is caused by the IDF) must be brought to an end via a humanitarian cease-fire. I'll put it like this, we need a total and complete shutdown on the war until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

I don’t think you can have an end to this round of fighting until Hamas is crushed and completely out of power in Gaza permanently and Deif as well as both of the Sinwar brothers are dead.  You can certainly do a temporary humanitarian ceasefire before then, but definitely not a long-term or permanent shutdown of the war.  

Also, I disagree that the present violence is being caused primarily by the IDF.  At the end of the day, this is ultimately a defensive war caused by Hamas’ unprovoked campaign of rape, murder, and kidnapping against Israeli civilians on 10/7.  There is no equivalency there.

Sorry, it's not tenable to blame Hamas for what's going on right now. Yes, October 7th was an atrocity and a crime against humanity, yes Hamas cares nothing for the people of Gaza, yes they use human shields, yes Israel had a right to respond to some of the most reprehensible terror we've seen in the region. But it's Israel that has the power to end this carnage we're witnessing in front of us. What we are witnessing in the news is squarely the responsibility of the IDF. The power differential is massive here. Israel has proven that they have neither a plan to continue this war that does not involve the continued killing of the civilians, or a plan for peace to guarantee the long term safety of all peoples.

As for the idea that the war cannot end before Hamas is removed from power, I agree in theory (the removal of Hamas from Gaza is essential to any long term peace plan), but in practice Israel has lost all credibility, so it's impossible to hold this position with a straight face. The Israeli government has no intention to install a viable Palestinian government in Gaza, in fact they have no plan whatsoever for what Gaza is going to look like when the fighting stops. There are politically significant voices in the Israeli government calling for the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Gaza. So now I'm supposed to just trust Israel to continue this war until "Hamas is crushed"? No thanks, I'm not a fool. Not to mention the perverse incentives for the Israeli government to continue this war to forestall a general election. While all of this happens, more and more civilians will die. Absolutely not. Trust in Israel's decision-making is gone, gone.

There are conditions where I would support a war to oust Hamas from Gaza, but we aren't remotely approaching that.

[pppolitics]

The Biden administration is STILL assessing whether Israel has violated Biden's Rafah "redline".

This is unbelievable.

You would think that this came from The Onion, but it's not.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/27/rafah-tent-camp-strike-biden-israel-red-line

[Beet]

The Biden administration is STILL assessing whether Israel has violated Biden's "redline".

This is unbelievable.

You would think that this came from The Onion, but it's not.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/27/rafah-tent-camp-strike-biden-israel-red-line

Nothing surprises me from this administration anymore. Whether or not what Israel is doing amounts to genocide, (it does, in my view), they are certainly committing atrocities and war crimes, and Biden is materially supporting them; and anyone who supports him is by extension supporting atrocities and war crimes. It's no different from being a supporter of Putin or Xi. The fact that Biden is doing it despite being a dully elected official does not make it any better.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

I actually wasn't referring to you, you have been pretty consistent here. A good number of folks, both on and off this forum, haven't.

Fair enough, can’t really argue with that sadly.

At least you do admit it's a war crime. While not enough, you're far from the worst in this thread... sadly enough

There are users here who are more zealous here than Bibi himself...

[Horus]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

I actually wasn't referring to you, you have been pretty consistent here. A good number of folks, both on and off this forum, haven't.

Fair enough, can’t really argue with that sadly.

At least you do admit it's a war crime. While not enough, you're far from the worst in this thread... sadly enough

There are users here who are more zealous here than Bibi himself...

Some are banned right now, one or two have been permabanned but yes, it's extremely disturbing.

[Comrade Funk]

I don't want to hear Joe Biden's moralizing ever again. He's a ghoulish coward.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

I actually wasn't referring to you, you have been pretty consistent here. A good number of folks, both on and off this forum, haven't.

Fair enough, can’t really argue with that sadly.

At least you do admit it's a war crime. While not enough, you're far from the worst in this thread... sadly enough

There are users here who are more zealous here than Bibi himself...

Some are banned right now, one or two have been permabanned but yes, it's extremely disturbing.

Still many users like Lief, OSR, Ray Goldfield, Meclazine, etc. who continue to sheer on the war crimes or talk about how the hostages... is worse without any word on Palestinian lives. They are supporting genocide and from the first bench with some popcorn.