South Africa launches case at UN court accusing Israel of genocide

[Velasco]

All Israel is doing by participating is saying that South Africa’s anti-Semitic propaganda shouldn’t go unchallenged.  If you think Israel or - anyone for that matter - thinks this ruling is binding then, respectfully, you should really put away the copeium.

I have no illusions with regards Israel's willingness to abide humanitarian law the rules based order

On the contrary,  I think this massacre will be followed by others. My impression is that the world will become an increasingly dangerous place in the years to come. International relationship will by ruled by the Law of the Strongest.  Under this rule Russia will be allowed to conquer Ukraine, Israel to expel the remaining Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, Myanmar to exterminate the Rohingya people, China to suppress minototies and internal opposition,  etcetera

Whatever you believe, Israel is not committing genocide and no one with any idea what they’re talking about genuinely believes that it is.  South Africa’s frivolous allegations have nothing to do with humanitarian rules of law.  South Africa knows that and Israel knows that.  

Your arguments are even worse than the ones provided by General McArthur: "Israel is not committing genocide, it simply isn't ". "Bad faith". "Blood Libel". "Anti-semitic"

I guess nothing of this matters when the team you are rooting for has nuclear weapons and an overwhelming military power. They will continue murdering civilians, confiscating land, torturing and making Palestinian lives miserable. It's the Law of the Strongest

[Horus]

All Israel is doing by participating is saying that South Africa’s anti-Semitic propaganda shouldn’t go unchallenged.  If you think Israel or - anyone for that matter - thinks this ruling is binding then, respectfully, you should really put away the copeium.

I have no illusions with regards Israel's willingness to abide humanitarian law the rules based order

On the contrary,  I think this massacre will be followed by others. My impression is that the world will become an increasingly dangerous place in the years to come. International relationship will by ruled by the Law of the Strongest.  Under this rule Russia will be allowed to conquer Ukraine, Israel to expel the remaining Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, Myanmar to exterminate the Rohingya people, China to suppress minototies and internal opposition,  etcetera

Whatever you believe, Israel is not committing genocide and no one with any idea what they’re talking about genuinely believes that it is.  South Africa’s frivolous allegations have nothing to do with humanitarian rules of law.  South Africa knows that and Israel knows that.  

Your arguments are even worse than the ones provided by General McArthur: "Israel is not committing genocide, it simply isn't ". "Bad faith". "Blood Libel". "Anti-semitic"

I guess nothing of this matters when the team you are rooting for has nuclear weapons and an overwhelming military power. They will cintinue murdering civilians, confiscating land, torturing and making Palestinian lives miserable. It's the Law of the Strongest

Israel might be the first country to do ethnic cleansing in passive voice.

[Velasco]

So far the South Africans have made serious allegations backed by evidence and the Israelis have responded by whining, calling everyone an anti-semite, calling everyone Hamas and other such ad hominem attacks. Do you have any counter to the overwhelming evidence of genocidal intent?

https://twitter.com/CensoredNws/status/1745407777835544700

The chants of these soldiers freeze my heart.

Keep in mind Netanyahu is seeking to prolong the offensive,  in order to survive politically despite his incompetence and corruption affairs . The moral and political unscrupulousness of the man who says "we are fighting Amalek" in horrendous association with a group of young soldiers indoctrinated by ethnic nationalism,  racism and militarism - the pillars of a state's ideology

That being said, check the accounts you follow in "X". This one is apparently pro-Hamas. South Africans have certainly more moral authority than someone who posts quotes from the Al Quasam brigades spokesman... or someone who uncinditionally sides with Netanyahu and the Kahanists, for that matter

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

All Israel is doing by participating is saying that South Africa’s anti-Semitic propaganda shouldn’t go unchallenged.  If you think Israel or - anyone for that matter - thinks this ruling is binding then, respectfully, you should really put away the copeium.

I have no illusions with regards Israel's willingness to abide humanitarian law the rules based order

On the contrary,  I think this massacre will be followed by others. My impression is that the world will become an increasingly dangerous place in the years to come. International relationship will by ruled by the Law of the Strongest.  Under this rule Russia will be allowed to conquer Ukraine, Israel to expel the remaining Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, Myanmar to exterminate the Rohingya people, China to suppress minototies and internal opposition,  etcetera

Whatever you believe, Israel is not committing genocide and no one with any idea what they’re talking about genuinely believes that it is.  South Africa’s frivolous allegations have nothing to do with humanitarian rules of law.  South Africa knows that and Israel knows that.  

So far the South Africans have made serious allegations backed by evidence and the Israelis have responded by whining, calling everyone an anti-semite, calling everyone Hamas and other such ad hominem attacks. Do you have any counter to the overwhelming evidence of genocidal intent?

https://twitter.com/CensoredNws/status/1745407777835544700

https://twitter.com/WarWatchs/status/1745398249727328328

There is no evidence of genocide except the one Hamas is trying to commit against Israel.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Look, I'm not going to go around playing whack-a-mole with you guys.

Are there isolated incidents of Israeli soldiers doing and saying horrible things?  Of course.  This happens in every war.  This includes the intentional killing of civilians, without any military objective.  I was going to start listing examples from other wars here but then realized that you guys are probably willing to say every war was a "genocide", and that war and genocide are indistinguishable, if it helps you score more imaginary internet points, even though you surely don't actually believe this.

Likewise, are there isolated incidents of Israeli politicians and leaders saying horrible things?  Likewise, of course.  Although it must be said that a great many of the horrible things they say are not calls for ethnic cleansing at all, but rather standard wartime rhetoric, something that's evident if you take into consideration that Israel just suffered a barbaric, unprovoked, genocidal (yes) massacre at the hands of the elected government of the Palestinian people.

Unless you can show that the Israeli military is conducting a widespread and systematic operation to bring about the destruction of the ethnic group known as "Palestinians" (Arabs who lived in the western half of Mandatory Palestine in 1948, their descendants, and various other Arabs from Egypt, Jordan and Syria who moved into the region and came to identify as Palestinian), or that the statements of Israeli politicians represent a widespread and systematic campaign by the state of Israel to incite... erm... its own military?... to commit such a genocide, you do not have a case.

Please note that I emphasized widespread and systematic twice above, because the definition of "genocide" is deliberately vague on this point, but I would think most reasonable people would agree that if the definition of "genocide" includes small-scale and individual crimes, it is basically just meaningless.  For instance, the Wikipedia list of genocides includes that Osage Indian Murders (recently depicted in Killers of the Flower Moon), a series of a couple dozen murders committed by a small group of men whose primary motivation was financial gain.  To compare this with the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide or GeneralPlan Ost or the Armenian Genocide or the Holodomor or the Khmer Rouge or dekulakization or dekossackization or the various ethnic cleansings under Stalin, is just beyond insulting and totally trivializes the term "genocide".  It indicates that we need a new term for the truly horrendous crimes of history so that they can once again be regarded as distinct from other noteworthy crimes -- a role that the term "genocide" once served, but perhaps no longer does.

Which is to say, if the definition of genocide is "killing with intent to bring about the elimination of an ethnic or national group", and you kill me because you hate Americans and want us all to die, does that mean you committed genocide?  Was 9/11 a genocide?  How about the USS Cole bombings?  In both cases al-Qaeda surely would have liked to wipe Americans off the planet, and bin Laden certainly said as much in his speeches (incitement to genocide?).  If I was Palestinian and you were an IDF soldier and you personally hated Palestinians and wanted us all dead, and you killed me, did you commit genocide?  Did your military unit commit genocide?  How about the whole IDF?  Is all of Israel culpable in your action?  Of course not.  Again, if you have a definition of "genocide" that would say as much, and to try and group such a crime under the same umbrella as what occurred in Cambodia, then we need a new word.

[GeneralMacArthur]

To be clear, the definition I personally would use for "genocide" would include some notion of:

A) The clear intent to totally eliminate an ethnic, religious, national or class* group
B) The means to accomplish that intent, if left unimpeded
C) Active pursuit of successful realization of that intent

*class is debatable since in some cases the class is small enough that it could be argued that rather than being primarily composed of innocents, a sufficiently sizable share of the members of the class were able to coordinate towards an objective that could be considered hostile, thus making an attack on said class a civil conflict rather than a genocide.  For example, the French Revolution's class cleansing of the Bourbon aristocracy.

For instance, the Holocaust:
A) The Nazis clearly intended to eliminate the Jews (an ethnic and religious group)
B) The Nazis were a powerful state actor who clearly had the means to accomplish this
C) The Nazis obviously undertook a campaign of using their power to perform said elimination

or the Camodian Genocide:
A) The Khmer Rouge made it publicly known that they intended to completely eliminate anyone who had, prior to year zero, belonged to: the wealthy, the intelligentsia, the capitalists, the landowners (all class groups), Christians (religious group), Vietnamese (ethnic group), etc.
B) The Khmer Rouge had complete control of Cambodia which gave them the means to accomplish this
C) The Khmer Rouge did in fact slaughter several million people while explicitly targeting said groups

As mentioned in the above post, even if you grant that the motives of the Osage Indian murderers was the ethnic cleansing of the Osage from Oklahoma, they clearly did not have the means to actually achieve this objective.  Thus they fail at point (B).

I would not consider the actions the United States undertook in its various Indian Wars to be genocidal because although (B) and (C) were in many cases satisfied, the motivations of the United States were never about the elimination of the natives as an ethnic group.  Instead they were concerned with acquisition of land and resources, or protection of the welfare of American settlers, or putting a stop to raids, or protecting the integrity of previously-signed treaties, or whatever.

The Israel-Gaza war does not meet the definition of genocide because even if you grant point (A), which is what most of the South African case rests on, it utterly fails at point (C) because despite having the means to do so, Israel has not actually taken any serious action to eliminate the Palestinians as a group.  For one, Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel proper have been almost totally untouched as the conflict has unfolded.  For another, as has been repeatedly demonstrated on this forum, there is no evidence that the conflict in Gaza has resulted in excess mortality of civilians beyond that which would be expected from any war in a dense urban environment where said civilians are being used by the enemy as human shields.



One even simpler test is this:  Had the exact same situation taken place with a different ethnic/religious/national group, would the actions of the actor have been similar?

In the case of the Holocaust, obviously not.  If there were no Jews in Germany, the Nazis would not have undertaken the Final Solution.

In the case of the Cambodian Genocide, most likely not.  Although there were plenty of sadistic maniacs who enjoyed torturing and killing no matter who the target was, Pol Pot's ideology was clearly derived from Stalinism and Maoism in its ethnonationalist zeal, class warfare, and desire for the annihilation of religious and cultural institutions.

In the case of the Osage Indian murders, it's pretty likely that William Hale would have killed pretty much anyone if the offer of such easy access to a vast fortune was placed before him, Osage or not.

In the case of the American conquest of the west, yes, if there had been white people conducting raids or refusing to respect treaties or whatever then military force would have been used.  In fact this happened not infrequently.

If another state actor had done as Hamas has done, Israel would be pounding their state to smithereens.  Hopefully, we will never get the chance to test this theory.  But imagine if, say, Cyprus invaded Israel and slaughtered thousands of people and kidnapped hundreds of girls to turn into rape slaves.  The Cypriots would be getting blown to bits.  And South Africa would probably be going before the ICJ accusing Israel of committing genocide against them.

[GoTfan]

"If there were no Jews in Germany, the Nazis would not have undertaken the Final Solution." Is an absolutely galaxy-brained take considering that the Final Solution went well beyond the borders of Germany and was largely conducted in Poland and further eastward.

More than that, trying to apply a strictly academic definition to genocide has always felt extremely inhumane to me. It is a loaded term, yes, but trying to use a strictly abstract, academic standard feels particularly cold-blooded. It's like when another poster on the forum referred to human beings as 'stock'.

Academic definitions can be vital, but there are people dying on all sides at the moment while the rest of us are quibbling over whether it meets a strict set of academic rules.

I guarantee you that the people being shot at by Hamas and the IDF don't care about whether what's happening meets academic standards. I somehow don't think that the Narives Americans removed by the US government agreed either, which Gmac is still trying to trying to defend.

Genocide takes more forms than just indiscriminate killing. We would all do well to remember that.

[GeneralMacArthur]

"If there were no Jews in Germany, the Nazis would not have undertaken the Final Solution." Is an absolutely galaxy-brained take considering that the Final Solution went well beyond the borders of Germany and was largely conducted in Poland and further eastward.

More than that, trying to apply a strictly academic definition to genocide has always felt extremely inhumane to me. It is a loaded term, yes, but trying to use a strictly abstract, academic standard feels particularly cold-blooded. It's like when another poster on the forum referred to human beings as 'stock'.

Academic definitions can be vital, but there are people dying on all sides at the moment while the rest of us are quibbling over whether it meets a strict set of academic rules.

I guarantee you that the people being shot at by Hamas and the IDF don't care about whether what's happening meets academic standards. I somehow don't think that the Narives Americans removed by the US government agreed either, which Gmac is still trying to trying to defend.

Genocide takes more forms than just indiscriminate killing. We would all do well to remember that.

The "Final Solution" concerned Jews alone.  "Final Solution" is shorthand for "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".

For heaven's sake, if you're going to try and score some cheap shot and then get up on a high horse about your superior historical knowledge, please at least do a basic fact check to make sure you're actually correct.

Also, "applying a strictly academic definition of genocide" is exactly what this case is about and exactly what all the Israel-haters have been doing for eight pages and counting.  Nobody truly believes that Israel is committing the same crime that the Nazis, or the Khmer Rouge, or the Bolsheviks, or the Hutus, or the Young Turks, committed.  Instead it's eight pages and counting of semantic academic/legal definition games to try and twist what Israel is doing into some loose definition of genocide, so that you guys can then turn around and use the phrase "Israel is committing genocide" to try and get other people to treat Israel with the same contempt as they would any of the groups I just mentioned.

[GoTfan]

"If there were no Jews in Germany, the Nazis would not have undertaken the Final Solution." Is an absolutely galaxy-brained take considering that the Final Solution went well beyond the borders of Germany and was largely conducted in Poland and further eastward.

More than that, trying to apply a strictly academic definition to genocide has always felt extremely inhumane to me. It is a loaded term, yes, but trying to use a strictly abstract, academic standard feels particularly cold-blooded. It's like when another poster on the forum referred to human beings as 'stock'.

Academic definitions can be vital, but there are people dying on all sides at the moment while the rest of us are quibbling over whether it meets a strict set of academic rules.

I guarantee you that the people being shot at by Hamas and the IDF don't care about whether what's happening meets academic standards. I somehow don't think that the Narives Americans removed by the US government agreed either, which Gmac is still trying to trying to defend.

Genocide takes more forms than just indiscriminate killing. We would all do well to remember that.

The "Final Solution" concerned Jews alone.  "Final Solution" is shorthand for "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".

For heaven's sake, if you're going to try and score some cheap shot and then get up on a high horse about your superior historical knowledge, please at least do a basic fact check to make sure you're actually correct.

Also, "applying a strictly academic definition of genocide" is exactly what this case is about and exactly what all the Israel-haters have been doing for eight pages and counting.  Nobody truly believes that Israel is committing the same crime that the Nazis, or the Khmer Rouge, or the Bolsheviks, or the Hutus, or the Young Turks, committed.  Instead it's eight pages and counting of semantic academic/legal definition games to try and twist what Israel is doing into some loose definition of genocide, so that you guys can then turn around and use the phrase "Israel is committing genocide" to try and get other people to treat Israel with the same contempt as they would any of the groups I just mentioned.

Yes, I'm sure the people on both sides currently being shot at would agree with you. Just like you seem so certain that Jews existed only in Germany..

[Pericles]

If we're going for WWII comparisons then the Western Allied total war and carpet bombing of Germany is a lot closer to what Israel is doing than the Holocaust. Despite people's reflexive anti Nazism, it was actually a war crime to indiscriminately target German civilians and it is a war crime now to flatten Gaza. However, it was not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocidal.

Admittedly the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was ethnic cleansing. Forced expulsions have not happened yet in this war but if it does it is a crime against humanity. It had elements of genocide but imo was not one because even though it was cruel to civilians the objective was their transfer from a territory, not their deaths.

[Velasco]

If we're going for WWII comparisons then the Western Allied total war and carpet bombing of Germany is a lot closer to what Israel is doing than the Holocaust. Despite people's reflexive anti Nazism, it was actually a war crime to indiscriminately target German civilians and it is a war crime now to flatten Gaza. However, it was not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocidal.

Admittedly the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was ethnic cleansing. Forced expulsions have not happened yet in this war but if it does it is a crime against humanity. It had elements of genocide but imo was not one because even though it was cruel to civilians the objective was their transfer from a territory, not their deaths.

You are right in saying indiscriminate bombing does not amount to genocide. It's a crime of war and a crime against humanity under international law.  Blocking aid and basic supplies are heinous crimes, as well as cutting off water and electricity,

The order to evacuate the north of the Gaza Strip amounts to forcible transfer of population.  The attempts to force Egypt to accept refugees and settle them in the Sinai peninsula,  as well as the statements made by Israeli politicians, speak volumes about a deliberate intent to perpetrate ethnic cleansing

As for the crime of genocide, the statements of Herzog, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu and a large etcetera give the prosecutors a good basis to claim there's incitement to genocide (which is a previous step)

I have not still a closed opinion on the claims of genocide, but I think South Africans have already proven it is plausible that Israel is committing that crime

In any case, Netanyahu is anticipating an adverse ruling and says nothing will stop the carnage

The question is, regardless of whether you think it is genocide or not, the situation of the people in Gaza is catastrophic. Keep them in mind

 Let's focus on the actual meaning of genocide under international law (it's a narrow definition) and the actual substance of the South African allegations, in order to discuss whether they are right or wrong

[CumbrianLefty]

If we're going for WWII comparisons then the Western Allied total war and carpet bombing of Germany is a lot closer to what Israel is doing than the Holocaust. Despite people's reflexive anti Nazism, it was actually a war crime to indiscriminately target German civilians and it is a war crime now to flatten Gaza. However, it was not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocidal.

Admittedly the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was ethnic cleansing. Forced expulsions have not happened yet in this war but if it does it is a crime against humanity. It had elements of genocide but imo was not one because even though it was cruel to civilians the objective was their transfer from a territory, not their deaths.

And the point about the mass expulsion of Germans post WW2 was that it was widely seen as a bad thing, or at best a regrettable "lesser evil". Relatively few actually exulted in it. Which makes certain people using it as "justification" for Israel doing similarly now more than a little distasteful.

[Pericles]

If we're going for WWII comparisons then the Western Allied total war and carpet bombing of Germany is a lot closer to what Israel is doing than the Holocaust. Despite people's reflexive anti Nazism, it was actually a war crime to indiscriminately target German civilians and it is a war crime now to flatten Gaza. However, it was not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocidal.

Admittedly the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was ethnic cleansing. Forced expulsions have not happened yet in this war but if it does it is a crime against humanity. It had elements of genocide but imo was not one because even though it was cruel to civilians the objective was their transfer from a territory, not their deaths.

And the point about the mass expulsion of Germans post WW2 was that it was widely seen as a bad thing, or at best a regrettable "lesser evil". Relatively few actually exulted in it. Which makes certain people using it as "justification" for Israel doing similarly now more than a little distasteful.

Maybe, but I doubt Poles, Czechs and Russians felt that bad about it at the time. The West at the time sure and that can be the general hindsight consensus.

[CumbrianLefty]

If we're going for WWII comparisons then the Western Allied total war and carpet bombing of Germany is a lot closer to what Israel is doing than the Holocaust. Despite people's reflexive anti Nazism, it was actually a war crime to indiscriminately target German civilians and it is a war crime now to flatten Gaza. However, it was not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocidal.

Admittedly the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe was ethnic cleansing. Forced expulsions have not happened yet in this war but if it does it is a crime against humanity. It had elements of genocide but imo was not one because even though it was cruel to civilians the objective was their transfer from a territory, not their deaths.

And the point about the mass expulsion of Germans post WW2 was that it was widely seen as a bad thing, or at best a regrettable "lesser evil". Relatively few actually exulted in it. Which makes certain people using it as "justification" for Israel doing similarly now more than a little distasteful.

Maybe, but I doubt Poles, Czechs and Russians felt that bad about it at the time. The West at the time sure and that can be the general hindsight consensus.

Yes that is fair (though some have admitted in more recent years that Germans were badly treated)

The point that it should not be used to advocate for Israel now doing similarly remains, however.

[GeneralMacArthur]

As for the crime of genocide, the statements of Herzog, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu and a large etcetera give the prosecutors a good basis to claim there's incitement to genocide (which is a previous step)

The claim of "incitement to genocide" in particular does not make sense in this context.

The prime example of that is the Hutu Power Radio station that was used during the Rwandan genocide to spread lies and hatred, dehumanize the Tutsis, radicalize the population and encourage them to kill their Tutsi neighbors.

That was inciting the population to commit genocide.

Who is being incited by the statements of Israeli politicians?  The only people operating in Gaza are the IDF.  They don't need "incitement", they already follow the orders of the Israeli state.

Certainly no effort has been made in Israel to recreate the conditions of Rwanda, where Jews are encouraged to hate their Arab neighbors and eventually to kill them.

[Wiswylfen]

*class is debatable since in some cases the class is small enough that it could be argued that rather than being primarily composed of innocents, a sufficiently sizable share of the members of the class were able to coordinate towards an objective that could be considered hostile, thus making an attack on said class a civil conflict rather than a genocide.  For example, the French Revolution's class cleansing of the Bourbon aristocracy.

...

or the Camodian Genocide:
A) The Khmer Rouge made it publicly known that they intended to completely eliminate anyone who had, prior to year zero, belonged to: the wealthy, the intelligentsia, the capitalists, the landowners (all class groups), Christians (religious group), Vietnamese (ethnic group), etc.
B) The Khmer Rouge had complete control of Cambodia which gave them the means to accomplish this
C) The Khmer Rouge did in fact slaughter several million people while explicitly targeting said groups

Even setting aside that your excuse has nothing in itself to it, I might point out that there were several hundred thousand aristocrats. Pick one or the other.

Did the Khmer Rouge commit genocide? Of course they did. It cannot seriously be argued, however, that the murder of capitalists and landowners constituted that: people being killed does not in itself a genocide make, as you yourself admit. Their targeting of specific ethnic groups—more than just the Vietnamese, by the way—was genocidal; that was not. One moment you are complaining about the abuse of the term ‘genocide’, the next you are abusing it yourself. Again, which is it?

[Silent Hunter]

If we're going for WWII comparisons then the Western Allied total war and carpet bombing of Germany is a lot closer to what Israel is doing than the Holocaust. Despite people's reflexive anti Nazism, it was actually a war crime to indiscriminately target German civilians and it is a war crime now to flatten Gaza. However, it was not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocidal.

Legally in 1945, it wasn't a war crime. The Allies never charged German or Japanese leaders in relation to their aerial bombing practices.

It would be covered by Protocol I of 1977, but Israel hasn't signed it and the US hasn't ratified it.

[Velasco]

As for the crime of genocide, the statements of Herzog, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu and a large etcetera give the prosecutors a good basis to claim there's incitement to genocide (which is a previous step)

The claim of "incitement to genocide" in particular does not make sense in this context.

The prime example of that is the Hutu Power Radio station that was used during the Rwandan genocide to spread lies and hatred, dehumanize the Tutsis, radicalize the population and encourage them to kill their Tutsi neighbors.

That was inciting the population to commit genocide.

Who is being incited by the statements of Israeli politicians?  The only people operating in Gaza are the IDF.  They don't need "incitement", they already follow the orders of the Israeli state.

Certainly no effort has been made in Israel to recreate the conditions of Rwanda, where Jews are encouraged to hate their Arab neighbors and eventually to kill them.

Speaking of the Rwanda genocide, the Hutu Radio Station aired the message that Tutsis were "crockoaches". Israel's defence minister Yoav Gallant said that Palestinians are "human animals", while announcing the "complete siege" of Gaza ("there will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed”); Israel's president said that "there are no innocent civilians in Gaza", paving the way for the ongoing massacre; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that they are fighting "Amalek" (the people of Gaza), a statement chanted by Israeli soldiers fighting on the ground*...

"Human animals", "no innocent civilians" or "Amalek" are expressions that have a clear intent: dehumanizing the enemy, that is to say, the people of Gaza. There is no way to be mistaken, since they have stated in different manners there's no line dividing Hamas and the people of Gaza (and all Palestinians by extension). Dehumanization and incitement are previous and neccesary steps towards the perpetration of other crimes, including genocide

I'm citing only three examples coming from the President, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence. The amount of statements from Israeli politicians, high ranking officials and mlitary personnel is impressive. South Africans have a big case, trust me  

*Certainly the IDF soldiers follow the orders of the state. To be precise, they follow the orders of issued by the Ministry of Defence, which holder os the aforementioned Gallant. The man is a gold mine. Just one example:

 "We will end things inside Gaza […]. I have removed all restraints, [you’re allowed to] attack everything, kill those who fight us, whether there is one terrorist or there are hundreds of terrorists, [ordering to attack] through the air,land, with tanks, with bulldozers, by all means, there are no compromises. Gaza will not return to what it was."

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Novel legal defense from Israel: "Don't forget this is an Arab, Gazan population whose DNA is to hoard"

https://twitter.com/samhaselby/status/1746677681167487474

[Meclazine for Israel]

The Case is Absurd

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2J44IwsX6P/

[GeneralMacArthur]

*class is debatable since in some cases the class is small enough that it could be argued that rather than being primarily composed of innocents, a sufficiently sizable share of the members of the class were able to coordinate towards an objective that could be considered hostile, thus making an attack on said class a civil conflict rather than a genocide.  For example, the French Revolution's class cleansing of the Bourbon aristocracy.

...

or the Camodian Genocide:
A) The Khmer Rouge made it publicly known that they intended to completely eliminate anyone who had, prior to year zero, belonged to: the wealthy, the intelligentsia, the capitalists, the landowners (all class groups), Christians (religious group), Vietnamese (ethnic group), etc.
B) The Khmer Rouge had complete control of Cambodia which gave them the means to accomplish this
C) The Khmer Rouge did in fact slaughter several million people while explicitly targeting said groups

Even setting aside that your excuse has nothing in itself to it, I might point out that there were several hundred thousand aristocrats. Pick one or the other.

Did the Khmer Rouge commit genocide? Of course they did. It cannot seriously be argued, however, that the murder of capitalists and landowners constituted that: people being killed does not in itself a genocide make, as you yourself admit. Their targeting of specific ethnic groups—more than just the Vietnamese, by the way—was genocidal; that was not. One moment you are complaining about the abuse of the term ‘genocide’, the next you are abusing it yourself. Again, which is it?

If you want to say that classicide should be considered a separate and distinct crime from genocide, that's a reasonable position and one that many scholars take.  There are also many scholars who would say that classicide is just a type of genocide.

Personally I don't see the point in making a distinction.  Both are crimes involving premeditated mass killings of innocent civilians in an attempt to completely eradicate some hated group.  Classicides often take place simultaneously with genocides anyway -- see the example of the Khmer Rouge, or how the Bolsheviks undertook dekulakization simultaneously with dekossackization and various other ethnic cleansings (which were later expanded by Stalin).

At the end of the day we are both talking about the same thing.  And this has now gone beyond the scope of this thread, which is meant to specifically be about the Israeli case.  I don't think even the most rabid Jew-hater would argue that the Israelis are committing classicide, so there's no point bickering about whether or not that constitutes genocide.

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1745495671698813313

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1745495671698813313

I believe Ireland’s politics has historically been no stranger to anti-semitism, but I don’t know enough to say for sure whether that’s true.  South Africa is easy though:

1) South Africa is not the most pro-Palestinian country in the world

2) One of the ugliest and most indefensible moments in the history of Israeli foreign policy was its staunch support for Apartheid South Africa.  That will be to Israel’s eternal shame like a stain that can never be cleaned.  As a result, there is understandably little love lost between the two countries.  Thus, there is little domestic political risk for South African politicians who choose to use deranged anti-Israel demagoguery as thin veneer for anti-Semitic Jew-baiting should they deem it in their political interests to do so.

3) Whatever one thinks of what’s happening in Gaza, the current South African government is an obscenely corrupt, notoriously anti-Semitic, at best arguably racist, comically incompetent flaming dumpster fire.  Given the history, this makes perfect sense in an amoral realpolitik sort of way if you’re the South African government and you’re looking for a way to distract people from what an utter sh!t show you’ve been.

[Velasco]

Genocide is a crime with some specific characteristics defined by the Genocide convention, namely "acts  committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,  racial or religious group"

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

"Classicide" is a concept coined by some sociologist, but I don't think it's a crime recognized by internacional law. Apparently some scholars define the term as a "form of premeditated mass killing (...) narrower than genocide " that targets specific socioeconomic groups. Personally I think there's a difference to be made between crimes motivated by racial and ideological hatred,  that is to say, Hitler and Stalin were criminals of different kinds. Apples and Oranges

[Wiswylfen]

If you want to say that classicide should be considered a separate and distinct crime from genocide, that's a reasonable position and one that many scholars take.  There are also many scholars who would say that classicide is just a type of genocide.

Personally I don't see the point in making a distinction.  Both are crimes involving premeditated mass killings of innocent civilians in an attempt to completely eradicate some hated group.  Classicides often take place simultaneously with genocides anyway -- see the example of the Khmer Rouge, or how the Bolsheviks undertook dekulakization simultaneously with dekossackization and various other ethnic cleansings (which were later expanded by Stalin).

At the end of the day we are both talking about the same thing.  And this has now gone beyond the scope of this thread, which is meant to specifically be about the Israeli case.  I don't think even the most rabid Jew-hater would argue that the Israelis are committing classicide, so there's no point bickering about whether or not that constitutes genocide.

Personally I think the definition of genocide (and how you define it) is perfectly relevant to this thread. Your posts, in going beyond the war in Gaza, would seem to indicate that you agree with this much--or did, just not anymore for some reason.

Scholars can, believe it or not, be wrong. That these class-based mass killings often occur coterminously with ethnicity-based mass killings makes it all the more important to distinguish between the two, not irrelevant as you seem to think it does.

Also, another question: if class-based mass killings can be excused if the class being targeted is small enough and therefore "not primarily composed of innocents" in your world-view, why? And how limited is that and, again, why? Do you actually believe that it counts as genocide?