Hide behind the poll: is Israel committing a genocide against Palestine?

[I'm a prince to the grifters, I turn apostles to pimps]

Tried to add some more nuanced options since "genocide" has a pretty broad definition.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I’m not hiding my opinion on this: basically yes. It’s more like 1990s Balkan style ethnic cleansing than it is the Holocaust, but it’s still a disastrous policy that has resulted in death, displacement, and all other manners of horrors.

[Red Willow]

Absolutely not.

[SWE]

Very obviously yes

[Beet]

Yes. Their argument is that thanks to the Holocaust, Jewish people need their own political homeland and while Israel is the only possible one for Jews, the Palestinians are essentially Arabs who would be at home anywhere in Arabia, North Africa, or the Fertile Crescent. Ironically it's a Pan-Arab argument and I don't think Israel would be too happy if the Arab world actually politically united, good diplomatic relations or not.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

It's awful and wrong and harmful and highly problematic, how Israel treats Palestinians. However especially since I construe genocide narrowly, I voted no here.

[Voice of low info America]

No.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Frankly, it might take a few years before we find out. The Netanyahu government probably hasn't issued any explicitly genocidal order (Bibi is stupid but not THAT stupid), but there's sufficient ambiguity about what the war's end goal is and enough proto-genocidal rhetoric being employed that it's not exactly out of the question that the purpose is to engineer the effective elimination of the Palestinian community in Gaza. I dearly hope that it doesn't get to that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Absolutely Not

[President Johnson]

No. Of course too many innocent civilians have been killed, that doesn't fit the definition of genocide though.

[DavidB.]

No, and it is frankly ridiculous to say so. If Israel had truly intended to wipe out all Palestinians in Gaza, which would actually be the definition of committing a genocide, it could have done so in mere hours on October 8th. The U.S. and the EU have both stated their explicit support for an Israeli campaign with the objective to root out Hamas. Given Gaza's population density and Hamas' total control over all civilian infrastructure, which is very often dual-use, this objective would always imply a painfully high number of civilians killed — this is exactly the reason why Israel has not done so before.

The operation has been dragging on for a long time, which to some may feel uncomfortable, but it might as well mean that Israel is being cautions, both with it own people and with the Palestinians. I believe it was GMac who made a post comparing death tolls in similar urban warfare situations, showing that Israel is actually doing a rather good job. In addition, we all keep seeing the death toll as reported by the Hamas-run 'health ministry of Gaza' but never the number of Hamas combatants among those, which is undoubtedly significant.

And in addition to all of this, I have to mention the fact that nobody in the West shouting "genocide" about Israel seems to give a sh**t about the much worse situation in Sudan, and I cannot draw any other conclusion than "no Jews, no news" about that.

[Progressive Pessimist]

No. Of course too many innocent civilians have been killed, that doesn't fit the definition of genocide though.

That's also how I see it.

The aim isn't to murder Palestinian civilians, but Netanyahu is being reckless and ruining or taking too many of their lives.

[Long Live The King!]

No. Israel clearly does not have genocidal intent and the number of civilians killed, while unfortunate, is far lower than the number of civilians that other countries have killed in similar circumstances (the civilian death toll of the US response to 9/11 in Afghanistan, Russian response to terrorism in Chechnya, the Syrian Civil War or the Saudi intervention against the Houthis in Yemen far and beyond exceeds than the number of civilians that have been killed in Gaza). Israel-Palestine gets far too much disproportionate attention in comparison to conflicts with higher amounts of civilian casualties.

[Pericles]

I don't think it's gotten to the level of genocide or ethnic cleansing. There are worrying signs for what might happen in the future, but people should not just use loaded words for the sake of it. Personally, it comes across as trying to minimize the Holocaust and deligitimise Israel.

Just because something isn't a genocide does not mean it is moral or allowed under international law. It should be clear by now that Israel has committed war crimes and has not distinguished between civilian and military targets. Even in war, there should be some standards.

Israel's long-term policies towards the Palestinians aren't genocidal, but it does meet the legal definition of apartheid imo. The Palestinians are effectively denied civil and political rights in the West Bank based on their race, and this is now intended as a permanent situation. This can't be justified morally, and it is also becoming clearer that this is a dumb policy for Israel's own interests.

[MarkD]

I have no information that Israel is doing that. Sure, I've often seen/heard polemical, unsubstantiated claims that it is, but I'm not convinced.

[Crumpets]

I basically agree with what Antonio said. Best way I can give a simple (albeit probably pretty wishy-washy) answer is that the war is not a genocidal war, but there have been actions which certainly seem like acts of genocide based on what limited information we have, or at the very least, worthy of further investigation. And that includes not just kinetic engagements like airstrikes, but also issues like lack of food that can't really be attributed to any one actor, but which can still result in many indiscriminate deaths along ethnic lines and which may be part of Israel's strategy to win the war.

Where the Israeli state falls on the spectrum of "trying to limit those acts" to "turning a blind eye to those acts" to "actively encouraging those acts" is kind of the key question in my mind. And of course worth underscoring that October 7th was very much an act of genocide both in intent and execution and was clearly endorsed by the "state" of Gaza in the form of Hamas.

[Big Abraham]

It is analogous in this century to what the North American process of Indian removal and extermination was in previous centuries, and is infact arguably much worse relative to international law considering that Israel exists in the age of the the Geneva charter and the UN, and the principle of Israel's "manifest destiny" shares much of the same ethno-religious supremacism and victim mentality that white American settlers possessed

[mileslunn]

Absolutely not.  Goal is not to eradicate Palestinian people, but to wipe out Hamas.  Israel has made clear day Hamas lays down its arms and returns hostages they will end the attack.  They are even trying to avoid civilian casualties but thanks to high population density and Hamas putting weapons in places like hospitals, that is tough to do.  You could say maybe aren't taking enough precautions to avoid civilian casualties.  That is totally fair and reasonable.  Could also say are not treating Palestinians well in terms of building more settlements in West Bank and making it tough for them to move freely within West Bank.  But genocide absolutely not.  Genocide means a deliberate attempt to eradicate a certain ethnic group and that is not happening.  This is more akin to World War II where huge numbers of innocent Germans and Japanese were killed in bombings (much higher than current war in Gaza) yet no one considers Western allies engaged in genocide because it wasn't their goal to eradicate either group.  And once leadership in both surrendered, US and other allies helped re-build them.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza are facing imminent starvation and diseases from starvation and Israel is making it extremely difficult for these Palestinians to receive food or other aid.

If Hamas' evil murderous terrorism, as an attempt to remove Israel and kill Israelis was an act of genocide, then certainly this is an attempt by Netanyahu to force Palestinians out of Gaza permanently, even if into refugee camps, and is at least equally an act of genocide as Israel has much greater capacity to carry this out than Hamas has.

There is absolutely no need to starve Palestinians and force them to constantly move (preferably into refugee camps outside of Gaza) if the sole aim is to 'eradicate Hamas' (which is impossible to do anyway.)

A person has to be either a complete moron or completely willfully blind to not recognize that this is at least an attempt at genocide.

[User2663]

No, and it is frankly ridiculous to say so. If Israel had truly intended to wipe out all Palestinians in Gaza, which would actually be the definition of committing a genocide, it could have done so in mere hours on October 8th. The U.S. and the EU have both stated their explicit support for an Israeli campaign with the objective to root out Hamas. Given Gaza's population density and Hamas' total control over all civilian infrastructure, which is very often dual-use, this objective would always imply a painfully high number of civilians killed — this is exactly the reason why Israel has not done so before.

The operation has been dragging on for a long time, which to some may feel uncomfortable, but it might as well mean that Israel is being cautions, both with it own people and with the Palestinians. I believe it was GMac who made a post comparing death tolls in similar urban warfare situations, showing that Israel is actually doing a rather good job. In addition, we all keep seeing the death toll as reported by the Hamas-run 'health ministry of Gaza' but never the number of Hamas combatants among those, which is undoubtedly significant.

And in addition to all of this, I have to mention the fact that nobody in the West shouting "genocide" about Israel seems to give a sh**t about the much worse situation in Sudan, and I cannot draw any other conclusion than "no Jews, no news" about that.

If not for the subject matter it would be absolutely hilarious that you would accuse anyone else of hypocrisy.

The only person on this forum who has a double standard when Israel is involved is yourself: you support Azerbaijan and justify yourself with talk of internationally-recognised borders, yet calling for illegal settlements to be dismantled is ethnic cleansing; you deem the boycott of Israeli businesses racist, while wanting to ban all Russians except outspoken dissidents from visiting Europe. Calling anyone who calls a genocide what it is a racist doesn't cover for the fundamental intellectual dishonesty.

Your arguments are as utterly unconvincing as always. It's ridiculous to say Israel's committing a genocide! Why? Because they could've just nuked Gaza! Yeah OK. More convincing is the fact you have to lie to us with the usual 'most moral army' nonsense, telling us that "comparing death tolls in similar urban warfare situations" "Israel is actually doing a rather good job", while talking of 'dual-use civilian infrastructure' instead of 'tower blocks where one (1) Hamas member lives, who isn't even there when they get blown up'.

No. Of course too many innocent civilians have been killed, that doesn't fit the definition of genocide though.

Of course it doesn't. The argument for it being a genocide is not the number of people killed. Is there a specific reason you need to pretend it is rather than confronting the actual arguments put forward? Are you able to respond to the actual arguments put forward?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

No, and in fact that accusation is part and parcel of the ongoing attempt at genocide perpetrated against Israel.

[Ferguson97]

I don’t know if what has happened thus far qualifies as such (it certainly meets the definition of war crimes), but genocide is certainly the goal of the current Israeli government.

[Yelnoc]

Surely we can all at least agree that the statements by members of the Israeli government calling for the expulsion of the Palestinian people from Gaza are, by definition, genocidal statements?

[100% pro-choice no matter what]

Let me get this straight.

Israel is a nuclear-armed state with one of the strongest armies in the region. They have uncontested air superiority and the IDF is making steady advances.

Gaza is a densely-populated area smaller than New York crammed full of Civilians. Most buildings and infrastructure are poorly constructed.

Israel has a goal of complete extermination of Gazans. In the six months in which all of the above have been true, they have "only" managed to kill 1-2% of the Palestinian population.

Pretty bad attempt at a genocide, ngl.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Let me get this straight.

Israel is a nuclear-armed state with one of the strongest armies in the region. They have uncontested air superiority and the IDF is making steady advances.

Gaza is a densely-populated area smaller than New York crammed full of Civilians. Most buildings and infrastructure are poorly constructed.

Israel has a goal of complete extermination of Gazans. In the six months in which all of the above have been true, they have "only" managed to kill 1-2% of the Palestinian population.

Pretty bad attempt at a genocide, ngl.

As I've said, I think the goal for Netanyahu is to drive as many Palestinians out of Gaza permanently and he doesn't care where they end up or what happens to them which is the same thing he is allowing the settlers to do in the West Bank.

So, people can argue over whether that's genocide or not, at best Netanyahu and many of his supporters certainly don't care if the Palestinians live or die.

So, Netanyahu claims he's trying to minimize Palestinian deaths with the military campaign, okay, so why is he trying to slowly starve them by making it very difficult for them to receive aid then?

I think it's clear this is what Netanyahu is doing:
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/salami-tactics/
Salami Tactics

"The slow, precise approach meant that nobody ever felt alarmed enough to take decisive action in response."