All this nonsense can be removed with one simple statement. One simple argument.
Gaza is as dense as New York City.
If they wanted to commit genocide deaths would be far higher than 30,000.
Also you’re ignoring the absolute fact that has been demonstrated many many times, that palestinian terrorists like Hamas embed themselves within civilian infrastructure and hide among civilian populations.
This is why Israel has to warn people before they bomb a certain area. And of course the terrorist escape due to these warnings as well.
Does that sound like a genocide to you?
Not if you’re honest it doesn’t.
If Israel wanted to genocide Gaza the numbers would be far far higher we’re talking over a quarter million deaths. It would be absurdly easy. It’s important that you be honest internally otherwise you make the world worse despite what you might think are noble intentions.
I’m actually not and genocide doesn’t have multiple definitions which is a thing that unfortunately people who claim to be progressive love to do… I’m progressive myself but I draw distinction between myself and many progressives by calling myself a moderate progressive. I don’t try and redefine words to fit my ideology.
Genocide means to try and wipe out totally a people or an ethnicity through means of violence or deliberate actions. Things like the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are good examples as is the Khmer Rogue terror in Cambodia.
However horrifying examples of violence on a grand scale like the rape of Nanking during World War II do not count because they are not attempts to eradicate an entire ethnicity or people nor do they end up having that impact whether the intention was or not.
If the rape of Nanking does not qualify as a genocide then there’s no way in heck the Gaza war does. I need you to be honest and have integrity so that we can make the world better. As progressives we will only have ourselves to blame if we let emotion and passion override logic and truth. Because it WILL make the world worse long-term.
I’m in favor of a ceasefire at this point but it is absolutely not a genocide nor was it ever.
Note the words “acts committed with **intent **to destroy, in whole or in part”
Also “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;” There is evidence of Netanyaho and other ministers doing this. Just now some minister was talking about settling Gaza, again implying the total removal of Palestinians.
On 28 October 2023, as Israeli forces prepared their land
invasion of Gaza, the Prime Minister invoked the Biblical story of the total destruction of
Amalek by the Israelites, stating: “you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our
Holy Bible. And we do remember”.446 The Prime Minister referred again to Amalek in the letter
sent on 3 November 2023 to Israeli soldiers and officers.447 The relevant biblical passage reads
as follows: “Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but
kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses”
This is Israel’s stated intent! If we let them continue, that is what we have to assume will happen! 1.5 million refugees inside Gaza, locked in, no power, not enough food and water, most hospitals bombed, population density of new york. What do you think is going to happen?
It’s called the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, not the “lets sit back and discuss the finer technical details until they are all dead before we judge” convention.
There is a story how all this is obfuscated at CNN but similar is happening in German public broadcasting. Germany admirably protests against the AfD, but the government is making Germany complicit in Genocide again.
So under this ridiculously broad definition any war whatsoever is genocide.
We both know that’s not a good definition nor is it really an accurate one historically. Nor is it what the vast overwhelming majority of people think genocide means.
And if the vast overall majority of people think one thing of a word that it doesn’t matter that a book says this is the actual meaning because people collectively decide what the meaning of words are.
Either way even this broad approach fails anyway because Israel is not trying to destroy Palestinians They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
Ok. Do you think after this bombing campaign - one of the most intense in modern history - in your judgement if you look at what the 1.5 million Palestinians are going through: Do you think there are now more or less of them wanting to fight for Hamas?
Hyperbole. Why don’t you stick to the actual facts? It’s okay to be wrong. In fact being wrong is an opportunity! It’s an opportunity for growth and improvement! You literally cannot do either of those things unless you acknowledge that you’re wrong at times.
No I’m genuinely curious. If those are the state goals of the campaign that justify all this slaughter, you must think this is eventually going to stop before it becomes a genocide? You must think eventually “oh we got the last hamas fighter, now we can leave!”.
If you don’t think that, honestly to yourself, then you must agree that at best the motivation is blind raging hatred (racism) or vengeance or political opportunism, or at worse the motivation is a “final solution” for the palestinian question.
I think the solution is a permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza using this as a pretext. This is something that I support because a two-state solution is not practical considering the geography of Israel and turns Israel into Swiss cheese when you look at the borders on a map.
Israel holds the high ground morally ever since they were attacked during the wars of the 20th century. There’s not a shred of religious influence in my support. It’s purely the fact that they’ve been the underdog throughout the 20th century and attacked endlessly by their neighbors yet they have been gracious to them in victory and yet all it has inspired is further enmity and war. That is why I side with Israel. When Egypt attacked them in the 1960s they took the entire Sinai peninsula and they gave it back out of Goodwill. How have they been repaid for their generosity in victory? They were attacked in a defensive war and then took enemy territory and then gave it back out of generosity. And what was the reward? Terrorist attacks and more war of aggression. Israel has made some mistakes in the way they’ve handled the Palestinian situation. There have been times when they have unnecessarily harm civilians and they certainly don’t have blood free hands. But they are light years cleaner than all their neighbors. They are absolutely 100% the lesser of all evils in that area.
So I support the occupation of Gaza and I support the permanent annexation of Gaza. Its very clear to me that that’s what this is about. But annexation and occupation do not equate to genocide. You can annex a territory and give it citizens civil rights. Over time they become more like the original state. They become israelized. Romanized. Americanized. Etc.
When Israel controls all of the territories within its borders including the West Bank then there will be peace. And they should give civil rights to those conquered peoples and treat them with respect.
All this nonsense can be removed with one simple statement. One simple argument.
Gaza is as dense as New York City.
If they wanted to commit genocide deaths would be far higher than 30,000.
Also you’re ignoring the absolute fact that has been demonstrated many many times, that palestinian terrorists like Hamas embed themselves within civilian infrastructure and hide among civilian populations.
This is why Israel has to warn people before they bomb a certain area. And of course the terrorist escape due to these warnings as well.
Does that sound like a genocide to you? Not if you’re honest it doesn’t.
If Israel wanted to genocide Gaza the numbers would be far far higher we’re talking over a quarter million deaths. It would be absurdly easy. It’s important that you be honest internally otherwise you make the world worse despite what you might think are noble intentions.
You’re completely uninformed about the definition and the laws against genocide.
I’m actually not and genocide doesn’t have multiple definitions which is a thing that unfortunately people who claim to be progressive love to do… I’m progressive myself but I draw distinction between myself and many progressives by calling myself a moderate progressive. I don’t try and redefine words to fit my ideology.
Genocide means to try and wipe out totally a people or an ethnicity through means of violence or deliberate actions. Things like the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide are good examples as is the Khmer Rogue terror in Cambodia.
However horrifying examples of violence on a grand scale like the rape of Nanking during World War II do not count because they are not attempts to eradicate an entire ethnicity or people nor do they end up having that impact whether the intention was or not.
If the rape of Nanking does not qualify as a genocide then there’s no way in heck the Gaza war does. I need you to be honest and have integrity so that we can make the world better. As progressives we will only have ourselves to blame if we let emotion and passion override logic and truth. Because it WILL make the world worse long-term.
I’m in favor of a ceasefire at this point but it is absolutely not a genocide nor was it ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide
Note the words “acts committed with **intent **to destroy, in whole or in part”
Also “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;” There is evidence of Netanyaho and other ministers doing this. Just now some minister was talking about settling Gaza, again implying the total removal of Palestinians.
This is Israel’s stated intent! If we let them continue, that is what we have to assume will happen! 1.5 million refugees inside Gaza, locked in, no power, not enough food and water, most hospitals bombed, population density of new york. What do you think is going to happen?
It’s called the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, not the “lets sit back and discuss the finer technical details until they are all dead before we judge” convention.
There is a story how all this is obfuscated at CNN but similar is happening in German public broadcasting. Germany admirably protests against the AfD, but the government is making Germany complicit in Genocide again.
So under this ridiculously broad definition any war whatsoever is genocide.
We both know that’s not a good definition nor is it really an accurate one historically. Nor is it what the vast overwhelming majority of people think genocide means.
And if the vast overall majority of people think one thing of a word that it doesn’t matter that a book says this is the actual meaning because people collectively decide what the meaning of words are.
Either way even this broad approach fails anyway because Israel is not trying to destroy Palestinians They’re trying to destroy a terrorist group that routinely murders people en masse.
Ok. Do you think after this bombing campaign - one of the most intense in modern history - in your judgement if you look at what the 1.5 million Palestinians are going through: Do you think there are now more or less of them wanting to fight for Hamas?
Hyperbole. Why don’t you stick to the actual facts? It’s okay to be wrong. In fact being wrong is an opportunity! It’s an opportunity for growth and improvement! You literally cannot do either of those things unless you acknowledge that you’re wrong at times.
No I’m genuinely curious. If those are the state goals of the campaign that justify all this slaughter, you must think this is eventually going to stop before it becomes a genocide? You must think eventually “oh we got the last hamas fighter, now we can leave!”.
If you don’t think that, honestly to yourself, then you must agree that at best the motivation is blind raging hatred (racism) or vengeance or political opportunism, or at worse the motivation is a “final solution” for the palestinian question.
I think the solution is a permanent occupation and annexation of Gaza using this as a pretext. This is something that I support because a two-state solution is not practical considering the geography of Israel and turns Israel into Swiss cheese when you look at the borders on a map.
Israel holds the high ground morally ever since they were attacked during the wars of the 20th century. There’s not a shred of religious influence in my support. It’s purely the fact that they’ve been the underdog throughout the 20th century and attacked endlessly by their neighbors yet they have been gracious to them in victory and yet all it has inspired is further enmity and war. That is why I side with Israel. When Egypt attacked them in the 1960s they took the entire Sinai peninsula and they gave it back out of Goodwill. How have they been repaid for their generosity in victory? They were attacked in a defensive war and then took enemy territory and then gave it back out of generosity. And what was the reward? Terrorist attacks and more war of aggression. Israel has made some mistakes in the way they’ve handled the Palestinian situation. There have been times when they have unnecessarily harm civilians and they certainly don’t have blood free hands. But they are light years cleaner than all their neighbors. They are absolutely 100% the lesser of all evils in that area.
So I support the occupation of Gaza and I support the permanent annexation of Gaza. Its very clear to me that that’s what this is about. But annexation and occupation do not equate to genocide. You can annex a territory and give it citizens civil rights. Over time they become more like the original state. They become israelized. Romanized. Americanized. Etc.
When Israel controls all of the territories within its borders including the West Bank then there will be peace. And they should give civil rights to those conquered peoples and treat them with respect.
I need you to do better and read the actual definition before spouting off about it.
This is a waste of my time because you’re not listening to what I’m saying.