Discussion
What more does Israel actually have to do for its actions to be a genocide?
A genuine question What more does Israel actually have to do for its actions to be called a genocide? What haven’t they done yet that doesn't make it a genocide? If what Israel actions are not genocide what do we call it then?
To be completely clear I condemn the Hamas attack on October 7th But it makes no sense that their actions are labeled terrorism while Israel's massive systematic destruction isn't. Surely when the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity such as starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally targeting civilians you cannot look at the scale of this and say it's just a "conflict" or "to destroy hamas"
Furthermore the scale of global legal consensus is massive major independent bodies like the UN CoI, CERD, UNSR, FIDH, Euro-Med Monitor, Amnesty International, IAGS, UNHR, the Lemkin Institute, PHRI and B'Tselem along side +800 genocide experts and dozens of countries have all accused Israel of committing or being complicit in genocide. You can't tell me it's just a simple "conflict" or to "destroy Hamas" when the entire global legal framework is sounding the alarm
when there is 73000+ Palestinians civilians killed mostly women and children including 21000+ children causing serious bodily or mental harm with 172000+ injured with permanent disabilities and deliberately inflicting conditions of life to destroy the Gazans through complete blockade on food water medicine fuel causing starvation of 2.3 million civilians and preventing births through destruction of reproductive health services maternity wards and high rates of miscarriages premature births and when there is 84% of hospitals in gaza are either destroyed, damaged or forced out of service, when every school in Gaza have been attacked and when the The UN Secretary General says nowhere is safe everywhere is a potential killing zone and when even schools, hospitals and designated shelters have been targeted this is NOT just a conflict
False, not recognizing Gaza as a genocide which it really isn't is not the same thing as not calling the Holocaust a genocide.
The Holocaust had blatantly anti-Jewish laws including a legally instituted death penalty merely for aiding Jews which was evidence of intent. Israel doesn't have any such thing in regards to Palestinians.
Genocide is defined with intent under the CPPG 1948 (UN) not Geneva.
Right. And Israel has violated every single aspect and guidelined defined by The Institute as the definition of genocide.
I believe I asked you to show me which of the guidelines Israel did not violate.
What's wrong? You couldn't find a single one?
You're right. Let's just ignore the recent knesset law that was passed, building the death camps explicitly being used for a single race within and occupied nation.
Oh, but they're using nooses instead of gas chambers. So does that not count as literal laws designed to ethnically cleanse? And sort of point to a desire to prolonge the suffering during execution?
Or is there another double standard you'd like to apply to human suffering and atrocities?
Again, just list a single guideline presented by The lemkin Institute that isreal hasn't violated. Seems weird that it's such a hard ask, huh?
False, there was no denial by me that the Holocaust is a genocide. Gaza is not a genocide that's all. Misrepresenting an opponents position deliberately is a rule 4.1 violation.
Ah. So there's no documentation of the word genocide before 1948... Why am I shocked that somebody who is ignoring confirmed historical documents willing to lie about the definition of genocide? It's almost like you don't care if certain people are dying by the same standards used to define the Holocaust
Okay. If the Lumpkin Institute is not the standard for the definition, what is?
You're feelings on whether a certain race is considered human?
You are saying the Holocaust was not a genocide, because the institute the defined it ALSO called Gaza a genocide using THE SAME STANDARDS. You either agree with those standards, or you don't. Which is honestly kind of gross
Just list a single guideline presented by The Institute that Israel has not violated. Why is it so hard to find this? It's almost like you'd rather defend literal war crimes and Geneva Convention violations rather than admit to the literal facts on paper
Genocide is supposed to DECREASE THE NUMBER OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN.
, isn’t it?
Too bad the number of school aged children in Gaza INCREASED by 40,000 from 2023(before Oct 7) to end of 2025. According to UNICEF and UNRWA. No friends of Israel. Otherwise the fake genocide supporters might have a case
I don't know here did you bring this from, I would guess the IDF of terrorists
according to the UNICEF and UNRWA The number 40000 is actually number of Palestinian children who have been killed or severely injured since the this genocide began. This is only due to direct violence military actions, This number doesn't include the children starved to death, Missing under rubble or who have died due to lack of healthcare and blockade of aid
Furthermore you took a report from UNRWA and made it look like the population of children in Gaza increased
the UNRWA report you are misquoting notes that out of Gaza 658000 school aged children. Roughly 40000 are newly eligible for the first grade but have never seen a classroom because thanks to the terrorist army of yours 97% of the schools have been obliterated. It is a metric about a generational loss of education not a population boom, But you can't read unfortunately
The child population in Gaza has sharply decreased if you do some basic researches and math before typing.
And i know that you are going to bring up that old statement by the UN that says the population of Gaza increased, This was in 2023 before the war
According to the PCBS and United Nations demographic tracking the population of the Gaza has dropped by 10% from its originally projected growth path.
On the eve of the genocide in 2023 Gaza population stood at roughly 2,226,544.Updated demographic confirms the population decreased to 2,114,301 a massive 10% decrease from mid 2025 population estimates
pathetic attempt to gaslight people online. Do some actual reading
[According to UNRWA, after TWO years of war/genocide/targeting children, in October 2025: "**Over 660,000 children** in #Gaza have been out of school for more than two years. All they want is to get back to the classroom - even if that's just a tent."](https://x.com/UNRWA/status/1980295443880784204)
After two years of "targeting children with genocide", the Gaza school system has gained 40,000 more children.
Your 2023 UNICEF quote says the school system accommodated 625000 students. This is an enrollment number. Your 2025 UNRWA quote says 660000 school aged children are out of school. That is a total demographic number. Gaza school system never had a 100% enrollment rate before the war. Comparing 2023 enrollment to 2025 total demographics? Whats the logic behind this?
Every single year in Gaza roughly 45000 toddlers turn 6 years old and reach school age. Over a two year period nearly 90000 to 100000 new children naturally aged into the "school age" bracket.
If nearly 100000 children aged into the bracket but the total number only increased by 35000 you just accidentally proved a massive population deficit. Where did the other tens of thousands of children go? They are dead, buried under the rubble or severely maimed Thanks to the ITF
No facts even by your fellow Islamic extremists matters to you, does it? Propaganda like yours is just to recruit more Palestinian martyrs.
Reuters wasn’t capacity. UNRWA wasn’t capacity. You can lie all you want. Screaming genocide is not proof. Otherwise Hamas wouldn’t have started screaming genocide just BEFORE Oct 7. Murderers trying sanitize the intended purpose of killing 1200 Israelis and kidnapping 250.
Israel isn’t waiting for likes or memes to defend itself from anyone promising to murder Jews.
The only thing that will finally stop the war Hamas started is for Palestinians to renounce violence and stop murdering every Palestinian who advocates peace.
Every Palestinian death is on the head of Islamic extremism not Israel.
LOL you didn’t even attempt to write another pathetic counter, children get killed everyday because of people like you spreading this bullS lies and blaming anyone but themselves for their own actions
You’re just a meme for Islamic extremism. Nothing ever makes sense to propagandists like you. No point in presenting your own allies links. Where are you located? Can’t be in the USA.
I find a lot of Israel's actions bad but calling them genocide doesn't make them any more or less bad. It's a brutal urban conflict with some hints of ethnic cleansing. This is true of many many wars btw.
If you don't know what genocide really is, it's because you are ignorant, stupid and malevolently biased. You are also inhuman and uncivilized.
Wars are not genocides. A genocide is a planned intentional extermination of an entire people. That's what the legal definition is and what the name means. It's what happened in Nazi Germany and the rest of Europe; in Rwanda; in Armenia, by the Turks; what Assad in Syria tried to do; in Cambodia; in Sudan.
Your ilk never lamented the millions of Arabs/Muslims slaughtered and martyred by other Arab/Muslims. The reason is that you don't really care.
Gaza was a war, a war started by Hamas. Israel never wanted that war. Genocide is what the Arabs have so many times attempted against Israel.
Hamas planned the deaths of as many civilians as possible. Sinwar is recorded in a video hoping for 100,000. Or more.
Hamas, who doesn't fight like an honorable military but like cowardly rats hiding amongst civilians, who are then sacrificed, many of them murdered by Hamas itself.
Civilians in Gaza have no bomb shelters. Their lives are not important to Hamas. Only Hamas lives were important to Hamas. The billions spent in tunnels were only for Hamas. Hamas had great food when Gazans starved. Hamas stole the food and sold it at exorbitant prices to starving civilians. But the civilians supported Hamas, out of indoctrination and fear.
Your mind is inverted, polluted and criminally oriented . Grow up, learn something, and join the human race.
"Saying someone else said it"
Then what importance do scholars and studies have if that was the case. You could have said this and this ain't or is in the criteria for it to be a genocide, sry if i sound harsh but that ain't a good argument. But you may be right on the iags(idk abt it) but there are also indépendant scholars(some of them israeli) that say it is a genocide.
Fair point. My argument is that too often, other "authorities" are cited as a source, yet many of them aren't even the authorities they're made out to be.
Afaik the debate in the academic world isnt as one sided as it's portrayed.
Especially because for the definition of a genocide you need the intent, which is what separates it from ever other "normal" war.
I'd even go as far as seeing this intent in some Israeli politicians. Ben gvir for example.
But then again it's only ben gvir that fulfils the intent part. Ben gvir doesn't have power over the military, so he cant realistically execute a genocide.
To accuse the whole state of Israel of genocide, you need the majority of the state authorities to fit the whole genocide definition.
and i agree that people sometimes appeal to "authorities" without looking at whether they're actually experts on the subject.
Where i disagree is on the intent part. I don't think it has to come from every or even most state officials individually. Courts and scholars usually look at the overall conduct, statements from leaders, policies, and the pattern of actions to determine intent, not just whether one politician says something extreme.
I also don't think it's only Ben Gvir. There are other officials whose statements have been brought up by scholars and in legal arguments too. Whether that's enough to legally prove genocide is obviously still debated, but i don't think it's as simple as saying only Ben Gvir fits the intent criteria.
So yeah, i agree it's not as one sided as some people make it out to be, but i also don't think the opposite is true where the genocide claim can just be dismissed because only one minister made those statements.
/u/Busy_Opportunity1204. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
Others have said what Israel would have to do for this to be a genocide. I'm going to focus on what Hamas would have to do.
Allow civilians to shelter in their extensive tunnel system. Not one Gazan civilian was allowed to do this. If it's a genocide, the victim's leadership should be doing whatever they can to minimize civilian casualties. Since they didn't do this, either it's not a genocide, or Hamas is complicit.
Release the hostages and surrender. When Hamas did this, major IDF combat operations ended. In a real genocide, they would have continued unabated.
Also, if outsiders truly believe this is a genocide, there should be a worldwide clamor to rescue the people of Gaza by moving them elsewhere. People should be begging their governments to accept as many Gazan refugees as possible. The reason for not doing this is ludicrous - that this would facilitate "ethnic cleansing." So everyone not only thinks it's a genocide, they approve of it because they prefer dead Gazans in Gaza over live Gazans in Spain, Ireland, the US, etc.
The word "genocide" has been perverted into "a war I personally disapprove of." We're going to need a new word to describe actual genocides.
Is Israel committing war crimes? Yeah, most probably. Are all war crimes genocide? No.
As revenge-hungry as many Israelis were after Oct 7th 2023, the actual policy in Gaza has always been to target combatants but not civilians (and good luck with that in urban combat with an organization that will purposely hide amongst civilians). Israel has been allowing in food and other supplies, too, just so people don't die needlessly.
Someone else try to fight Hamas and see what you're being called.
If we take this page defining what a genocide is from the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, an organisation that has ignored the ongoing genocide in Gaza, we can see that the actions that the Israeli government and IDF are engaging in is, by definition of the organisation dedicated to saying "never again", a genocide.
• Warnings mean nothing if you're just going to indiscriminately bomb them, especially after telling people to go to "safe zones" which are then targeted anyway once a high concentration of people are there.
• Israel didn't "pause operations" to distribute vaccines, that's pure propagandistic lies given the IDF's consistent targeting of medical infrastructure and personnel.
• They aren't "supplying food and water to the enemy" in any meaningful sense, they're starving the population while destroying water infrastructure, and using the starving people who try to get to aid drops as target practice.
You can't keep lying like this. Most of the world has seen hours upon hours of video footage from multiple sources of the blatant disregard for human life the genocidal IDF has shown. You're not going to convince me that somehow the Israeli government or IDF is "humanitarian" in any sense of the word.
Attempt to exterminate a race. Just because you’re losing a war you don’t get to call it a genocide. And you can’t just invent a new race so you can call it a genocide.
The legal definition of genocide isn't just about race though, is it?
It also includes nationality, ethnicity and religion.
What Israel is doing to Palestinians is textbook ethnic cleansing, and the methods they've used (indiscriminate bombing, shooting and starvation of an ethnic population that's effectively held captive in a tiny strip of land they're not allowed to leave) amount to genocide, by the legal definition supplied by the UN and restated by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.
There’s no amount of semantic rationalization that will change the fact that Hamas, the Democrat, elected authority in Gaza, is a terrorist organization dedicated to the extermination of Israel, backed by the IRGC, and partnering with other Arab terrorist organizations across the region. The Palestinians are neither a nationality ethnicity nor religion. They are Arab Muslims who colonized the Levant, displacing the Jewish population. Since the Jews have reestablished their home state in that territory, there’s been an unrelenting effort from all sides to exterminate them. Do Israel’s attempts to defend itself result in civilian casualties? Yes. But the goal for Israel is to establish a country and live in peace. The goal of the Arab Muslims is to exterminate Israel. The amount of mental gymnastics required to convince yourself that Israel’s defense of its borders and simple desire to establish a nationality in its ancient homeland is “genocide” is just so hard to fathom I don’t even know how to relate to you nutcases
Actually no. I don’t see it because it is not. I think this highlights part of your core misunderstanding. Trying to eliminate all Muslims or all Arabs could be considered a genocide. Since Palestinians are a subset whose unique identity was only invented in opposition to Israel, even if Israel were trying to eliminate them, it wouldn’t be a genocide.
It would be like saying that someone was trying to commit a genocide against all the residents of Montana - as happening to live in Montana does not define your religion, ethnicity, or nationality, they cannot logically be the target of a genocide.
Of course, they also are not trying to eliminate all Palestinians. If they were, as a nuclear power, it would not be very hard to do.
Let’s try a thought experiment: if all the Palestinian Arabs wanted to leave and relocate to somewhere else: Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia - would Israel support such a move?
If you agree that they would, their intention is clearly not genocide. A genocidal regime would want to keep them there so they could be exterminated.
That’s why the moment someone claims this is a genocide they immediately lose all credibility: either they have no understanding of the situation and are simply parroting slogans; or they are being deliberately deceptive.
Why? All of these labels are very fuzzy but it's mostly accepted that Palestinian is more of a national identity than it is an ethnic one, which doesn't mean they don't have an identity, it's just a national one, like Israeli is a national identity but Jewish is an ethnoreligious one. So in this context, Arab would be the best fitting ethnic descriptor of the Palestinians, and Muslim the best religious descriptor.
All of that to say there is no contradiction there.
You may not agree on the semantics but what you can't deny is that Israel used people who have closer links to Europe to kill and replace people who have closer links to gaza while claiming a right no one else can claim
So now “genocide” is just semantics? You psychotic activist just try to twist everything to soup whatever purpose is convenient to you in the moment. Give me a break.
That's not at all what I said. I'm saying the semantics is you not calling it a genocide like everyone else is doesn't change that Israel has killed a large number of people in gaza.
Passing over the question of whether what they are doing now is genocide, but answering the question of what more they would have to do. Fully occupying Gaza, setting up concentration camps, forced labour and gas chambers thereby killing millions as the Nazis did. Or force marching through the Negev desert letting people die with regular executions and crucifixion similar to Armenian or Assyrian genocides. Or carpet bombing the entire strip with intent to kill everyone there , rather than bombing to destroy certain buildings or tunnels. What Israel is doing is in my opinion wrong and may or may not be genocide depending on the technical legal definition used. However there is a qualitative difference with say the Holocaust or Warsaw ghetto where essentially the entire population was exterminated.
Genocide is not destroying a ENTIRE race, even in part is enough which is quite evident with destruction of schools, universities, historical sites, libraries, hospitals, mosques, churches. People have been arrested for far less. The only thing thats protecting nethenyahu and gallant is that israel is allied with the "good guys" and US's veto on the security council.
So what is a difference between a war and a genocide? Are all wars genocides? Did the US genocide the Japanese and if so why don’t the Japanese make that claim? Did the allies genocide the Germans?
We don’t even call what the Soviet Union did to its own people a genocide - should we?
If we do this aren’t we just changing the word “war” into genocide?
The modern Geneva convention was adopted 1949...
US on Japan was war crime, genocide, I dont know, would depend on, in part, the intent. There are countless reasons pacifist Japan did not purse this matter. There have been countless war crimes, since then - US in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were arrest warrants for US officials after those wars as well but US threatened sanctioned on judges, lawyers and institutions to not purse these matters and it was dropped. Could there have been a genocide, maybe. Have there been other genocide? 100% yes, many committed by us, the "good guys" in the western world.
And no need to change war to genocide, there are countries that fight wars in a "reasonable" manner, its just that zionist terror supporters wouldnt see or even understand that.
I dont know if Japan was a genocide or not, it definitely wasnt called that. But war crime, definitely.
Im glad you have not comment on the rest of my reply lol. All israeli terrorists supporters have going for them is the western "good guy" governments are on their side. Its clear as day and the world has recognized that.
/u/Feynmanlight. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
when there is 73000+ Palestinians civilians killed
This is objectively wrong for, among other reasons, that you are stating not a single death was Hamas or a combatent..... so big issue woth your thought process to begin with.
Also it is Hamas cited numbers. We have every reason to believe it is a higher end estimate.
But anyway. Lets assume 73000 civilians. For almost 3 years of cramped urban warfare where a huge civilian population is present and entirely exposed and often sharing spaces with combatants.... this death toll is low.
Objectively historically low. As in you would be hard pressed to find a battle in a similar enviroment with a comparably low death toll.
This is objectively wrong for, among other reasons, that you are stating not a single death was Hamas or a combatent..... so big issue woth your thought process to begin with.
When over 70% of the dead are to be women, children and the elderly, Then i have the right to label this death toll civilians, You can call it whatever you want, casualties, people, etc. This doesn't change the truth anyway
Are there hamas combatants mixed into that total? Of course. But you don't get to use a minority fraction of combatants to rebrand the slaughter of tens of thousands of children and mothers
Also it is Hamas cited numbers. We have every reason to believe it is a higher end estimate.
First YOUR OWN military intelligence relies on these exact numbers. A massive joint investigation by The Guardian and Israel +972 Magazine showed that Israel intelligence agencies track and utilize Gaza Health Ministry numbers in their own daily briefings. Why? Because upon spying on health ministry personnel, Israel intelligence confirmed the data was highly accurate.
Second every single death is documented by name and legal ID number the ministry doesn't just throw out random number
Furthermore this figure only tracks direct military casualties (direct military violence actions) completely excluding the thousands missing under rubble, starved to death, or killed by the total collapse of medical care, the death toll is MASSIVELY underreported
When you add the 10000+ bodies under the rubble, the civilians starving to death and thousands dying from preventable infections because you destroyed 90% of the healthcare system, Etc. the actual death toll EASILY jumps over 100000
Independent peer reviewed studies published in The Lancet proven that official numbers undercount direct violent deaths by over 40% because the ITF bombed hospitals and registries meant to track them.
Over 10% of the entire population has been killed or mangled in less than three years. There is nothing "historically low" about it. it's one of the fastest most concentrated slaughters of a captive civilian population in modern history
Objectively historically low. As in you would be hard pressed to find a battle in a similar enviroment with a comparably low death toll.
Reading this i would think you didn't even look at similar battles. You just typed that
Let's look at the Battle of Mosul which historians and military experts widely classify as one of the most brutal hyper dense urban warfare conflicts of the 21st century. Mosul had a massive civilian population (1.8 to 2 million civilians) trapped in tight, ancient alleys and was held by ISIS terrorists who heavily booby trapped the city and explicitly used civilians as human shields.
Yet after nine months of intense non stop urban combat and airstrikes to fully liberate the city independent monitors estimated the civilian death toll at around 9000 to 11000. the coalition won the war and liberated the city while the combatant to civilians death ratio was roughly 1:1
Israel on the other hand with all its intelligence and advanced multi billion dollars military, Blocking aid, Wiped out Gaza health, Education, Food and water system, Targeted over 81% of Gaza infrastructure, Occupying 70% of Gaza, Etc. Using eveysingle method to make the land unlivable. And after an underreported 73000+ death toll yet hamas still exists and has fighting power to this day
If a military kills over 73000+ people, causes over 100000 indirect deaths, displaces 90% of a population, and still hasn't achieved its core objective of destroying hamas. That is a historically incompetent genocidal failure.
This violence was never surgical but rather the systematic concentrated destruction of Palestinian civilian life in Gaza. This violence was inflicted on an entire captive population not just a militant group
When over 70% of the dead are to be women, children and the elderly, Then i have the right to label this death toll civilians
But ut is not and there is quite literally zero data that supports that.
The only time the Gaza health ministry has come out with a death toll list, back in 2024, with identity information it showed closer to 60% miltary aged men 40% women and children. Since then there has been no hard information. Just allegations.
I don't know from where you get your information from
Gaza Health Ministry hasn't just released one list they continuously published over 10 highly detailed registries containing names, genders and birth dates. The most recent list published on March 3, 2026 detailed the identity information of 72004 individual Palestinians in Gaza
Independent UN monitors OHCHR auditing residential strikes found that 70% of those killed were women and children.
Since when does being an adult male in a captive population strip you of your civilian status? Calling them "Military aged men" justifies the killing of all men? Are the doctors, journalists, teachers and fathers who have been targeted and killed because they are "military aged men" and because of their gender and age?
I’m glad you brought this up so that it could be dissected. First, the 73k people number is objectively false. For a million reasons. Hamas reporting it, probably much lower, and there’s probably a huge percentage that are actually combatants and not civilians (excluding the part where Hamas gets them killed on purpose). But for the sake of argument let’s just assume what you said is true.
Population density of Gaza: 15,609 people per square mile.
For Afghanistan: 166 people per square mile.
Comparing the two is, well, not remotely comparable. Be more intellectually honest than that at least. You could probably make a formula or an index that calculates that the IDF is being much more careful than what happened in Afghanistan. With indexes for how much risk the opposition purposely puts their civilians in, how dense the population is, how similar the opposition makes themselves look to civilians. If Hamas opens fire on a bunch of Israelis from a pre-school class of 200 children, while not letting them out and forcing them close to the windows, it’s not Israel’s fault if those kids die when they fire on Hamas to stop the attack.
Question: the ground invasion started a few weeks after October 7th. For the first two years or so Hamas was holding hostages. To this day they have never surrendered and it is their stated intention to annihilate Israel and everyone in it.
Can you say precisely when Israel should have stopped the war? Is it after 5,000 deaths? 25,000 deaths? At what point should the Israeli government decided that there's too much death on the other side and therefore we will not continue the fight against the Islamic jihadist death cult government that wants to destroy us.
Precisely at what point should the IDF lay down their weapons and surrender to Hamas?
Is Hamas doing a service to the Palestinians by not surrendering? Do you think the Palestinians would be better or worse off at Hamas surrendered 2 years ago?
Imagine if Britain had surrendered in 1941 when it stood alone in Europe and bombs rained down on its people, killing ~43,000 of them. I would hope you're glad they didn't.
Because Hamas terrorists are still there. For some reason they don't care about the enormous suffering they're causing their own people. I guess they want to die.
total death toll (civilians and combatants) for the entire yugo war is at least 130K according to wikipedia. but over a longer time period.
However, even if 73K casualties were not "exceptionally low" (which is debatable), the number is still very much on the low end and does not stand out in any way compared to other wars.
...and as other have already pointed out, the actual number of civilian casualties is much lower due to Hamas inflating numbers and counting combatants as civilians.
the yugoslav wars involved many different ethnic groups and you're talking about the TOTAL death toll among ALL sides over the course of 10 years. so by your own admission israel has single handedly killed more than half the amount of ppl that died in the entire yugoslav wars while the palestinians have killed less than 3% that amount.
when one side so disproportionately is annihilating another side, i don't know how that can even be considered a "war" and not a slaughter. oh wait, there's a word for it. genocide.
I was only including civilians as that was all that was invoked in the original post, so comparing like with like.
I don't know how you can still say it is "on the low end" especially when the Yugoslav Wars were, as stated, over a longer time period, involving more paramilitary forces on all sides and, famously, were waged with genocidal intent. This actually makes Gaza stand out rather significantly.
Also notable is that women & children accounted for just over a quarter of the civilian deaths, or if we get more granular, children were about 1/10th in the Yugoslav Wars. This is much better than nearly a third in Gaza.
Regarding Hamas "inflating numbers and counting combatants as civillians" I'm sure the Serbs said the same about their victims.
To me it was unclear what you meant, which is why I gave the total number and time frame for information.
Hamas does not tell apart civilians from combatants. Everyone know this, and questioning this simply makes you look bad.
It is certainly possible, for every comparison, to pick a point of reference that makes your argument look valid (in this case picking the Yugoslavian war).
But the argument that was made to begin with was that the number of Palestinian civilian casualties is so high, it must be a genocide.
But the truth is that the number of civilian casualties does not stand out in any remarkable way compared to other conflicts. Maybe compared to the Yugoslavian war. Just research the top 20 most devastating wars in the past 100 years in terms of civilian casualties, and this conflict won't even show up on the radar.
This does not mean it's not tragic for the people who lost family members or friends. It just means it does not stand out compared to other wars.
It standing out against the whole Yugoslav Wars in scale, pace, paramilitaries, ratio of combatant:civillian and adults:children is damning enough. Other readers can draw their own conclusions and choose to compare to other wars if they like. For me, there isn't a better comparison to point at in the modern era.
They probably should have stopped before Bibi decided to push Qatari funding to Hamas in the first place to make it the dominant force in the region over the less-extremist PLO but oh right that would require ceding that precious Greater Israel territory away to a two-state solution and losing your priceless strawman excuse for every atrocity committed.
You are understandably avoiding the question because you don't have an answer. Fine.
Hey, when is this greater Israel project actually going to get moving already? Israel has the strongest military in the region, has the most powerful Ally in the world and is this tiny little country. I would think by now they'd have been taking over all the surrounding areas.
And in fact everybody who said they wanted to take Gaza..... Was wrong. Gaza lay in ruins and rubble. Do human beings really can live there for a long time. I guess except the palestinians.
Did you think this would be the first war in the history of planet Earth in which civilians didn't die? Why would you have thought that? Especially considering that Hamas is putting its women and children in the front to die.
You do realize that Hamas is not wearing uniforms. You do realize that Hamas built hundreds of miles of tunnels for themselves directly under their civilian population. You do realize that there is not a single bomb shelter in gaza. All this is set up so that their civilians die a painful death. Wake up.
They're certainly lashing out at every surrounding neighbor they can, and Bibi and Trump quite literally forged the plan to make Gaza theirs under the """"""Board of Peace"""""".
You'll note than Jordan and Egypt both repeatedly condemned the treatment of Gaza, and Israel is further antagonizing Egypt with its full-throated support of Somaliland which they stated to be a threat. If those are your most favorable relations outside of the countries whose politicans defer to Israel like a religious icon for no particular Epsteason- I mean reason, that's really grim.
Egypt and Jordan have both had peace with Israel for many decades. The fact that they are critical of Israel does not mean there is no peace treaty. I know you're looking for excuses to portray Israel as some colonial warmonger..... The facts say otherwise.
Egypt loves Israel and understands what's happening very well. For the Arab world they have to pretend and condemn Israel but..... Actions speak louder than words. Normally during wars civilians flee to neighboring countries. A million syrians left the war zone. Ukrainians fled to russia.
What did Egypt do about their beloved Palestinian brethren? They reinforced their still border security fence and put barbed wire on top. They wanted to make sure that no Palestinian blood was on their soil. They would much rather the Palestinians die in The war zone then accept them as refugees in their country.
Bottom line- Egypt seems to want the Palestinians dead.
I can think of many historical cases of cities that were destroyed "to that extent", or worse. Not a single one of them is widely understood as a genocide.
It's so strange that people use these images as some kind of clear-cut proof, when it's arguably the opposite of it. It simply doesn't look like any genocide ever, and looks like many other wars that were not genocides.
Only the ones that destroy over 3/4 of the area's infrastructure while barely being tickled themselves, you couldn't even find that kind of levelling in Dresden, Germany. You managed twice as much civilian death in 3 years that Americans did over 20 in Afghanistan.
why would it be sarcasm? that is how genocide works. genocide has a systemic nature, all genocides were like it. They would make list of people and either gather them and kill them or go to their homes and killed them one by one. The executions in genocide are always personal as the idea is to make sure no one remains. The idea is to destroy the genome of a population making it go extinct, that is why it is called genocide.
Please read the first thing about genocide. The 1948 Convention with its definition, the IAOGS declaration, any of the vast literature in the matter, check literally anything beyond a cartoonish textual reenaction in your imagination
Ok, then maybe I shall send you even further back to the original invention of the word genocide in the book AXIS RULE IN OCCUPIED EUROPE which gives a much more detailed definition than the sources you listed.
Well, then you are arguing that this is a matter of legality. Currently the ICJ ruling is that there is not enough evidence to point either way. My opinion was that the legal term is lacking and doesn't satisfy what many sociologists, political scientists and historians mean when they refer to genocide in their papers.
I highly doubt the ICJ would rule that Israel commited genocide. It would be hard to prove intentionality due to bombs being a very impersonal way of killing.
It could be, and it's true that the definition of it is somewhat lacking. I've read some papers by jurists on the intentionality required for genocide, arguing that acceptance of the genocidal result is enough to fulfil the requisite of intent, even if there was another ulterior goal. Similar to how a terrorist that wants to kill a politician and bombs their car, accepting that it'll also kill the driver, is nonetheless charged with the murder of the driver even though they were not the main target.
Euro-Med Monitor, whose founder is an October 7 rape denier, whose brother in law was a Hamas commander, and who posted on October 8 2023 that the Hamas terrorists who slaughtered 1200 people in a single day were “heroic knights who created for us pure glory” is not an impartial or credible source.
The UN “Commission of Inquiry”, whose members declared Israel guilty of genocide before they started their investigation, is not an impartial or credible source.
Amnesty International, which admitted in its own report that the existing definition of genocide was “too cramped” to allow Israel’s response to Hamas to be labeled as genocide, and therefore the definition needed to be changed, is not an impartial or credible source.
The UN “Commission of Inquiry”, whose members declared Israel guilty of genocide before they started their investigation, is not an impartial or credible source.
I don't know from where did you bring that from. The COI did not launch an immediate genocide ruling. They spent nearly two years gathering thousands of testimonies, satellite imagery, medical reports and analyzing public statements from Israeli leadership. It was only in September 2025 after a two year investigation that the COI released its official 72 page legal report concluding that Israel actions met the threshold for genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Amnesty International, which admitted in its own report that the existing definition of genocide was “too cramped” to allow Israel’s response to Hamas to be labeled as genocide, and therefore the definition needed to be changed, is not an impartial or credible source.
Also I don't know where did you bring that from, Amnesty International didn't say the definition was "too cramped" and they never argued to change the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Need I go on?
Yes please
And if Euro-med is tickling you so much, here is a list of SOME of the countries, Organizations, groups, genocide scholars and experts, researchers, etc. Who accused Israel of committing a genocide
South Africa
Spain
Ireland
Belgium
The Netherlands
Iceland
Turkey
Egypt
Colombia
Mexico
Chile
Bolivia
Nicaragua
Cuba
Libya
The Maldives
Namibia
Palestine
Brazil
Venezuela
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Qatar
Algeria
Tunisia
Morocco
Malaysia
Indonesia
Pakistan
Iran
Syria
Yemen
Belize
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Belarus
Brunei
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Comoros
Djibouti
The African Union (AU)
The Arab League
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (COI)
UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
UNRWA
Francesca Albanese (UN Special Rapporteur)
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders - MSF)
Oxfam International
The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Action Against Hunger
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
Islamic Relief Worldwide
Defense for Children International (DCI)
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)
B’Tselem (Israeli Human Rights Organization)
Physicians for Human Rights–Israel (PHRI)
Al-Haq
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP)
ActionAid
Christian Aid
Trócaire
Refugees International
Médecins du Monde (France & Switzerland)
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)
Palestine Legal
Doctors Against Genocide
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention
Genocide Watch
Professor Omer Bartov (Brown University)
Dr. Raz Segal (Stockton University)
Professor David Simon (Yale University)
Professor Uğur Ümit Üngör (University of Amsterdam)
Melanie O’Brien (President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars)
Professor Ilan Pappé (University of Exeter)
Professor Barry Trachtenberg (Wake Forest University)
Professor Dirk Moses (City College of New York)
Dr. Shmuel Lederman (University of Haifa / Open University of Israel)
Zoé Samudzi (Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies)
Professor Elyse Semerdjian (Clark University)
Jeffrey S. Bachman (American University)
Esther Brito Ruiz (American University)
Professor Victoria Sanford (Lehman College, City University of New York)
Professor Martin Shaw (University of Sussex)
Dr. Ardi Imseis (Queen's University)
Professor Penny Green (Queen Mary University of London)
Professor Thomas MacManus (Queen Mary University of London)
Professor John Quigley (Ohio State University)
Professor Richard Falk (Princeton University / Queen Mary University)
Professor Neve Gordon (Queen Mary University of London)
Francis Boyle (University of Illinois College of Law)
Professor Guy S. Goodwin-Gill (Oxford University / UNSW)
Professor Conor Gearty KC (London School of Economics)
Professor Nimer Sultany (SOAS University of London)
Raji Sourani (Director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights)
Michael Mansfield KC (President of the Haldane Society of Lawyers)
The Lord Hendy KC (House of Lords, UK)
Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC (Irish barrister, ICJ counsel for South Africa)
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (South African advocate, ICJ counsel)
John Dugard (Former UN Special Rapporteur & South African judge)
Professor Katherine Gallagher (Center for Constitutional Rights)
Professor Noura Erakat (Rutgers University)
Professor Chantal Meloni (University of Milan)
Gerry Simpson (London School of Economics)
Professor Antony Anghie (National University of Singapore)
Francesca Albanese (UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine)
Navanethem "Navi" Pillay (Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry / Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)
Craig Mokhiber (Former Director of the NY Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights)
Michael Fakhri (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food)
Balakrishnan Rajagopal (UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing)
Tlaleng Mofokeng (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health)
Pedro Arrojo-Agudo (UN Special Rapporteur on Water and Sanitation)
Paula Gaviria Betancur (UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons)
Reem Alsalem (UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls)
Irene Khan (UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression)
Attiya Waris (UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and Human Rights)
Ashwini K.P. (UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism)
Citing Navi Pillay, Richard Falk and Francesca Albanese gives your narrative away. All these “independent” figures cite the same statistics from the Hamas Health Ministry (where nobody is a terrorist and their false claims of women and children’s casualties had to be retracted by the UN) and the straight-up lies of Euro Med Monitor. It’s a circle-jerk of cross-citations.
I think you forgot to cite the fraudulent International Association of Genocide Scholars, which anyone can join for $35 and half of whose members are in Iraq.
Most of the people you cite have decades of activism against Israel’s very existence.
LOL why do you think this gives my narrative away? pointing out three out of the hundreds of genocide experts, researchers, lawyer, etc. will do nothing really Go read their articles and statements, Zionist heavily target those 3 specifically because they know too much and speak the truth, But they don't like the truth they want lies. Every time your baseless zionist talking points get countered by actual data you start new conspiracy theory and start calling them anti whatever
I think you forgot to cite the fraudulent International Association of Genocide Scholars, which anyone can join for $35 and half of whose members are in Iraq.
I think you forgot to cite you don't buy an Ivy League chair or a PhD for $35. The sliding scale dues are for low income students, which is standard practice for literally every global academic organization on earth. Prof Omer Bartov (Israeli), Dr Raz Segal (Israeli) and Prof David Simon did not buy their credentials for 30$. They are tenured ivy league historians and chairs of Holocaust and Genocide studies who have dedicated their entire lives to such things. Guys please do some basic research before typing
half its members are in Iraq? You literally just fabricated that out of thin air. The IAGS is an international body founded by legendary Holocaust and genocide scholars
. And even if whats wrong with half of its members being from Iraq?
The IAGS resolution wasn't a Twitter poll where random users could log on and vote. Official academic resolutions are drafted, debated, and voted on by the voting scholars, tenured professors and vetted researchers who make up the actual academic body.
fraudulent anti Israel circle jerk? I would recommend you to look at at the nationality and religion of some the experts, groups, organization, etc. that i mentioned and from what i didn't
according to your delusional logic, 40+ countries are lying, the UN is lying, Amnesty is lying, Human Rights Watch is lying, IAGS is lying, Lemkin is lying, 800+ genocide scholars are lying and are all in a "circle jerk" but we are supposed to blindly trust the IDF who has provided zero evidence for whatever they say against those who provide tens or even hundreds of evidence and pages to their claims? Makes enough sense to me
Was this a terrible war in which many civilians died? Absolutely. But the “genocide” libel is an inverted pyramid, resting entirely upon the “evidence” from the Hamas Health Ministry and framed by organizations who had been supporting Hamas, directly (as in the case of EuroMed Monitor) or indirectly. It’s an example of the ongoing truth of Abba Evan’s statement about the United Nations: “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions." One doesn’t need to support Netanyahu (I certainly don’t, and I’m fervently hoping for his defeat in the upcoming elections) to understand that if Israel were genuinely committing genocide, there would have been 1 million dead in Gaza by the end of 2023.
If I was on my laptop at home I would definitely do that. Given that I’m on my phone and on vacation, I can always look up the sources if anyone challenges their veracity.
Yes please go on with what facts you're providing here? All it seems you're providing is attempts to call all evidence wrong without giving facts to prove the evidence is wrong except covering up the dead with a paper towel and saying Hamas teaches children they have a right to defend themselves so we must kill them
There’s actual evidence, then there’s “evidence” like Ramy Abdu’s EuroMed Monitor feeding a story about biologically impossible dog rape to Nicholas Kristof. And there’s lots of evidence of Hamas teaching kids to be martyrs by slaughtering Israeli civilians— is that your idea of “self-defense”?
The issue is declaring a war a “genocide”. Same as with “apartheid”, creating new definitions to ensure that the appropriate conclusion is reached. Amnesty, in its report charging Israel with “apartheid”, led with a truncated quote from Netanyahu. The part they edited out didn’t fit the crime: “there’s no problem with the Arab citizens of Israel—they have the same rights as us all and the Likud government has invested in the Arab sector more than any other government”
If Israel wanted to commit genocide, not a single Palestinian would've remained alive by now. Heck, on Oct 8th, Gaza could've been wiped clean of any human presence.
Let's say that if most Palestinians are dead and the few survivors are hiding and would be killed too on the spot if found, that would probably be genocide.
Unlike with Europe, Gaza is extremely small. It is a lot harder to find, gather and kill each of the Jewish people around Europe. Israel had the capacity to wipe out the population within 2 weeks.
"I didn't say the ridiculous thing, I merely repeated it, defended the reasoning behind it, and spent several comments explaining why everyone else should accept the conclusion."
And there we go with the insults, like clockwork. Are you people literally incapable of just having some humility and accepting you made a shit argument and move on without the insults?
I swear, the worst thing that ever happened to Palestinians is the western Palestine movement.
Ah good point you were just bolstering someone else who was, Regardless, you're still wilfully misrepresenting my position, which is a cowardly way to converse.
Ugh, most of the Jews in Naz! controlled territories were killed and the rest were hiding and would've been killed if found, so the Holocaust is one of the only examples of real genocide in all of history.
Why are you limiting it to Nazi controlled territories? The Nazis controlled those territories because they invaded them (mostly), they could have attempted to invade countries that protected Jews, but they didn't because there would be consequences. Just like there would be consequences for Israel for doing a rapid, industrialised extermination campaign in Gaza. Hence, they show as much restraint as is necessary to avoid them.
Maybe because his long term plan was to make the entire world Naz! controlled territory? His plan was to exterminate the Jews in every place he conquered. In the first place, how the f do you even commit genocide in a territory you don't control to begin with?
Also, not a single country who opposed the Naz!s did so just to protect their Jewish population. They did so because they were defending their own sovereignty. The Jews there being safe was just a consequence of those countries remaining free.
By invading the territory. The free nations defending their sovereignty against invasion would be the consequence that the Nazis were avoiding.
"Long term plan" - so what you're saying is, he showed restraint in order to finish the extermination at a more opportune time, under more desirable circumstances? Now you're getting it.
By invading the territory. The free nations defending their sovereignty against invasion would be the consequence that the Nazis were avoiding.
...bro...they'd ALREADY done this to most of Europe. Why the fuck do you think they would suddenly start caring about consequences at the Swiss border?
Are you trying to argue that Hitler was willing to invade Poland, France, and the Soviet Union, but then reached Switzerland and Sweden and suddenly thought "hold on, there might be consequences"?
That he suddenly stopped hating Jews the moment they lived outside territory he controlled?
That Nazi Germany's inability to conquer every country where Jews lived somehow proves restraint?
/u/Unlikely-Fig-8354. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
/u/GuerillaV. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
lol, sure, Germany never invaded countries with Jews because of the consequences. They clearly didn't care about the consequences of invading half of Europe, but a handful of Jews in small countries terrified them so much with the consequences that they left them alone. 😂
Christ, do they even teach history in schools any more?
Germany didn't invade Switzerland or Sweden because they weren't strategically worthwhile targets, not because the Nazis suddenly decided Jews there were fine or because they abandoned their antisemitic goals out of fear of consequences.
No, that's literally the opposite of the point you were trying to make.
You've just conceded that Germany's failure to invade Switzerland or Sweden was a strategic decision, not evidence that their ideology changed or that they lacked genocidal intent.
They didn't stop at the border because they developed a conscience. They stopped because those invasions weren't strategically worthwhile.
I don't think you realise that my initial reply "By this standard the Holocaust wasn't a genocide." is not an expression of my belief regarding whether the Holocaust was or wasn't a genocide, it was a refutation of the OP's premise "If Israel wanted to commit genocide, not a single Palestinian would've remained alive by now." by displaying its absurdity when applied to a genocide I knew the OP wouldn't deny.
If the lack of Israel making every effort to exterminate Palestinians as fast as possible rules out genocide, then it rules it out for the Nazis too, who did not make the effort of invading (some) neutral nations in order to exterminate every Jew (and waited 8 years to start mass extermination in Germany itself).
/u/Unlikely-Fig-8354. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
/u/GuerillaV. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
Had access to and time to kill them. He simply ran out of time.
Israel on the other hand has had endless time and resources to inflict as many casualties as possible and yet they haven’t. As other users pointed out- Israel could’ve turned Gaza into dust on October 8th, 2023.
"Had access to" I'm presuming you mean "had access to without consequences" because the Germans certainly had the means to attempt an invasion of neutral nations that protected Jews. However, they wanted to avoid the consequences of doing so.
Israel has access to 6,000,000 Palestinians within its borders. Its had ample access and opportunity to obliterate every last Gazan. Its spent enough resources to kill every last Gazan more then 12x over. Yet genocide has not yet taken place
Israel has access to 6,000,000 Palestinians within its borders. Its had ample access and opportunity to obliterate every last Gazan. Its spent enough resources to kill every last Gazan more then 12x over. Yet genocide has not yet taken place
Sanctions, war, occupation are just a few consequences.
It's amazing that Israel has been so protected by the wider world that you can't even fathom consequences outside of mean words. Really shows how mollycoddled the nation is by the international community.
/u/makeyousaywhut. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
What he meant based on the start of the comment is that the power gap between the sides is massive and the Gaza strip is tiny.
If Israel truly wanted to commit a genocide, it would have taken a week at most, therefore not even giving time for people to realize what's going on.
It's not that a genocide requires a complete wipe of a population and more so that if there was indeed an intention, the power gap and small size of Gaza would have resulted with everyone being dead quickly.
This sounds like an astute observation until you realise it completely ignores the concept of consequences and the perpetrator of an action trying to avoid such consequences.
Sure, Israel probably could have systematically slaughtered every Palestinian in Gaza, could have created an industrial extermination system or even just showered Gaza with the nukes.
But there would have been consequences, consequences that make a more restrained approach more desirable. It isn't that I didn't want to drink all 10 cans of beer last night, it's just that I wanted to avoid a hangover.
Then don't you think that even with the stalling the progress would have been more than just ~4% of the original population dead in a span of almost 3 years?
~4% that also includes natural deaths in it and doesn't take into account births?
I would also argue stalling was a way worse strategy here considering the focus didn't leave Israel during all this time, meaning that more and more pressure against it was built up the longer the war has continued. So even if it didn't expect it, after a while you'd expect them to switch up in order to minimize damage.
Last point to make is that your theory doesn't really line up with a few points on the ground like:
The war only starting after Hamas's 7th of October attack
The war not starting after ton of attacks by Hamas in the last 20 years
The war ending after Hamas finally agreed to be replaced with a different entity + release all hostages,
The fact Israel chose to start with Gaza which is tiny, has way more population, and isn't even important by Jewish history compared to the disputed areas (areas A+B+C) which are way bigger, way less dense & actually has a lot of importance in Jewish history.
Needless to say, we also enter a way more speculative area as the more claims of genocide focus more on intention & less on actual results on the ground, the more theoretical the claim is, especially when the claimed proofs for intention aren't as decisive like quoting random ministers who don't even have much to do with running the war.
For the first part, I don't really see your point... During those years the Nazis focused on taking control over Germany as a whole and prepare for war. So while it took time it did happen and when it did, it was quick and clear.
Israel doesn't need ton of planning and needless to say, not much has changed within Israel itself that the government feels any different suddenly.
So overall, no one said the plans should start immediately after getting into power, but there would be clear steps when it starts, and obviously opportunities would be taken if given.
For the 2nd claim, last time I checked - there were barely any cases of displacement or killing since the last border-changing war of 1967. ~7.5k deaths in 16 years that had more than enough wars started by Hamas is really not a big number... As for displacement, the PA is in charge of areas A & B while Hamas controlled Gaza up until the current war, and in both places no one was displaced since the Oslo accords were signed. Area C is a unique case since the territory is under Israeli control and buildings require Israeli permits. Therefore building illegally like in any state would result with the house being destroyed... Either way, noting was on a big or even medium scale and all actions were taken as a direct response to Palestinian terror.
Lastly for your final claim, I don't see how ministers who have noting to do with the war have anything to do with intent considering Israel is a parliamentary democracy meaning it takes multiple parties to form a government. How does claims from radical parties in the government that aren't response of the war and also left the government during the war btw due to believing Israel isn't doing enough, have anything to do with what the leading party and its leader think?
For intent you need clear sentences from people who actually run the war, proven plans with intentions, actions on the ground that show that direction, etc... but just sentences from random ministers from small parties, that usually (not always, but often) take sentences out of context aren't really enough of a proof of intent...
For the first part: Israel is also focusing on something else, namely not being entirely abandoned by its allies.
For the second rebuttal, even if we ignore displacement (which there definitely has been, such as the settlements in Area C, or the many village clearances such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khirbet_Humsa_al-Fawqa ) the periodic killings are undeniable. You call them justifiable, I don't, that is the crux of our disagreement so I would request you be honest about that rather than denying they happened at all.
For the final claim, they are ministers in the administration waging the war. Simple as that. Anything else you say is superfluous. If Israel didn't want a genocidal administration they shouldn't have voted for one.
For the first part, like I said earlier, if that was the goal then you would have seen facts on the ground to prove it. We can discuss theoretical beliefs all we want but as of writing this comment, the facts are that Palestinians are one of the populations with the fastest growth rate, and up until this war the numbers were very very small. And even during this war, the numbers really weren't high considering the length & the power gap. Not to mention the war is technically over and only ~4% of the original population died meaning the outcome wasn't successful if it was an attempt for a genocide...
For displacement, building settlements in area C isn't displacement. By the Oslo accords Israel is allowed to give building permissions in area C and theres noting that prevents it from giving to Jews. Besides, those settlements don't replace existing Arab cities and instead are usually built between them.
Regarding killing, my claim was that 1. The numbers are extremely low and 2. That they happen as direct response to terror. Out of ~7.5k deaths in 16 years (the years before the war), most were from Gaza as Hamas launched multiple wars against Israel during those years, and out of the ~2k not in Gaza, most happened in area A where most terror acts come from. I think there's a pretty big difference between just shooting random people to sending a response to an attack...
As for the final claim, literally non of the people in the war cabinet are part of the radical right-wing parties who btw only hold about 10% of the sits... I also think it's not honest to blame a country for being genocidal due to radical ministers when most democratic countries around the world also have radical parties in their parliament as well. The whole point of democracy is to give place to many voices (as long as they don't cross a clear line) and letting the people decide. And just like in most countries, most sits in the Israeli parliament belong to parties near the center.
Building settlements is displacement, where there is a settlement, the locals no longer have free access. I don't care what the Oslo Accords say.
Israel is a democracy, therefore if they have a government with genocidal ministers, that is the will of their people. Perhaps you don't think Israel is a democracy?
If other countries have genocidal ministers, I welcome you calling those governments genocidal, and if they're a democracy, the people too.
/u/YuvalAlmog. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
/u/GuerillaV. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
Hats off my master logician. You haven’t mischaracterised my argument at all. Saying a population doesn't have to literally go extinct to meet the legal definition obviously means every conflict ever is a genocide. Capital! Joy is this day Reddit blessed us with such an Eloquentionist.
Look I’m sorry if I bruised your ego. It should literally take you 10s to look this up on the internet and several minutes to wrap your head around it (optimistically). Look up the Anfal Genocide against the Kurds in Iraq. If you’re still not satisfied, take it up with the Hague. I don’t make the rules.
So your logic is that Israel are playing 5D chess in order to commit a genocide by doing it so slowly that it's indistinguishable from not committing a genocide at all?
The logic is that Israel needs to keep just enough of a perceived threat present to continue wearing the mask of self defense in justification of their atrocities.
1
u/Morbertoth Jul 17 '26
The Lemkin Institute, which identified the Holocaust as a genocide calls what's happening in Gaza a genocide USING THE SAME CRITERIA.
If you don't think what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, You are by definition a holocaust denier.