Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.
The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.
To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.
Okay, let’s set aside magnitude then. Definition of genocide includes the aspect of intent. Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”. Do you?
Yeah I do! In fact that’s why I started this discussion with the example of the purposeful starvation and cutting off of water to Gaza. In my opinion this is an example of intentionality. This is not an accident or just a “side effect” or something. It is done purposefully. In the UN’s language, it is “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
You say…
Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”
But the reality is that it’s “In whole or in part,” and Gaza is part of the Palestinian people. The important part isn’t the % intended to be killed. It’s primarily why they’re killed, and more specifically, if they are killed because they are members of a group. This is unavoidably true in Gaza.
You can see the issues with your take in other cases. The Cambodian genocide is a widely recognized genocide. They killed 25% of the pop and probably always intended to keep enough alive to run the farms. So not “The Cambodian people,” as a whole, but it doesn’t really matter.
That’s a good point about Cambodia, actually. Hmmm, so what is the difference between mass killing of political opponents like Stalin did, or mass killing for the sake creating terror and holding on to power like Mao did, or whatever it was that Papa Doc was up to in Haiti, and genocide? Or are all of those genocide according to this definition?
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems more complicated than genocide. On the one hand, Israel has negotiated with moderate Palestinian governments for a two-state solution and various other aspects of self-government, including the provision of utilities, and they include Palestinians in all levels of government in Israel. On the other hand, at the moment they also oppress the Palestinian people and are in the process of trying to completely destroy Hamas in a pretty horribel way in Gaza. If it is actual “genocide” that Israel is after, they are pretty inconsistent about it.
If we go with your expansive interpretation of genocide, would you consider what Hamas did on October 7 to be genocide? I mean, they did “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” for the people on the affected kibbutzim and the music festival, and Hamas has as its declared intent the destruction of the state of Israel. Does the fact that Hamas lacks the means to kill all Jews make the massacre they were able to inflict any less genocidal? I don’t know, I haven’t classified Hamas’s Oct 7 action as “genocide” previously, but your more expansive definition and all of the analogies we are both using makes me wonder where the boundaries of genocide are, compared to other forms of mass killing.
Yeah I’m not sure about the exact details of international law and the ins and outs of all of the examples. But for example Stalin’s purges vs Pol Pot’ s killings seem very similar in a way. But maybe Holodomor is a pretty interesting case for our purposes. First off, starvation was the method of killing, second, “only” 10% of Ukranians died. There is dispute about intent, but the EU Parliament and 34 countries consider it genocide, according to Wikipedia.
I will say that you describe my definition as “expansive” but it is the definition of the UN and international law. I am just trying to use the standard definition. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
For the points about Hamas I guess that would take some discussion. What was the purpose of the attack, for instance? I would say it was to create discord and fear, and likely to goad Israel into responding in this way and ruin their efforts at normalization of relations (e.g. with Saudi). Not so much to kill Israelis, although obviously that is a “tool” to use to them, being pieces of shit and all.
I guess my point is that we could make this determination based on the definitions of international law and our take on what’s going on. We should do the same with Israel, openly and honestly.
Although I will also say, I think you might be right about having the means being important. Hamas could not cut off food and water to Israel even if it wanted to. What if a child tried to kill a whole country? Surely that couldn’t be considered attempted genocide? But then intent is obviously also important. The finer details would take some working out.
But in Israel’s case they have the means, are at over 18k dead and still going, and politicians have said and done enough things to make intent clear, to me at least. Honestly the intentional starvation is enough evidence of intent from my perspective.
Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.
The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.
To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.
Okay, let’s set aside magnitude then. Definition of genocide includes the aspect of intent. Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”. Do you?
Sure seems that way.
But I am sure all of those innocent children and babies are Hamas
Yeah I do! In fact that’s why I started this discussion with the example of the purposeful starvation and cutting off of water to Gaza. In my opinion this is an example of intentionality. This is not an accident or just a “side effect” or something. It is done purposefully. In the UN’s language, it is “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
You say…
But the reality is that it’s “In whole or in part,” and Gaza is part of the Palestinian people. The important part isn’t the % intended to be killed. It’s primarily why they’re killed, and more specifically, if they are killed because they are members of a group. This is unavoidably true in Gaza.
You can see the issues with your take in other cases. The Cambodian genocide is a widely recognized genocide. They killed 25% of the pop and probably always intended to keep enough alive to run the farms. So not “The Cambodian people,” as a whole, but it doesn’t really matter.
That’s a good point about Cambodia, actually. Hmmm, so what is the difference between mass killing of political opponents like Stalin did, or mass killing for the sake creating terror and holding on to power like Mao did, or whatever it was that Papa Doc was up to in Haiti, and genocide? Or are all of those genocide according to this definition?
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems more complicated than genocide. On the one hand, Israel has negotiated with moderate Palestinian governments for a two-state solution and various other aspects of self-government, including the provision of utilities, and they include Palestinians in all levels of government in Israel. On the other hand, at the moment they also oppress the Palestinian people and are in the process of trying to completely destroy Hamas in a pretty horribel way in Gaza. If it is actual “genocide” that Israel is after, they are pretty inconsistent about it.
If we go with your expansive interpretation of genocide, would you consider what Hamas did on October 7 to be genocide? I mean, they did “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” for the people on the affected kibbutzim and the music festival, and Hamas has as its declared intent the destruction of the state of Israel. Does the fact that Hamas lacks the means to kill all Jews make the massacre they were able to inflict any less genocidal? I don’t know, I haven’t classified Hamas’s Oct 7 action as “genocide” previously, but your more expansive definition and all of the analogies we are both using makes me wonder where the boundaries of genocide are, compared to other forms of mass killing.
Yeah I’m not sure about the exact details of international law and the ins and outs of all of the examples. But for example Stalin’s purges vs Pol Pot’ s killings seem very similar in a way. But maybe Holodomor is a pretty interesting case for our purposes. First off, starvation was the method of killing, second, “only” 10% of Ukranians died. There is dispute about intent, but the EU Parliament and 34 countries consider it genocide, according to Wikipedia.
I will say that you describe my definition as “expansive” but it is the definition of the UN and international law. I am just trying to use the standard definition. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
For the points about Hamas I guess that would take some discussion. What was the purpose of the attack, for instance? I would say it was to create discord and fear, and likely to goad Israel into responding in this way and ruin their efforts at normalization of relations (e.g. with Saudi). Not so much to kill Israelis, although obviously that is a “tool” to use to them, being pieces of shit and all.
I guess my point is that we could make this determination based on the definitions of international law and our take on what’s going on. We should do the same with Israel, openly and honestly.
Although I will also say, I think you might be right about having the means being important. Hamas could not cut off food and water to Israel even if it wanted to. What if a child tried to kill a whole country? Surely that couldn’t be considered attempted genocide? But then intent is obviously also important. The finer details would take some working out.
But in Israel’s case they have the means, are at over 18k dead and still going, and politicians have said and done enough things to make intent clear, to me at least. Honestly the intentional starvation is enough evidence of intent from my perspective.
Yes friend, Hamas is attempting genocide.
They are fucking terrorists, the reason we expect more from Israel is they are claiming to be the good guys.
You’re right. We should expect more from Israel.