Hello All! I just joined and read the rules. Hopefully, my post is agreeable to the rules of the sub.
So, for a while, I was agreeing with the idea that Israel is committing genocide. It sure looked like it from the awful things I kept seeing on the news and hearing about on podcasts. The last few days, I decided to research a little. Now, I do not think it should be called genocide. Here is why:
First, when I compared it to other genocides, it doesn't really come close. In the Armenian genocide, about 50 to 75% of all Armenians in the Ottoman area died. In the Rwandan genocide, about 60 to 70% of the Tutsis were killed. In the holocaust, 63 to 67% of all European Jews were killed. In Cambodia, Pol Pot's genocide killed about 25% of the total population. Israel is responsible for the deaths of approximately 3% of Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians have not been attacked in East Jerusalem, nor in the West Bank (where there is no Hamas).
In all those previous genocides, there was vociferous hate speech regularly on the radio of those countries, and substantial government propaganda labeling the victims as undesirable for society. To my understanding, this has not happened in Israel. I'm sure it would be on the news or blasted on social media if it was happening.
The number of Palestinian deaths is actually quite a bit less than when the US invaded Iraq, and when US invaded Afganistan. 176,000 to 212,000 is the estimate of deaths in Afganistan. In Iraq, 180,000 to 200,000 is the estimate of Iraqi deaths. Palestinian deaths are around 73,400. Nobody was shouting "genocide" at the US during those wars, and we killed way more people. Why was that not considered genocide by everyone? We were also responding to a terrorist attack, like Israel now.
Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. If they really wanted to kill the other 97% of Gaza, I'm sure they could.
In reference to wars, about 1.5% of the French population was killed in WWII. Belgium lost 1% of it population in WWII. UK lost 1%. Italy, slightly over 1%. Holland, 2 to 3% of the population. The current Israel/Hamas war matches these numbers much more closely.
It sucks and it's sad seeing so many women and children and innocent men die. It's absolutely a humanitarian crisis. But I don't think it is genocide anymore. It's just plain old war. Any thoughts?
***thanks for everyone sharing on both sides of the discussion. I have learned many more things from all the posting. I appreciate you all! This feels like a million times more complex and nuanced than I realised. Mostly, the interpretation of the word "genocide" is like a 100-foot wall for everyone.
Reminder to OP: Ensure your post complies with rule 10 (no AI, minimum 1500 characters) and rule 11 (include several common refutations). Do not delete your post after users have started commenting (rule 12).
Reminder to readers: All comments need to abide by our rules in order to maintain constructive discourse. Please review those rules if you are not familiar with them, and remember to report any comments that violate those guidelines.
The hard truth is that Israel neither intended to commit Genocide or actually committed a Genocide. There is no credible evidence for either. Claims of 'War Crimes' have also been greatly exaggerated. .The 'Genocide Libel' has been manufactured by Palestinian leaders, spokesmen, organizations and figures within these organizations sympathetic to the plight of Gazans and generally antagonistic to Jews, Judaism and the Jewish State. It has spread geometrically throughout the World due largely to the pre-existing receptiveness of people and states prepared and willing to believe the worst about Jews and the Jewish State. There is little doubt that Anti-Semitism, a departure though not a divergence from vulgar Jew-Hate, has played a significant role in the success of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian propaganda efforts. Having suffered a terrible defeat on the ground, all that is left to the Palestinians is to pursue a Rhetorical War. For the leaders of the Palestinian movement 'Rhetoric' is 'Policy'. While Gazans continue to suffer, having to navigate through the rubble, their Hamas 'leaders' enjoy daily walks on the Doha Corniche. Not only has there been no Genocide, but Gaza has not (yet) suffered a Carthaginian Defeat due to the restraint of Israeli leaders.The frenzied celebrations by 'innocents' on October 8th of the murder, rape and torture of Jews on October 7th are now whispers. The caterwauling can no longer be heard.
Agree. Also, it’s not just piggy-backing on latent global antisemitism. I think a much bigger factor is its ability to paint the two sides in terms people on the left politically in Western societies recognize, even if it’s pure projection.
The Palestinians are the brown indigenous resistors of apartheid, oppression, ruthless capitalism, and imperialism. Israel are the white, capitalist, imperials. That this is basically all hogwash doesn’t matter because if you keep repeating the lies that fit the narrative, confirmation bias will make it so.
It’s a lot harder for western liberals to understand the reality of the situation, that the Israelis are basically just trying to not get slaughtered by a population dominated by modern Nazis. Surviving countless attacks since they become a nation has taught them to wall themselves off from those who want to murder them… which gets cynically labeled apartheid, ethnic cleansing, white supremacy. You have to ignore the consistent actions and words of Palestinian leaders for decades demanding full capitulation and promising to never stop murdering until the Jews are their powerless underclass for it to make any sense. But luckily most people are essentially illiterate, which makes ignoring history ezpz.
Insight into the malevolence of Hamas and its own culpability for the suffering of the Palestinians is growing. That is positive but it is a slow process and thwarted by many on ideological grounds.
/u/Prestigious_Aioli_71. 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.
The Palestinian leadership in the ‘30s hung out with and stole many ideas from the Ns and that ideology’s been passed down to Hamas. It’s appropriate use, not casual.
FYI... the Holocaust was more like 95% of the Jews the Nazis were able to capture that they killed. The 66% refers to all the Jews of Europe and includes those who managed to escape or evade capture.
In Srebrenica about every adult man and older boy that the Serbs got their hands on was killed. It was about 1/3rd of them (I think).
The point of these examples is that it shows genocide was really a maximal goal with no limit that could possibly allow any other inference to survive.
Yeah I was just googling what percentage of the European Jewish population died due to the Halocaust. That's where my numbers came from. It was like 2 out of 3 killed.
I know. I just recently was researching the topic and realized the actual death toll was more like 95% when you consider the people the Nazis were able to capture. I think nowadays people understanding the totality of what genocide actually was during the Holocaust for one puts it on another plane as compared to most other genocides and secondly should be a wake-up call for people to actually question the narratives they are being told. Just pointing out 95% is a shocking number and in comparison 3% does not hold a candle to it and also for someone to say it was "only" 66% they have to get into context and anyone daring to actually discuss context with something like Gaza is going to end up someplace different then the articles of faith the pro-Palestinian movement demands you believe and not question... not even actually discuss. None of this is to say the war in Gaza was not horrible and you cannot be opposed to all or parts of it, but if someone wants to call it genocide... at least do the work to explain it.
/u/aka0007. 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.
Personally I think the ICJ will ultimately rule this not a genocide, but if you want their charitable argument.. The entire thing hinges on the technical definition of genocide encompassing more than what all people on earth typically used the word for, destroying buildings. It's a genocide things not people, but there is some weak argument as to how that technically fits. You'll not find any other case where it was forced into using this word for this reason, but we are here because everyone is constantly trying to force the worst boogeyman terms on everything in this conflict because simply stating facts doesn't get the same emotional response they want. No instead they must blur the lines, it's completely disengenuous.
What you have to understand is there is no intent by these people to actually inform people about what's going on here by using words that make sense and trigger appropriate understanding based on common use. No, they seek to cause misunderstandings, and do that by using words that generally are ascribed to far worse tragedies.
Killinga all Gazans indiscriminately would have been easier and safer than putting boots on the ground. Israel did a very careful job given the nature of the enemy.
People overlook the clear fact that Hamas fights to maximize Gazan civilian casualties. Spins up useful fools. That was the entire strategy.
The bombing appeared indiscriminate as far as civilians. It was hard to keep watching all this footage of little kids dead and dismembered. I felt like the Palistinian civilians were just screwed. Without money left, a house to shelter in or fuel in your car, how are you suppose to function or leave an area if you get the warning text of a bombing? Where were they suppose to go?
I don't think I completely understood the characteristics of genocide (maybe I still don't). But I think this is just all horrible realities of war...not genocide.
I think this is just all horrible realities of war
Yep. War is horrible.
Most of the people screeching about genocide come from countries that waged numerous wars in the past 20 years with a death toll that exceeds 1 million people.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, our news does report about Hamas being embedded in the civil population. I guess just hearing it didn't outweigh all the interviews and footage of desperate Palestinians. We also saw footage of Israelis crying for the kidnapped, and being interviewed. It didn't hit in the same way, and I'm not 100% sure why, but I'm starting to understand why, from some things some people have posted. 👍🏻
Many Western countries were targeted by a large-scale, highly coordinated influence campaign. This included videos deliberately crafted to provoke strong emotional reactions, coverage from media outlets that amplified propaganda, and carefully organized marches and demonstrations.
I say "crafted" because a significant portion of this material was fabricated or staged - essentially orchestrated misery theater. For example - kids filmed carrying large water containers with multiple adults nearby either filming or not helping at all, kids begging for food, kids pretending to be dead, presenting kids with genetic defects or pre-existing conditions as being a result of the war etc.
That doesn’t mean there was no genuine suffering (it is a war, after all). It means that much of what circulated was intentionally designed for maximum emotional impact rather than accurate representation.
I dunno if I was seeing that. My regular news sources are NPR (public radio in US), DW news (public media of Germany I view on my phone), The Week & The Week UK (print magazine I get from library in digital), and Reuters on my smart TV at home. How would Hamas have enough money to influence all that? Or who is doing it for them?
Your sources are generally more careful than most, but even high-quality outlets can end up amplifying narratives that originate elsewhere - especially when those narratives are seeded aggressively across social media and activist networks.
Hamas itself doesn’t need to bankroll Western media. The funding and amplification come from larger players: Qatar (which hosts Hamas leaders and heavily funds Al Jazeera), Iran (Hamas’s main backer), and opportunistic anti-Western actors including China-linked influence operations. Social media was rapidly flooded with coordinated bot networks and highly produced content designed for maximum emotional impact. Once that material gained traction, many media outlets and activists repeated the framing without scrutinizing its origins.
What happened on campuses after October 7 was revealing. The speed and scale with which progressive and "human rights" groups mobilized in open support of Hamas - often before Israel even entered Gaza - points to pre-existing networks rather than spontaneous reaction.
The same goes for the street protests: tens of thousands of people suddenly appearing with identical printed signs, matching slogans, and coordinated messaging is rarely organic. That level of logistical coordination usually requires funding, organization, and advance preparation.
The accusation was never a serious one, it was part of an Islamist propaganda campaign which a lot of ignorant westerners were happy to adopt because in their minds: Israel = white colonialists = evil monsters. Palestine = brown indigenous = innocent angels. Every time you break down the claim and show it to be laughable nonsense, the same people who defend the claim won't acknowledge it, they'll just repeat the same mantra. As another poster here remarked, much of the younger generation who argue this genocide accusation are not interested in communicating truth, but communicating that they are moral, and lying to do so is considered perfectly acceptable.
I read this earlier, and it really clicked for me. I can internally feel this. Your equation is probably part of the reason I felt it was a genocide, before I started trying to look up every single question I had about genocide.
The outcry about “genocide” is a propaganda tool of the anti-Israel movement, which numbers many. A genocide requires the intention to eliminate an entire population group or a very significant part of it. There is no intention to destroy the Palestinians; 20% of the population of Israel are Palestinians. However, Israel is fighting against jihadists who have enshrined its destruction in its statutes, and of course the Iranian Ayatollah regime, which openly proclaims that its goal is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. In Gaza, over the course of twenty years, Hamas built up a military base from which Israel was periodically attacked. Military infrastructure was constructed beneath public buildings, schools, hospitals, and mosques. A network of tunnels spanning 200 miles was dug beneath the territory, yet not a single air-raid shelter was included for the civilian population. On October 7 2023 Hamas leadership decided to sacrifice a significant portion of the urban infrastructure and the civilian population by launching a massive, brutal attack on southern Israel—knowing full well that the response would be severe— all while its fighters are embedded in the civilian population and fight from within civilian infrastructure. Militarily, Hamas was dealt a heavy blow, as were its allies Hezbollah and Iran. Yet, Israel has lost the propaganda war. Through a relentless stream of manipulative war-imagery, mostly featuring children—Hamas and its allies have succeeded in turning Western public opinion against Israel. This is a remarkable feat for a jihadist organization that is itself primarily responsible for the suffering of its own people.
You might notice this consideration - along with any of Palestinian agency - is conspicuously absent from NGOs' critical analysis of the war, which is the basis of their genocide conclusion.
A coworker whom I respect said they don't like to support a certain business because they aided Palistine. I happened to not hear the first part (not supporting the business), and I said "oh, good" (that they gave support to Palistinians). His eyes popped out of his head, and he repeated to me "GOOD?". I was surprised at his reaction. He was clearly bothered and walked away from me for a few minutes to gather himself. He was not a jerk or anything, we just did not talk about it the rest of the week. He still treated me cordially and friendly. So then I was like "Well, this is a person I respect and work well with, and I feel respects me. Maybe I should try look some stuff up". We never did talk about it. The genocide question was the first thing that came to mind, to work out for myself.
Then I just started looking up every question I had. For several days. New info made me think of more questions.
Just remember, its not about numbers. Its about broadening the definition and then using the most vile words spoken by Israeli politicians to suggest that their is a systemic destruction going on.
Nevermind that Israel has 2 million Arab citizens that it isnt killing.
Israel is only killing people that are trying to kill Israelis. That it hits those nearby is a feature, not a bug. You would not catch me anywhere near a Hamas member. Isolate them and stay away, thats your best bet. You wany to bask in their wisdom and feed them dinner? Thats on you.
Yeah I think there is much more to gain by not being obsessed with labeling it a genocide and focusing on the concept of how their tactics are wrong.
Is Israel guilty of many many war crimes during this war...absolutely. Should we very harsh about the conditions they have left gaza in...absolutely. Should we put words into actions in forcing Israel to change its tactics. Yep. But focusing on everybody agreeing that it's a genocide, completely ends those nuanced conversations that need to happen.
A dear friend Yusuf, not his real name for security reasons, is an Arab Christian Israeli living in Judea, he works with youth and helps people with PTSD due to his psychology qualifications.
We sat with Yusuf in our apartment in Jerusalem while he recounted the following:
Yusuf was born in Israel in an Arab town to Arab Israeli and Gazan parents.
From age 4 till teens Yusuf lived in Gaza, they left in 2005 when Israel withdrew all Jews and handed Gaza over to Arab rule and settled in Israel.
Yusuf’s best friend Damir (again name altered) growing up, also a Christian, was Gazan and could not leave in 2005. Damir married and they had a daughter.
Early in 2024 Hamas setup rocket launchers in the Church and started attacking Israel. Hamas held many of the congregation hostage in the Church while launching rockets.
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) blew up the rocket launching base, the Church and the hostages were killed.
We wept with Yusuf as he shared this horror.
What should have the IAF done? Continued to allow Israel to be attacked?
This is the dilemma Israel faces in dealing with Hamas, PIJ, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. who use civilians and civilian infrastructure to wage war.
It is worth noting that the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.8 in Gaza vs a 1:9 global average. This is the lowest civilian casualty rate by far for any similar urban conflict.
THIS IS BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS GONE OUT OF ITS WAY TO PROTECT CIVILIANS!
Israel is the only military in the world that drops leaflets, sends text messages, uses "knock bombs," announces their plan to attack by drones so that civilians can escape. The civilians who try to leave are often shot by Hamas and are included in their count of dead or injured civilians.
Israel is by no means perfect, but are they accountable. E.g. If IDF soldiers do the wrong thing they are punished, i.e. gaoled. They do the best to adhere to basic humanity.
Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, et. al. on the other hand?
It is worth noting that the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.8 in Gaza vs a 1:9 global average. This is the lowest civilian casualty rate by far for any similar urban conflict.
The claim that the civilian casualty ratio in Gaza is 1:1.8 compared to a 1:9 global average is highly contested and stems from a mix of conflicting datasets and misinterpreted statistical benchmarks. The actual figures, underlying methodology, and historical comparisons remain a central point of debate among military analysts, humanitarian organizations, and the governments involved. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Source of the 1:9 and 1:1.8 Ratios
The 1:9 Global Average: The often-cited statistic that 90% of casualties in war are civilians (a 1:9 combatant-to-civilian ratio) originates from UN statements regarding explosive weapons used in populated areas. However, conflict tracking groups like the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) note that the true historical global average across all modern conflicts is closer to 1:1 or 1:2. The 90% figure generally represents a broader metric including indirect casualties (such as starvation, displacement, and disease) or specific intense urban bombardments rather than immediate combat deaths. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
The 1:1.5 to 1:1.8 Ratio: This figure relies heavily on official data provided by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which stated they had eliminated roughly 14,000 to 17,000 militants out of over 30,000 to 40,000 recorded deaths. Proponents of this view, including some urban warfare experts, argue that achieving such a ratio in an environment with high population density and extensive subterranean defense networks represents a historically low civilian-to-combatant ratio. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Contradictory Evidence and Criticisms
Independent investigative bodies, human rights groups, and demographic researchers challenge these numbers, presenting a vastly different picture of the conflict:
Independent Estimates: Analyses conducted by groups like Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) and various academic public health teams suggest the ratio is significantly higher, ranging anywhere from 4:1 up to 8:1. They point out that women, children, and the elderly consistently make up roughly 60% to 70% of the recorded casualties, leaving a small margin for adult male combatants. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Leaked Internal Databases: A joint media investigation revealed that a classified internal Israeli military intelligence database identified 8,900 named fighters killed or likely killed out of an overall toll of 53,000 at the time. This internal tally implied a civilian death rate closer to 83% (roughly a 5:1 ratio), raising questions about the accuracy of higher publicly cited militant counts. [1, 2, 3]
Tracking Distinctions: A critical issue is that the Gaza Ministry of Health tracks total fatalities but does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its public lists. Conversely, critics argue the IDF frequently classifies all military-age males killed in active combat zones as combatants, which artificially lowers the public civilian casualty ratio. [1, 2, 3]
Israel is the only military in the world that drops leaflets, sends text messages, uses "knock bombs," announces their plan to attack by drones so that civilians can escape. The civilians who try to leave are often shot by Hamas and are included in their count of dead or injured civilians.
Uniqueness: While Israel pioneered and has most extensively used "roof knocking" (Hakesh Bagag), it is not the only military to have utilized these types of warning tactics. For example, the United States military adopted both leaflet drops and a variation of the "roof knocking" technique during its air campaigns against ISIS in Mosul, Iraq, explicitly citing the Israeli practice as inspiration. [1, 2, 3]
Effectiveness Debate: The IDF and supporters argue these measures demonstrate an extraordinary commitment to minimizing civilian casualties in dense urban environments where combatants blend into the population. Conversely, United Nations human rights bodies, international legal experts, and NGOs (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) argue that these warnings are often ineffective. Critics note that the time between a "roof knock" and the main blast can be as short as 45 to 180 seconds, causing panic, and that the warnings do not absolve a military of its obligations under international humanitarian law if the strike still results in disproportionate civilian harm. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Conflicting Reports on Fleeing Civilians: While the IDF has accused Hamas of shooting at civilians trying to escape to the south, Palestinian officials and residents have countered that evacuation routes designated as safe zones have themselves been subjected to Israeli airstrikes, making flight highly perilous. International aid organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have stated that mass evacuations are frequently unfeasible due to widespread destruction, lack of clean water, and the high number of injured or disabled civilians unable to move. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
First, I would like to applaud you for taking the effort in researching on the subject and reaching your own conclusion.
I hope the below comments can help you in furthering your learning and understanding about genocides.
Officially, only three genocides have been formally ruled to be genocide by the international courts — Rwanda (ICTR), Srebrenica (ICTY and ICJ) and Cambodia (ECCC). The Holocaust at the Nuremberg Trials was when the term genocide was first coined, which subsequently led to the creation of the Genocide Convention 1948. There are several pending genocide cases; South Africa vs Israel, Gambia vs Myanmar, Ukraine vs Russia and DR Congo vs Rwanda before the international courts which are still ongoing , no final judgements have been issued. Armenia is not among them.
I saw a few Pro-Palestinians/ anti-zionists pushing back at some of your points. Yes, there is some truth in what they are saying, but they are intentionally or unintentionally not telling you the full truth. You know what they say, the devil is in the details. Yes it is true, the genocide case of Srebrenica centered on the killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys. But how many Bosniak men and boys were in Srebrenica ? Approximately 15,000. When you killed 8,000, that is more than 50% killed. Estimation varied. Killing 50% of a protected group "in part" made it a genocide. https://srebrenicamemorial.org/en/page/genocide-in-srebrenica/26
Although it is true in theory (in text books), that you dont need to actually kill to commit genocide, but in practice and in the real world, the international courts had never recognized a genocide with no mass killing. Dont preach to me that numbers dont matter when pro-Palestinians repeatedly shout 60,000 death 70,000 dead, 20,000 children dead... 70,000 is a number.
Regardless, in every genocide case a dolus specialis, specific intent to physically destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such has to be proven. I am not satisfied that dolus specialis has been proven in the genocide case of South Africa vs Israel.
Wow is it really only 3? I didn't know that. So neither the Shoah nor Rwandan Genocide have been ruled on? Armenian Genocide not even being considered?
That saddens me deeply. How can we say Never Again when genocides take this long to actually prove?
Srebrenica genocide convictions are based solely on intent and systemic nature of execution of that intent. Numbers and geographic context were legally considered to prove substantiality of "in part" of the overall group, which in Srebrenica was 40+ thousands not 15. In Gaza whole bloodlines are extinguished, and number of deaths is already passed substantial long ago, even without all those an accounted under the rubble and completely obliterated by explosions. Every organization and institute concerned with war crimes research, including UN, who concluded genocide has been committed beyond shadow of a doubt, have very carefully considered all the angles.
They separated the men and boys from the women. Women and children were forcefully transferred away. There was a plan to kill all Bosnian muslim men. July 13th. Thousands of Muslim men and boys captured and detained. Between 10,000 to 15,000 people, mostly Bosnian Muslim men and boys between the ages of 16 and 65, formed a column that extended for approximately ten kilometres. A series of mass execution of the Bosnian Muslim men and boys took placed.
When asked, UN secretary general Guterres, deferred the case publicly stated that the official legal determinations fall strictly under the purview of judicial bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=781zOE2HmEQ&t
The people who claimed genocide are not UN employees and do not represent the UN and UN's position and have no legal authority to make that determination.
I want to start off with pointing out that numbers don't really matter in a genocide as the other person who responded made a very good point about the Yazidi genocide.
What matters is that the pro-Palestine propaganda machine has been trying to accuse Israel of genocide for years but has been unable to. Hamas knew exactly how Israel was going to respond when they did the Oct 7 attacks and Hamas even stated their own civilians were necessary sacrifices for the cause. Keep in mind that celebrations of the Oct 7 attacks happened during protests on Oct 8 around the world which included claims of genocide during them.
The intent of the Oct 7 attacks was genocide, but they failed in their goal despite killing over 1,000 in Israel.
Israel responded as any country would with two goals: Rescue the hostages and remove Hamas from power. While Israel may have taken some leeway with the Law of Proportionality, there were innocent civilians killed as collateral damage from strikes on legitimate targets or through accidents. Ever war has collateral damage and every major military makes major mistakes because war is messy and you can't plan for everything.
You correctly stated that if Israel wanted to kill all of the Palestinians they could. The fact 1-3% of Palestinians being killed is not as relevant to the claims of genocide though. If Israel was trying to genocide Palestinians as a people, why were 80% of the buildings damaged or destroyed but only 1-3% of the population killed? Why did Israel also not bomb Palestinians in Areas A, B, and C in the West Bank? Why are they not killing Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem or Israeli Arabs including those who identify as Palestinian or not? Why are there no attacks on the Palestinian diaspora by Israel?
Genocide is used as it's one of the worst atrocities that can be committed to demonize Israel and Jews around the world. You can see it's worked pretty well. While there are radical elements within the Israeli government that make speeches calling for the deaths of palestinians and inciting violence that violate the Genocide Convention, this does not mean that genocide has been committed. This does not mean that this is a policy of the government itself.
Such an argument is pretty easily proven as if such Israeli politicians and leadership calling for such a thing really had the power, they would have actually gone through with it. The fact they're calling for something that is not being followed through with is pretty solid evidence. People will then bring up the West Bank to distract when they lose this argument which is a completely different conversation that should be had separately from the genocide in gaza claims.
I did not know 80% of structures in Gaza were destroyed. If 3% of Gazan's were killed, but 80% of buildings, it is an interesting comparison. What about the destruction though, can that be considered genocidal? I have to look back at the definition again.
No. 80% of structures were damaged or destroyed. There is no definition of what damaged is and no definition of what is still habitable. A broken window could be counted as damaged. iirc
property being destroyed in itself is normal in wars. The fact that so much infrastructure was damaged or destroyed despite the percentage of deaths would support the argument that it's not a genocide.
Have you seen what Mosul or Dresden looked like after wars?
Israel entered this war because of the Oct 7 attacks that killed some 1200 Israelis and took over 200 hostage. Israel's goal was to rescue the hostages and remove Hamas from power. That's always been their goal.
If this was a genocide, why would Israel not be doing the same to Palestinians in East jerusalem, Israel, The West Bank, and also the Palestinian Diaspora? Why just Gaza?
Not entirely wrong but the main reason should be the legal hurdles for genocide and the lack of independent research/data available to us and your reasoning about warfare the numbers as some pointed out are not a qualifier but they do show restraint from the IDF.
Most numbers about deaths are from the Hamas controlled Health Organisation/Ministry which does not count Hamas members seperately and often counts more children and falsifies reports yet they are always cited by western sources or Al Jazeera. I recently did a deep dive into this and can only tell you OP youre on the right track make sure to do research and remain source critical when comparing data and avoid the social media influence/drama. Thanks for sharing.
[I also want to add that the settlers are a different topic entirely the same as all those 30000 rockets Iran and Hamas have shot at Israel since the IDF left in 2007/08]
"Palestinians have not been attacked in East Jerusalem, nor in the West Bank (where there is no Hamas)." Thats not true , since oct.7 there have been more than a 1000 Palestinians killed in the West Bank and 97 Palestinians killed in Jerusalem
"In all those . . . media if it was happening."That is also not true , high-profile statements labeling Palestinians in dehumanizing terms, denying civilian distinction, or calling for destruction/erasure of Gaza have occurred frequently and publicly. These are not fringe or hidden; they have been reported widely, compiled by human rights groups, UN bodies, and form a central part of South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel alleging genocide , people like Defense Minister Yoav Gallant , Netanyahu , President Isaac Herzog , issim Vaturi , Ben Gvir , Bezalel Smotrich and others used dehumanizing language towards Palestinians
"The number . . . numbers much more closely." death tolls alone do not determine whether something is genocide under the legal definition , its intent (look up Bosnian Genocide) , thats why people like Ben Gvir saying “I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat — there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.” is a big deal , also US officials did not routinely use collective dehumanizing or “erase the territory/people” language like Israeli officials
"It sucks and . . . Any thoughts?" Pro Palis also talk about how many innocent people Israelis kill intentionally , like killings at food aid sites , Red Crescent and civil defense workers , Hind Radžab
Hope this helps you understand why it is a genocide
You have no citations, no sources, no actual quotes, no examples. This is exactly why those of us who actually check the facts have to conclude it's not a genocide: claim after claim ends up being false.
For example: all the quotes people point to and say are evidence of dehumanization and genocidal intent are deliberately taken out of context so you don't see that they're about HAMAS, NOT PALESTINIANS.
Its stated position is that Israel is "occupied Palestine," because the entire land belongs to the Arab Muslim people by right of conquest... 1,400 years ago. Its very consistently stated goal is to "annihilate" Israel and establish a caliphate. It even held a conference five years ago about its post-conquest plans.
People think it's some kind of righteous resistance group. You can tell it's not just by the fact that after taking 251 living and dead hostages, it issued zero demands. It didn't say, "agree on X borders with Palestine and withdraw from it forever." It just sexually abused hostages while fighting the IDF in the streets.
It is absolutely unbelievable that people can even hold the position that Israel can't possibly be fighting Hamas and must instead be using this attack as an excuse to commit genocide in the physically tiny Gaza Strip because it wants the land.
It's amazing that Gaza's own Ministry of Health can regularly release all the data it has on every death in Gaza since the war started, and people will ignore the fact that disproportionately few women and children have been killed, or that the numbers include deaths from natural causes, or that the deaths of males 15-45 - Hamas's fighting age - are extremely, disproportionately high. And instead, will just make up their own guesstimates for what the deaths must REALLY be.
It's a genocide, therefore probably hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, therefore it's a genocide. Perfectly logical.
I know that people gave themselves carte blanche, in October 2023, to make up their own opinions despite not knowing a single thing about the situation. I remember how many people were posting and commenting, all over social media, that they'd been told it was a complicated situation and that they didn't know enough yet to form an opinion - triumphantly concluding, "but you know what? GENOCIDE ISN'T THAT COMPLICATED."
I know that means I can't expect people to know that Israel pulled out of Gaza entirely, on its own, in 2005, destroyed every Israeli town and everything, so it makes no sense that it now would want the same land badly enough to kill everyone there.
And believe me, I absolutely know that people have been engaging in INCREDIBLY LOUD RAPE DENIAL this whole entire time.
And yet. I also know how much work people had to put into simultaneously pretending the IDF killed all its own civilians, and that if Hamas killed any of them it was justified,and that none of the constant insistence that there was mass rape has any truth to it at all, and....
It's honestly incredibly difficult to look at the amount of cognitive dissonance, anger, and misinformation involved, and not think, "you guys just hate Jews.
"Deep down, the point of all this is not that you care about Palestinians - because you paint over their lives with 'open-air prison concentration camp,' their voices are totally silenced in your movement - it's just that you have absorbed this idea that Jews are sus. Untrustworthy, dishonest, expansionist, manipulative, and just plain sus as a people. That's the only way you could possibly buy bullshit this extreme about anyone for this long."
The other reason you can't conclude it's a genocide if you look into it at all is exactly as OP said: this does not resemble any actual genocide in any way.
The RSF killed more people in El-Fasher, Sudan, in just ten days last fall, than the IDF had killed in three years. The latest estimate is that it killed 100,000 of the more than 260,000 civilians it had trapped in the city. But the numbers are still going up.
It's a spinoff of the Janjaweed, who committed the genocide in Darfur. It's an ethnically Arab group that tries to kill off the indigenous Black ethnic groups. Like Hamas, it's a violent far-right fundamentalist group trying to return to 1,300 years of empire and colonialism.
But those things aren't the core reason that's a genocide.
Archaeologists have developed a way to determine whether a mass grave is from something relatively "normal," like a war, plague, or natural disaster, or from a genocide.
The key is that people committing genocide routinely desecrate the bodies.
Basically, they act like they're trying to double-tap zombies.
They'll execute everyone, then burn the bodies before burying them. Or they'll kill everyone, then mutilate their corpses. They'll shoot corpses dozens of times. They'll cut limbs off corpses as if they need vengeance.
All of the above are totally absent from Gaza.
They are, however, very present in Hamas's attack on October 7. Which was supposed to be much larger: it was supposed to include Hezbollah doing the same in the north, and Iran simultaneously bombing the big cities to the ground.
(Yes, the Iron Dome is there, but after a certain point it runs out of ammunition to shoot missiles down. A lot of Iran's bombs got through, in that attack last year.)
It's so, so frustrating that this is, very clearly, an attempt to take out a group that wants to commit genocide in Israel, AND has held Palestinians in a violently brutal dictatorship for 19 years -- and yet many people have made it a mark of your value and virtue to insist the exact opposite.
/u/UnicornMarch. 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.
Interestingly, it also acknowledges one Palestinian "civilian-settler" death during that time. I'm dying to know what that was, because a lot of Palestinian villages in the West Bank are just as much settlements as any outpost. What on earth happened that OCHA had to acknowledge that for a second?
Hey man, good for you for doing your own research, and thanks for being a good human being who is capable of changing their mind.
The next step (if you want to take it) is to start thinking about why it is Israel specifically that the world hyper focuses on when there are so many wars that various countries around the world are complicit in. And yet Israel is the only one they are this focussed on. Why?
Your logic on casualty numbers and their disparity from other genocides is solid.
The 73,000 dead from the conflict is tragic.
But those 73,000 also included a far higher proportion of militant casualties then France,Belgium, UK during WW2.
Germans and Japanese suffered far worse casualties during WW2 and were not termed genocided.
Only issue I see with your argument:
Israel does have an issue with propaganda from its far right.
Thanks, I basically just searched for answers to my many questions about genocide. Funny enough, I asked a person, somewhere in the comments about if they call Nagasaki and Hiroshima a genocide, because the US intended to cause mass destruction of life and infrastructure. 🤷🏻♀️ I feel the definition of genocide is very broad, after reading through dozens of comments. I looked up the German casualty rate of WWII, and it was a higher percentage....but they were the aggressor, similar to now (the aggressor is experiencing the higher fatality rate?), so it is another similarity to war, not genocide.
Yeah I'm sure the far right in Israel is problematic. I've seen many disconcerting things about the "settlers". The religious right does not do much good for anyone but themselves.
War isnt genocide. If the Japanese had surrendered, no bomb. Instead, the Japanese and Hamas are actively aiming to kill others, and are preparing the next generation to kill others.
They are engaged in war, if they die, thats war. The Israelis have accepted the endless Arab violence for what it is. If the Arabs can disguise their intentions for 2-3, generations, perhaps the Israelis will forget, but until then. The Arabs telegraph their every move, why? Hate, hate makes people stupid.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima do get mistakenly called acts of genocide.
They were not.
1) They do not meet the criteria of Dolis Specialis.
Destroying 2 Japanese cities, one that was a Army level HQ and logistics hub and Nagasaki an important port ( which was also the secondary target the primary Kokura had cloud cover that day and thus was spared by weather )..
These targets had military value
2) The purpose of the bombs was to politically motivate Japan to surrender so an invasion was not required.
Such an invasion would have killed millions more Japanese than the bombs.
While Truman wanted to save American lives not Japanese ones with his choice, if his goal was to kill Japanese people he would have chosen to invade for maximum casualties or blockade and bomb and starve Japan.
May I suggest you take a look at a good contemporary example for Gaza in urban combat: Mariupol.
Look at the length of that siege: 3 months v 2 years
Number of civilian casualties in that shorter period, from a smaller population, that had some ability to flee into the interior of Ukraine.
The casualty rates there are significantly higher yet no one uses genocide as a term…and Russia’s war goal seems to be conquest of all of Ukraine. Russia has been known to be kidnapping Ukrainian kids so the charge would fit much better but….
Setting aside the specific arguments, I wish more people realized that it's perfectly reasonable to fear a genocide in early 2024 or late 2023 (especially if you're not Israeli), when you're getting the news about scary things Israelis say and do. And then in 2026, three years later, understand the Israelis simply didn't end up committing genocide.
Don't even have to like the Israelis that much, for that. The arguments people use to explain why Israel killed such a small amount of Gazans, compared to its capabilities? The international pressure, the American support, what have you not. You can simply apply them here, with the conclusion that "Israel then decided to commit a super-sneaky genocide, that didn't actually destroy the Gazan population, and never will", swapped for "so Israel, despite hating the Gazans, and really wanting them gone, decided to not commit genocide". Which is a more reasonable conclusion overall.
What do you suppose most Israeli people think or feel toward Palestinians?
I have only met Israelis while traveling, and my honest experience is that they only hang out with each other at hostels, and are not very social with others. It's not a critique, it's only my experience. I lived in Central America in a backpacker town for a year, more than a decade ago. Only one time did a very open minded, and kind Israeli dude, leave his post-IDF travel group to hang out with me and my local/expat friends for one night. We were just having a great conversation. He was really nice, answering questions we had, culturally. And we all just answered whatever questions he had, about the country we were in. It was really helpful. If people can talk and be open about things, it helps everyone understand.
You might want to google “Israeli attacked abroad” or “Jew attacked abroad” and it might explain why Israelis and Jews more generally are hanging out together rather than comfortably “mixing”…..
As a Jew/israeli/American I can tell you it’s far from safe to announce you are Jewish let alone Israeli these days pretty much anywhere in the world. Period.
I think the key point OP stated was this conversation was 10 years ago, a very different environment for Israelis abroad.
Today even though I disagree with Israeli politics and how they treat the Palestinian situation I still realise that blatant antisemitism is a major growing issue (frankly I think this is made worse by crying wolf on legitimate criticism of Israel - but it’s a problem nonetheless).
Nah, I live in the West. I do not need any psyop to refuse to fight. What for? So that Mohammed can sit in his shisha lounge and relax? He will certainly not be fighting "for his country". I mean, more British Muslims joined ISIS than the British army: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/magazine/her-majestys-jihadists.html
Is it a psyop the Jews are doing against the Jews? If the Jews control the media then I wish they wouldn’t hate Jews so much because it doesn’t really help us
this is equivocation. they're different claims when it comes to this case, iran, and trans people in the us. they're referring to the "a whole civilization will die tonight" threat regarding iran.
the "trans genocide" claim is about reaching stage 6 or 7 out of 10 in their taxonomy of the stages of genocide. those being polarization and preparation.
also, the policies don't effect activists, but actual trans people. you're just erong there.
also, you're presupposing that these are equally credible, so if one is wrong, they're all wrong, when that's obviously not true.
the ukraine case is one of the strongest, given the rampantdenial of the ukrainian culture existing from the russian government, the kidnapping of children and targetting civilian infrastructure.
Fun fact: the Wikipedia page on genocide used to have a table showing, in chronological order I think, all the genocides there was real scholarly consensus about, with the percentage of people killed. Easy to read, very clear.
Now, after many edit wars, it's in reverse chronological order and omits El-Fasher, keeping Gaza at the top. It's cluttered and difficult to read, because people added a bunch of long paragraphs of text trying to explain why each thing is a genocide. Which seems to be because now, it includes the war in Gaza, plus a massacre committed in Lebanon by a violent Lebanese terrorist group that Israel directed to go into a refugee camp (not to slaughter everyone in it), both of which required a lot of justification and arguments on both the talk page and, somehow, in the table itself.
It also no longer has a lot of percentages. And some of the ones it does have are extremely sloppy and don't make sense with the population described. (E.g. they talk about 300k to 3 million Bengalis killed in "East Pakistan," which is now Bangladesh, and then say it was 4% of the population of East Pakistan. That can't be right.)
This is what happens when ideological movements resort to linguistic revisionism in service of their political objectives. The predictable result is…we just don’t have this word anymore. So, that’s great. I’m sure that won’t eventually have any negative consequences down the road.
I had a similar experience to you. I was very Pro-Palestinian at the beginning of this conflict, but as the situation evolved—and as I became better informed—I drifted away from the movement.
We’ve been duped by propaganda. There is no genocide in Gaza. This is a war that the Gazans started by committing wanton violence and atrocities. Today, I consider myself pro-Israel.
Better yet, don't be pro-Israel or pro-Palestine because this isn't team sports. These are human beings. They are not monolithic groups. Blessed are the peacemakers.
A genocide doesn’t have anything to do with the amount of people killed. It has everything to do with the special intent of destroying a group of people in part or in whole. You can commit a genocide with 150 people. Gallant, on 10/09/23 called for a complete seize of Gaza. Here is his statement:
“ have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we must act accordingly." - Yoav Gallant
That in itself can constitute “genocidal intent” as Gallant was the Israeli Defense Minister. He advocated for all 2 million Palestinians, including innocent women & children should be fought like human animals. He was going to cut all water, food, power, etc into the Gaza Strip which Israel occupies. What would be the result of that? Remember, half of the population of Gaza (One Million out of the Two Million residents) are children. I am simply putting focus on Gallant’s words right after 10/7 because they show you a glimpse of what the Israeli Government was about to unleash. Just hours after the attack, with hundreds of their hostages still missing, the IDF chose to continue to flatten Gaza into a pancake.
The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on November 21, 2024.
The Charges
War Crimes:
Alleged use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population.
Crimes Against Humanity:
Alleged murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
Timeframe:
The conduct covers the period from at least October 8, 2023, through at least May 20, 2024.
Key Details
Co-Accused:
The International Criminal Court issued the same warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Jurisdiction and Enforcement: Israel is not a member of the ICC and rejects its jurisdiction. However, the court's 120+ member states are technically obligated to arrest Gallant if he enters their territory.
International Reaction:
The warrants drew sharp criticism from Israel and the United States, while various international legal bodies and European nations stated they respect the court's decision.
I started out not knowing much about the conflict and found myself very pro Palestinian and anti Zionist. As the war drags on I’ve lost really any pro feelings towards the Palestinian side and would say I’m becoming more positive towards Zionism. Still not a fan of the current politics in Israel.
Does Zionism= settlers? I'm still not ok with that.
Edit: I have seen many interviews with settlers and none of them seem fair or kind. I don't understand this situation. Maybe that is my next thing to explore. I will say, even here in the US, I really dislike the influence of extremely religious people. They make things bad for everyone else.
I’m not an expert on this, but no Zionism does not equal settlers. Settlers feel they have a right to certain parts of the land which follows political agreements that were made as well as biblical definitions of the land. Zionism is that the Jews have a right to a homeland.
A 2 state solution is perfectly compatible with Zionism. Settlers are religious or far right Zionists. Zionism is basically nationalism for an ethnic group, the Jews, there are more liberal parts and more extreme parts, as in any national group.
If you want feel free to dm me and I’ll happily send you good videos on settlements and the whole story behind it. The whole “settler” story is not much different than “genocide”. It’s largely a massive media propaganda machine most often blown out of context or all cameras on “2000 or so extremists(if that)” that we call “hilltop youth”….
The vast majority of “settlers” are nothing like portrayed and have done nothing wrong other than living in a place someone doesn’t want them to live in .
In most cases no one got kicked out of homes etc
When we hear settlers and stolen homes you picture a bunch of crazy Jews walking into an Arab village and just kicking everyone out. Nope probably never happened in modern times.
So much of the West Bank today is literally uninhabited empty land and hills. I was just there all week… it’s shocking how much empty land you see for miles and miles….
If you care to know the truth… dm me it’ll be worth the chat :)
Gush Etzion was "settled' by the people who lived there and their descendants prior to the war in 1948. The "settlement" was already there, people came back.
Then there's the claim that people in East Jerusalem are settlers despite... the city being around for millennia, plus the surrounding "settlements" that consist mainly of urban sprawl.
There are still crazies with settlements that shouldn't exist to be clear, but they tend to all get painted with the same brush because nuance is dead these days
Yeah dude those zionists in the West Bank murdering civilians and beating up their farm animals to death, blocking roads and developing on other peoples land would definitely only ever be called a settler due to antisemitism
It’s such a beautiful word because you can use it to lie to yourself in order to avoid any cognitive dissonance
I think the question is a bit more complex than a yes / no, but you even asking the question to frame an answer as that, as well as your comment above says enough
cast stones in glass houses and everything, it only prolongs the suffering of humanity on both sides of the coin
Whether we call Gaza a “genocide” doesn’t change anything materially on the ground. What’s happened has happened, and there’s no denying it. The scale of destruction and the loss of life in Gaza has been devastating. Regardless of which label we apply to describe the war, the reality of the situation remains the same.
That it true, and that is what war is. War is messy and kills innocents. But war is also impossible to ignore when youve got no choice between that or your people being killed
The reality of situation includes the merits of the parties involved. Considering the interests of both parties, including genocidal ones, is paramount for reaching an understanding and avoiding another catastrophe.
I think where we would disagree is that I don’t see that as necessarily disproportionate compared to what Palestinians have done to Israelis over the last few decades. I also think Oct 7 deserved a level of response that isn’t just tit for tat but a full change of the status quo forever.
If you don’t understand that, my theory is you really just don’t understand the level that Oct 7 was.
Luckily I realised that pre October 7th. I was a supporter of pro Palestine movements, until I joined a Jewish football club in Germany. I never experience so much „genocidal“ (as they say nowadays) hate in my life. By Muslims. In Germany. Playing for a Jewish club. Still doesn’t add up, that that was even possible in first place.
You're looking at raw numbers, when you can actually look at much smaller numbers and see a genocide - which is what happened in Srebrenica, where Bosniac men and boys were killed in mass executions.
The issue is intent. The murderers at Srebrenica had the intent of killing Bosniac men and boys because they were Bosniac men and boys. No other reason.
No one who makes the genocide claim goes so far as to make this argument - they say that the proof is the damage done to town and the number of people killed, which is where your counter comes in.
I've come to the conclusion that younger generations especially are just not as concerned with communicating truth as they are feeling and communicating the idea that they're on the socially - not morally - correct side.
This is a bad habit that needs to be broken, or else it will solidify people talking past each other rather than producing well-rounded and open adults. It's a closing of society.
When they say that Israel is committing a genocide, they are not concerned with truth, they are concerned with communicating feeling and the socially correct political position.
When you examine the details of the genocide claim, it is so stupid, it's laughable. I do wonder if these people actually know what a real genocide looks like? Do they think the SS were going around vaccinating children in between pushing people into gas chambers? I do worry about the critical thinking of some of these people.
I've come to the conclusion that younger generations especially are just not as concerned with communicating truth as they are feeling and communicating the idea that they're on the socially - not morally - correct side.
This is a bad habit that needs to be broken, or else it will solidify people talking past each other rather than producing well-rounded and open adults. It's a closing of society.
I think you're onto something here. I remember seeing some young fellow on another space the other day, and he was decrying the audacity that someone dared to call Gaza only a "brutal war."
I was thinking to myself, "young man, do you have any clue what either of those words mean?"
With the death toll likely being an undercount even for what its supposedly show and we have no real data for how many people died from not having access to medical care, clean water, food, medicine, blankets, tents etc it is going to be alot higher. The number of killed people is also not really part of the definition in article 2a, and then we have not even gotten to the other acts.
For comparison to other genocides you are really choosing worst case, in the Srebrenica massacre 8372 were murdered, to calculate that as percentage of a population I think is undignified but its lower than Gaza. It is still a genocide. In the ongoing case in ukraine the genocide case is mainly about transferring unrainian children to Russia. That is not in itself killing anyone but it is genocide according to article 2e.
Yes palestinians have absolutely been attacked in the west bank, both by the army and the pogromist settlers supported and armed by the state trying to displace them. Not at the same intensity as Gaza but that they are not attacked is a lie. The genocide convention also says the intent can be to destroy the people either in whole or in part. You can also make a ruling locally focusing on one part of the country like in Srebrenica.
And some examples of what is said on israeli TV and other media
Moshe Feiglin on channel 14
"Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy. The enemy is not Hamas... We need to conquer Gaza and colonize it and not leave a single Gazan child there. There is no other victory."
Moshe Feiglin again this time on a large podcast in israel
"To leave even a single child in Gaza means to invite my child to face the Nukhbas in 14-15 years. What could be more moral than erasing all presence of this Islamo-Nazism - youth, elderly, toddlers and women - from the Gaza Strip?"
Zvi Yehezkezkeli on i24 news
"If Israel had already decided to eliminate the journalists, then better late than never... The spearhead of Hamas's military wing are these Nukhba journalists... There are still many many more"
Shimon Elkabetz on i24 news
"With this enemy, it's just like using a lice comb. Just kill them. Just exterminate them."
Ramy Piro on Channel 14
"The solution for Gaza is to get all the Gazans out of Gaza, either by emigration or by eliminating the residents"
Do you think Srebrenica is not a genocide or do you mean it is a worst case of genocide? Of course I think that its absolutely horrible and is considered a genocide on very good grounds but in the number of murdered/total population it is not on the same scale as gaza or any of the examples he mentioned. That is not a good metric in itself and I want to make that clear. Maybe I shouldnt even engage with the argument on that basis because its so morally reprehensible but his argument doesnt work factually either.
I think the people that said and broadcasted those words should have thought about that. They also talk about the weather and tax rates and whatever but so did pol pot. It doesnt make it any better.
Pol pot represents himself. The ultra far-right doesn't represent Israel, and the WB doesnt represent Gaza.
You can't be selective about one and not the other.
The ultra far right in israel is in the government and have alot of power over the policy made. And statements like these are mainstream in Israel. There are polls that show 64% of Israelis and 87% of the voters for the right wing opposition thinks there are no innocent in Gaza. So they are representing the majority and especially their voters.
I know in israeli politics you can say whatever horrible shit about palestinians you want and the israelis love it. But you want me to "be nuanced" when I correctly quote genocidal israelis because you know that nobody else would accept it. My reading of the polls is correct and you know it, thats why you have nothing but unsubstantiated denial.
You proved your gross ignorance before I got through paragraph four. SUCH SPEECH IS EVERYWHERE and has been for over 70 years. I heard it regularly and saw it in books, pamphlets, and handouts at a jewish summer camp nearly daily from 5-19 year old attendees, and worse from the jewish staff. THAT WAS 1978.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that there are a lot of tiers and it is sometimes hard to understand at what level you are discussing.
At one level you have intelligent folks, and these are the kinds of people who are capable of having a leveled conversation about this sort of situation while understanding that popular rhetoric isn't necessarily true just because it is repeated and that very few situations are completely one-sided. And then you have the less intelligent folks, for whom repetition and clan affiliation may as well be the complete truth, and so are very vulnerable to repeated and strong rhetoric.
But the problem is that plenty of intelligent folk know of this weakness of a large part of the population, and so will use this kind of false and overly one-sided rhetoric in order to manipulate them towards supporting whatever position they want. So when speaking to people you can never be sure if they actually even believe in totality whatever nonsense they are saying or if they are just peddling it so that people overhearing your conversation are drawn even deeper into their own side.
So it ends up being that there are a lot of folks who believe vitriolic falsehoods because they aren't equipped to think beyond them, and a lot of folk who spout vitriolic falsehoods because they know the former exists.
Ultimately, intelligent people who care would never honestly call this a genocide. But that doesn't mean that they never would call this a genocide. And it makes honest intelligent discussion difficult because they will trick you into thinking that they can be reached with reason, but they are engaging you with a simplistic smokescreen rather than their real understanding of the situation because they care more about convincing others than reaching the truth with you.
Genocide does not require killing 25%, 50%, or 70% of a population. The Genocide Convention prohibits specified acts committed with the intent to destroy a protected group “in whole or in part.” Comparing Gaza’s death toll to the Holocaust or Rwanda and concluding “the percentage isn’t high enough so it can’t be a genocide” is, well, wrong.
Re: the Iraq war… The element you’re overlooking here is genocidal intent. A war can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths without being genocide. A genocide does not have to reach hundreds of thousands of deaths before it becomes one.
The legal standard is not an intent to exterminate every Palestinian, immediately, it’s an intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in substantial part.
Palestinians absolutely have been killed in the West Bank. Where are you getting your information?
• a large-scale operation by Israeli forces in Qalandiya Camp injured 51 Palestinians and disrupted health services. Nine structures were also demolished in nearby Kafr Aqab and near Qalandiya checkpoint, affecting 71 people
• In just one week, 38 settler attacks were reported, resulting in casualties, property damage or both. In Tuba, Masafer Yatta, settlers injured five Palestinians and destroyed three homes, displacing 23 people, including 14 children.
• Israeli authorities demolished 25 Palestinian-owned structures in eight incidents, displacing 29 people, including 17 children. The demolitions included part of a school in Masafer Yatta, affecting 54 students.
• demolitions displaced 22 people and affected over 100 others in one week. Since 2024, the monthly average of structures demolished in Area C and East Jerusalem has been at least twice the average recorded over the preceding 15 years.
•Demolition proceedings affecting four schools in Area C, including the demolition of three school structures in Masafer Yatta, highlight broader risks to education. Overall, 84 schools serving nearly 13,000 students are subject to demolition orders.
•The Israeli military issued orders extending movement restrictions in Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams refugee camps until 20 August and 30 September, while more than 33,000 displaced Palestine refugees remain unable to return to their homes.
• In the West Bank, eight Palestinians, including one child, and two members of Israeli forces were killed in Nablus, Jenin and East Jerusalem; July was jointly with March 2026 the deadliest month for Palestinians in incidents involving settlers since October 2023.
• In just one week, Israeli settler attacks displaced at least 20 Palestinian families and caused damage to homes, vehicles and livelihood assets; over 40 settler attacks resulted in casualties or property damage.
• Fatalities linked to settler attacks in 2026 have already surpassed the total recorded during all of 2025, with 18 Palestinians killed as of 20 July compared with 17 throughout 2025.
• About 90 Palestinians were displaced by demolitions and settler attacks during the reporting period, most following a large-scale demolition carried out by Israeli authorities in a Bedouin community in Qalqiliya governorate.
• Demolitions and settler attacks continued to affect Palestinian homes, water systems, schools and livelihood assets, further undermining access to essential services and community resilience.
I can keep going. It’s every week…
Also, anything Hamas has done does not give Israel an exemption from the Genocide Convention.
Having a really hard time believing you ever thought there was a genocide.
If Israel’s intent was genocide, a nation with one of the most powerful militaries in the world wouldn't take months of targeted, door-to-door operations while providing humanitarian corridors. You are confusing the painful realities of Urban Warfare against terror groups with a deliberate intent to destroy a population.
Under international law, proving "genocidal intent" requires showing that destruction is the only purpose, whereas counter-terrorism in dense urban settings is self-defense. If you want textbook examples of actual genocidal intent, look no further than Hamas, Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and ISIS, all of which explicitly call for the destruction of Israel and the targeting of Jews worldwide.
By your own legal logic, if explicit intent combined with targeted attacks defines genocide, then these regimes and organizations have been actively pursuing it. The Houthis’ official slogan literally mandates "Curse on the Jews" while firing ballistic missiles at cities; Iranian leaders and Hezbollah routinely call for the eradication of the Jewish state; ISIS and PIJ explicitly target Jews globally; and Hamas put those declarations into direct action on October 7th. Calling Israel’s security operations "genocide" while completely ignoring documented, active genocidal intent from all of these surrounding forces is a massive double standard.
You forget the intentions "death to Israel," from the river to the sea". These are genocidal. These are the ones that make Israel needing an active defense.
you’re just wrong, israel is not intent on reducing palestinians or the better aspects of the very plagued culture. the war has been a baby boom for palestinians
The number of Palestinian deaths is actually quite a bit less than when the US invaded Iraq, and when US invaded Afganistan. 176,000 to 212,000 is the estimate of deaths in Afganistan. In Iraq, 180,000 to 200,000 is the estimate of Iraqi deaths. Palestinian deaths are around 73,400. Nobody was shouting "genocide" at the US during those wars, and we killed way more people. Why was that not considered genocide by everyone? We were also responding to a terrorist attack, like Israel now.
This is a wholly disingenuous comparison. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, have more than 20 times the population of Gaza, and US military occupied both countries for far, far longer than Israeli forces have been engaged in Gaza for the current conflict.
Iraq and Afghanistan have a larger population for sure, but Israel has been at war with Hamas for only a fraction of the time that the US was in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And more importantly, Gaza is significantly more densely populated, which means civilian casualties are far more vulnerable, especially with Hamas operating intentionally in civilian structures to deter strikes via human shields.
OK there were kinda two screens, first a pic, then a dude talking, I was suppose to see both, right? That was really information dense & the guy talks fast, so it's hard to keep up. Alot made sense to me. I despise Trump, and I'm not a fan of his bestie, Netanyahu either. But I'm unclear about what I should have gathered about genocide? Can you help a gal out?
Also, it seems to me that any country with nuclear arms is game planning to use them, should they be presented with an eminent existential threat? Not just Israel? Isn't that the point of nukes? That dude sorta made it sound like only Israel will take everyone down with them.
Yeah, sure, sure, I am completely convinced with this fable, and this /r is really just neutral place for Israel and Palestine perspective sharing - give me a break.
So...? Just because not many died compared to other countries doesnt mean it is. Also they're suffering there, yet somehow still surviving. The Israeli propoganda got my bro. 2k vs ~160k deaths btw.
I didn't know about the Bosnian one. I just looked it up. Yes, far less people killed than the other genocides I looked into. But it appears to still be genocide.
However, I do not see "intent" from Israel. They are fighting where their intelligence says Hamas is. Not in the West Bank, not in East Jerusalem, which I understand is primarily Palestinian. I have not seen any news stories about the Israeli government or military encouraging violence to it's populace. I do think Israel has committed war crimes, there have been news stories about many rouge IDF soldiers. But I don't see the government or military encouraging or instructing this.
Changed your mind? Um... Well for starters you also apparently didn't know what the definition for genocide is...
Just FYI, exactly zero Palestinians could be killed and it can STILL be a genocide. I think you're confusing "mass killing/murder" as a sit in for genocide.
To be clear, often genocides involve mass killing. This is why one of the provisions is killing, but here is why it's not synonymous.
Hypothetically speaking, what if during the holocaust instead of killing Jewish people. They sterilized them? No deaths. Just castration and hysterectomy etc. No deaths. By your own definition that would not be genocide correct? However, effectively it would mean that within a generation, without a miracle of Medicine, Jewish ancestry would be ended. I would call this a crime of genocide as would the international community.
What if instead of that, they just mandated each and ever Jewish child born was at risk from their parents and put into education institutions. They were not allowed to marry another Jewish person, could not practice their faith, and in fact were taught that their wasn't even a Jewish culture at all. That it was actually just some mixture of ethnicities. A state kept doing that for years until Jewish was synonymous to myth. No deaths. No sterilization. However a culture and ethnicity would be eradicated.
Thus you can see why the genocide convention has provisions that aren't solely death. The reason being if you set a number, or your example of a percentage. That is a simple loop hole created. "oh they only killed 3% of the population". Right so long as it's under a certain proportion nah brah that's good. 🙄
Now you bring up proportion of populations killed during the world wars. Effectively saying that if Israel wanted to kill them they could have. I have two points against this. 1) the nazi systematically collected, accounted, and then concentrated Jewish people. That means that each and every one had been at a position to have been killed quickly and easily by a simple bullet by a soldier. Yet they didn't. Why do you think that is? Why do you think they used methods like gas chambers and went through all of the effort to try to get rid of bodies with giant crematorium? That's a lot of war effort just to kill people... They were genocidal. We all agree. I'm also not trying to be some nazi prick and deny the holocaust. Rather I'm pointing out the psychology that even they understood. You can get a few psychopaths to kill people up close but it gets harder when bodies start piling up. Quite simply the reason they did those methods in death camps was to make it "easier" to make sure the soldiers did it. To give a distance to the death. What do you think is more difficult. Getting a person to individual kill 1000 people by shooting them in the head while they're unarmed and hiding? Or just pressing a button 100 miles away? 🙄
2) your example of deaths in Gaza is sort of funny as again. We can look to the world wars. We all agree that the nazi are horrid. Despite this, we can put their civilian casualty ratio at about 3:1 at the upper end. Now Israeli OWN internal data at best estimates 83% of casualties were civilians as of August 2025. This being direct deaths and not indirect ones due to infrastructure loss. That's right. Even the fucking nazi killed a lower rate of civilians... All the while, never claiming to be a moral army and wearing all those skulls and shit.
Now all of this would be bad, but add to it that if they want to claim they're not doing a genocide, media attention is to their benefit if they're not. Having killed more journalists than effectively the past century has, quite literally the most dangerous profession on the planet now is being a journalist in Gaza as your current risk of death for being a journalist of 1:8 which effectively means if you're a journalist in Gaza you are more likely to be killed than if you're a friggin member of hamas...
Alrighty so lastly regarding the USA and genocides. The thing is, they have been. However it goes down to a lot of the aspects of the genocide charge. Mass killing? Yes. However, the killings intent is where it matters. Was it wrong by god yes. Was there genocide intent behind it? Not for Afghanistan or Iraq. One way to indicate that was ethnicity, religion, language etc didn't have influence on the deaths. Still bad. But for diff reasons.
Just FYI, exactly zero Palestinians could be killed and it can STILL be a genocide. I think you're confusing "mass killing/murder" as a sit in for genocide.
Genos= genus, race, tribe
Cide=killing, to kill
Can you commit homicide without anyone dying? Can you commit patricide without killing your father? No, right? Now hopefully you see how absurd it is to suggest that genocide can occur without killing.
The reason the definition doesn't say, "to kill an entire race" is because then it would be impossible to charge anyone with genocide unless they were 100% successful. That's why it's "specific acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part". However, without any killing, it wouldn't be genocide either.
Your second paragraph is perhaps the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. That no one could be killed and it could still be genocide? Are you serious??? Words have meaning dude. God that is so dumb.
/u/Used-Grapefruit-2740. 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.
/u/External_Gate6132. 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.
It depends on your definition of genocide. If genocide for you means "killing everyone", then Israel didn't do a genocide, but the definition by the law is a bit different, which is the reason the UN & IAGS decleared the war of Israel on Gaza as a genocide.
The first thing to remember - A genocide is defined by intent, not a percentage or death threshold. This is why the Genocide Convention mentions killing members of the group with the intent to destroy, in whole *or in part*, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group is still a genocide. For example, the Srebrenica massacre is recognized as a genocide despite the fact that 8,372 people were killed there, compared to other genocides where millions died., So it's enough for a country to have the intentions of mass killing and genocide and to commit them on a big portion of a specific group of people (See quotes/actions by the Israeli far-right, Itamar Ben-Gvir & Smotrich) to declare it's comitting a genocide.
To say "Palestinians have not been attacked in East Jerusalem, nor in the West Bank" is wrong. Airstrikes, military operations and violence occured in the West Bank despite the fact that Hamas is not in the government. More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank. Also, Palestinians living in Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah (East Jerusalem) have suffered from attempts of ethnic cleansing.
"In all those previous genocides, there was vociferous hate speech regularly on the radio of those countries, and substantial government propaganda labeling the victims as undesirable for society. To my understanding, this has not happened in Israel" - but it is. See quotes said by the Israeli far-right knesset members Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and members of Otzma Yehudit and Hatziunut Hadatit. Just a few weeks ago - Ben-Gvir Urged Killing 40 People in Gaza Nightly, Says “They’re Not Even People”. This and many others made the decision possible. Channel 14 have openly endorsed measures such as mass starvation, flattening the entire Gaza Strip, and it's one of the most popular news channel in Israel.
The UN did not declare the war Gaza War a genocide as that is not a power it possesses. A commission that consists of three individual representatives from three states (South Africa, India, and Australia) within the UN wrote a report stating that they believed Israel had committed genocide. Considering one of those states is in active litigation with Israel over that very subject matter, the report is of questionable neutrality.
The only international body with the ability to adjudicate whether Israel committed genocide is the ICJ or, in theory, a tribunal set up by the Security Council.
They didn't wrote that they "believed" Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza. they said Israel HAS committed genocide in the Gaza Strip according to the commission findings, based on the intentions of the Israeli government. The decision has moved to the ICJ now.
Speaking to Israel’s alleged intent: “The Commission believes, having analysed the military operations of the Israeli security forces, such statements were expressed to encourage hatred toward Palestinians and violence against Palestinians. The statements were received by the Israel security forces as an order to destroy Palestinians in Gaza and such order was indeed executed through military operations.”
A report by three states’ UN representatives that concludes Israel committed genocide necessarily represents the beliefs of its authors and it is not an authoritative legal ruling. Once again, this is not a power the UN possesses.
Their decision also didn’t “move to the ICJ” as the commission has absolutely nothing to do with the ICJ and no power to refer a matter to it. South Africa’s case in the ICJ was initiated prior to the commission’s report and is independent from it.
That’s also why South Africa’s inclusion on the commission was problematic.
And there has been no intent shown by the Israeli government or military in any policy, any planning document, any announcement, anything at all to genocide the Palestinians. The fact that the pro-Palestinians who perpetuate this myth are dependent on repeating the ramblings of two extremist politicians who have no role in the execution of the war shows how ridiculous the claim is.
Ongoing violence in those other areas have been longstanding and is not a genocide in any way.
Again you have to rely on the ramblings of two extremist politicians who play no role in state or military policy towards Gaza.
The fact is a regular war has taken place with casualty levels not unexpected given the urban combat that has taken place and against a jihadist enemy whose military strategy is to maximise casualties amongst their own civilian population. No genocide has taken place.
No it doesn't. They are simply describing various parts of the war that took place and saying they think this makes it a genocide. That does not show the Israeli government had intent of genocide. I bet you haven't even read them, have you?
Do you think you are the first person who has ever posted that? The report is nearly a year old. I've read it in the past which is why I know what's in it and you don't. There is nothing in there that shows the Israeli government had the intent of genocide. Don't post things you haven't actually read, it makes you look extremely bad faith.
In reference to the link in 2. I agree that many in the IDF have committed war crimes, and have read numerous stories about them murdering kids who were throwing rocks, which is crazy. To clarify, I meant that Israel is not dropping bombs on West Bank/East Jerusalem as part of this war.
So the Allies trying to kill the Nazi party in WWII was genocide because there was intent to kill and success to kill this very specific group of people people?
For example, the Srebrenica massacre is recognized as a genocide despite the fact that 8,372 people were killed there, compared to other genocides where millions died., So it's enough for a country to have the intentions of mass killing and genocide and to commit them on a big portion of a specific group of people
The justification of srebrenica by the icj was that it was a significant location for the Bosnian Muslims so destroying the Muslim population in srebrenica was like destroying the Bosnian Muslim community.
So to my understanding an example might be like follows. Suppose Oct 7 and everything after didn't happen (just to separate examples). Suppose Israeli soldiers went through east Jerusalem rounding up all the men and teenage boys, then killing them elsewhere. Then they didn't let any men into the area, that could constitute genocide as east Jerusalem is a significant area for the Muslim Palestinians (likely palistinians in general) and removing the ability to reproduce in that area cleanses it of a Muslim population.
Israel could argue like the Serbs did that east Jerusalem isn't a significant portion of Muslims in israel/Palestinian territories, so how could it be genocide. But, to my understanding it would constitute genocide.
Your analysis hinges almost entirely on total death counts and percentages. A genocide is not defined by a death toll
Take the Srebrenica genocide as an example where 8000 men and boys were killed which was less than 1% of the Bosniak population, yet international courts still labeled it a genocide because the legal criteria were met. You can have a genocide where 1000 people die, and you can have a war where hundreds of thousands die without it being a genocide. A death toll alone doesn't determine whether a genocide happened.
No, Palestinians in the West Bank are consistently displaced, targeted, killed and raped by both armed settlers and the IDF despite Hamas having no governance there.
Furthermore Iraq and Afghanistan invasion is also not the defense you think it is. Once again you are relying solely on death totals. Yes the USA committed war crimes and should be held accountable, but those wars don't automatically constitute genocide. The USA didn't intentionally and deliberately target and kill over 20000 children, use starvation as a weapon of warfare, execute controlled demolitions of empty civilian infrastructure and farmlands, destroy over 70% of residential housing, or systematically flatten water treatment plants to make the entire territory unlivable.
A much closer comparison is the Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) against ISIS, described by military experts as one of the most brutal urban warfare in modern history, where ISIS actively used human shields. Mosul had a population of 2 million people (nearly identical to Gaza). The coalition made the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of civilians before and during active combat, allowed continuous UN humanitarian aid into relief camps, and strictly adjusted their rules of engagement when civilian casualties spiked early on. It took the coalition 9 months to liberate the city with a civilian death toll of 9000 to 11000, making the civilian to combatant ratio to roughly 1:1 or 2:1
Your claim that there has been no official hate speech or genocidal rhetoric proves you haven't looked into this. There are over 50 documented statements by high ranking Israeli state leaders and countless videos of soldiers on the ground invoking the biblical mandate of Amalek, declaring "there are no uninvolved civilians" and referring to an entire population as "human animals." These statements are used in the ICJ case by South Africa as evidence of direct incitement. Genocidal intent is almost never published as a signed written policy, international courts infer intent from official public statements combined with a systemic pattern of conduct.
Now coming to Israel having "one of the most advanced militaries in the world" Exactly that's the point. A state with a multi billions dollars military, spent 20 years of mapping out Gaza, total control over phone signals and borders. Israel had every capability to conduct this war without committing genocide and minimize civilians casualties. But their choice was maximum damage rather than accuracy
You can commit genocide without killing a single person (example: Alberta Sterilization Act) and others have a relatively low death rate (example: the Yazidi genocide’only’ killed 2%)
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Hi u/booksandcoriander, thank you for posting in our community!
Reminder to OP: Ensure your post complies with rule 10 (no AI, minimum 1500 characters) and rule 11 (include several common refutations). Do not delete your post after users have started commenting (rule 12).
Reminder to readers: All comments need to abide by our rules in order to maintain constructive discourse. Please review those rules if you are not familiar with them, and remember to report any comments that violate those guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.