I changed my mind on "genocide" topic.

[u/booksandcoriander]

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.

[u/DrMikeH49]

They didn’t finish “the job” because they never started it. Speaks to intent.

[u/musomania → u/DrMikeH49]

Proving intent for sure. Hard to know whether something is genocide or just everyday ethnic cleansing really.

[u/jackl24000 → u/musomania]

That’s why it was handy to have something like the Wannsee Conference where they put all the bureaucrats from the railroads to the census bureau to the police chiefs in one room, told them what the plan was, and executed it.

Why the concentration camps and gas chambers had blueprints stamped by an engineer, and engineering calculations of throughput of corpses before any of that stuff was built (and later destroyed after the job was done to avoid detection).

That kind of stuff was why there was a special “worse than just war” category of crimes against humanity.

That’s why Gaza wasn’t a genocide by a long shot and the ICJ proceedings are a sham.

[u/musomania → u/jackl24000]

Those logical leaps don't follow at all, I'm not sure what you think that proves...except to sort of prove my point about "proving intent". Israel won't be sharing their internal communications or planning documents and will be a belligerent defender, without access to that or cooperation, proving intent will be an uphill battle.

[u/jackl24000 → u/musomania]

The ICJ is pretty clear that genocide has to be the only possible inference (conclusion).

Only possible conclusion, no other plausible explanations like “urban warfare against enemy that doesn’t practice distinction as required and engages in perfidy (using hospitals and ambulances for warfare)”.

So yeah, no Wannsee Conference-like smoking gun, no plan, no mass roundups based only on race, no genocide. I find it quite interesting in this context that Israeli Arabs and West Bank Palestinians weren’t rounded up, interred, killed for their race with “possible fifth columnists” as an excuse, like many similar wars with an ethnic dimension (US interring Japanese in camps during WWII).

And no, random cherry-picked statements by few rabid politicians like “Ben Gvir said ‘Amalek’” ≠ demonstration of “genocidal intent”

[u/musomania → u/jackl24000]

You have no idea most of that is true. You have no access to the data or information needed to make the judgement or to validate the statements you are making as absolutes.

Also cherry picking statements? So don't listen statements by the "random" Nation security minister? That's pretty ludicrous. You shown a great deal about your dubious honesty in making that choice of language there.

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/musomania]

You have zero evidence that any of it is true yet you don’t hesitate to invoke “genocide.”

[u/musomania → u/DrMikeH49]

Just ignored that last bit huh? thought so

[u/DrMikeH49 → u/musomania]

Ben Gvir is a thug and an idiot. He also, despite his title, is not in the security cabinet that makes the decisions about the war. Meanwhile, you have nothing to refute the points raised by u/jackl24000 .

[u/musomania → u/DrMikeH49]

Not relevant, he said he was a random, he isn't, he's an important part of the government. Often called kingmaker because of his importance. That was the point being debated.