“Genocidal acts” doesn’t mean that a genocide is happening. “Destruction of civilian infrastructure” is an “act of genocide”. That happens in almost every conflict in the world, and not every one is a genocide.
A genocide is a specific thing. For me to be convinced that there is a genocide happening, specific things need to happen and with a specific intent - and those things aren’t happening in Gaza. Hamas want a genocide. They’re very open about this. Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. If Hamas surrendered, the killing would stop.
Unfortunately in war there are casualties. Casualties will be increased when one of the parties at war - Hamas - use civilians, including kids, as “meat shields”, like putting their military bases in schools and hospitals as Hamas has been factually proven to do. Hamas have been caught faking civilian deaths and casualty numbers too, and they’re an internationally recognised terrorist organisation - they are not to be trusted, no matter what you think of Israel. Again - Hamas openly call for the genocide of Jews and Israelis. Very openly.
A question for you - if you were to agree that Israel are doing what they are doing in retaliation to what Hamas did on October 7, and will not stop until Hamas are defeated, would you still consider that a genocide? If Hamas surrendered and Israel stopped killing Palestinians, would you still say it was a genocide?
Another question - are you open to reconsidering your views? Or are you steadfast in them but expect me to consider changing mine?
I am probably just as steadfast as you, but I try to understand the views of the opposite side. You seem to do that too, given that you’re discussing with me. That is appreciated.
To answer your question: Yes it is still obviously genocide even if it is in retaliation. There are many legitimate ways of retaliating against a militant group - starving an entire population is not one of them. Israel could be conducting this war in a very different way.
Then why don’t they conduct the war in a very different way? Because they want to get rid of Gaza’s population, I say. See this, for example (although just reports for now): https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-reportedly-developing-plan-to-resettle-1-million-gazans-in-libya/ which also points towards the US complicity in the genocide. 1 million Gazans aren’t Hamas fighters. 1 million Gazans are just arabs/muslims, and that’s apparantly enough reason to force them from their homeland?
Also, if a large amount of “genocidal acts” doesn’t amount to genocide, then what does? Is Israel allowed to commit the most horrendous crimes as long as it is in “good faith”?
Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas, the internationally recognized terrorist organisation that openly wants Jews and Israelis wiped off the face of the earth, who raped and murdered 1000+ innocent people at a music festival. That’s it. They’re not trying to wipe out the Palestinian population.
You seem to repeat the same argument over and over. I believe you know you’re wrong. Israel can try to achieve this goal without making an entire area hell on earth for 2 million people. You know this. Amnesty international knows this. The UN knows this. The ICJ knows this.
Also, I want to point out a fundamental difference in our arguments.
You say:
Hamas wants to commit Genocide against the jewish people. This gives Israel the right to do whatever it takes to “take out Hamas” (whatever that means?), with however much collateral damage they want.
I say: Israel is commiting genocide against the Palestinian People. Nothing more. I do not, at all, see this as a reason for Hamas to wipe out the entirety of IDF killing however many innocent Israelis it takes. Do you understand? The many crimes of the IDF (which are facts, look up Israeli war crimes if you do not believe me) does not warrant the killing and starvation of Israeli children in the thousands.
Nor does the crimes of Hamas warrant the killing and starvation of Arab children in the thousands. Obviously.
Am I supposed to come up with new arguments every time? Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. That’s the goal. Sorry if I keep repeating it. Maybe I’m repeating it because you refuse to acknowledge it?
You say:
This give Israel the right to do whatever it takes
No, I say that Hamas started the war and Israel are trying to finish it.
I say Israel aren’t committing a genocide because their intent is only to stop an internationally recognised terrorist organisation.
I will try to acknowledge your arguments. From my understanding, your main point is the following:
Israel is trying to eliminate Hamas and nothing else. Because Hamas is very dangerous and evil, the actions of the IDF in Gaza is justified. Is that a reasonable summary?
I disagree on many parts of that argument, as you know.
Now, why do we disagree?
It seems to me that intent matters much to you. I believe this might be where our views differ the most. I realize that assuming that Israel is acting in good faith was a flaw in my argumentation, as I do not at all believe that. I will not try to argue under that assumption any more.
Let’s purely look at intent. Again, here we have a very different views.
You claim (correct me if I’m wrong): Israel has no intent of doing anything but changing the power structure in Gaza in order to get rid of evil forces. Israel treats evey innocent human with the samr repsect and decency. Israel intends to let Gazans keep living in Gaza and has no plan of taking over Gaza. Israel has every intent to let Gazan infrastructure, homes, and buildings be undamaged as far as possible. Israel wants to make life as good as possible for Gazans, and has no intention to make it unneccsary difficult. Israel does not want the population of Gaza to be displaced to another country. Israel would avoid killing innocent Arabs to the same extent as they would avoid killing innocent Jews. So far correct?
I claim the exact opposite, more or less. I believe that the evidence of what is happening in Gaza strongly indicates that I am correct.
To convince me that Israel is acting in good faith, you have to provide arguments for that. A statement from Israel is not an argument at all.
I hope I haven’t misrepresented your standpoints too much.
“Genocidal acts” doesn’t mean that a genocide is happening. “Destruction of civilian infrastructure” is an “act of genocide”. That happens in almost every conflict in the world, and not every one is a genocide.
A genocide is a specific thing. For me to be convinced that there is a genocide happening, specific things need to happen and with a specific intent - and those things aren’t happening in Gaza. Hamas want a genocide. They’re very open about this. Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. If Hamas surrendered, the killing would stop.
Unfortunately in war there are casualties. Casualties will be increased when one of the parties at war - Hamas - use civilians, including kids, as “meat shields”, like putting their military bases in schools and hospitals as Hamas has been factually proven to do. Hamas have been caught faking civilian deaths and casualty numbers too, and they’re an internationally recognised terrorist organisation - they are not to be trusted, no matter what you think of Israel. Again - Hamas openly call for the genocide of Jews and Israelis. Very openly.
A question for you - if you were to agree that Israel are doing what they are doing in retaliation to what Hamas did on October 7, and will not stop until Hamas are defeated, would you still consider that a genocide? If Hamas surrendered and Israel stopped killing Palestinians, would you still say it was a genocide?
Another question - are you open to reconsidering your views? Or are you steadfast in them but expect me to consider changing mine?
I am probably just as steadfast as you, but I try to understand the views of the opposite side. You seem to do that too, given that you’re discussing with me. That is appreciated.
To answer your question: Yes it is still obviously genocide even if it is in retaliation. There are many legitimate ways of retaliating against a militant group - starving an entire population is not one of them. Israel could be conducting this war in a very different way.
Then why don’t they conduct the war in a very different way? Because they want to get rid of Gaza’s population, I say. See this, for example (although just reports for now): https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-reportedly-developing-plan-to-resettle-1-million-gazans-in-libya/ which also points towards the US complicity in the genocide. 1 million Gazans aren’t Hamas fighters. 1 million Gazans are just arabs/muslims, and that’s apparantly enough reason to force them from their homeland?
Also, if a large amount of “genocidal acts” doesn’t amount to genocide, then what does? Is Israel allowed to commit the most horrendous crimes as long as it is in “good faith”?
Intent matters, as does the overall goal.
Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas, the internationally recognized terrorist organisation that openly wants Jews and Israelis wiped off the face of the earth, who raped and murdered 1000+ innocent people at a music festival. That’s it. They’re not trying to wipe out the Palestinian population.
You seem to repeat the same argument over and over. I believe you know you’re wrong. Israel can try to achieve this goal without making an entire area hell on earth for 2 million people. You know this. Amnesty international knows this. The UN knows this. The ICJ knows this.
Also, I want to point out a fundamental difference in our arguments.
You say:
Hamas wants to commit Genocide against the jewish people. This gives Israel the right to do whatever it takes to “take out Hamas” (whatever that means?), with however much collateral damage they want.
I say: Israel is commiting genocide against the Palestinian People. Nothing more. I do not, at all, see this as a reason for Hamas to wipe out the entirety of IDF killing however many innocent Israelis it takes. Do you understand? The many crimes of the IDF (which are facts, look up Israeli war crimes if you do not believe me) does not warrant the killing and starvation of Israeli children in the thousands.
Nor does the crimes of Hamas warrant the killing and starvation of Arab children in the thousands. Obviously.
Am I supposed to come up with new arguments every time? Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. That’s the goal. Sorry if I keep repeating it. Maybe I’m repeating it because you refuse to acknowledge it?
No, I say that Hamas started the war and Israel are trying to finish it.
I say Israel aren’t committing a genocide because their intent is only to stop an internationally recognised terrorist organisation.
I will try to acknowledge your arguments. From my understanding, your main point is the following:
Israel is trying to eliminate Hamas and nothing else. Because Hamas is very dangerous and evil, the actions of the IDF in Gaza is justified. Is that a reasonable summary?
I disagree on many parts of that argument, as you know.
Now, why do we disagree?
It seems to me that intent matters much to you. I believe this might be where our views differ the most. I realize that assuming that Israel is acting in good faith was a flaw in my argumentation, as I do not at all believe that. I will not try to argue under that assumption any more.
Let’s purely look at intent. Again, here we have a very different views. You claim (correct me if I’m wrong): Israel has no intent of doing anything but changing the power structure in Gaza in order to get rid of evil forces. Israel treats evey innocent human with the samr repsect and decency. Israel intends to let Gazans keep living in Gaza and has no plan of taking over Gaza. Israel has every intent to let Gazan infrastructure, homes, and buildings be undamaged as far as possible. Israel wants to make life as good as possible for Gazans, and has no intention to make it unneccsary difficult. Israel does not want the population of Gaza to be displaced to another country. Israel would avoid killing innocent Arabs to the same extent as they would avoid killing innocent Jews. So far correct?
I claim the exact opposite, more or less. I believe that the evidence of what is happening in Gaza strongly indicates that I am correct.
To convince me that Israel is acting in good faith, you have to provide arguments for that. A statement from Israel is not an argument at all.
I hope I haven’t misrepresented your standpoints too much.