Yes, I know. I’m saying that the definition can be read expansively or narrowly, and when it is read expansively, it loses some of its impact. To my mind, putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same category as Nazi death camps is somewhat problematic. Do you disagree?
I disagree. Genocide doesn’t list a minimum number of causalities to be considered genocide. If I go out and kill one person, that makes me a murderer. If I kill a couple of people, that makes me a serial killer. If I kill less people than John Wayne Gacy, does that suddenly mean I’m not a serial killer, because his serial killing was worse?
Just because the atrocities committed in Israel aren’t as significant as those in Nazi Germany doesn’t mean it’s not a genocide.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Obviously, the UN has had a hard time coming up with a definition of genocide that is both inclusive and impactful. I think your counter-examples actually underscore my point that there are some concepts that are hard to adequately capture under a single category. That’s why, for example, we have different categories for different types of homicide: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, felony murder, manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, etc.
Definitions are hard and somewhat arbitrary, but we all have an intuitive sense of degree. My point is that the expansive definition dilutes it’s effect.
My point is that the expansive definition dilutes it’s effect.
Are you sure that that’s your point? Because to me it sounds like you nitpicked this one genocide here (maybe because it’s painful to believe) and decided it can be excluded from a definition over a self-proclaimed technicality that you just came up with?
It feels like everything you are saying is just because it rubs you wrong to say the Jewish state of Israel is committing a genocide and a continued ethnic cleansing. I am not saying that this is your argument, I’m just saying that that is how you come off.
Yes, it does rub me the wrong way when we classify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “genocide”. That’s why I’m arguing about it.
In another part of this thread, myself and another commenter went back and forth with a bunch of other examples of mass killings in the past, and I think it shows that it isn’t so easy to define what is genocide and what isn’t. Using the UN definition, could you, for example, classify what Hamas did on October 7 as genocide? I wouldn’t, but read the definition again and ask yourself whether it fits.
In the case of Israel and Palestine, I don’t believe that Israel intends to wipe out the Palestinian people. Maybe Netanyahu and his right-wing cronies would if they could, but the Israeli population doesn’t want that. Hamas also wants to wipe out Israel, but I doubt the Palestinian people as a whole would support that.
The Israelis have negotiated with Palestinian governments, turned over land to them, provided them with aid and utilities and even included them at all levels of Israeli government. That doesn’t sound like genocide. Now, it is true that Palestinians don’t have equal rights in Israel, but there is a big difference between that and actual genocide. I don’t understand where this impulse for exaggeration comes from. It is very short-sighted.
I don’t believe that Israel intends to wipe out the Palestinian people
Right. I think it takes a special kind of blindness to not see the collective punishment and attempt to kill Palestinians. Just today they intentionally prevented an ambulance from reaching an Al Jazeera journalist and he eventually died, his colleague was injured from an Israeli attack. Why? Why does Israel ALWAYS prevent ambulances and ALWAYS bombs schools sheltering thousands of civilians? It’s because they want them to die. On top of that, they say it in the Knesset and on the street and in private and public and you still don’t believe them.
I think there’s more to it with you. It’s not normal to deny a genocide like that.
It’s nice that you claim to be neutral and just someone having a “disagreement” but you don’t look like that at all, sorry.
Why are you even here if you don’t want to have a good faith debate and perhaps hear another perspective? Do you think shouting “genocide” into the ether will change anything? You are making assumptions about me and basing your points on that rather than engaging with the actual issues. That is simply bad faith argument.
Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.
The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.
To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.
Okay, let’s set aside magnitude then. Definition of genocide includes the aspect of intent. Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”. Do you?
Yeah I do! In fact that’s why I started this discussion with the example of the purposeful starvation and cutting off of water to Gaza. In my opinion this is an example of intentionality. This is not an accident or just a “side effect” or something. It is done purposefully. In the UN’s language, it is “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
You say…
Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”
But the reality is that it’s “In whole or in part,” and Gaza is part of the Palestinian people. The important part isn’t the % intended to be killed. It’s primarily why they’re killed, and more specifically, if they are killed because they are members of a group. This is unavoidably true in Gaza.
You can see the issues with your take in other cases. The Cambodian genocide is a widely recognized genocide. They killed 25% of the pop and probably always intended to keep enough alive to run the farms. So not “The Cambodian people,” as a whole, but it doesn’t really matter.
That’s a good point about Cambodia, actually. Hmmm, so what is the difference between mass killing of political opponents like Stalin did, or mass killing for the sake creating terror and holding on to power like Mao did, or whatever it was that Papa Doc was up to in Haiti, and genocide? Or are all of those genocide according to this definition?
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems more complicated than genocide. On the one hand, Israel has negotiated with moderate Palestinian governments for a two-state solution and various other aspects of self-government, including the provision of utilities, and they include Palestinians in all levels of government in Israel. On the other hand, at the moment they also oppress the Palestinian people and are in the process of trying to completely destroy Hamas in a pretty horribel way in Gaza. If it is actual “genocide” that Israel is after, they are pretty inconsistent about it.
If we go with your expansive interpretation of genocide, would you consider what Hamas did on October 7 to be genocide? I mean, they did “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” for the people on the affected kibbutzim and the music festival, and Hamas has as its declared intent the destruction of the state of Israel. Does the fact that Hamas lacks the means to kill all Jews make the massacre they were able to inflict any less genocidal? I don’t know, I haven’t classified Hamas’s Oct 7 action as “genocide” previously, but your more expansive definition and all of the analogies we are both using makes me wonder where the boundaries of genocide are, compared to other forms of mass killing.
Yeah I’m not sure about the exact details of international law and the ins and outs of all of the examples. But for example Stalin’s purges vs Pol Pot’ s killings seem very similar in a way. But maybe Holodomor is a pretty interesting case for our purposes. First off, starvation was the method of killing, second, “only” 10% of Ukranians died. There is dispute about intent, but the EU Parliament and 34 countries consider it genocide, according to Wikipedia.
I will say that you describe my definition as “expansive” but it is the definition of the UN and international law. I am just trying to use the standard definition. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
For the points about Hamas I guess that would take some discussion. What was the purpose of the attack, for instance? I would say it was to create discord and fear, and likely to goad Israel into responding in this way and ruin their efforts at normalization of relations (e.g. with Saudi). Not so much to kill Israelis, although obviously that is a “tool” to use to them, being pieces of shit and all.
I guess my point is that we could make this determination based on the definitions of international law and our take on what’s going on. We should do the same with Israel, openly and honestly.
Although I will also say, I think you might be right about having the means being important. Hamas could not cut off food and water to Israel even if it wanted to. What if a child tried to kill a whole country? Surely that couldn’t be considered attempted genocide? But then intent is obviously also important. The finer details would take some working out.
But in Israel’s case they have the means, are at over 18k dead and still going, and politicians have said and done enough things to make intent clear, to me at least. Honestly the intentional starvation is enough evidence of intent from my perspective.
Yes, I know. I’m saying that the definition can be read expansively or narrowly, and when it is read expansively, it loses some of its impact. To my mind, putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same category as Nazi death camps is somewhat problematic. Do you disagree?
I disagree. Genocide doesn’t list a minimum number of causalities to be considered genocide. If I go out and kill one person, that makes me a murderer. If I kill a couple of people, that makes me a serial killer. If I kill less people than John Wayne Gacy, does that suddenly mean I’m not a serial killer, because his serial killing was worse?
Just because the atrocities committed in Israel aren’t as significant as those in Nazi Germany doesn’t mean it’s not a genocide.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Obviously, the UN has had a hard time coming up with a definition of genocide that is both inclusive and impactful. I think your counter-examples actually underscore my point that there are some concepts that are hard to adequately capture under a single category. That’s why, for example, we have different categories for different types of homicide: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, felony murder, manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, etc.
Definitions are hard and somewhat arbitrary, but we all have an intuitive sense of degree. My point is that the expansive definition dilutes it’s effect.
Are you sure that that’s your point? Because to me it sounds like you nitpicked this one genocide here (maybe because it’s painful to believe) and decided it can be excluded from a definition over a self-proclaimed technicality that you just came up with?
It feels like everything you are saying is just because it rubs you wrong to say the Jewish state of Israel is committing a genocide and a continued ethnic cleansing. I am not saying that this is your argument, I’m just saying that that is how you come off.
Yes, it does rub me the wrong way when we classify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “genocide”. That’s why I’m arguing about it.
In another part of this thread, myself and another commenter went back and forth with a bunch of other examples of mass killings in the past, and I think it shows that it isn’t so easy to define what is genocide and what isn’t. Using the UN definition, could you, for example, classify what Hamas did on October 7 as genocide? I wouldn’t, but read the definition again and ask yourself whether it fits.
In the case of Israel and Palestine, I don’t believe that Israel intends to wipe out the Palestinian people. Maybe Netanyahu and his right-wing cronies would if they could, but the Israeli population doesn’t want that. Hamas also wants to wipe out Israel, but I doubt the Palestinian people as a whole would support that.
The Israelis have negotiated with Palestinian governments, turned over land to them, provided them with aid and utilities and even included them at all levels of Israeli government. That doesn’t sound like genocide. Now, it is true that Palestinians don’t have equal rights in Israel, but there is a big difference between that and actual genocide. I don’t understand where this impulse for exaggeration comes from. It is very short-sighted.
Right. I think it takes a special kind of blindness to not see the collective punishment and attempt to kill Palestinians. Just today they intentionally prevented an ambulance from reaching an Al Jazeera journalist and he eventually died, his colleague was injured from an Israeli attack. Why? Why does Israel ALWAYS prevent ambulances and ALWAYS bombs schools sheltering thousands of civilians? It’s because they want them to die. On top of that, they say it in the Knesset and on the street and in private and public and you still don’t believe them.
I think there’s more to it with you. It’s not normal to deny a genocide like that.
It’s nice that you claim to be neutral and just someone having a “disagreement” but you don’t look like that at all, sorry.
Why are you even here if you don’t want to have a good faith debate and perhaps hear another perspective? Do you think shouting “genocide” into the ether will change anything? You are making assumptions about me and basing your points on that rather than engaging with the actual issues. That is simply bad faith argument.
Pointing out the compelling evidence of the genocide of Palestinians ≠ shouting “genocide”
I think you’re dishonest. Have a nice evening!
Thanks for reinforcing my point about you!
Yeah I do. I don’t see how it’s problematic. They don’t have to be equally bad to be in the same category.
The conflict itself obviously is not in this category. This particular bout of conflict, progressively reducing the “safe” zones in Gaza (while bombing them anyway), calling Palestinians “animals”, cutting off food, water, medical supplies, connectivity and more, stripping people and taking photographs of them, putting hospitals under siege, and all of the daily horrors we’ve been reading about. That is something else.
To say this isn’t genocide because there are no gas chambers would be missing the point, I think. Hitler really gave a text book example. Israel is being a bit less obvious but the result is the same. Death and displacement of the unwanted.
Okay, let’s set aside magnitude then. Definition of genocide includes the aspect of intent. Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people. Not “people”, but “a people”, meaning basically a nation/race/tribe/etc. I don’t think that Israel is attempting to kill “the Palestinian people”. Do you?
Sure seems that way.
But I am sure all of those innocent children and babies are Hamas
Yeah I do! In fact that’s why I started this discussion with the example of the purposeful starvation and cutting off of water to Gaza. In my opinion this is an example of intentionality. This is not an accident or just a “side effect” or something. It is done purposefully. In the UN’s language, it is “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
You say…
But the reality is that it’s “In whole or in part,” and Gaza is part of the Palestinian people. The important part isn’t the % intended to be killed. It’s primarily why they’re killed, and more specifically, if they are killed because they are members of a group. This is unavoidably true in Gaza.
You can see the issues with your take in other cases. The Cambodian genocide is a widely recognized genocide. They killed 25% of the pop and probably always intended to keep enough alive to run the farms. So not “The Cambodian people,” as a whole, but it doesn’t really matter.
That’s a good point about Cambodia, actually. Hmmm, so what is the difference between mass killing of political opponents like Stalin did, or mass killing for the sake creating terror and holding on to power like Mao did, or whatever it was that Papa Doc was up to in Haiti, and genocide? Or are all of those genocide according to this definition?
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems more complicated than genocide. On the one hand, Israel has negotiated with moderate Palestinian governments for a two-state solution and various other aspects of self-government, including the provision of utilities, and they include Palestinians in all levels of government in Israel. On the other hand, at the moment they also oppress the Palestinian people and are in the process of trying to completely destroy Hamas in a pretty horribel way in Gaza. If it is actual “genocide” that Israel is after, they are pretty inconsistent about it.
If we go with your expansive interpretation of genocide, would you consider what Hamas did on October 7 to be genocide? I mean, they did “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” for the people on the affected kibbutzim and the music festival, and Hamas has as its declared intent the destruction of the state of Israel. Does the fact that Hamas lacks the means to kill all Jews make the massacre they were able to inflict any less genocidal? I don’t know, I haven’t classified Hamas’s Oct 7 action as “genocide” previously, but your more expansive definition and all of the analogies we are both using makes me wonder where the boundaries of genocide are, compared to other forms of mass killing.
Yes friend, Hamas is attempting genocide.
They are fucking terrorists, the reason we expect more from Israel is they are claiming to be the good guys.
You’re right. We should expect more from Israel.
Yeah I’m not sure about the exact details of international law and the ins and outs of all of the examples. But for example Stalin’s purges vs Pol Pot’ s killings seem very similar in a way. But maybe Holodomor is a pretty interesting case for our purposes. First off, starvation was the method of killing, second, “only” 10% of Ukranians died. There is dispute about intent, but the EU Parliament and 34 countries consider it genocide, according to Wikipedia.
I will say that you describe my definition as “expansive” but it is the definition of the UN and international law. I am just trying to use the standard definition. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
For the points about Hamas I guess that would take some discussion. What was the purpose of the attack, for instance? I would say it was to create discord and fear, and likely to goad Israel into responding in this way and ruin their efforts at normalization of relations (e.g. with Saudi). Not so much to kill Israelis, although obviously that is a “tool” to use to them, being pieces of shit and all.
I guess my point is that we could make this determination based on the definitions of international law and our take on what’s going on. We should do the same with Israel, openly and honestly.
Although I will also say, I think you might be right about having the means being important. Hamas could not cut off food and water to Israel even if it wanted to. What if a child tried to kill a whole country? Surely that couldn’t be considered attempted genocide? But then intent is obviously also important. The finer details would take some working out.
But in Israel’s case they have the means, are at over 18k dead and still going, and politicians have said and done enough things to make intent clear, to me at least. Honestly the intentional starvation is enough evidence of intent from my perspective.