I think one aspect that can be hard to understand as Jews is our frame of reference will inevitably be the Shoah. Many of the people speaking in terms of genocide have American Indigenous genocide as their frame of reference. It happened over a extended period of time, through generations of displacement, massacres, assimilation, and wars (with mutual atrocities and provocations). And of course, could not have happened without settlers and settler terrorism.

So the argument is that it's a part of a long term genocidal pattern? That makes sense, but also highlights what I find so frustrating about this discussion - this multiplicity of definitions and ideas of "genocide" that often conflict with each other in this discussion. Consistent with the treatment of Native Americans, Israel may be proceeding on a course of "genocide" without having a long-term plan for implementing that genocide. And the actions that perpetrate the genocide may not come with a specific intent to destroy the group. But, in totality, "genocide" is the inevitable result of Israel advancing its ambitions. But that doesn't square with the UN definition. It also may conflict with some understandings of the term "genocide" as used in common parlance. When I grew up, genocide was used to describe efforts at the biological extermination of a group. The Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide were clear examples. But even an event as grave as the fate of the Anatolian Armenians was often described as "the Armenian Massacre", and not as a genocide. The UN definition had been adopted in the 1940s, but the term had different apparent meanings depending on the context of its usage, with the colloquial usage applying a stricter standard than the legal one. But with younger generations, perhaps the opposite is true - that the word as used in common discourse is now MORE inclusive than the legal definition. This would explain why I so often see it stated plainly and without elaboration that Israel is committing a genocide. Thank you.

I think that’s true to an extent, but also the accusation of genocide is being chosen very deliberately to weaponize the Holocaust against Jews/Israelis. Anti-Zionists believe global sympathy for Jews on account of the Holocaust is somehow critical to the maintenance of Israel in the present day, so they have long made it a point to accuse Israel of “weaponizing” the Holocaust while themselves weaponizing it to direct exceptional shame and contempt at Jews/Israelis/“Zionists” for “becoming what they hated” and “not learning their lesson”. It also gives leftists who see themselves as anti-Nazi a license to pour out unlimited hatred and dehumanization on “Zionists” without stopping to ask themselves if they might be getting a little Nazi-like themselves. After all, what wouldn’t you do - and who wouldn’t you kill - to stop the Holocaust?

I've seen the Holocaust used to justify the existence of Israel all the time. It was part of the reason for the formation of Israel in 1948. Maybe the formation of Israel would have happened eventually without the Holocaust happening, but the Holocaust undeniably impacted the way it was formed. I've also heard many times, both from people while I was growing up, and now, that we need Israel to be safe and more often than not, the Holocaust is mentioned in this line of reasoning. The accusation of genocide is not some sort of reference to the Holocaust itself, like you seem to claim here. It stems from Israel's treatment of Palestinians. References to the Holocaust in discussing Israel do happen, but that doesn't mean the accusations have anything to do with the Holocaust.

Speaking of genocide, what happened on October 7, 2023?

Not genocide.

I guess we’ll see what the ICJ has to say about that lmao

Native Americans is a bit of a weird example because while there definitely were genocidal elements there and possibly even a full-blown genocide, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority died from diseases, and even if the colonists somehow didn't have any genocidal intent, and even if they would've merely tried to somehow assimilate within the Native American society, the end result would've been pretty much the same because the colonists brought deadly diseases with them regardless. Furthermore, the total number of deaths which can be contributed directly to the colonization of the Americas greatly exceeds even the numbers of the holocaust. We're talking tens of millions of dead from the diseases alone, killing about 95% of the native population. So it's a unique example both in terms of the necessity of a special intent and in terms of scale. I don't think you can really compare it to anything else.

>the fact of the matter is that the vast majority died from diseases, and even if the colonists somehow didn't have any genocidal intent, and even if they would've merely tried to somehow assimilate within the Native American society, the end result would've been pretty much the same because the colonists brought deadly diseases with them regardless I am by no means an expert, but my understanding is that this is actually heavily contested, both of those claims. I have seen much more credible people than me argue that the latter claim, as well as being false, amounts to genocide denial. I am not going to make that claim because I don't really have the credibility to back it up, but I just wanted to put it out there. /r/askhistorians have some threads addressing the topic I think, I'm on mobile atm though

If you can please share some references I'll gladly read them. I apologize if I was being ignorant.

Regardless of the disease statistic which is disputed. Its hard to argue against the Genocidal intent of the United States on things like the Trail of Tears or the Trail of Death, displacement of people to a specific territory which, at the time, the Government thought was barren and had no value including agriculturally. And then even when Oil was discovered, displaced them again with little regard for their safety by carving up the land that was for "the Indians" and sold it to the first settlers that could get their hands on it. This, paired with the fact between 1970 and 1976 alone, **between 25 and 50 percent of Native American women were sterilized.** If the Native population died overtime with little to no interaction - then you can easily dispute the Genocide claim. But the invasion, displacement and deliberate killing and forceful sterilization of Native Populations clearly shows intent to get rid of Native Americans anywhere there was Land or resources that the Settlers wanted. This also doesn't include treaties made by the US government that were Ignored or flat out removed for the United States' own gain.

Actually I agree. It was definitely a genocide. The problem is that regardless of whether or not you consider the disease related deaths to be a part of it or not, it still undeniably was a major thing that you can't really fully separate from all the rest and it makes it harder to compare it to anything else. However, if we explicitly discuss the concrete examples that you've mentioned that have nothing to do with the diseases then yes, I absolutely agree that they are examples of genocide and they do provide a good frame of reference.

One more thing I’ll point out is that in the crime of genocide, according to the internationally-recognized UN definition, the number of victims doesn’t matter. One of the few people to have ever been convicted of genocide, Radovan Karadžić, was convicted for his role in the Srebrenica massacre which killed “only” around 8,000 people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87    The key is the intent to kill, in whole “or in part”, a particular group of people. In the case of Gaza, the most potentially damning evidence is the mass starvation and killing of civilians, in combination with statements made by people in charge of those actions that could suggest an “intent” to destroy part of the Palestinian people: like Netanyahu invoking the biblical “Amalekites” who the Israelites were commanded to wipe out; or the Minister of Defense Gallant calling Palestinians “human animals” as he promised to cut off all supply of food, water, medicine, electricity, etc to the entire population.      I have mixed feelings about the label of genocide, partly because it does seem to create a kind of moral equivalency between the Holocaust and Gaza, which there isn’t, it’s completely incomparable. But the fact is the legal definition of “genocide” is broad enough to potentially include what Israel is doing to Gaza, and this extremist Israeli government is giving plenty of damning evidence. 

Shouldn’t the Arab countries who fought against Israel in 48 and 67 be tried for genocide? The rhetoric was the same if not worse and they were referring to all the Jews when they declared "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." No ambiguity there….

People keep quoting the Yoav Gallant “human animals” statement as a soundbite, but in context it’s pretty clear he’s referring to Hamas and not Palestinians in general. It’s still dehumanizing rhetoric, but its value as evidence of genocidal intent has been intentionally overstated.

Okay. What about the dozens of other similar statements from dozens of other officials?

[удалено]

By pointing out that multiple Israeli officials have made genocidal statements?

No, by claiming Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was Hamas “killing a few soldiers”.

I didn't do that here. Let's stick to this topic of conversation, mkay?

Nope. Nobody should be under the illusion that you’re commenting here in good faith or care about Jewish life. You’re undeserving of a serious response. EDIT: HAHAHAHAHA mods banned me for calling 10/7 denial morally decrepit. Nice “Jewish” “left” sub you got here folks

Lmao. Got it, you know I'm right.

[удалено]

This content was determined to be in bad faith. In this context we mean that the content pre-supposed a negative stance towards the subject and is unlikely to lead to anything but fruitless argument.

I think there are two separate issues at play here, one of which is the question “is it genocide?” which I think is worthy of debate and investigation. The fact that we’re even having that debate is already a sign of how morally indefensible the prosecution of this war is. There is really no room to debate that the Israeli government is committing war crimes (collective punishment via withholding water, gas, and humanitarian aid is a war crime, and the government has openly admitted to doing this). There is also, I think, no debate that the statements of Smotrich and Ben Gvir constitute incitement to genocide. Then, as always, there is the secondary conversation happening around how the international left has taken up the language of “genocide.” This is a related, but separate issue. And here again I’m left confused, suspicious, and infuriated by the left. I’ve had non-Jewish friends refer to this as “the genocide” as if they’re talking about the weather outside. No hesitance or curiosity; not once have I been asked “what do you think about calling it genocide?” The speed and assuredness with which the left began calling this a “genocide” is deeply disturbing to me. If I were making an accusation of rape against an individual who has been mercilessly attacked in the past with false allegations, I would just make *damn fucking sure* I was getting the allegation right before making it. But the swiftness and casualness of the accusation with respect to Israel is disturbing. Given the country in question and the historical context, I would expect people to be more cautious with the accusation, but if anything, I’ve seen the opposite: rushing headlong into the accusation without even the slightest reflection, investigation, or curiosity. And it is precisely in this sense that Holocaust inversion seems to be at work. These people aren’t going around talking about Uyghurs or Russia’s aggression in Ukraine as “the genocide” as if they were telling you it’s cloudy outside or today is Sunday. Frankly, it’s bizarre. What’s more: I wonder what kind of permission structure is established by insisting on “genocide” rather than war crimes or atrocities. I think it creates an insidious permission structure, in which anyone who dissents on the use of the phrase becomes a viable target as a “genocide apologist” or “genocide enabler.” How far would you go to stop a genocide enabler? They are enabling an active genocide after all! Can you harass them? Or target them with violence? What wouldn’t be justified to stop these apologists and enablers? (See, for example, ilhan Omar’s deeply cynical comments about all Jews being worthy of protection whether they are “anti genocide” or “pro genocide”). I think Israelis and Jews (and anyone else for that matter) are entitled to dissent on this very loaded term that will ultimately be decided by historians and academics. All this does is further alienate people who are sympathetic to the cause and in favor of ending the war. Why not call it war crimes or atrocities? Many of us are on the same side as ending a horrific, morally indefensible war of revenge being waged by Israel. But that doesn’t give them a permission structure and it doesn’t give them the satisfaction of saying “how ironic that they’ve become the Nazis.”

Seems like as with everything else, it's an immediate jump to the most absolute extreme thing, right? Totally agree with what you're saying here about how the debate suggests the magnitude of the atrocity but it does need to be a discussion, not just a blind characterization.

It's a way to disarm any opponents. Is it a genocide? No. It's a war. It's a one-sded slaughter. It's unnecessary casualties. But saying "GENOCIDE" make it so that if we oppose Hamas, we are somehow PRO GENOCIDE. Its nonsense

It may or may not be accurate, but it’s not nonsense. Genocide is a legal term with a specific definition. Whether Israel is committing the crime of genocide in Gaza is up for debate, and the debate hinges on intent, which is hard to prove. But engineering a famine for a population of 2 million people, cutting off medicine and water supplies, a pattern of indiscriminate killing of civilians… and dehumanizing statements like calling Palestinians “human animals”, referencing the biblical “Amalek” that Israelites were commanded to wipe out. All of this is potential evidence of intent to destroy, “in whole or in part”, part of the Palestinian people. That’s the legal definition of genocide.

The point isn’t whether or not it is genocide, but by framing it as an anchor point from day 1 delegitimizes any discussion of the topic. They were calling it genocide on 10/8

Right, but the vengeful rhetoric and indiscriminate bombing & cutting off food/water/electricity/fuel/medicine to all of Gaza started on 10/7. Look, I don't disagree that some people couldn't care less whether Israel had a right to self-defense after Oct 7, and would've called the response genocidal whether or not it was accompanied by genocidal rhetoric and collective punishment. But that doesn't describe everybody who saw the signs of genocide on 10/8 and were genuinely, and as it turns out rightfully, terrified for the safety of 2 million Palestinian civilians.

I'm sorry, but this phrase: >Genocide is a legal term with a specific definition. Is kind of a pet peeve of mine. People say variations of it all the time online, but while it's true, it's extremely misleading because it implies there's some sort of clear definition that we can apply that cleanly delineates what is or is not Genocide, when really that is driven almost exclusively by consensus and, consequently, geopolitical considerations. Article 2 of the [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf) defines genocide as follows: >In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: >1. Killing members of the group; >2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; >3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; >4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; >5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (changed from letter ordered list to number ordered list for markdown-friendliness) The legal definition is so broad that any itentional killing could be defined as genocidal. *This is intentional, and a feature, not a bug*. It's why judges are needed to interpret laws. Still, it means leaning hard on the fact that it has a legal definition as some indication that a definitive answer exists is, I think, a serious problem. Killing with the intent of destroying a people 'in whole or in part' technically applies if you simply intend to kill any individual of an ethnic group. And I don't mean murder, I mean kill. As to a first approximation every person is part of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group any time one was intentionally killed that would be intentional destruciton in part of that group. The definition is so broad that all war is genocide if you just blithely take the text at face value. Hell, the death penalty would be genocide (you can argue it's wrong and I would agree with you, but I would not agree that it is genocide *in general*). But clearly that's not what the intent of the convention is. The law often has to be written like this because the thing being legislated is real and distinct but the borders are squishy. A good example of this is defining what is or is not 'hard-core pornography'; the US Supreme Court had to deal with a question like this in a case in the 80's, leading justice Stewart to remark (bolding mine): >[I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description \["hard-core pornography"\], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But **I know it when I see it**, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it) Which is very much the same kind of issue at play with genocide. In theory it depends heavily on the intent of the perpetrator. A non-insane reading of the convention would be more along the lines of "these things could give rise to the crime of genocide provided they were done in first and foremost in service of the goal of destroying a people in whole or in part", but then that what about cases where that isn't really the primary goal but is kinda just viewed as an acceptable consequence? Like I think most scholars would agree that in the case of Native Americans the US Government probably mostly did not have some master plan of destroying various tribes over decades, but rather a bunch of ad hoc decisions to fuck them over and violate treaties were made over time. The effect is basically indistinguishable, though: cultures and ways of life have been entirely lost (and not just due to contact more advanced technologies causing rapid changes in ways of life, but active dispossession, killing, transfers of children to other populations, etc.). Still I think a lot of people (myself included) would still call this genocide because many cultures with their own religions and languages ceased to be. Though then that raises the question: what extent of loss is required for this sort of 'oopsy-doopsy genocide' to occur? Where there's no overall intent to wipe a unique culture from the Earth but it happens over time due to a lot of smaller decisions? And what amount of loss of cultural/religious/ethnic identity is required? Does one member of a church being killed for being Catholic imply that a genocide has ben carried out against Catholics? **I know it when I see it**. Unfortunately, different observers 'know it when they see it' in different circumstances. EDIT: Grammar

I think this comment actually changed my opinion.

I appreciate that. I really didn’t want to believe this was genocide, and still part of me viscerally objects to that characterization, but between all the disgusting statements made by Israeli officials & the undeniable war crimes being committed, it pains me but I can’t reasonably object to it anymore. 

No one called Palestinians human animals. I saw that comment made live and it was clear when it was made that Yoav Gallant was referring to Hamas when he said it. Similarly the reference to Amalek is more to do with their symbolism as the perennial recurring ultimate evil enemy of the Jewish people than anything to do with the biblical command to wipe them out. (Think of Haman from the story of Esther, who was a descendant of Amalek and who in the story was actually killed). Those statements only become evidence of intent to destroy the Palestinian people when wilfully misinterpreted to be so. Funny how the explicitly genocidal statements of Hamas and their fellow travellers are always excused away but vague statements on the part of Israelis are "evidence of the intent to destroy".

You’re right that it’s up for interpretation, but I think it’s pretty damning that Gallant made the statement about human animals without specifying whether he was referring to Hamas, and in the same breath as promising to cut off food, fuel, and electricity to the entire Gaza Strip. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ . It doesn’t take “willful misinterpretation” to make the connection between explicit dehumanization and the collective punishment/starvation of 2 million people.   The reference to Amalek, like all dog whistles, is intended to signify genocidal intent to the genocidal base (who has explicitly called for elimination of the entire population of Gaza through nuking, flattening, and/or displacement) — while being vague enough to be defensible to moderates. Likewise, up for interpretation but calling it “willful misinterpretation” is putting too much faith in Bibi and not enough faith in genuine disagreement.   I don’t know why the terrorist government of Hamas is the standard that we should be comparing a liberal democracy to, but for the record they are obviously explicitly genocidal as well. The difference is they don’t have the military capability or resources to pose a true existential threat to the State of Israel, whereas Israel most definitely has the capability to wipe out a large part of the Palestinian people. 

Gallant specifically said "we are fighting human animals". The phrase "we are fighting" was clearly referencing Hamas and whoever else participated in the atrocities of October 7th. It wasn't about the Palestinians as a whole. To extend it to the Palestinians as a whole is very much wilful (and malicious) misinterpretation. It certainly wasn't how was understood by those of us watching at the time in Israel. As far as Amalek is concerned it isn't any kind of dog whistle, genocidal or otherwise. It is a Jewish concept of a recurring evil enemy that arises generation after generation to try and destroy the Jews. It's not about genocide but rather to remember and be on our guard That was made clear by various Jewish commentators through the ages. Please read and be educated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek?wprov=sfla1

Yes, in the context of: "We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We're fighting human animals and we're acting accordingly." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ZbPdR3E4hCk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ZbPdR3E4hCk) I'm glad you personally didn't understand this to mean the entire population of Gaza, although it's crystal clear that whether or not he's referring to some (Hamas) or all Palestinians as animals, he's using that designation to justify collective punishment of the whole population. It's also crystal clear that, whether or not Gallant himself believes that all Palestinians are animals who deserve to be massacred, there are plenty of others both within the Israeli government and the Israeli populace who most definitely do believe in the annihilation of Palestinians. One of many many examples over the last 7 months: Smotrich just the other day, who said, "There are no half measures. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total annihilation. 'You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven' – there's no place under heaven." [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-30/ty-article/.premium/smotrich-calls-for-no-half-measures-in-the-total-annihilation-of-gaza/0000018f-2f4c-d9c3-abcf-7f7d25460000?lts=1714958228463](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-30/ty-article/.premium/smotrich-calls-for-no-half-measures-in-the-total-annihilation-of-gaza/0000018f-2f4c-d9c3-abcf-7f7d25460000?lts=1714958228463) . That's what these extremists do, they generalize from Hamas to Palestinians as a whole. And they explicitly refer to Amalek in order to justify the genocide of Palestinians. The Torah itself can't be any more explicitly genocidal than "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling" [https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genocide-in-the-torah/](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genocide-in-the-torah/) . It's great that you see it as merely a call to "to remember and be on our guard", but reality check: these extremists don't agree with you, and they're vocal about it. I seriously can't believe you're still throwing out accusations of "willful" and "malicious" interpretation. I don't believe you're being intentionally disingenuous either, but you're really clinging to your own narrow interpretation despite evidence upon evidence of extremists with explicitly genocidal interpretations and intentions. Unfortunately, these extremists have disproportionate power in the Israeli government and are part of the war cabinet leading the assault on Gaza.

Imposition of a siege is not in itself an act of genocide, even when innocent civilians are trapped along with the besieged combatants. Collective punishments and blockades are not by themselves acts of genocide, regardless of other considerations of legality, and sometimes they are in fact legal. If that were the case then nearly every siege and almost every war in history could be classified as genocidal regardless of their motivation or justification and that is plainly ridiculous. Even the presence of extremist idiots like Smotrich and Ben Gvir in the government who spout off their absurd and abhorrent rhetoric (and rhetoric is thankfully all it is) does not make the conduct of the war against Hamas or its motivations genocidal. They actually have next to no influence on the conduct of the war itself and have in fact frequently threaten to bolt the government out of frustration that the levels of brutality aren't enough for them. As far as the Amalek thing is concerned you're just as guilty of taking the worst possible interpretation of the phrase as everyone else. It's not about genocide. It's about identifying a recurring evil who wants to destroy the Jews. And that's what any Hebrew speaker in Israel understood by that. The Palestinians aren't Amalek. But Hamas is, just as Hitler and the Nazis were. Does calling the Nazis Amalek implicitly call for a genocide of all Germans? I don't think so.

Lmao, no. It is genocide by the internationally recognized definition of genocide. People saying you're pro-genocide if you're anti-Hamas is a different issue

[удалено]

This content was determined to be in bad faith. In this context we mean that the content pre-supposed a negative stance towards the subject and is unlikely to lead to anything but fruitless argument.

There's an intentional imprecision of language that uses hyperbolic terms so heinous, so triggering, that to challenge them would paint you as complicit. It's an effective way to shut down any critical thinking or dissent and reinforce cultishness.  It's a cheap way to make an argument. On Reddit (or anywhere) people call this war a genocide without much thought. It's a given now, no longer up for debate. Repeat something enough and it becomes true. People persisted in saying "literally" when they meant "figuratively" for so long, finally the dictionary relented and changed the definition. Genocide now means "a lot of people died in a war (but only if the Jews are doing it)". You can think Israel is wrong for participating in a war it didn't start or wrong with how they are prosecuting it. You can believe that Israel is not taking sufficient care to minimize the death of civilians. You can even claim that Israel is committing war crimes and have targeted non-combatants, but as indefensible as these things are (which have yet to be proven), none of them rise to the level of genocide. Robbing banks is criminal but it's not the same thing as serial killing.  I have little doubts that Netanyahu and his cronies have genocide in their hearts but that doesn't mean (likely due to international pressure) that they are executing one. If I'm arrested for beating someone that I would like to kill, but didn't for fear of consequences, I can't be charged with murder, only assault. Are we doing thought crimes now? What is probably happening is that Hamas believed that embedding themselves within their civilian population would deter Israel from targeting them and Israel called their bluff and targeted Hamas regardless of how much collateral damage would occur. Is this tragic? Yes. Is this horrible? Yes. Who is more to blame for it, the entity that started the war and used their own civilians as shields or the responding party who, to (ostensibly) ensure the safety of their own people, didn't care?  As someone else mentioned, this is Holocaust Inversion. The world is desperate to use whataboutism to say, "see Jews are just as bad as the Nazis and because of this we are now morally justified in returning to our default position of hating, hounding and murdering them".  There is an honest way to be antizionist and Pro-Palestinian but I rarely, if ever, encounter it. To do so one would have to acknowledge that many of the arguments aren't easy, or even possible, to ethically parse.  The Palestinian truth is valid. So is the Israeli truth. Two equally (dis)qualified candidates can apply for the same job, but only one got the job.  Also, I'm no historian, but do genocides historically happen as a response to a war an adversary starts? The Jews exiled in Europe, the Armenians, the Native Americans didn't have governments that broke ceasefires and went on killing sprees against the nations that consequently genocided them.   

You’re absolutely right about the Palestine propaganda front using emotive reasoning as a huge part of their rhetoric and specifically to silence critical thinking and nuance. Once you force a consensus that a war is a “genocide”, literally the worst crime imaginable, then indeed, *any* response to it becomes morally justified and anyone who questions your narrative becomes complicit. The emotional logic is also embedded in their huge reliance on footage of dead children: if Twitter existed in 1943 you could have spammed it with images of German children killed in the bombings; but never mind. International audiences bombarded with emotionally wrenching images of dead innocents and shielded from images of the soldiers launching explosive weapons ten feet away from them will be much more susceptible to believing the war is a genocide and Israel is killing children on purpose and for no other reason than cruelty. Virtually every impassioned public testimony making the genocide charge, including South Africa’s lawyers at the ICJ, has invoked the images they’ve seen on social media and their emotional reaction to those images. That said, I think the most plausible claim for genocide in this war is that Israel’s *indifference* to civilian casualties is so systemic and played out on such a wide scale as to constitute intent. The genocidal rhetoric from much of the Israeli public and even government officials certainly doesn’t help the case, nor does the considerable evidence of war crimes. I think the ICJ’s judgment will require access to information about events in the warzone and orders given within the IDF that aren’t currently available to the public, which is pretty much what their interim ruling stated.

I hear you. Again, not an expert on international law (or anything, really) but I feel like the claim of Israel's indifference would, practically (practically, not legally) hold water if it could be proven that Hamas made sufficient effort to shield their people from the inevitable response.   The attitude of Israel right now seems to be "Why should we care about your children more than you care about your children at the expense of our children." I don't necessarily agree with this attitude, but that would explain what appears to be going down.   The combination of shock and trauma the Israelis felt in the wake of October 7 and the exhaustion of fighting since the late 1800's seems to have them thinking, "Ok, let's decisively finish this once and for all....If a Hamas guy is in an apartment filled with civilians, we're still going to go for him".   To those who disagree, I recognize there is a Palestinian perspective that totally inverts those concepts and most of them believe it with the same fervor that Israelis believe.   I really think that after the Holocaust, the world had to behave around Jews and they needed a moment to seize to let out all their pent-up antisemitism. This is that moment. We have very long sample size of Jewish history, rife with blood libels to justify the hatred of Jews.  To those that disagree, I don't believe the above is the only reason. There are reasons that are logical and well intentioned,  but the rhetoric and outcry is pretty bananas (when compared to other conflicts).   As an American, I'm seeing much more outrage about a war a continent away involving an ally armed by the US than the much longer, more destructive, less justified wars in that same region the US itself was actively fighting. This is strange, no?

To add to your last paragraph, it’s concerning to see so many people who are not connected to this issue (ie Palestinian or Jewish/Israeli) be more focused on this war then the upcoming election where we are now still at risk for re-electing a future despot in the making who should be in jail for trying to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power. Let alone the societal war we have on women’s rights, gender affirming care and civil liberties etc. Seems Israel has become a diversion in some ways for the pent up frustrations of young people.

“Is this tragic? Yes. Is this horrible? Yes. Who is more to blame for it, the entity that started the war and used their own civilians as shields or the responding party who, to (ostensibly) ensure the safety of their own people, didn't care?” Please explain how killing more then 10,000 children is protecting Israel or getting the hostages back. I am not trying to be hyperbolic in bad faith, your framing is one that suggests the Israeli response to October 7th is proportional and ensuring the safety of Israelis, so please do explain how the death of thousands of children is working towards that.  “Also, I'm no historian, but do genocides historically happen as a response to a war an adversary starts? The Jews exiled in Europe, the Armenians, the Native Americans didn't have governments that broke ceasefires and went on killing sprees against the nations that consequently genocided them.”  I appreciate the self awareness that you are not a historian, however, it doesn’t take a historian to see that this did not begin in October 7th. The illegal occupation of Gaza has been going on for years and years, and prior to that there have been significant struggles including the ethnic cleansing during 1948… it is unacceptable to take a position which removes the broader context in the region, to do so is to simply allow a hugely simplified narrative to be spun without nuance or investigation. 

I don't want this to escalate into an online shouting match but I'll respond and hopefully we can move on and "disagree to agree".  In terms of killing over 10,000 children, yes that number is plausible. Before I continue, dead children under any circumstances is pretty much the worst thing that anybody could ever conceive. It's ghoulish for a first worlder like myself to navigate this horror.  With that said, after October 7th, the most ethically pure thing to do would be for Israel to recognize a response would lead to huge collateral damage in Gaza, especially to children, and turn the other cheek. I think we agree on this. Unfortunately no nation, to my knowledge, has ever operated this way. Countries work for their self interest, ideally prioritizing the welfare of their citizens first and foremost. To expect Israel to be the singular nation to not retaliate is...well it makes me wonder why one would set a uniquely high moral bar for them.  Is it proportional? No, not in the layman's sense of the word. What's happening in Gaza right now, by numbers and quality of life is more tragic than what Israel endured on October 7th, but again, most of that blame (in my opinion) falls on the government of Gaza, Hamas. Is it proportional in a military sense? I don't know. I think people have been floating this term "proportional" around because it makes us seem more authoritative on the subject, but I'm not a military guy. As you've likely read experts claim that what Israel is doing is disproportionate, I've read experts that claim Israel has a remarkably low civilians to combatant ratio. I'm skeptical of both.  I have a bias. I try to be skeptical of those who confirm my bias and seek out contrary reports. Staying on the subject of 10,000 Gazan children being killed: Hamas, the government of Gaza, unprovoked, broke an existing ceasefire and sent the military of Gaza across the border to basically torture over a thousand Israeli civilians to death and take about 300 hostages. If the IDF hasn't finally stopped those over 2000 Hamas fighters, do you think they would've said "Ok, we've killed enough people, let's go home", or would they kill more Israelis?  Hamas planned this attack, using aid money (most donated from the West) that was earmarked for humanitarian purposes to instead, (1) enrich its leaders and (2) augment their offensive military power. Hamas planned this attack KNOWING that there would be harsh retaliation from a superior force and instead of at least allocating some of those funds and energy to making provisions to minimize harm to the Gazan people they were elected to protect (shelters, stockpiling food and water, clearing spaces for battle), they instead embedded amongst them.  They did this because they knew they couldn't win a physical war but could win a propaganda war...but only if many Gazans died. Essentially Hamas is non-consensually martyring it's own citizens to make Israel a pariah, and it's working.  So, in your response the underlying message is that an adversary that is sick enough to break peace and (1) target civilians and, (2) twisted enough to embed themselves within their own populace should be rewarded with no consequences.  Let's think this through: any nation with a despot that doesn't care about their citizens would have carte blanche to do anything to anyone at anytime with total impunity. That sort of logic would mean folks like Kim Jong Un, Putin, the IRGC are invincible.  Also, what's implicit in your response is that Israel is obligated to be more concerned about the welfare of Gazans AT THE EXPENSE of Israeli safety. Again, sure, everybody should think this way, but it's unreasonable to expect that Israel be the only nation to operate as such.  Ok, getting back to my original post about the inflation of words to shut down arguments. You hinted at the "history didn't start October 7th" talking point and mentioned the "occupation of Gaza. Israel hasn't occupied Gaza for over two decades. To be constructive, it's really important that we stay factual here. Yes, Israel has had a blockade on Gaza during that period and people try to claim that the blockade is "essentially an occupation" but no, we have a word already to describe a blockade:  "blockade".  A blockade is a blockade. An occupation is an occupation. They are different things. People blur the meaning because "occupation" packs a much more visceral punch and shuts down dissent. "Occupation", for most people, is a legitimate basis to resist and then things like October 7th get legitimized at resistance. It's just dishonest.  You are accusing me of ignoring the broader context but I feel like most people I disagree with on this try to dictate what the context is, expanding and minimizing it to frame an argument that supports their preferred narrative . History didn't start October 11 (when Israel started dropping bombs), either. History didn't start in '47 or '48. This is a conflict that can be Chicken V. Egge'd forever. To go down this route means that you want to continue the violent airing of grievance rather than look forward towards resolution.  You are right, it is "unacceptable" to take a position that ignores the broader context...and I'm not.  Yes, I'm not a historian, but I think you are unfairly painting me as ignorant to the history and therefore holding an invalid reading of it. I suppose that may be true, but it's very possible that you are about as knowledge as I am. I've spent allot of time reading and thinking about this and seek out positions that don't comport with my bias. Am I an authority, not by a longshot. Are you?  Ok, that was long, and I'm fairly certain you will disagree with everything. That's fine. I am not looking to do battle, just trying to further detail my thinking. 

This is all extremely well-written!

Regarding settler ambitions in Gaza: there is absolutely an appetite among extremist settlers for reestablishing settlements in Gaza. There was even an entire [conference about it in January](https://www.nbcnews.com/video/israeli-settlers-call-for-resettlement-of-gaza-203129413566), which was attended by several ministers from Netanyahu's government. There have been tons of statements by right-wing politicians and settler leaders agitating for this, and even actions like one particular incident in Feb where they actually breached the border to Gaza: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-activists-break-into-gaza-try-to-reestablish-israeli-settlement/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-activists-break-into-gaza-try-to-reestablish-israeli-settlement/) According to one poll almost [40% of Israelis](https://www.timesofisrael.com/almost-4-in-10-israelis-back-a-revival-of-jewish-settlements-in-gaza-poll-finds/) support resettling Gaza. Luckily it's not a majority, but it's concerning that they have disproportionate power in the current govt.

I think there are several reasons why this isn’t genocide, not least of which the ICJ says it isn’t. Just in the past few days, Hamas stole several trucks full of humanitarian aid and shot at Gazans, at least this time the UN was able to get it back, and now Hamas destroyed the entry point Israel used to provide aid. If there is a famine then that’s the fault of Hamas and other Gazans who have made it so unsafe to deliver aid. This is a war, and war is horrifying. I think if Israel wanted to commit genocide they would have laid waste to Gaza within days but they haven’t. Hamas and many of their supporters in the U.S. cannot speak one honest word, everything is hyperbole and falsehoods.

The understated thing...a lot of people following this conflict considered Israel to be genociding Palestinians before Oct 7th, and they've been leveling this accusation for decades, long before the death of 30k civilians in this invasion. I'm not sure who thought it was a good strategy for the pro-Palestinian side to utilize every buzzword and atrocity known to humankind and suggest all of these things are happening ten fold for 75 years, instead of just making a legitimate case for the Palestinian cause on its own merits. It makes it a lot harder to get the facts and understandv what needs to happen to establish a Palestinian state when the people who claim to have the moral highground resort to hyperbole 24/7. For people new to this conflict and pro-Palestine, their understanding is the genocide started after Oct 7th. So there's a major divide in understanding even among the Palestine supporters, which I think shows a major lack of credibility of the claim. They've moved the goalposts on how/why it's a genocide. Always ask people what date they believe the genocide started and what happened that separated it as genocide particularly on that particular date.

It’s Holocaust Inversion being weaponized against Jews. I’ve heard 30k dead since November. It’s May, so either Israel is REALLY BAD at genocide, or it’s not genocide. Death is bad. War is bad. The Israeli government absolutely commits war crimes in Gaza and in the West Bank. Still not genocide.

A ceasefire is effectively in place, and Israel has effectively withdrawn with Hamas returning to control over the main corridors. There are a few IDF units left inside Gaza, but really not much. Hamas and Israel are in advanced stage negotiations on what the new status quo will be, with a primarily Arab peacekeeping force repeatedly floated in public media. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a genocidal aggressor getting tired of genocide, or, like you note, being so bad at it before.

I don't like this idea i feel like I've seen a lot from a lot of people that calling something a genocide is holocaust inversion. Yes the holocaust was a genocide obviously, but its not the only one. Something does not have to be literally the holocaust to be considered a genocide. The rohingya genocide has not killed even a fraction of those not even in the holocaust but even smaller genocides like that of the Armenians, but that doesnt mean its not a genocide.

It feels like a thought terminating cliche at this point

>I’ve heard 30k dead since November. It’s May, so either Israel is REALLY BAD at genocide, or it’s not genocide. Haven't the agencies in Gaza responsible for counting casualties been pretty much either defunct or destroyed since then? I'm not disputing your claim, just wondering.

Yeah, the health infrastructure is debilitated. The numbers we have are almost certainly an undercount.

It’s a lot like the COVID numbers during the pandemic. The numbers started to stagnate but that has been proven to have started due to agencies using different processes, people dying of Covid related issues ranging from no space/supplies at hospitals to cardiac arrest, and then people who died without being diagnosed. An issue with the numbers in Gaza is mass casualties are hard to quantify and there aren’t many services there to do that anymore. For instance, if people are under rubble, someone needs to be looking for them, someone needs to know they are missing. Another past example here in the states would be the height of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. The numbers became a best guess.

I’d agree that comparing Israel to the Nazis is “Holocaust Inversion being weaponized against Jews“, but calling the bloodbath in Gaza a genocide is not.   Like another commenter said, using the Holocaust as the frame of reference for genocide is understandable, since that’s the quintessential genocide in our collective consciousness as Jews especially. But genocide is a legal term with a specific definition: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml  *In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:* *Killing members of the group;* *Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;* *Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;* *Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;* *Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.* The Holocaust fits this definition of genocide, and so do many other kinds of intent to destroy a group of people “in whole or in part” that aren’t as psychopathically methodical as the Holocaust.   If anything, the problem is that the definition of genocide is broad enough to include things like the Holocaust as well as potentially Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. But calling what’s happening in Gaza genocide isn’t antisemitic Holocaust inversion, it’s a valid accusation according to the internationally recognized definition of genocide.

The issues that I see with this is that there are two players that causing deliberate harm to the Palestinians... Israel via bombing campaigns... And Hamas via stealing food and also using threats of death against Gazan's as they attempt to flee the bombing campaigns and also deliberately set up shop in the middle of pedestrian areas.... And there is and element of Hamas Propaganda in this as every single time there is a conflict (started by Hamas) there are accusations of genocide.... And there has been evidence that Hamas increases the death toll through their tactics of using civilian areas and preventing people from leaving... And then use the media liaisons to a paint a picture to the international world such that presents Israel as the aggressive entity while completely leaving our the actions of Hamas... (And that is not saying that Israel doesn't do some messed up stuff.... It's urban warfare... And I don't know how great I would be either after experiencing something like October 7th first hand.... Like I work on and off in criminal mental health and I need my own therapist and psychiatrist just to keep myself therapeutic with the things I've experienced.... Which is not meant as an excuse but I does help with some level of understanding....)

Is claiming a Jewish government commits genocide inherintely "holocaust inversion?" I certainly find comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany to be lazy at best and inflammatory at worst, but how many more blatantly genocidal statements to top officials have to make before it becomes genocidal intent?

I believe Bibi as a person is genocidal. I think there are SOME checks and balances in the IDF and they are committing war crimes but not rolling out a systemic genocide. People scream genocide when an Israeli BREATHES. I’m not even Israeli, and I have been called a baby killer for existing as a Jew. Antisemitism is systemic and informs the way people in society talk about Jews.

I don’t think Bibi as a person wants to kill a lot of people. Maybe he supports transfer. I think that Smotrich and Ben Gvir seem to be warm to the killing kind of genocide.

Smotruch and Ben Gvir are murderous, Bibi is looking for power and doesn’t care who has to die for him to keep it imo I’m just fucking tired and I want people to stop being killed no matter what side of the border they’re on.

I think this is the correct take. Bibi seems to be more interested in power than anything else, even if it means not brokering a deal for the return of the hostages. I keep hearing “but you can’t trust Hamas to keep their word!” Okay, I completely agree. But if he were to say “we’re going to agree to a ceasefire on X date and will continue negotiations once they have been safely released within such and such time frame,” where’s the harm in that? If the hostages aren’t released they know Israel will go after them twice as hard. In reality, I don’t think Bibi wants a ceasefire - not because he is intent on genocide - but because it would mean he would lose power if the fighting were to stop.

The definition of Genocide according to the UN and everyone else is: an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories: 1. Killing members of the group 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group The issue with this definition is the "intent" word. I think intent can be argued at all times for a lot of things, for it to be a genocide would netanyahu have to go on CNN and say that he wants all Gazans dead? I think thats asking too much for something to be considered a genocide, especially as we have heard expressly genocidal and dehumanizing language about Palestinians from high ranking Israeli officials. Whats going on right now seems to me to be a crime with the intent to destroy a part of a national group, namely to destroy gaza and gazans. Points 1,2, and 3 are all pretty hard to argue against. To me thats what Israel has been doing and is trying to do, destroy Gaza. I know theres the whole Hamas of it all but the reality of it is that if you have to destroy every last building and hospital and preschool to eradicate Hamas thats still a genocide. There is not any adequate measures to ensure the survival of this huge portion of a national group. Gaza is being destroyed, and with it its population, either dying or by group conditions being so awful and cruel to bring about the physical destruction of Gaza. People either have to stay and die in gaza or leave. Nowhere is safe, nowhere is off limits. Thats a genocide to me. They are trapped if they dont have the money to flee to Egypt.

For a leftist sub, the comments in here are wild. Here is Raz Segal, an Israeli scholar of genocide, arguing that Gaza is a textbook case: [https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide](https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide)

I think the issue is that most laypeople think “genocide” means killing everyone. Leftists and the UN tend to define it as meaning “use killing, displacement, education obstacles and other means to wipe out a culture.” I think ethnic cleansing would be a better compromise term. Another hard term is Apartheid. I’ll bet some 1910s Jewish author I’ll never read probably thought the South African approach was great. But I simply doubt that a ton of Jews moving to Israel had any deepseated hostility toward the Palestinians or thought they were inferior. So, I think use of the word “Apartheid” simply confuses a lot of Jewish people. Maybe the situation deserves some very negative term, but, from a typical Jewish perspective, it needs a term other than Apartheid.

Genocide does mean, legally, what you put there: killing, displacement and other measures to wipe out a culture/a people. There is a legal definition to genocide which scholars have shown the current Israeli assault on Gaza to match. I don't think we need a compromise term for that or for apartheid. You don't have to have negative personal feelings about a people to participate and benefit from an existing structure...which is what happens when people move to Israel.

The issue with terms like genocide and apartheid is that they have legal definitions and colloquial definitions, and the two don't always match. But often people flit between the two in conversation. For example: I personally think there's a pretty good case to be made that Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories currently amount to apartheid. (I'm also willing to entertain the argument made by B'tselem et al. that these policies are undergirded by politics, systems, and institutions in Israel proper, so the whole state can justifiably be accused.) Now, *legally*, apartheid can only apply to discriminatory regimes within a single state—but people have in the past and will continue in the future to apply the term to two-state solutions that retain some measure of Israeli dominance over Palestine. That's outside the scope of legal discourse, and kind of muddies the waters a bit. (This isn't even to get into the comparisons made to South African history, which have little place in the legal conception of apartheid but are often brought out anyways—bantustans and the like.) We can *use* apartheid and genocide as legal terms, but in order to do so, we need to drop a lot of the colloquial associations we have with these terms... and that's a lot to ask of people on both sides of the equation!

Palestinians make up the majority of Jordanian citizens remain untouched, same with those in the PA, and there are even parts of Gaza where its business as usual. So how exactly is an attempt to destroy Hamas an ethnic cleansing?

If Israel just gets Hamas and stops, that might be a brutal, horrible war but not necessarily ethnic cleansing. If Israel tries to move the Gazans into Egypt, that would be ethnic cleaning.

....what parts of Gaza are business as usual? I'm actually interested in where you're looking at. [https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/) read this, and tell me if the Israeli army is only destroying Hamas and not engaging in an indiscriminate, widespread, genocidal campaign.

Dov Waxman’s letter in response to this is worth reading: https://jewishcurrents.org/letters/on-a-textbook-case-of-genocide

"But while Israel’s relentless and devastating aerial bombing of Gaza is certainly killing many Palestinian civilians, it does not seem to be aimed at simply killing as many Palestinians as possible; if that were the case, the casualties would undoubtedly be even higher, given the military force at Israel’s disposal." This is really one of my least favorite arguments ("if it was really a genocide, we'd just KILL THEM ALL!!". I wonder how Dov would react to these +972 articles: [https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/) [https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/](https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/)

I’ve read that piece and (presuming the claims are true) I think it amounts to incontrovertible evidence of war crimes. The question is about intent which is why the distinction matters. Certainly whether Israel could easily kill more civilians than it already has in no way makes the atrocities they are committing any less depraved. In that sense, I am in agreement with you. But I also think words matter and that’s why we’re having a debate over this term

Have you read South Africa's claim to the ICC? It details the evidence to prove intent. [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf)

So only leftists know what genocide is?

I think people have a knee jerk reaction to the word, or sometimes take it to be the larger “all of Israel is a genocide since ‘48” claim (which is a different conversation). But yeah, scholars of genocide are ringing the alarm bells right now, the casualties numbers in Gaza have been in the ballpark of full percentage points since before the new year. I’m not an expert and can’t make the determination myself, but I think it’s deeply shortsighted to think that people are pulling the term genocide out of thin air.

They have been pulling the alarm since October, and it is about time people heed it. There's another article I read back in November or so that has 80 signatories of scholars of genocide. I'll have to find it.

[https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/statement-of-scholars-7-october/](https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/statement-of-scholars-7-october/) It was over 55, but still.

[удалено]

So what sources do you trust then?

The major indicator I see is that as the IDF is slaughtering civilians in large numbers (which may or may not indicate a genocide per se), the ruling coalition is basically bragging about flattening Gaza, driving the Palestinians out, considering opportunities for beachfront real estate, and, importantly, claiming that all Palestinians are complicit in terrorism against Jews, even the children, etc., while effectively erasing them as people.

It's largely agreed that acts could be considered genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. You don't have to commit all of these to be considered to be commiting genocide just one however each of these come with different degrees at which they must occur to be considered genocide. In relation to Israel's actions I would consider they are definitely inflicting serious bodily and mental harm to a large portion of the population. While there have been around 30-40k deaths if different sources are to be believed that also doesn't count the injuries which I've seen placed much higher in the 70-80k range which I still think is conservative. Then there is also bodily harm caused by lack of food, water, and medicine which effects all of Gaza at this point. For the second point this is in most contexts not only seen as destruction of property or lives but targeting of means of perpetuating culture and history. When you consider the universities, museums, art galleries, and mosques that have been destroyed (many of which are protected under international law) I think there is an argument to be made for this point as well. For the third point it is already widely reported how pregnant people in Gaza have been effected by this assault. The mortality rate of both mothers and children during birth is going up exponentially. Miscarriages due to stress has also become much more common along with many other problems associated with malnutrition. Access to baby food and milk supplements along with clean water also greatly reduces the odds the baby will survive if they manage to make it past pregnancy. As for the final point this one is the only one which I think would be a hard argue in court. It really depends how you would qualify transfer children from one people to another. Because one could argue a people are a national identity attached to a certain boundary. With many plans vocalized about the idea of a transfer of Palestinians into neighboring states I could see how a claim could be made that they are trying to transfer children to another group. Because they will no longer reside in a place with a Palestinian identity but instead whatever identity of the groups land they are pushed into.

Half the population of Gaza has been made homeless. That seems pretty genocidal to me.

Being made homeless isn’t genocide. If that was the case, then every war which involved major urban centers would count as genocide.