It’s not genocide until the government DECLARES IT genocide, a la Michael Scott.
K.
The prosecutor in The Hague and all the learned professors, from Omer Bartov on down, who talk about a genocide, are wrong.
This line made me think the author was being sarcastic. “It’s not genocide, because Israel hasn’t decided to commit genocide! All of these experts on the subject agree that it is, but clearly it isn’t!”, but no, they appear to actually genuinely hold this belief, which is just… I don’t even know what to say. The mental gymnastics required here is just wild.
They found a crazy loophole - this one neat trick that humanitarians hate! If you just keep saying “We’re not committing genocide!”, you aren’t! Wow!
If you continue reading, he makes an argument.
The government has no policy of genocide, there is no decision by Israeli leaders to commit genocide, there is no deliberate intention to wipe out the Palestinians, and there are no orders coming from the government to the army, or from the army chiefs to the operative ranks to murder “the Palestinians.” Many of them have been killed, but this is no policy.
The intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a group is an essential requirement for something to be considered a genocide.
So their “magic weasel words” are we don’t kill Palestinians, we just kill everyone who happens to be in a space coincidentally occupied by Palestinians?
What about the Amalek comments? Which soldiers on the ground also chanted.
Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear. Amalek chants can be interpreted as incitement because of this ambiguity, I guess.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks with extreme views, who are more likely to commit warcrimes, or be flexible with rules of engagement. However even they need at least a plausible pretext before they can take action. Otherwise they can and are disciplined or prosecuted. The IDF has a well functioning internal investigation unit Military Advocate General. It even publishes investigations and their state on their website.
IDF soldiers can get away with excessive violence, but they always need at least a plausible military objective. Gaza had been converted into a fortress for two decades, so finding a military objective isn’t difficult. If a house has been used by a Hamas sniper, has a tunnel entrance, weapons were found in it, blocks a line of sight, it can be destroyed as a military objective.
Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.
Yeah I know what it means!
“‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
I bolded some for a hopefully obvious reason. Clearly the Amalekites were genocided. Worse they even killed the fucking animals.
So Netanyahu, not some random person with no importance, saying this is a sign of intent.
And it being repeated by soldiers on the ground means the message was received and embraced by the people with the weapons.
And all of this is ignoring a probably bigger point: intent is not usually stated openly. Even if they hadn’t said it, the intent is clear in the nature of the attacks: choosing to kill supposed Hamas operatives in their homes along with their families rather than during military operations, destroying hospitals, holding up aid, shooting the people bringing the aid, shooting people collecting aid, damaging or destroying vital water facilities. Need I go on?
You don’t need a signed affidavit to prove what is happening or to prove intent. Everyone knows what happens if you deprive people of the essentials of life on purpose.
If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear.
Come on now.
Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks …
All of this is just a bit weird. I can tell that you trust the IDF, yes, but aren’t we talking about intent to commit genocide?
The fact that you can pick a “plausible target” is not exactly proof this isn’t intentional genocide is it? I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you but if you’re committing a genocide it’s probably a fair bet you will also lie about it. The tunnels etc are the perfect wishy washy defence for which no evidence is presented.
Read the Guardian article linked above. The choice to kill innocents is INTENTIONAL. It was done for the sake of ease.
I suspect your efforts here might be wasted
Lemmys collective view amounts to i) Israel is deliberately, capriciously, methodically committing genocide “isn’t it obvious” ii) anything Hamas does is Israel’s fault iii) the solution is “obviously” for Israel to make peace with a group consisting of some 25,000 psychopathic islamic extremists.
Lemmy’s plan for extremist Jews and Arabs to coexist is… wait… it was around here… somewhere… where’s it gone?..
(Downvotes if you can’t articulate a plan, please)
We (including you, unless you’d care to share some credentials) are all laymen here. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to look to the opinions of experts. The experts and scholars generally agree that Israel is committing genocide. The article even admits that (in the sentence I quoted above). Are you, like the article’s author, suggesting that your expertise trumps these experts and scholars?
I agree with their findings, it bears all the hallmarks of genocide. I just find it a bit pedestrian for the report (or anyone else) to not deal with the overall narrative when making that conclusion. Specifically, that what Israel inflicts on Gaza is disproportionate and illegal. Yet it perversely remains under Hamas’ control too. Not a feature of your usual genocide. Does anyone seriously doubt the situation wouldn’t immediately improve if Hamas surrendered and returned hostages? That doesn’t justify Israel inflicting high collateral damage, but it remains true. Israel punishes the population because a proportion of the population are Hamas jihadists. That’s unambiguously against international law. But it wouldn’t be happening if Hamas wasn’t holding 150 civilians hostage after invading Israel and murdering 1700 - which is also against international law. Calling for Israel to stop what it’s doing is a necessary intervention but is pointless if it doesn’t also find a method to make the instigator return their civilian hostages.
It’s not genocide because…an internet discussion group can’t come up with any solution?
That’s taking the goalposts and shoving them off the cliff.
They’re connected. Lemmy can’t come up with a solution because there isn’t a solution. And because there’s no solution, any warfare with Hamas ends up looking like total war. Of course total war is bad. But calling out for it to stop doesn’t work if the ‘peace’ is a greater threat. And no-one has a solution to that.
Lemmy’s dominant view amounts to Israel evil.
make peace
Talking about peace has become more rare. Calls for the destruction of Israel are leading the pack.
The whole I/P situation is complex, terrible, polarized, heavily propagandized, and on a bad trajectory.
Actually trying to understand the situation and listening to all voices is difficult. It’s much easier to westsplain the situation with „colonizer“, „justice“, „racism“, and „oppression“. This serves really well to paint oneself in the most morally virtuous light.
Just a little bit of nuance would be helpful.
