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 — Benkei

Indeed if this is the “objective” version because you quoted the UN, Hamas seems to be doing all of this and seems to as of recently vow to continue doing so. Oh and can you include genociding your own people as well?

I think @flannel jesus had a point in pointing out the differences with things like the holocaust and Native Americans. I can tell you I highly disagree with Netanyahu and his regime, but I wouldn’t call it a genocide likened to what I mentioned. I think my previous post stands on its own. You can argue having a Jewish state called “Israel” in the midst of Arab Muslim population is “genocide” because it will exclude by definition a majority run Arab Muslim polity in that territory. But then genocide is stretched to anything. Uighers are out in communist reeducation camps and are sterilized, there are attempts at low key reduction in the population. It’s hard to argue land acquisition in disputed territory is genocide. It’s turning very nature of the land dispute as “genocide” rather than historic systemic destruction of a people. Yet here there is an increase in population- more than the supposed aggressor even. That’s problematic if the term is to have historical significance beyond “this is unfair policy regarding land claims”. You can have bad policy, unfair state actions, and not a genocide. As much as you’d like to circle the square official policy is not to “wipe out the Palestinians”. However, I’d 100% agree that Netanyahu has never really done his part to keep the chance for peace going and by ignoring the existence the issue and only focusing on other states and not the internal problem, he has tried to bide time and stall. However, Hamas has always been for fucking up any chance peace. They did it in the 90s, they’ll do it again if they maintained power. Their goal again, is not a committed peace plan. It’s chaos. It’s death. It’s strife. It’s Lord of the Flies.

'Ethnic cleansing' seems more apt than genocide. — bert1

It is probably both.

Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank are deliberately put in place to make life impossible for the Palestinians living there.

It's not hard to see how purposefully creating terrible living conditions can be seen as an active attempt to destroy a population, prevent births and be a form of physical and psychological torture.

It also doesn't help that there are plenty of Israeli politicians blatantly stating that destroying the Palestinians is what they intend to do.

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that Netanyahu called the Palestinians 'Amalekites' in a speech some days ago.

A quick reminder of who the Amalekites were:

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, ox and sheep, camel and ass. — 1 Samuel 15:3

And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. — 1 Samuel 15:8

Yet they have (large) increase in population, so it’s a highly unnsuccessful one?

Self-hating Westerners vs self-hating Palestinians (especially starting from minute 7):


Who will win the contest of moral outrage? Give me some pop-corn.

Reasonable guy that makes good points from someone who was up close with the group. He represents a badly needed moderate position. Some of the members of this forum can learn from him and heed what he is saying.

For many Western countries the issue of the current conflict is also linked to the presence of an angry Arab/Muslim community which is much larger than the Jewish community (in many European countries at least, not in the US). — neomac

That would actually be the least of their problems.

The perpetual war in the Middle East simply has had and will have a destabilizing effect and unlike the US, European countries will have to deal with the flow of refugees because the Israel and the Levant is in the Mediterranean and not on the Caribian Sea. What will Bibi afterwards with the 2,2 million Palestinians as Israel likely kill only some tens of thousands of them in this war? Or, Lebanon, which basically is now bankrupt and facing, has already 1,5 million refugees from Syria. Hence if the war escalates into Bibi vowing to destroy Hezbollah, Lebanon turning into a battlefield can cause huge amounts of refugee flight again.

Then the war can destabilize countries like Egypt and not Lebanon, that do have a peace agreement with Israel and does have a population that generally despises what Israel is doing. When Egypt had it's brief encounter with democracy, the only organized opposition group won, which wasn't actually so eager anymore to hold on to the peace agreement in all cases.

France and Germany had and may still have different views from the US on Ukraine, yet this didn’t prevent them from aligning with converging policies and/or narratives when needed. — neomac

Russia has attacked already two countries and wants to annex large parts of Ukraine. Russia is a threat to EU and NATO member states. It's quite different than a terrorist organization. Hence there is no similar unified response from the EU as there was in this case as there was in the case of Ukraine.

If we agree that a system of alliance is part of the survival kit of any state in the international arena — neomac

I'm sorry, is Israel an ally of NATO? Has Israel committed ever troops or assistance to help any other country than itself? Is it a member of EU? First and foremost, the US is an ally to Israel that is basically the only advance country which the US funds. Only time when foreign countries have gotten more is when a) US has invaded them or b) the Ukraine war.

AND a larger  alliance is better than a smaller alliance to the extent economic, political and security policies and capacities can converge to maximise efficacy in reaching desired outcomes, then Israel on its side has lots of economic, technological, military, intelligence, geographic and political assets that it’s definitely worth preserving as an ally. — neomac

As the interview I above posted, yes, lot of that 14 billion weapons aid will go to weapons development.

But why not then do this with the allies that actually come to help the US in it's wars? Why not for example the UK? Give them the aid to make new joint ventures on new weapon systems with the British! They would be very happy if the "special relationship" with the US really would be a special relationship. They have a sound, well function military industrial complex I think better than Israel. Especially after the disaster of Brexit, they need friends. The British have gone with you to into Afghanistan, into Iraq, defended Kuwait alongside the US. Israel has not. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to help and improve the armed forces of your ally that for example can help you all around the World (like with AUKUS), including in the Far East?

Why not the British? They are easier and less problematic than Bibi.


Oh but I forget: Israel's security and objectives are the objectives of the US. In that order. Because... Judeo-Christian heritage, because Israel is a democracy, etc.

Yet they have (large) increase in population, so it’s a highly unnsuccessful one? — schopenhauer1

I don't see how that makes any difference.

For many Western countries the issue of the current conflict is also linked to the presence of an angry Arab/Muslim community which is much larger than the Jewish community (in many European countries at least, not in the US). — neomac

That would actually be the least of their problems.

The perpetual war in the Middle East simply has had and will have a destabilizing effect and unlike the US, European countries will have to deal with the flow of refugees because the Israel and the Levant is in the Mediterranean and not on the Caribian Sea. What will Bibi afterwards with the 2,2 million Palestinians as Israel likely kill only some tens of thousands of them in this war? Or, Lebanon, which basically is now bankrupt and facing, has already 1,5 million refugees from Syria. Hence if the war escalates into Bibi vowing to destroy Hezbollah, Lebanon turning into a battlefield can cause huge amounts of refugee flight again.

Then the war can destabilize countries like Egypt and not Lebanon, that do have a peace agreement with Israel and does have a population that generally despises what Israel is doing. When Egypt had it's brief encounter with democracy, the only organized opposition group won, which wasn't actually so eager anymore to hold on to the peace agreement in all cases. — ssu

Immigration, resident Muslim (or pro-Palestinian) electorate and Islamist terrorism are all potential issues ensuing from the conflict in Israel, sure. So containing the risk of escalation and pursuing a longer term solution for the crisis in the Middle East is desirable. But HOW? By launching an international criminal investigation against Nathnayahu? Impose economic sanctions against Israel? By letting the anti-Western propaganda galvanize the popular outrage in the Middle East and in the West? Hell no. By diplomatically pressuring Israel to stop? How is that supposed to work?
My idea is that when Nathanyahu’s compulsive response will exhaust its impetus, the US will have the best opportunity for diplomatically pressing his ousting as well as a significant change in Israel political strategy toward the Palestinian issue.

France and Germany had and may still have different views from the US on Ukraine, yet this didn’t prevent them from aligning with converging policies and/or narratives when needed. — neomac

Russia has attacked already two countries and wants to annex large parts of Ukraine. Russia is a threat to EU and NATO member states. It's quite different than a terrorist organization. Hence there is no similar unified response from the EU as there was in this case as there was in the case of Ukraine. — ssu

I don’t need an argument for why they are different, but one for why they better be different, since there are non-negligible idealogical and functional links between the two crisis. They are both attacks on a Western-led World Order and they are reciprocally instrumental in dividing the West’s energies, attention and unity.

If we agree that a system of alliance is part of the survival kit of any state in the international arena — neomac

I'm sorry, is Israel an ally of NATO? Has Israel committed ever troops or assistance to help any other country than itself? Is it a member of EU? First and foremost, the US is an ally to Israel that is basically the only advance country which the US funds. — ssu

Right, Israel is a Western ally as much as Japan can be, through the strategic cooperation with the US, the leader of the Western alliance. But the reason why the Western alliance with Israel is not getting any stronger is essentially because of the Palestinian issue. BTW many European states didn’t want to get involved in the Ukrainian war too and the reason why the Western alliance with Ukraine didn’t get any stronger is essentially because of Russia. And yet you seem to be for Western support in the case of Ukraine but not in the case of Israel because of the “humanitarian crisis”, right?
I think that if the West doesn’t support Israel the “humanitarian crisis” could worsen, for example because it would make the escalation in the area more likely.

AND a larger alliance is better than a smaller alliance to the extent economic, political and security policies and capacities can converge to maximise efficacy in reaching desired outcomes, then Israel on its side has lots of economic, technological, military, intelligence, geographic and political assets that it’s definitely worth preserving as an ally. — neomac

As the interview I above posted, yes, lot of that 14 billion weapons aid will go to weapons development.

But why not then do this with the allies that actually come to help the US in it's wars? Why not for example the UK? Give them the aid to make new joint ventures on new weapon systems with the British! They would be very happy if the "special relationship" with the US really would be a special relationship. They have a sound, well function military industrial complex I think better than Israel. Especially after the disaster of Brexit, they need friends. The British have gone with you to into Afghanistan, into Iraq, defended Kuwait alongside the US. Israel has not. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to help and improve the armed forces of your ally that for example can help you all around the World (like with AUKUS), including in the Far East?

Why not the British? They are easier and less problematic than Bibi.
skynews-japan-hiroshima-joe-biden_6160185.jpg

Oh but I forget: Israel's security and objectives are the objectives of the US. In that order. Because... Judeo-Christian heritage, because Israel is a democracy, etc. — ssu

To which I would add: the geographic location of Israel (like the proximity to the Suez Canal and its strategic relevance for the traffic of oil, gas, commerce, the internet cables), the expertise and means that Israel has dealing with Middle Eastern regional conflicts, the Jewish lobby in the US.
While UK was more useful to the US, before the Brexit, when it was inside the EU (because it could better support pro-American policies). But it’s not an out-out issue: both countries are good and effective American allies. Anyways, Israel is the most problematic ally.

Reasonable guy that makes good points from someone who was up close with the group. He represents a badly needed moderate position. — schopenhauer1

A moderate position that Hamas is clearly willing to destroy also in Israel. Indeed, Hamas attack was targeting the Israeli population and audience politically opposing Nathanyahu and turn them into supporters of Nathanyahu's hawkish response:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/world/europe/israel-reservists-hamas-war.html

My idea is that Nathanyahu’s compulsive response will exhaust its impetus, the US will have the best opportunity for diplomatically pressing his ousting as well as a significant change in Israel political strategy toward the Palestinian issue. — neomac

I agree that the compulsive response will exhaust its impetus. Actually Joe Biden's advice was good on the failures that the US did in 9/11. The Hamas terrorist attack shouldn't be viewed as: Great! Now we can deal with every enemy we have because we will have the support of the traumatized population.

I don't think that the US has to do anything (and will do anything) about the internal Israeli politics. You see, this goes only one way: Israel influences US politics, not the other way around. If you say it does, please give me a concrete example. The only pressure what the US had was for Israel to disregard it's own fighter project, the IAI Lavi, and choose modern F-16s.

Bibi will likely fall. October 7th was a total disaster and political leadership will have to pay the price, just as Golda Meir later had to resign.

Right, Israel is a Western ally as much as Japan can be, through the strategic cooperation with the US, the leader of the Western alliance. — neomac

Please tell me, what just that "strategic cooperation" is in the case of Israel.

Japan aided the US in it's War on Terror. Japan sent roughly 5,500 GSDF troops to Iraq from January 2004 to July 2006 to provide medical aid, water and to help repair infrastructure in Samawah. No Japanese troops were killed or injured during the mission (they were actually protected themselves). But still, that's a contribution from a country from the other side of the World, which has similar problems like Germany to show it's military muscle (after WW2). And Japan is quite essential for the US when it poses against China. Plus the Japanese navy is actually quite large and competent. Without Japan all this talk about US pivoting to Asia (against China) is very difficult. That is strategic cooperation for me.

What has Israel contributed other than continuing on it's own objectives?

I don't recall Isreal and Bibi helping the US to defeat ISIS. Actually what I do remember is that islamists fighting Assad's forces who were wounded were helped by Israel: the islamists would simply leave the wounded on the Isreali side of the Golan Heights and Israeli soldiers would pick them up and take them to a hospital. Pretty honorable thing to do... but I'm not sure if they would have done the same for Syrian troops. In all, Israel and Bibi are just interested in themselves.

To which I would add: the geographic location of Israel (like the proximity to the Suez Canal and its strategic relevance for the traffic of oil, gas, commerce, the internet cables) — neomac

Umm... isn't the US and Egypt in good terms too? Wouldn't geopolitically the stability of Egypt be here more important? The Suez canal is in Egypt. Btw, those gas fields that Israel has aren't so important. And as Israeli is a very wealthy country, I guess it does have a lot of internet cables.

it makes a huge difference, because it's evidence of the claim. Population increases are evidence against the claim of genocide.

it makes a huge difference, because it's evidence of the claim. — flannel jesus

Evidence? You mean like Israeli politicians admitting intent, and decades of Israeli policy we can fall back on?

It's an open and shut case.

Evidence? You mean like Israeli politicians admitting intent, and decades of Israeli policy we can fall back on?

It's an open and shut case. — Tzeentch

First off, I can go either way as to whether terms matter here or just a tool for making red herrings. But let's say "genocide" is a useful word as it demarcates a specific immoral phenomenon regarding groups of people against other groups of people. Ok, if that is the case, then both sides can be considered "genocidal" in their intentions. Both sides want the land, and both side have made violent overtures, often with rhetoric like "from the river to the sea". Hamas has kidnapped 250 people raped, pillaged the countryside, chopped off heads, killed 1,400 people and showed it on media, sending rockets daily, and before that periodically. Hamas had scores of suicide bombers in the 1st and second intafadas, not participating in two-state solution talks. At various points in 1948, 1967, and 1973, the Egypt/Jordan/Syria/Lebanon/Iraq/Saudi Arabia with the Palestinian forces, have called for the utter destruction of Israel. Currently, Iran and Hezbollah have had that as part of their policy. So, sure, we can indeed talk about Likud's abysmal policies in the West Bank. But if we start throwing around terms that matter because of their intent, and even on the "harm" they actually do to a population, then genocide starts widening to everything that the extreme actors in that region do.

Ok, if that is the case, then both sides can be considered "genocidal" in their intentions. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but I'm not sure if being equated to a terrorist organisation is going to help the Israeli government's case.

But if we start throwing around terms that matter because of their intent, ... — schopenhauer1

Israel has a history of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and other human rights violations that skirt the lines of genocide. We see the intent put into practice on a large scale.

I've learned on these forums that sometimes there is a previous post that makes the best, and it's just best to refer back to that one, as it still answers the question. I am going to do that in this case.

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 — Benkei

Did the Allies commit genocide against populations of Axis powers?

Read again instead of misquoting the definition and asking dumb questions as a result.

Read again instead of misquoting the definition and asking dumb questions as a result. — Benkei

So the Allies didn't commit genocide against Axis populations.

Israel has a history of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and other human rights violations that skirt the lines of genocide. We see the intent put into practice on a large scale. — Tzeentch

:100:

Did the Allies commit genocide [war crimes] against populations of Axis powers? — RogueAI

The Allies certainly committed their share of war crimes (e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ...)

The Allies certainly commited their share of war crimes (e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ...) — 180 Proof

Let's go with war crimes then. Does the committing of Allied war crimes entail a moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis?

Does the committing of Allied war crimes entail a moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis? — RogueAI

Yes. What makes actions "war crimes" is that, to begin with they are not self-defensive, they are gratuitous, etc.

Yes. What makes actions "war crimes" is that, to begin with they are not self-defensive, etc. — 180 Proof

But there wasn't a moral equivalence between the Axis and Allies. Are you claiming the Allies were just as bad, morally, as the Axis? That's absurd.

Evidence? You mean like Israeli politicians admitting intent, and decades of Israeli policy we can fall back on? — Tzeentch

yes, those things would also constitute evidence, sure.

I'm claiming that Allied war crimes were morally equivalent to Axis war crimes insofar as they were both war crimes. Your special pleading is what's "absurd", sir. Inform yourself. :mask:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

I'm claiming that Allied war crimes were morally equivalent to Axis war crimes insofar as they were both war crimes. Your special pleading is what's absurd, sir. Inform yourself. — 180 Proof

OK, so there is a moral equivalence between Axis and Allies viz-a-viz war crimes, but the war crime moral equivalence does not create an overall moral equivalence between the two? Even though the Allies committed war crimes, they were morally superior to the Axis. Is that correct?

This is a pointless way of discussing the issue.

Moral acts are done by moral actors. Abstractions like Allies / Axis are not moral actors.

But if we ignore that, looking for a moral high ground in something as awful as war is pointless too. Both sides participated in war crimes and the industrialized killing of millions. Both sides were irredeemable from any moral point of view.

:up:

Even though the Allies committed war crimes, they were morally superior to the Axis. Is that correct? — RogueAI

That question is too vague.

Yeah, the world was better off that the Allied powers had defeated the Axis powers. No doubt the world will be better off when the US client-state of Israel destroys the Iranian client-terrorist proxies of Hamas & Hezbollah. The question is: will Israel destroy itself, or be destroyed, in the process by becoming the monsters it is fighting? Apparently, Israel has – especially, since 1967 – such that the "Greater Israel" state policy is, in practice, indistinguishable from, IMO, the US' "Manifest Destiny" and even Third Reich's "Lebensraum" ideologies.

So, Rogue, is the concentration camp regime that's indiscriminately mass-murdering prisoners "morally superior" to the very few prisoners who had escaped only to murder the guards' & torturers' "innocent" families and friends?

(update 5 mins after I wrote this post) To wit:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/us-jews-rift-gaza-israel-crisis

That question is too vague. — 180 Proof

No, it's not. The Allies were morally superior to the Axis. Full stop. That's one of the clearest real-life moral cases we have. The Nazi's were so bad that invoking comparisons to them shuts down debate (Godwin's Law). Your anti-Israel bias has blinded you to some obvious moral truths. I get why. You don't want to follow this chain of logic: if the Allies can kill innocent people and still claim the moral high ground, then Israel can kill innocent people and still claim the moral high ground.

Does the committing of Allied war crimes entail a moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis?
— RogueAI
Yes. What makes actions "war crimes" is that, to begin with they are not self-defensive, they are gratuitous, etc. — 180 Proof

I'm claiming that Allied war crimes were morally equivalent to Axis war crimes insofar as they were both war crimes. Your special pleading is what's absurd, sir. Inform yourself.
— 180 Proof

OK, so there is a moral equivalence between Axis and Allies viz-a-viz war crimes, but the war crime moral equivalence does not create an overall moral equivalence between the two? Even though the Allies committed war crimes, they were morally superior to the Axis. Is that correct? — RogueAI

You can always tell the goodies from the baddies by the colour of their hats. Plus the goodies always win because God is on their side. So we know the Nazis were bad because they lost, and the Allies were good because they won, and the fact that they both slaughtered children by the thousand is unimportant.

Similarly, we know the Taliban are good because they won and the US and Britain are bad because they lost. Now God does not seem to have decided yet about Israel and Palestine, so you have to rely on the hats - and all the Jewish hats I've seen have been black, from the little crocheted ones they have to glue on to their heads to the giant extra thick pancake things with furry bits. I rest my moral case.

:roll: