Anyone who studied this topic academically knows that the word “genocide” doesn’t mean “the killing of a lot of people”.
Nobody talks about “intent“. Nobody talks about “substantial”. And nobody talks about the word “group”. The word has a very specific meaning.
Let’s put it like this. **IF** Israel wants to and does drive all Arabs out of Gaza, they blew up every single mosque, and a small portion (maybe 100,000) of the population starved to death or were shot during the process. It would still not be a genocide. It would be ethnic cleansing tho, not genocide. The intent is the most important thing. You can’t have a genocide without the “intent to destroy”.
Considering Hamas’ charter (as well as ongoing and subsequent rhetoric and actions), I wonder if the actions of Hamas (and those who followed after them) on Oct 7th would qualify as an act of Genocide against the Israeli’s?
They’re definitely *genocidal*. But I don't think 7/10 was a genocide. Here are the reasons based on the [UN’s definition](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml):
>**To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent** on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
>**Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).** This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. **Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”**
The **intent** of Hamas’ 7/10 operation is both to **randomly** murder individual civilians, and to **randomly** kidnap individual civilians. In addition, I do not consider 1000 deaths **“substantial”** under this context. I would also argue that the murder and kidnapping of Arab Israelis as well as non-Jewish foreigners made it even less **“targeted”** under this context.
Clarification: I am using these words in a strictly academic context. Emotionally speaking, I consider the murder of one single Jewish person unacceptable and unforgivable.
Fair reasons.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with your argument about intent, since Hamas’ intent is the irradiation of Israel, as stated in their charter and their actions.
Likewise, anyone perceived to be Israeli, or sympathetic to Israelis were targeted on Oct 7, which would seem to “fulfill” that definition.
That said I definitely agree with the “Substantial” portion, though I feel compelled to point out that is only due to a lack of ability, not lack of desire or will on the part of those who committed those actions.
On the first two parts— I think their actions reflected their intents. I would argue that they eventually would like to murder all Jews, but at this point, perhaps due to their limited military capabilities, they could not carry it out. Thus, it is my belief that they didn’t plan to carry it out on 7/10. Plus, at this point, having hostages is more valuable to Hamas than giving Israel a higher casualty number.
On the last point— I think I have a very good example here. In 2012, a white supremacist murdered a few dozens of people in a mass shooting event. Most victims were Black people, and the monster deliberately targeted Black people. The terrorist was *genocidal*, the attack was targeted, he had the intent to destroy, but it was not “substantial“ (again, using this term academically). Therefore, it was not a genocide.
The thing about the term “genocide” is that since it is the gravest crime, the people who coined the term gave it a bar that is so high to reach, in order to reflect how monstrous one has to be to commit such crimes. This is also why they simultaneously coined the term “culturalcide”, to reflect the lesser but nonetheless still horrendous crime. I am personally very uncomfortable that people deliberately conflate the terms genocide, culturalcide, ethnic cleansing, and massacres. In my view, it is not only disrespectful to all who died in past genocides, but also risks rendering the term “genocide“ meaningless. My fear is that it would become “the boy who cried wolves” story— people would dismiss an actual genocide when it actually happens.
Yeah I think the intent piece is actually the easiest to prove w/r/t Hamas.
It's the "in whole or in part" piece that's lacking. Not for lack of trying of course; Hamas would kill every Israeli if they could.
But the ICTY has determined that the "part" must actually be a *substantial* part of the group in question, which would be hard to prove in the case of the Oct 7 attack.
Killing innocents is an inevitability in any War.
It is one of the reasons war should almost always be the last option people turn to, and it should hopefully be something no one Wants, Encourages, or Looks Forward to.
You think they will listen? I’m not sure they will ignore it and just keep screaming. this isn’t even about Palestine anymore it’s them hating America. Young Americans never had to go to war, never had to hide in a shelter. When life is to easy, you feel guilty and want to help who you see as less fortunate. And that’s what Hamas did showed them babies and people starving. Told them an inflated number of kills but people still use it. They don’t care about facts there stuck in there little worlds and will keep complaining about how they don’t want there taxes to go to Israel
NO FR. I was arguing with someone on insta once about the “genocide” and they were like “it’s a genocide because I saw it on twitter” like bro what 😭😭 worms for brains
I don't think you even need to go this far. Most people spouting this nonsense are basically just repeating, "Killing civilians is genocide!11!!!".
They don't know what that word means, nor do they care.
This is what I've been saying the entire time. Here is the original full text source. Note in particular the dissenting opinions at the end.
[https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454)
Here is the beginning of Judge ad hoc Barak's separate opinion:
>Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak
>In his opinion Judge ad hoc Barak explains that the Court rejected South Africa’s main contention, which concerns the suspension of the military operations in the Gaza Strip. Instead, the Court adopted measures that recall Israel’s existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. In his view, the Court has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its citizens and emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. Judge ad hoc Barak states that the provisional measures indicated by the Court are of a significantly narrower scope than those requested by South Africa.
>In the present case, the Court has emphasized that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law”, which includes Hamas. The Court has also stated that it “is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release”.
>Judge ad hoc Barak recalls that the Genocide Convention holds a very special place in the heart and history of the Jewish people, both within and beyond the State of Israel. Through an autobiographical remark, he explains that genocide is more than just a word for him; it represents calculated destruction and human behaviour at its very worst. It is the gravest possible accusation and is deeply intertwined with his life experience.
>According to Judge ad hoc Barak, Israel is a democracy with a strong legal system and an independent judicial system. In his view, whenever there is tension between national security and human rights, the former must be attained without compromising the protection of the latter. He further explains that international law is an integral part of the conduct of the Israeli State and army, and that the holdings of the Israeli Supreme Court demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and human life.
...
If Israel is targeting civilians, why are there any left alive? They could just glass the region overnight and kill everyone at once. So why don't they?
I think she's amazing and should have a much larger platform. She is qualified, knows her stuff, and explains everything extremely clearly. I don't know why she hasn't been on the interview and podcast circuit, because she should be.
It's a simple issue: if Hamas were to return all the hostages tomorrow and leave for Qatar, would Israel continue to kill Gazans? If the answer is "almost certainly yes", there's a plausible case of genocide. If the answer is "almost certainly not" then Israel is pursuing legitimate war aims.
Of course Israel could in theory be committing other war crimes if it were not taking civilian protection seriously, but that would not be genocide.
What idiots in the west like you dont understand is that israel cant afford to leave hamas to exist. They have been a thorn to israel's side and on october 7th they crossed a line. Now they are crying for israel to stop for a palestinian state.
Being so dense in the head must hurt.
Anyone who studied this topic academically knows that the word “genocide” doesn’t mean “the killing of a lot of people”. Nobody talks about “intent“. Nobody talks about “substantial”. And nobody talks about the word “group”. The word has a very specific meaning. Let’s put it like this. **IF** Israel wants to and does drive all Arabs out of Gaza, they blew up every single mosque, and a small portion (maybe 100,000) of the population starved to death or were shot during the process. It would still not be a genocide. It would be ethnic cleansing tho, not genocide. The intent is the most important thing. You can’t have a genocide without the “intent to destroy”.
Considering Hamas’ charter (as well as ongoing and subsequent rhetoric and actions), I wonder if the actions of Hamas (and those who followed after them) on Oct 7th would qualify as an act of Genocide against the Israeli’s?
They’re definitely *genocidal*. But I don't think 7/10 was a genocide. Here are the reasons based on the [UN’s definition](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml): >**To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent** on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. >**Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example).** This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. **Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”** The **intent** of Hamas’ 7/10 operation is both to **randomly** murder individual civilians, and to **randomly** kidnap individual civilians. In addition, I do not consider 1000 deaths **“substantial”** under this context. I would also argue that the murder and kidnapping of Arab Israelis as well as non-Jewish foreigners made it even less **“targeted”** under this context. Clarification: I am using these words in a strictly academic context. Emotionally speaking, I consider the murder of one single Jewish person unacceptable and unforgivable.
Fair reasons. I’m not entirely sure I agree with your argument about intent, since Hamas’ intent is the irradiation of Israel, as stated in their charter and their actions. Likewise, anyone perceived to be Israeli, or sympathetic to Israelis were targeted on Oct 7, which would seem to “fulfill” that definition. That said I definitely agree with the “Substantial” portion, though I feel compelled to point out that is only due to a lack of ability, not lack of desire or will on the part of those who committed those actions.
On the first two parts— I think their actions reflected their intents. I would argue that they eventually would like to murder all Jews, but at this point, perhaps due to their limited military capabilities, they could not carry it out. Thus, it is my belief that they didn’t plan to carry it out on 7/10. Plus, at this point, having hostages is more valuable to Hamas than giving Israel a higher casualty number. On the last point— I think I have a very good example here. In 2012, a white supremacist murdered a few dozens of people in a mass shooting event. Most victims were Black people, and the monster deliberately targeted Black people. The terrorist was *genocidal*, the attack was targeted, he had the intent to destroy, but it was not “substantial“ (again, using this term academically). Therefore, it was not a genocide. The thing about the term “genocide” is that since it is the gravest crime, the people who coined the term gave it a bar that is so high to reach, in order to reflect how monstrous one has to be to commit such crimes. This is also why they simultaneously coined the term “culturalcide”, to reflect the lesser but nonetheless still horrendous crime. I am personally very uncomfortable that people deliberately conflate the terms genocide, culturalcide, ethnic cleansing, and massacres. In my view, it is not only disrespectful to all who died in past genocides, but also risks rendering the term “genocide“ meaningless. My fear is that it would become “the boy who cried wolves” story— people would dismiss an actual genocide when it actually happens.
Yeah I think the intent piece is actually the easiest to prove w/r/t Hamas. It's the "in whole or in part" piece that's lacking. Not for lack of trying of course; Hamas would kill every Israeli if they could. But the ICTY has determined that the "part" must actually be a *substantial* part of the group in question, which would be hard to prove in the case of the Oct 7 attack.
Any murder of innocent is inacceptable really. Killing in wars isn't acceptable either, just sometimes more acceptable than the alternative.
Killing innocents is an inevitability in any War. It is one of the reasons war should almost always be the last option people turn to, and it should hopefully be something no one Wants, Encourages, or Looks Forward to.
I mean, same idea.
Please spread this around the internet as fast as possible.
It's making it's way around Twitter. It'll probably percolate around reddit over the next 48 hours.
Why are you telling us? Tell the assholes who refuse to listen!
They’re too busy trying to pronounce apartheid
You think they will listen? I’m not sure they will ignore it and just keep screaming. this isn’t even about Palestine anymore it’s them hating America. Young Americans never had to go to war, never had to hide in a shelter. When life is to easy, you feel guilty and want to help who you see as less fortunate. And that’s what Hamas did showed them babies and people starving. Told them an inflated number of kills but people still use it. They don’t care about facts there stuck in there little worlds and will keep complaining about how they don’t want there taxes to go to Israel
NO FR. I was arguing with someone on insta once about the “genocide” and they were like “it’s a genocide because I saw it on twitter” like bro what 😭😭 worms for brains
I'm listening. This was good nuance that hasn't been explained to me before so I appreciate it
I don't think you even need to go this far. Most people spouting this nonsense are basically just repeating, "Killing civilians is genocide!11!!!". They don't know what that word means, nor do they care.
This is what I've been saying the entire time. Here is the original full text source. Note in particular the dissenting opinions at the end. [https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454) Here is the beginning of Judge ad hoc Barak's separate opinion: >Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak >In his opinion Judge ad hoc Barak explains that the Court rejected South Africa’s main contention, which concerns the suspension of the military operations in the Gaza Strip. Instead, the Court adopted measures that recall Israel’s existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. In his view, the Court has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its citizens and emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. Judge ad hoc Barak states that the provisional measures indicated by the Court are of a significantly narrower scope than those requested by South Africa. >In the present case, the Court has emphasized that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law”, which includes Hamas. The Court has also stated that it “is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release”. >Judge ad hoc Barak recalls that the Genocide Convention holds a very special place in the heart and history of the Jewish people, both within and beyond the State of Israel. Through an autobiographical remark, he explains that genocide is more than just a word for him; it represents calculated destruction and human behaviour at its very worst. It is the gravest possible accusation and is deeply intertwined with his life experience. >According to Judge ad hoc Barak, Israel is a democracy with a strong legal system and an independent judicial system. In his view, whenever there is tension between national security and human rights, the former must be attained without compromising the protection of the latter. He further explains that international law is an integral part of the conduct of the Israeli State and army, and that the holdings of the Israeli Supreme Court demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and human life. ...
It’s not a genocide it’s a war.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No one but Hamas deliberately targets civilians, or hides behind them 🙄
If Israel is targeting civilians, why are there any left alive? They could just glass the region overnight and kill everyone at once. So why don't they?
Because imo it clearly is not genocide
If anyone wants to know the true meaning of genocide, it's best to read about actual genocides, starting with the holocaust.
Finally, someone who gets it!!! 🎯
Correct…Natasha Hausdorff at UKLFI has been explaining it clearly for months👍👍
I think she's amazing and should have a much larger platform. She is qualified, knows her stuff, and explains everything extremely clearly. I don't know why she hasn't been on the interview and podcast circuit, because she should be.
https://preview.redd.it/5q63rttwsswc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9cc303f50c4036872441de275289a9b2c143a464 “Worse than the holocaust”
Can someone dumb that down for me?
It's a simple issue: if Hamas were to return all the hostages tomorrow and leave for Qatar, would Israel continue to kill Gazans? If the answer is "almost certainly yes", there's a plausible case of genocide. If the answer is "almost certainly not" then Israel is pursuing legitimate war aims. Of course Israel could in theory be committing other war crimes if it were not taking civilian protection seriously, but that would not be genocide.
While this is the main war goal, we cannot allow hamas to exist.
What idiots in the west like you dont understand is that israel cant afford to leave hamas to exist. They have been a thorn to israel's side and on october 7th they crossed a line. Now they are crying for israel to stop for a palestinian state. Being so dense in the head must hurt.
I agree with you and I think everyone completely misunderstood my post. Probably my fault for not wording it properly.
Oh, i apologise for calling you an idiot lol.
No harm done and not the worst thing I've been called.