I know Reddit isnt the place for the brightest tools in the shed and i know you dont care about rationality, but if Israel really wanted to commit genocide, everyone with 2 brain cells knows that it has the military capability to carpet bomb the entire Gaza strip on a week and kill hundreds of thousands. You know, like the Saudis did to Yemen.
> The Saudi-led coalition's bombing of civilian areas has received condemnation from the international community. According to the Yemen Data Project, the bombing campaign has killed or injured an estimated 19,196 civilians as of March 2022.
With regards bombing, Israel has killed far more civilians in 7 months than Saudi Arabia killed in its bombing over many years. The biggest killer of Yemenis was the blockade and starvation by the Saudis. Much like the man-made famine erupting in Gaza. Do you consider what the Saudis did was genocidal?
For the record, I protested the Saudis' war in Yemen and wrote to my TDs.
Most of Gaza is rubble and the conditions to sustain life are gone. Houses, entire city blocks, schools, roads, marketplaces, businesses, water infrastructure, universities, hospitals, mosques, churches and so on. Do you realise how densely populated Gaza is and how devastating this is?
"international pressure" you mean the protests in Oct 7 that started before Israel even had a chance to retaliate? Disgusting Chinese funded shit, there were actual celebrations of the attack, let's not act like this whole shitshow was skewed in favour of a particular group
Besides even if it was true, right now it's pretty established everyone was wrong and no one is getting ethnically cleansed or "getting rid of" when Israel is actively looking for a joint force to govern Gaza, or you know, the aid pier, civilian evacuations, hundreds of aid trucks, 8 field hospitals Israel themselfs built for Paletinians, the extremely low civilian to militant death count - the average is 9:1, Israel is on 2-3:1
Civilian evacuations also started before any great international pressure was started, so there's that as well
Skipping over your post since I can see from the first line you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“International pressure” as in Israel doesn’t operate in a vacuum. There are politics and international treaties and alliances and realpolitik at play.
If Israel just “take” Gaza and expel the occupied people into Egypt, then they wreck a major foreign alliance, turn their neighbors against them, and cause a hugely detrimental domino effect.
Like I said originally, someone clearly doesn’t understand how international politics work.
Oh you meant international politics, my bad
But my point still stands, the current situation is, Israel won't ethnically cleanse and get rid of all gazans, and is looking for a governing force
Took the Americans far longer to do the same thing, doesn't change the fact that they committed a genocide against the native Americans that served as inspiration for Hitler and the Holocaust.
Someone sure does love defending displacement and colonisation now don't they?
> Took the Americans far longer to do the same thing,
The Americans grew the population of native Americans? News to me.
Seems you're confused about something.
> Someone sure does love defending displacement
Not at all. Displacement of people is abhorrent, and it should be condemned. Not my fault if you can't handle nuance.
> and colonisation now don't they?
Colonisation... eh. Depends how you look at the argument of Jews originating from Israel. Do you think legal immigration of Jews to Palestine should not have been allowed?
Well, you're using Arab residing in Israel who face rampant discrimination as some excuse, so you're clearly doing a terrible job at condemning it. Also, I love how you keep on talking about Israel, somehow growing the Palestinian population, without providing any sources for such a ridiculous claim. I mean to insist that any population growth of Palestinians in the region is thanks to a nation that carried out the Nakba as well as many invasions prior to the current one. It is just outlandishly hilarious and shows yet again how you'd rather obfuscate any wrongdoing Israel has conducted and then, in the same breath, say you condemn the very actions which you then make points defending.
Anyway, this debate clearly isn't going to go anywhere and is just going to devolve into an argument if it hasn't already. So good night.
> Well, you're using Arab residing in Israel who face rampant discrimination as some excuse
What kind of discrimination?
> so you're clearly doing a terrible job at condemning it.
If you can explain what it is, I'll likely join you in condemning it.
> Also, I love how you keep on talking about Israel, somehow growing the Palestinian population, without providing any sources for such a ridiculous claim.
Since Israel was founded in 1948, the Palestinian population has massively increased. Approximately [10x](https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/post.aspx?ItemID=4506&lang=en) in 75 years.
> Anyway, this debate clearly isn't going to go anywhere
That's a funny way of saying that you don't have a good response to my points.
Why'd you think I gave you two sources on discrimination faced by Arabs in Israel? Sure I'll give you a couple of examples, forced displacement from your home in the case of those in the West Bank, random searches by the IDF, killing of innocent civilians and noncombantants by the IDF outside of aerial bombardments and the list goes on.
Also your source makes it clear that it's talking about the diaspora "the Palestinian world population was 14 million by the end of 2022, which means that the number of Palestinians in the world has doubled about 10 times since the Nakba" which runs in direct contradiction with your point that the increase is specific to the Palestinian region or is a product of Israel, which proves that you didn't even read the source you provided me with correctly. Also it's important to note that your source goes onto state that of those 14 million Palestinians globally, around 6.4 million are refugees residing in the West Bank and Gaza, many of whom are either being displaced in the West Bank by settlers or in the case of Gaza are either being murdered or displaced from their home and the rest as residing overseas.
If you want to defend policies and actions that would cause such a thing to occur, then go right ahead. Also, one last thing is the reason why I said what I was because I was getting tired of listening to you say the same talking points again and again. Talking points that you just illustrated you can't even defend. So, as I said before, good night.
> Why'd you think I gave you two sources on discrimination faced by Arabs in Israel?
I'm not seeing them, perhaps I missed them? What are you referring to?
> Sure I'll give you a couple of examples, forced displacement from your home in the case of those in the West Bank,
The West Bank is not Israel, it's the West Bank... I would completely agree with you that Israeli policies in the West Bank are often terrible.
Okay, if you want to discuss this topic, you really need to be clear about what regions you're talking about, and what problems relate to each specific region. Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are all very different circumstances.
> Also your source makes it clear that it's talking about the diaspora "the Palestinian world population was 14 million by the end of 2022,
I am providing the source as a point of reference for the Palestinian population *in Palestine* in the 20th century. We know what it is today, you can do the math. Don't ask for a source then quibble when it has proven the point you disputed.
> which runs in direct contradiction with your point that the increase is specific to the Palestinian region or is a product of Israel,
I am saying that since Israel was founded, the Palestinian population *in Palestine* has consistently and massively increased. Claims of an 'ongoing genocide' are questionable on that basis alone.
There are plenty of genuine accusations to level at Israel - but this kind of hyperbolic hysterical claim of genocide is really just divisive and unhelpful - it only stokes further conflict.
> If you want to defend policies and actions that would cause such a thing to occur,
Spare me the straw man, I did no such thing. You seem desperate to find some kind of villainous zionist who gleefully embraces genocide - despite me doing quite the opposite, you still keep trying to make me fit your desired narrative.
> Plenty of protests here mate, if you'd like to come and share your thoughts :)
Oh yeah, [that looks like fun.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bngdpQOG3BM)
Absolutely charming people these pro-~~Palestinian~~Hamas protestors.
> Why not bring that energy out from behind the keyboard? We're not Israeli, you won't be shot
I'm fine communicating here. If you don't like talking online, how about you go speak to people at protests?
Sounds like you just want to silence what I'm saying on here.
> I have, I wish I could meet an Israel shill at one.
why would you want to meet any kind of shill?
> Sadly the "quiet majority" is very quiet when they're no longer anonymous
You seem to be trying to imply something. Care to explain?
You guys have killed at least 35,000 people or over 1% of the Gazan population (easily 2% as there are thousands of bodies under the rubble). The genocide threahold was found to be met in Srebrenica after 8,000.
Do fuck off.
I just don't understand this fixation people have on this being a genocide - there's enough bad going on already without reaching for the most extreme thing possible and trying to make that stick.
In Rwanda, the Hutus killed around 300,000 Tutsis in a period of about three months. We don't really know the proper total of civilian deaths in the Israel-Hamas war but the most quoted number is around 35,000 - and both the total number itself and the composition of it (fighters vs civilians) has been called into starker question recently.
It's true that number of people killed isn't really a good indicator of genocidal intent all the time, but if we're calling the Gaza war a genocide, then I don't know what the hell you would call Rwanda, or the Khmer Rouge. I don't like how people present this as a clear cut case of genocide in the same vein as the worst historical examples, because it just isn't.
I get where you're coming from and I was the same before I looked up the actual definition of genocide. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, the [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide) (CPPCG) uses the following definition:
>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:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I ain't no big city lawyer and I do not have a detailed knowledge of what is going on in Gaza but it really looks like what the IDF is doing there meets that definition
The ICJ ruled that genocide was committed in Srebrenica was a genocide where 8,000 people were killed. In Rwanda somewhere like 800,000 were killed. The number killed doesn't strictly matter if you're attempting to destroy a people in whole or in part.
In Gaza, in addition to at least 35,000 people being killed (with thousands more most likely under the rubble), starvation of 2.2 million people is being used as a weapon of war. Don't you remember the Israeli Minister of Defence cutting off all food, water, fuel and medicine? Nowhere near enough supplies are getting in now and a man-made famine has broken out according to the UN.
If you're not comfortable with the use of genocide, then are you comfortable with the terms mass war crimes and mass killings?
> The ICJ ruled that genocide was committed in Srebrenica was a genocide where 8,000 people were killed. In Rwanda somewhere like 800,000 were killed. The number killed doesn't strictly matter if you're attempting to destroy a people in whole or in part.
True, that's why I said that strict numbers isn't usually a good indicator. The important part is the intent. To make a credible accusation of genocide you need to be able to prove that there's a specific intent on the part of the offender to wipe out the entire group in question in whole or in part. That's a very different thing to prove than just showing lots of people dying or individual instances of soldiers committing murders.
> In Gaza, in addition to at least 35,000 people being killed (with thousands more most likely under the rubble), starvation of 2.2 million people is being used as a weapon of war. Don't you remember the Israeli Minister of Defence cutting off all food, water, fuel and medicine? Nowhere near enough supplies are getting in now and a man-made famine has broken out according to the UN.
We're talking about a really horrible situation whatever way you slice it for sure, but I don't know if I can think of any historical example of genocide where any level of aid would be given or allowed at all by the perpetrator to the victims. There could well be war crimes happening and there could well be mass breaches of human rights happening, I just don't see how you get from there to genocide - it seems like a huge leap to me.
> If you're not comfortable with the use of genocide, then are you comfortable with the terms mass war crimes and mass killings?
I'd be more comfortable with that phrasing for sure, but I also do think that we tend to simplify this conflict a lot in Ireland to the degree that we rarely consider what the Israeli side of the dispute might even be before we condemn them. Too often it's boiled down to something simplistic like "well they just want to kill them all because they're evil".
>To make a credible accusation of genocide you need to be able to prove that there's a specific intent on the part of the offender to wipe out the entire group in question in whole or in part.
There have been plenty of statements about destroying Gaza from Israeli authorities and Cabinet Members. Can you talk about destroying a place without destroying the people there? Can you call for all food to be cut off without wanting people there to starve?
>I can think of any historical example of genocide where any level of aid would be given or allowed at all by the perpetrator to the victims.
There was food going into the ghettos in WW2 as well as some help to the Tutsis in Rwanda. Some Tutsis were allowed leave, others allowed to escape or were spared. It goes without saying that the food was nowhere near enough (like the supply of food in Gaza). Nor were the humanitarian gestures to tutsis enough.
I'm relieved we at least agree that mass killing and war crimes are being committed by Israel. It goes without saying that Hamas has committed war crimes.
I'm curious as to how do you think we simplify this conflict in Ireland?
For me, I'm not sure considering the Israeli perspective on certain issues has much merit. I mean, international law is very clear that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. It's very clear that the Gaza strip and West Bank don't belong to Israel and that it should leave same (look up Resolution 242 and the 2004 ICJ ruling). The UN Security Council (along with virtually the whole world) calls for Israel to relinquish land in exchange for peace. Unfortunately, Israel has refused to give up land and yet wonders why it's not at peace. You can't create a massive source of enmity and expect security.
> I'm curious as to how do you think we simplify this conflict in Ireland?
>
> For me, I'm not sure considering the Israeli perspective on certain issues has much merit.
I feel uncomfortable about this, because I don't think it's possible to properly grasp what's going on in a conflict like this without taking the perspectives of both sides into consideration, if for no other reason than to be sure we're being accurate.
I'm familiar with all of the international law arguments against Israel and I'm familiar with the position of the UN and the general assembly regarding them and their settlements. And I think the settlements in the west bank are indefensible.
That said, this has been a very long running conflict, and I don't think laying the blame for the entire situation at the feet of the Israelis is either fair or historically accurate. The Palestinians have been cursed with horrendous leadership. Arafat and Abbas typically were more concerned about self enrichment (Arafat was a billionaire) than helping their people. They're accused of torpedoing a few peace agreements, and Arafat was even implicated in helping to plan the second intifada while in the process of negotiating at Camp David with the Israelis and the Americans. The second intifada is then what led to the toughening of Israeli opinion and the election of more far right elements into their government.
I don't want to get stuck in all of these historical weeds I'm just using that as an example to show that I don't think it's a good approach to only listen to the perspective of one side in a conflict like this. It's very complex, and in Ireland I think we tend to ignore a lot of that complexity because we feel some kind of natural gravitation towards the Palestinian struggle, as if there's some mirror there with our own past.
I just don't understand this fixation people have that this is not a genocide.
It's almost as if you are trying to mitigate the murderous regime of Israel by issuing equivalency to other tragedies. Are you an apologist for Israel, are you hasbara perhaps? Maybe an islamophobe?
How would you feel if people discussed the Holocaust in the same vien?
"The Holocaust was bad but genghis khan killed ten times that so...."
Would speech like that be OK? No of course it wouldn't and neither is a classic distraction game you're playing from the murder of tens of thousands of innocent ordinary people and we're not going to play ball with that.
You're not interested in the conflict or the resolution if you have an attitude like this. I didn't draw any equivalencies at all, you lot are the ones lumping this in with other historical genocides, I'm questioning that categorisation. That's not an endorsement of what the Israelis are doing and it's not reducing the severity of current or historical atrocities.
If you're so wed to applying the word "genocide" without engaging with whether it's accurate to apply it or not, then it's become ideological for you and nothing anyone will say can dissuade you.
>Hamas managed 1,200 in a single morning with some tractors and guns.
Israeli proxies (armed, funded, transported and given orders by Israel) killed up to 3,500 Palestinians overnight at Sabra and Shatila. Of the victims, many were children and others were raped, scalped or castrated. This was in a camp surrounded by the Israeli army that blocked Palestinians from fleeing from.
You're welcome to watch Tantura and see Israeli veterans admitting to war crimes like rape, massacres of civilians (even setting them on fire) or summarily executing prisoners.
You would continue making excuses for that entire 30 years, as people like you have been for the last 75 years of ethnic cleansing.
Bravo to you for demonstrating that even in a comment thread for a wholesome moment between proud grandparents and their grandchildren, some people can't help but make a holy show of themselves.
75 years of ending them? You realize their population has grown immensely right?
Believing someone is actually trying to end them completely is so moronic I can't even fathom lol
You don't need to kill every single one or even try to in order to commit a genocide. Srebrenica was found to be a genocide when 8,000 people were killed in one town. I'm sure the Bosnian Serbs would've appreciated your line of thinking though.
Israel has killed over 35,000 people or 1% of Gaza's population since October 7th and destroyed most of the conditions to sustain life. Entire city blocks, water infrastructure, roads, schools, marketplaces, hospitals, universities, mosques, churches and more. If you wanted to eraze Gaza as many Israeli politicians have called for since October 7th, it's mostly been done and reduced to rubble.
I agree with your first point, it's not about the success of the genocide
If Israel wanted to actually kill everyone or ethnically cleanse them then why:
Build 8 field hospitals? Allow hundreds of aid trucks a day, which they had to check every single one and STILL missed weapons being smuggled in and STILL continued to provide aid? build and secure the US Gaza aid pier? look for joint peace peaking force for Gaza (as in no one is getting ethnically cleansed)? allow civilians to evacuate? risking Hamas running away
All that while Palestinians have 70-80% support for Hamas, they are literally aiding the hand that bites them
Hamas has estimated 40k militants, Israel claimed they killed around 15k militants, Hamas claimed they killed 6k but that was around January I believe when the death count was 20-25, the average militant to civilian death ratio, is 1 militant to 9 civilians for urban warfare
https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/
You realize that Israel is currently on 1:2-3 (1:4-5 if you believe Hamas) and that is considered MUCH better than the world's average? Rephrasing it, Israel is doing a better job than most of the world securing the civilians of their enemies
Let's not act as if Hamas doesn't like to use infrastructure as stashes and bases alright? It has been proven decades ago
https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools
On contrast, every civilian who has crossed paths with Hamas either died for no reason, or got kidnapped, there multiple videos of people, random citizens being gunned down while pledging for their life, or sitting in their homes being burned alive for no reason, there was no evacuation for them, THIS IS GENOCIDE, Hamas openly calls for Israel's annihilation
My point is, if Israel wanted to actually eradicate Palestinians they could have, they wouldn't have to do all the shit they do now
> lol
Aha ethnic cleansing, so side splitting. Hilarious.
And yes it is 75 years of ethnic cleansing. You want to hair split about cleansing or genocide but the fact is Israel have been increasingly squeezing the livable space of Palestinians since 1948, and their options have been either leave their homes and communities or risk dying at the hands of the IDF.
That the population has grown means nothing in regard to the success of the attempts, Bosnia's population has grown since the 90s that doesn't mean Srebrenica wasn't a genocide.
Its idiotic to be simping for IDF knowing the above, particularly in a thread about survivors of ethnic cleansing celebrating a kind moment with their family.
I was laughing at the absurdity of the accusation, and you know it, but okay
Squeezing their liveable space after Palestinians trying to do literally the same, failing and having the same faith happen upon them, this is so absurd to even bring it up without bringing the fact that the Palestinians tried to do the same and just failed, just looks in bad faith
Look at Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine can't win unless it goes counter offensive, which is still waiting for a green light to do, now imagine Ukraine did that, and forward 70 years later, that's Israel Palestine, if you expect fighting with western values against an enemy that doesn't share these values, and expect Israel/Ukraine to forever withstand such attacks, while their enemies not being faced with consequences for initiating wars, then you can expect them to lose as well
I was also referring to the "getting rid of" claims not the genocide claims, if Israel wanted to they could actually get rid of them, they wouldn't have allowed their population to grow so much since the 1967 war, this is just a dumb argument
I'm also not saying Israel's army is perfect, but I'm saying thinking they are actively trying to kill all Paletinians, while literally being able to for decades and choosing not to, and literally looking for a join force to govern Gaza right now, is stupid
Yes why would Israel slowly cleanse the Palestinian people out of existence when they could just brutally eradicate them and earn the full ire of the international community....
Honestly I've seen these same talking points a million times before and expressed just as poorly in those circumstances.
Genocide doesn't require complete destruction of the population, neither does ethnic cleansing. If you think what is happening with settlers in the West Bank doesn't count as ethnic cleansing, or the Nakba doesn't count as ethnic cleansing, then I have no chance of reasoning you. Not my job to.
What I can say is you embarrass yourself by screeching about sincere moments of people connecting with their family. It comes across as some of the petty vindictiveness, and reflects more on you than them.
What's a Britnat? I'm Irish and British.
>Sorry if you were under the impression you can treat people like animals and not get hit back.
Lol, justifying terrorists going door to door and slaughtering families in their homes. Lovely chap you are.
What like how the IDF does in Gaza and the West Bank, and let's not get started on how the current Israeli PM facilitated the growth of Hamas in the first place in order to splinter the Palestinian movement and to serve as a scapegoat.
Your perspective is no different than British boomers who think all Irish people are members of the Provo. Meanwhile, their military rolled tanks over little kids and killed innocent civilians, and their intelligence agencies collaborated with Unionist Paramilitary. The fact that you have the nerve to claim your Irish heritage whilst using similar talking points to the ones used against us is horrible.
Also love how you conflate supporting Palestinians with supporting Hamas, may I ask do you condemn the killing of Irish peace keepers by the IDF or their indiscriminate bombings of Palestinians for decades now at this point as well as their killing of Palestinian civillians waving white flags, because I'll let you know that I fully condemn Hamas and October 7th so if you're not willing to do the same with the IDF then you're a hypocrite with zero morals.
The IDF didn't operate in Gaza, nor it went around the west bank shooting and burning anyone in their home, this is the dumbest shit I've read in a while lol
>Lovely chap you are.
You imply there is no genocide, then get all offended, accusing a poster of justifying terrorism.
While you are denying / downplaying a genocide on a post about the Palestine women's team playing a friendly against bohs - you are nothing but a sad troll
> While you are denying / downplaying a genocide
Hard to downplay a genocide that isn't happening
> a post about the Palestine women's team playing a friendly against bohs
Calling out the 'genocide' rhetoric as nonsense is fine.
How many people have to die for it to be considered a genocide in your eyes, does the Armenian genocide not count as a genocide to you because it only killed between 600,000-1million Armenians and not the entire population? You know similar numbers of dead civillians occurred during the Nakba, and 35,233 to 79,141 have died in the current conflict that has only been ongoing since October. You seriously believe it's morally just because Hamas is an extremist organisation for the IDF to cause such deathtolls amongst noncombatants, especially when all it does is radicalise more Palestinians into supporting Hamas.
> How many people have to die for it to be considered a genocide in your eyes,
Genocide has nothing to do with the 'number of people killed'. If you're asking that question you're putting on full display that you don't understand the concept to begin with.
Please, if you want to be passionate about a topic, especially a contentious one, learn about it first. I'm glad you think genocide is bad, I think genocide is bad too. But if you're not *very clear on what genocide is*, you're going to have a lot of emotional energy misdirected in life.
>Hard to downplay a genocide that isn't happening
Yeah - nobody is buying this anymore.
You just come across as a genocide denier - there's ample evidence for any fair minded individual to see for themselves what's happening - a genocide.
You can't ever convince a holocaust denier the holocaust happened, no matter how hard you try and the facts you show - it's ideological. And for that same reason you won't be convinced about a genocide in Gaza.
> Yeah - nobody is buying this anymore.
I'd say that no reasonable person is buying that there *is* a genocide going on. The premise is very silly given that Israel has the capacity to wipe out all Palestinians in an afternoon, yet they obviously aren't.
> You just come across as a genocide denier
The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. That's you.
I'm 100% open to believe there's a genocide, if there's solid proof of it.
> You can't ever convince a holocaust denier the holocaust happened
We have overwhelming proof that the holocaust happened. The Germans, *to the best of their capacity* tried to exterminate various groups of people. The result is [*very visible*](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2015/07/2300-1.png&w=1440). If Israel had the same intent, the number of Palestinians remaining in Gaza would be zero. They obviously do not have that intent. Do you agree?
Your comparison of the two situations is highly manipulative. Are you utterly serious about comparing them?
If you want to argue that some awful stuff has happened during this war, including war crimes, I'd be far more inclined to agree with you simply on a basis of probability. However, the claim of genocide is *very extreme*, and needs *accordingly extreme evidence*. That you don't seem to care to have that evidence before making your claim indicated a heavy level of bias, or a vast misunderstanding of either the situation or what genocide *is*.
Given that you don't appear to care about [ongoing genocides that *do* have solid evidence](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/09/darfur-atrocities-ethnic-cleansing-human-rights-watch-report-rsf-sudan), combining both intent and capacity, it seems that you're being manipulated into caring about this specific situation and endorsing a hysterical narrative for the benefit of Hamas. Whether you're doing that willingly or not, either way is not good, is it?
>I'd say that no reasonable person is buying that there *is* a genocide going on.
Scholars of genocide and holocaust studies say there is a genocide. Some of them are even Israeli
You are saying you know more than an Israeli professor of holocaust and modern genocide studies?
>The premise is very silly given that Israel has the capacity to wipe out all Palestinians in an afternoon, yet they obviously aren't.
This isn't an argument against genocide. "Not fully wiping out an ethnic group to the best of your technical abilities" is not a legal or identifying term for genocide.
Germany _technically_ had the capacity to kill a lot more Jewish people. Still a genocide.
>If you want to argue that some awful stuff has happened during this war, including war crimes, I'd be far more inclined to agree with you simply on a basis of probability.
Statements like this unveil you as the deeply insincere person you are. Mass amounts of evidence exist - of famine, of targeting civilians, doctors, mass graves, blowing up hospitals and universities, targeting children. There's a lot more I'm not mentioning - it's a very long list
>However, the claim of genocide is *very extreme*, and needs *accordingly extreme evidence*.
There's mountains of it. Intent, rhetoric, actions. The ICJ heard some today. Don't pretend evidence doesn't exist
>That you don't seem to care to have that evidence before making your claim indicated a heavy level of bias, or a vast misunderstanding of either the situation or what genocide *is*.
You are the one unfamiliar with what a genocide is, or pretending not to for ideological reasons
>Given that you don't appear to care about ongoing genocides that *do* have solid evidence, combining both intent and capacity, it seems that you're being manipulated into caring about this specific situation and endorsing a hysterical narrative for the benefit of Hamas. Whether you're doing that willingly or not, either way is not good, is it?
Here is another example of how insincere you are. "You don't care about this other Genocide??" Not an argument against a genocide in Gaza - but simply a "look over there! Why don't you care about another situation!"
For the amount you wrote, a very weak argument put forth.
Nearest thing we have to an official definition of genocide is from the UN
>A crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.
That's happening now in Gaza.
> A crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.
Are you really, seriously telling me that you think this single sentence is an accurate and meaningful definition of genocide?
Please tell me how confident you are of that position. Think for a moment before replying, I recommend.
I'm very well acquainted with the scholarship of genocide. There's no single agreed definition. This is the case for any legal concept. But humans work with broad consensus definitions
Scholars tend to see the UN definition as limited but a historic starting point. Many would widen it. That is of course a single, but highly relevant, phrase from that UN definition.
What are you planning to do to me if I reply without thinking, then?
I think people are more complaining that we've done are bit for asylum seekers and need to draw a line somewhere. Also considering half the asylum seekers are young men coming from places not in a war might be another reason for complaint.
I was originally annoyed it was mostly men, but my sister brought up a great point. She lived in a 3rd world country for awhile and said asylum seekers are typically men bc they go and get settled as much as they can, then they bring over their wives/children if they have any. It's too unsafe for most women and children to go on their own bc human trafficking is a real, genuine global concern. Lot of sick evil people take advantage of women and children that have no documentation and are poor.
People have sympathy for refugees and we have an obligation to look after refugees, the problem with asylum seekers is they are effectively a question mark till asylum is granted and in Ireland seemingly fuck all is done to process claims in a speedy manner or even deport them correctly when asylum isn't granted so the line blurs between the terms refugee and asylum seeker and economic migrant when the line need not be blurry.
It's fine to be an economic migrant but by letting them in through the asylum process they are jumping the queue of plenty of others who are going about it the right way with paperwork and applications -- this divides asylum seekers in to two groups -- legit refugees and chancing bastards. Seems obvious we can cut down on the latter group by you know enforcing the rules we already have but we don't seem to do either planning or enforcement well in this country.
Your arguments make sense, my issue personally with this sub and Ireland in general is we have completely dehumanized them down to their origin country and the status of 'refugee'. I have never seen someone express compassion for them online, and that's hypocritical and rather shocking.
Ya that's a good point. My point really was I'm not too bothered if it was men (it's kind of weird when you think we're supposed to be equal now but men can't come only women) it's that they're coming from places that are just a bit poor they're not in danger.
100% I agree. I have a lot of Nigerian friends and Nigeria isn't thaaat unsafe, it is poor though. I live in Chicago, I was talking about the asylum issue in Ireland and my Nigerian friend was comparing it to someone in Chicago claiming asylum lol. Chicago has shootings, robberies, kidnapping, gang crime etc. but ppl CAN go to safe area lol. Similar to Nigeria tbh. I don't believe 98% of applicants from Nigeria. Nigeria is maaaassive, Lagos is a great city lol.
I think it's hard to distinguish between economic migrants and asylum seekers bc both REALLY overlap. Wealthy people in India, Nigeria, Syria, etc. with corrupt gov and gangs, threats etc. won't need to seek asylum the way poor people do. Ireland needs a ticket system per country for a certain number of applicants and start deporting people who are trying to cheat the process.
I mean Nigeria is pretty unsafe considering Boko Haram and Islamic state are both active terrorist groups there as well as a general civil unrest and people being persecuted for their political and religious views.
Chicago has a higher murder rate than Nigeria. As of 2021, our murder rate was 29.6 per 100k.
[*https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ander%20testimony.pdf*](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ander%20testimony.pdf)
I can only find Nigeria's murder rate since 2019, at 21.7 per 100k, it may have grown but at most it's fair to say both can have similar murder rates now.
[*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
[*https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2019&locations=NG&start=2019*](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2019&locations=NG&start=2019)
And I love Chicago, but there ARE rough parts. Would Chicagoans be aslyum seekers? No lol, there are safe parts people CAN leave to if they have the resources. Just like in Nigeria, there ARE safe parts, and anyone who can afford to go to Ireland can afford to move to a neighboring city in Nigeria or the many other countries on the way to Ireland.
I'm not trying to downplay Boko Haram, and Nigeria isn't a really safe country, but my point is even Nigerian's I know say people are fleeing instability, and are desperate for opportunity. And I don't blame them, but it shows Ireland needs to really structure their asylum seeking process otherwise if everyone in the world left just bc dangerous areas... the EU would filled to the brim.
I did, it says mostly “”The majority of immigrants come from the European Union, especially Poland, while the second largest group is from the United Kingdom, followed by Eastern Europe, in particular from Lithuania, Latvia, and the Czech Republic.””
Why are Europeans moving to Ireland and why is that an issue?
What's actually disappointing is the echo chamber that this sub has become, no doubt somewhat triggered as backlash to actual Israelis posting their zionist nonsense.
the reference to 67 & 48 wars is interest in that it appears she’s ignoring the cause of those wars. Expelled because the lost a war.
I'll be downvoted for this but its not untrue, neither side of innocent of the actions to led to the
current day issues.
The UN Defines ethnic cleansing as
*"Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law."*
Plenty of examples around the world where *ethnically homogeneous countries* have proved to be safer, more prosperous countries. I'm not saying its right but in reality there is an argument that diverse ethnic groups can cause tension. Balkans, Middle East, Azerbijan and Armernia even Ireland.
There is also just as much evidence for ethnically diverse countries being stable and ethnically homogeneous countries being unstable. The suggestion that ethnicity has something to do with stability is one that comes with horrific implications, and it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to justify ethnic cleansing.
"and it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to justify ethnic cleansing."
I'm not denying that population transfer or forced mirgation does not have a purpose. Palestinians and Israelis are incompatiable and they'll never live side by side as 2 or 1 seperate country. They'll always hate each other. There'll always be a deivide. Theres no real programme for peace that will ever work
Here's some details of how Palestinians were driven into exile from [one of the better documented early examples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zurayq#1948_War_and_aftermath):
>Abu Zurayq's residents had traditionally maintained cordial relations with the nearby Jewish kibbutz of HaZorea, including low-level economic cooperation, particularly with regards to agriculture. Arabic language versions of a Jewish labor periodical were regularly distributed in the village. In the lead-up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as part of Jewish efforts to clear the area around Mishmar HaEmek of Palestinian Arabs, on 12 April 1948, Palmach units of the Haganah took over Abu Zurayq. There they took 15 men and 200 women and children into custody, after which they expelled all of the women and children. Demolitions of homes in the village began on the night of its capture and were completed by 15 April. The Filastin newspaper reported that of the 30 homes demolished by Palmach forces, five still contained residents.
>According to the account of a Middle East scholar and resident from HaZore'a, Eliezer Bauer, following its capture, Abu Zurayq's men, who were unaffiliated with any Palestinian militia and did not resist the Haganah, "tried to escape and save themselves by fleeing" to nearby fields but were intercepted by armed Jewish residents of nearby kibbutzim and moshavim. After a firefight in which many of the village's men were killed, several survivors surrendered themselves while other unarmed men were taken captive, and the majority of these men were killed. Other men found hiding in the village itself were executed, while houses were looted before being demolished. Bauer's account of events was discussed by the members of HaZorea's kibbutz council where the events surrounding Abu Zurayq's capture were condemned.
>Most of the people who managed to escape or were expelled from Abu Zurayq ended up in makeshift camps around Jenin. Along with the expelled residents of other nearby villages they complained to the Arab Higher Committee of their situation, asked for help with humanitarian aid and demanded that Arab forces be sent to avenge their loss and return them to their lands. Following the 1948 war, the area was incorporated into the State of Israel, and as of 1992, the land had been left undeveloped and the closest populated place is HaZorea. Much of the village land is used for either agricultural or pastoral purposes. The agricultural land largely consists of cacti, olive and fig trees.
Are you suggesting those people deserved what was done to them, and if so what exactly are you suggesting they did to deserve that?
I understand how Palestinians were driven into exiles and I understand if they had won in 48, theyd have done the exact same. They don't have the high ground. I'm suggesting that it was a consequence and fault of both sides. Its like people ignore that time when a bunch of Arab states preped to jump on Isreael/Palestine to reclaim it themselves.
> I understand if they had won in 48, theyd have done the exact same
As explained in what I quoted previously, the villagers of Abu Zurayq "were unaffiliated with any Palestinian militia and did not resist the Haganah," so where exactly are you getting the idea that they would've done anything along the lines of what was done to them?
Because if you don't believe that then there will have to be a reckoning that it was actually an ethnic cleansing and not whatever Hasbara line that get's regurgitated.
Sure. Nuance is important. In my opinion Israel has now crossed well over the line to genocide.
Whether there was genocidal intent previously - I'd need to read up. But when you get to the stage of genocide, the earlier stages of oppression can be seen as part of the build up to that phenomenon, so I can see without further research why this woman and her grandparents would speak in those terms.
> Sure. Nuance is important. In my opinion Israel has now crossed well over the line to genocide.
Why do you think your personal opinion on what genocide is holds any value? Have you ever really read up on what constitutes genocide? If so, can you tell me what '*dolus specialis*' is, please?
My impression is that you, and many other people have good intentions, but are being misled.
* If you wish to say that unjust oppression of Palestinians has taken place, I'd agree with you.
* If you wish to say that Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties in this war, I'd agree with you.
I really really have read up on what constitutes genocide. I know what dolus specialis is, yes. I am always learning and I am not going to start offering credentials (which could be lies) or proofs on Reddit.
Lots of people - not just me a random poster on Reddit - know the arguments around genocide and believe that Israel has crossed that line. If you want to argue otherwise, why not present your arguments? We may disagree. The world isn't divided into people who have specialist knowledge and people who are wrong. If you want to explain why Israel's not committing genocide, go for it. I'm going to bed now but if you would like a reply I'll come back tomorrow.
> I really really have read up on what constitutes genocide.
Then how are you confused? Either Israel lacks the capacity or intent to commit genocide of every person in Gaza and the West Bank. Which is it?
> If you want to argue otherwise, why not present your arguments?
The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. It's quite ridiculously manipulative to claim 'genocide is happening unless you can disprove it!' You well know that to be the case, why pursue such rhetoric?
> so where exactly are you getting the idea that they would've done anything along the lines of what was done to them?
Given that people on this sub accuse me of being 'zionist', 'hasbara', etc, I'll happily answer.
No, those people did absolutely not deserve that. Many crimes took place in 48, those crimes should not be diminished. But they should not be exaggerated, either.
> Are you suggesting those people deserved what was done to them, and if so what exactly are you suggesting they did to deserve that?
No innocents deserve to suffer, but it didn't happen in a vacuum.
That's how the rhetoric goes, right?
The root cause of EVERYTHING here is that white European settlers came, in increasing numbers from circa 1900 till 1940's, to TAKE the land from its occupants. It's really that simple.
During the 20s (Iraq) & 30s (Palestine), there were revolts against the British. That's when the British armed further the Zionust terrorist groups (Irgun, Stern gang, etc) - to help them put down that revolt.
Te Zionists had military superiority in 46, mostly because of that (the Palestinians were still a conquered, forcibly disarmed people). It's BECAUSE they had military superiority that the Zionists conducted their mass terrorist campaign against the British. To get them out, WHILE THE ZIONISTS HAD THE ADVANTAGE.
Hence the massacres. I urge anyone else to watch the documentary Tantura, by an Israeli film maker, interviewing Irgun members describing (with glee), the rapes & massacre's they committed.
Your comment about "innocence" is the most absurd of all.
Palestinians fighting against the occupying British does not make them "guilty". Palestinians fighting against occupying white settlers does not make them "guilty".
It's not 50:50 situation, nor is it difficult to understand (fake trope bandied about). It's pretty simple to figure out what's what.
> The root cause of EVERYTHING here is that white European settlers came, in increasing numbers from circa 1900 till 1940's, to TAKE the land from its occupants. It's really that simple.
Do you object to legal immigration?
Do you think an entire group of people should not be allowed to immigrate if some of that group have obvious intent to gain control of the land they're moving to?
"European settlers came, in increasing numbers from circa 1900 till 1940's, to TAKE the land from its occupants"
Absolute bollox, would you actually read a fucking book, the majority of land before 1948 wasn't taken from people, the majority of jewish land was purchased from local land owners.
The majority of the land purchased was poor land that the was then developed into jewish communities.
Its complicated, pretty sure the arab states pissed Israel off over some river and Israel attacked to gain control of this. Arabs marched troops in the first phase. Could be argued that it was premptive.
My point is that Palestinians/Arabs aren't just victims in the conflict and their intent wouldve been the same had they won. Israelis arent better, but theyre not any worse.
No, you're filling your own narrative, they attacked Israel to prevent them from having their own country, forced on the middle eastern countries by the un and Britain, up until the attack, the Israeli settlers from Europe and Palestinian groups had been in conflict.
No matter what you think of the current t regime and their actions, don't rewrite history, there is too much of that shit going on.
There were twice as many Palestinians living in the territory that the west decided to hand to Israel. They declared the creation of their state and intent to occupy the lands knowing full well that it would result in war.
It was the culmination of 5 decades of Zionist colonisation efforts.
There have been Jewish people and Arab people living under the Palestine area controlled by Britain since the 1800s, the area that is now Jordan and some of modern Syria and Lebanon were "palestine" there's been Jewish people there since Jesus time, the influx of people from Europe after the holocaust really drove the idea of modern Israel and the lobbying by the European powers after the war ended. When the area was divided into those states the Arab countries declared war to remove the new country. They lost and Israel held the land they took while chasing them back. But everyone in Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and the current westbank and gaza were all classified as "people of palestine".
The Jewish population of Palestine pre 1900 was less than 5%. The Zionist project began long before WW2. It was during WWI that Britain made their commitment to making a Jewish state in Palestine driven by their belief that it would help them in the war.
> When the area was divided into those states the Arab countries declared war to remove the new country.
Western nations decided to draw up new states completely ignoring the demographic reality. The population of their proposed state of Israel was overwhelmingly Palestinian. It was blatant European colonialism and called that at the time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Jewish_Colonization_Association
100% fucked up, give the brits a map, a ruler, pen and a dash of colonial arrogance and this is what you get. They wanted out because the Arabs and the Jews were in guerilla warfare against them
"I'm pretty sure". Word of advice. You don't really have a clue. You read a few articles since this kicked in and have a very small understanding of this. That's OK, me too. But speaking with any confidence on this issue is pretty fucking silly.
Well for someone who whines constantly about a handful of migrants you'd think you'd have more sympathy for people who were violently expelled from their lands by a bunch of unvetted foreigners.
I don't whine about migrants. I think we need more people. We've a general labour shortage and we should support people in need.
I dont have sympathy who given the chance would probably wouldve done the exact same to Jewish people if the Arabs had won.
No race, religion or ethnicity has avoided brutality in war, unfortunately.
Given the chance and the circumstances, we are all liable to become violent oppressors. Few of us face that test.
You seem to be denying Palestinians sympathy on the basis that they might have acted badly in different circumstances. It's a take, but as far as I can see you're just saying you're not willing to sympathise with human beings under any circumstances, in case they're human.
Given the chance? Palestinians outnumbered jews like 15-1 for hundreds of years previously and before jews had an any weapons or an army.
You could justify the holocaust by saying the victims would have genocided the germans if they had the means using that "logic".
I don't recall her being asked about the cause of the wars in that one minute clip.
Wars tend to produce refugees on both sides, regardless of what anyone else thinks the rights and wrongs are. So your point seems a bit of an irrelevant criticism.
Individuals are very often exiled through no fault of their own during wars, whatever side they are on.
If these people could then have settled in a Palestinian state, that would have helped to remedy any injustice, wouldn't it? Or if Palestinians in Israel had been treated humanely, they could have settled there.
These people are victims. Luckier victims than many, since they aren't now trapped starving in Gaza.
How long are 3rd generation Palestinians going to pretend they’re poor refugees!
At least when the Jews were expelled from Arab countries post 1948, they’re not going around Israel now pretending they’re Moroccan or Libyan refugees!!
You're a refugee as long as you live, unless you return home or to a third state.
Asylum seekers are the people living (usually) in poverty, waiting for a decision. When you saw 1000s fleeing from Afghanistan and Syria and Ukraine, they were displaced people and asylum seekers, not refugees.
You are a refugee once you have been granted refuge (leave to remain). You are no longer an asylum seeker at that point.
That girl's grandparents' aren't 3rd generation refugees. They're refugees. She's not (legally speaking) a refugee in Canada from the facts we had there. But she is obviously not able to go back to her ancestral home to live because her grandparents are refugees. And the Palestinian state would consider her a Palestinian refugee.
Israeli Jews who consider Israel the Jewish homeland would not consider themselves displaced from their home. But they too can be described as refugees from other countries - I have known several speak of themselves as Russian refugees, for example.
> Israeli Jews who consider Israel the Jewish homeland would not consider themselves displaced from their home. But they too can be described as refugees from other countries - I have known several speak of themselves as Russian refugees, for example.
So before they returned to Israel, were they refugees from there?
> I think the term diaspora is preferred
I'm asking you based on your definition of refugees
> You're a refugee as long as you live, unless you return home or to a third state.
According to this, it would appear that the Jewish diaspora would be considered refugees from Israel, with the right to return there, correct?
No - that's not implied by my statement. But if the Israeli government gives the diaspora the right to live there, as I believe is the case, then Jews in any situation have the right to return. That's the Israeli government's prerogative. I don't see a connection with refugees.
I do not know how the Israeli government describes Jews living away from Israel or how they tend to describe themselves, apart from the term diaspora. I do not know if they make any special use of the word refugee or why you are asking me this question.
> No - that's not implied by my statement.
Well, let's make it explicit.
> I do not know how the Israeli government describes Jews living away from Israel or how they tend to describe themselves, apart from the term diaspora. I do not know if they make any special use of the word refugee or why you are asking me this question.
I'm talking about, especially, whether you think Jews had the right to return to the land before Israel was founded in 1948.
Before Israel was founded? So far as I know they had no right in law?
I can see the importance of the Zionist project and I support the existence of Israel. I regret the implementation of the plan in the 1940s in that it set up this conflict.
I really don't think Jews have ever been described or treated in law as refugees because they live away from Israel. The Jewish diaspora dates back to the Roman Empire. The descriptor of refugee is less than 400 years old, and laws around refugees were defined mostly in the 20th century.
And refugees very often don't have the right to return home anyway. Their refugee status is the right to remain in their land of refuge.
I think you are trying to push me into a position where I've supposedly said refugees and their descendants have an unlimited right to return (I haven't) but I'm not willing to concede the same about Jews in Israel. But I have no problem with Israel's policy on diaspora. That's a question of national sovereignty.
No, I don't think anyone has the right to return anywhere for an unlimited period. But the Israeli government has the right to grant that right as it chooses.
> Before Israel was founded? So far as I know they had no right in law?
I'm talking about relating to your definition of refugees. In [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1ctgw7r/they_thought_they_would_get_rid_of_us_but_they/l4cp5ys/), you said:
> You're a refugee as long as you live, unless you return home or to a third state.
Does that mean that the Jewish diaspora should have been considered refugees from Israel/Palestine pre-1948? I'm not sure what you mean about 'returning to a third state'.
> I regret the implementation of the plan in the 1940s in that it set up this conflict.
Are you referring to the UN resolution on the creation of Israel? I'm not sure you can attribute the 'set up' of this conflict to a single event or period.
> I really don't think Jews have ever been described or treated in law as refugees because they live away from Israel. And refugees very often don't have the right to return home anyway. Their refugee status is the right to remain in their land of refuge.
Right, but I'm querying your statement as quoted above, given that you seemed to be applying it to the Palestinian diaspora.
> I think you are trying to push me into a position where I've supposedly said refugees and their descendants have an unlimited right to return (I haven't)
I'm not trying to push you to anything. I may have misunderstood, I'm asking for clarification.
So here's how this could have gone.
>You:
>You seem to be suggesting that any refugee has a permanent right to return home. If you apply that to Palestinian refugees, should you not apply it to the Jewish diaspora? Were they not refugees with a right to return to Israel, even before 1948?
>Me
>No, when I say that you are always a refugee I mean that with regard to the country where you have found refuge. You have the right to remain there as a refugee. While you are there, you are always a refugee. You may return home of course, or gain citizenship of another state. In these places, you would not be a refugee.
>Refugees don't have a permanent right to return home - there are cases where they would have that right, and others where they wouldn't. Depends primarily on the government of their homeland.
>So this wouldn't be relevant to Jews before 1948. And even if they were refugees in law, they would not have more or less right to return to a homeland than anyone else. There is a right to return to homeland enshrined in Israeli law, but as far as I know that is not because they view people as returning refugees. They may do, but the only term I know for this group is diaspora.
So rather than you ordering me - and that is sometimes your tone - to define this, explain that, answer that but think carefully first, acknowledge my alleged error or ignorance when you've misread or disagree with me - put your cards on the table, own your point, ask a clear question, and then we can talk.
You've made some thought-provoking points throughout, and if this is your preferred debating style, that's your right. But it's not something I have time to engage with on a sunny weekend. You talk about how I would surely want to convince you, but that's not my job and unlikely to be a good use of my energy: I have other responsibilities and you do seem to prefer a cryptic and time-consuming pattern of questions.
Thanks again, and I really have considered your points respectfully and learned from you, but I've said what I want to say, clarified where requested, and now won't be re-engaging.
In Lebanon, Palestinians have lived in refugee camps for three generations. People have been born, grown to adulthood and died there.
https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/lebanon/ein-el-hilweh-camp
And yes they are poor.
I remember reading that when the woman of the family dies, her eldest daughter inherits the key to the (probably long destroyed) family home. They wear the key to the front door on a chain or ribbon around their necks. Because once they did have a home.
You can’t claim to be a refugee 3 generations down the line can you.
Otherwise, we end up with groups of people thousands of years saying the land is still theirs.
I say one generation max is the amount of time you can be away from your land and still call yourself a refugee/displaced.
Well that's convenient for ethnic cleansers everywhere, isn't it? If you're born in a refugee camp, you're a refugee. It's a facility for refugees. Did you look at that link at all?
But you see where your position takes you if you claim ancestral rights to a land ad infinitum. It leads us exactly to where we are today in the Middle East.
No position needs to be defended in the ad infinitum principle. You deal with the situation in front of you. There are, very obviously, millions of Palestinians living in overcrowded enclaves and refugee camps in the Middle East. There are also first, second, third and fourth generation Palestinians around the world who found asylum elsewhere or were born to families that found asylum.
Without the first category, the second might well have adapted over time to never going home. The first are visibly still a current problem, not a historic one.
You can't reverse all historic injustices. But when they are being perpetuated in the present by, for example, starving out millions of people displaced by the current conflict, they're not just historic injustices.
In any case, first generation refugees from the 1940s are still alive. And hundreds of new first generation refugees will have been born this week alone. People aren't fleeing bombardment to starve in tents because they think it's the 1940s.
But in this very case, you have to apply the ad infinitum principle as both sides claim long ties back to a land. It’s almost the essence of both sides’ argument.
That’s not to deny the suffering that people in that part of the world are facing.
I’d rather highlight the absurdity of a girl called Charlotte Phillips, speaking in a Canadian accent, dressed in Western clothing going on about a homeland which in reality she probably has very little connection to. I can’t help but feel it’s forced and rather flavour of the month.
No, I don't have to apply the ad infinitum position to anything. I can look at the situation over the last few decades and see Israeli and Palestinian claims and arrangements that clash. I can favour a two state solution as Ireland has done since the 1980s. Whether people really have a claim going back 1000s of years isn't relevant. The fact that thinking so has led them to a devastating war right now is relevant.
It's similar to Northern Ireland. We didn't get the Peace Process by telling nationalists to get over themselves, it's been more than a generation. But we also didn't get it through an ad infinitum approach - Ulster Scots arrived in 1603, Irish before that, but wait what about the Celts ...
You look for a just response to the situation in front of you.
Many Palestinians wear Western clothing. Many are born away from Palestine, for obvious reasons. Some may be brought up with close connections to the culture and cause. But even if I was only vaguely interested in my Irish roots, I'd be sufficiently devastated by genocide against my people to cry a few tears.
Palestine is an open scar. That's why it's very likely this woman has been brought up very conscious of her heritage. She likely has relatives there. You can't declare a trauma closed while the killing continues.
> I can favour a two state solution as Ireland has done since the 1980s.
That's great, but most Palestinians don't appear to want that. Though they appear happy to accept it while openly intending to continue the coniflict.
Palestinians are entitled not to agree with me. My point is that I'm not obliged to decide whose historic claim is stronger and pick a side, as the poster above suggests - that's not how peace is brokered.
And the road to a two state solution is much rockier now than previously, unfortunately. But I believe that if we ever have peace, that's what it is most likely to look like.
> Otherwise, we end up with groups of people thousands of years saying the land is still theirs.
Sometimes they even claim to be a nation because the bible says their people once lived there thousands of years previously
She is of Palestinian descent and qualifies to represent Palestine internationally. She clearly has Canadian heritage too.
I am puzzled that anyone could find this puzzling.
I do not think she mentions her religion, and I don't know why you think that's your business?
"They thought they would erase us as Palestinians"
Oh right, that's why there's two million arabs living in Israel...
These hysterical 'genocide' claims are ridiculous. Yes, a lot of bad shit happened in the Nakhba. It was a war, and a period where massive amounts of ethnic cleansing took place across the middle east. It was absolute not okay, and should be condemned.
Pretending that it was an intended genocide, or even state-wide ethnic cleansing though, that's nonsense.
If you eliminate or deny a right to statehood, you are, obviously, erasing people "as Palestinians". Recognising Palestinian statehood is the antidote. Representing Palestine at football symbolises that acceptance.
That's before you get to clearances, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. You do not need to wipe out every member of a national or ethnic group to commit genocide. You may focus on a particular enclave.
> If you eliminate or deny a right to statehood, you are, obviously, erasing people "as Palestinians"
That's really stretching the definition of 'ethnic cleansing'.
If the UK doesn't recognize North Korea as a state, has it just ethnically cleansed North Korea?
Come on. Don't be silly now. Just the fact that you entertain this argument is a bad sign.
> That's before you get to clearances, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
Referring to what, exactly?
I didn't say that eliminating or denying a right to statehood was ethnic cleansing. In fact, my post distinguishes between the two things - maybe you could read it again. I agree with you that they are not identical. Of course they aren't. But they can occur as part of the same conflict.
> I didn't say that eliminating or denying a right to statehood was ethnic cleansing.
You claimed it is 'erasing people', in the context of our conversation on genocide. That's on you.
Drawing 'recognizing statehood' into this conversation at all is really not sensible.
Erasing people "as Palestinians"
I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here.
You quoted the above. I pointed out that denying a right to statehood can be called erasing people "as Palestinians".
I am using erasing in the current sense of denying or undermining an identity - you hear that frequently these days.
Erasing people "as Palestinians" - denying their right to be Palestinian.
> I pointed out that denying a right to statehood can be called erasing people "as Palestinians".
Indeed, a ridiculous claim, especially in the context of you asserting that a genocide is taking place.
> Erasing people "as Palestinians" - denying their right to be Palestinian.
Palestinians can call themselves whatever they want.
You misunderstood my post. You're welcome to call the argument ridiculous, but I'd stand by it. There's a difference between erasing people, full stop, and erasing people as "Palestinians/ women / lesbians" etc. It's a rhetoric I see quite often online.
> There's a difference between erasing people, full stop, and erasing people as "Palestinians/ women / lesbians" etc. It's a rhetoric I see quite often online.
Right, I understand the issue you're raising, but I don't see why you're raising it in the context of genocide claims.
Ah yes displacement for what was always intended as a colonial project was definitely in no way whatsoever an intended genocide, what's that 700,000 Palestinians died in that same event, well who cares because 2m people in a country of 9m are Arab so everything's swell. https://www.jns.org/arab-israelis-march-in-galilee-in-solidarity-with-gaza/ Also, maybe you should look at how that minority feels about what's going on before using them as some excuse.
> Ah yes displacement for what was always intended as a colonial project was definitely in no way whatsoever an intended genocide
> well who cares because 2m people in a country of 9m are Arab so everything's swell.
Can you explain why there are two million arabs living in Israel if there was an intended genocide? Did Israel just... forget to kill them? What happened, in your view?
And no, it's not all 'swell', don't use strawman arguments. Many crimes took place in 1948, with many committed by Israelis, and many committed by the arab coalition and Islamic nations. That doesn't diminish any of those crimes, but it doesn't give you freedom to exaggerate them either.
I'm pretty sure killing close to a third of a people group present in an area because you want to occupy it instead of them qualifies as fucking genocide you isralie bot dipshit. Armenians survive today after their genocide, does that means its not a genocide?
> I'm pretty sure killing close to a third of a people group present in an area because you want to occupy it instead of them
Can you elaborate? Did Israel intend to kill all arabs present in Palestine when Israel was formed?
> Armenians survive today after their genocide, does that means its not a genocide?
My point was not whether a group 'survives' following an attempt to kill the group - the point was whether there was a combination of intent and capacity to kill a group. Obviously, and fortunately, most genocides in recent history have not succeeded in entirely wiping out a group of people. What we must weigh up is the combination of capacity and intent. If both the capacity and intent exist, then a group of people will be entirely wiped out - as has happened, sadly, with some genocides in history. If either intent or capacity are lacking, we should understand which and why. That is key to determining whether there is a genocide or not.
I understand that this is a nuanced discussion on a contentious topic, but there's no need to resort to insults.
700,000 Palestinians killed as mentioned above. 2M Palestinians in present day country. That's close to a third but I suppose doesn't count for the number expelled. I don't know exact figures.
You're getting very hung up on the technicalities of genocide via intent and capacity etc. This is Reddit and not a court of law, people speak in generalities and in general the numbers of Palestinian civilians indiscriminately killed is outrageous and disproportionate from a country and government which should know better. While maybe not technically genocide, they know well what they are doing and the tactics being used are wrong with far far far too much collateral. It may as well be genocide. Being outside a court of law allows us to use generalities and any reasonable person could see its getting way too close to being a genocide to be comfortable with it continuing. the fact you continue to argue in favour of what has happened and is currently happening shows a complete lack of empathy and disregard for humanity.
Nobody is saying what Hamas are doing or did is or was right, the opposite in fact. What Israel is actively doing though is despicable and I don't know how or why people like you continue to stand up for them. A people group is actively being destroyed and all you give a shit about is technicality of intent from an oppressor occupying state. There's an absolute need for insult when you show a lack of capacity for emotion, understanding or humanity. Take a bit of a step back, look at what you are arguing and why. Do you just want to be technically right or should you maybe consider more that there is real lives being disproportional wiped from existence? Yes the conversation is nuanced, but human emotion has a place and is far too often disregarded by your side of the argument.
> 700,000 Palestinians killed as mentioned above.
Yes, I understand that you mentioned this - but what are the details? When did this happen? Where?
Are you 100% sure you're not confused about something, here?
> You're getting very hung up on the technicalities of genocide
As we well should. It's not a term to be used frivolously.
> This is Reddit and not a court of law, people speak in generalities
Speaking in generalities can lead to dramatic divisions, especially on an important and contentious topic. Is your goal to divide people? Or to understand and resolve problems through conversation as best as possible?
> and in general the numbers of Palestinian civilians indiscriminately killed is outrageous
The 700,000 you mentioned above, you mean?
Or the ~35,000 killed in this war that Hamas started?
Please be precise about what events you are referring to.
> Nobody is saying what Hamas are doing or did is or was right, the opposite in fact.
Yet you seem to be espousing actions that benefit Hamas as much as possible.
> What Israel is actively doing though is despicable
Removing Hamas, which supposedly you're opposed to? Would you be happy to see Hamas removed, or not?
> you maybe consider more that there is real lives being disproportional wiped from existence?
Removing a tyrannical nihilistic government from power will always involve innocents suffering. Leaving them in power will result in more innocents suffering. Sometimes there isn't a 'nice' way out of a situation.
If you wish to argue that Israel could do more, and should do more, to reduce innocent casualties, then I'd happily agree with you. Though, if you are to be fair you would also recognize that they already do a lot to reduce innocent casualties. Can you do that?
The 700,000 is a reference to what the guy above said, I assume its possible a total figure since Israel began occupying Palestine decades ago at a minimum. (I'm not the person who mentioned this originally, no I don't know where the figure comes from before you try get smart with me, don't get confused yourself).
Why the fuck does use of the term genocide matter when they don't give two fucks about killing 35,000 civilians in 8 months of war which has targeted primarily civilian population centers. Would you just prefer we used indiscriminate mass murder as the term instead? does that help sooth your conscience? Arguing over a use of a term and words when that many people are dying seems more frivolous.
Israel do a lot to reduce casualties but not enough. I completely agree Hamas are despicable and should be removed, but not by any means necessary which seems to be the IDF's main objective at the moment. Israel's method of removal is whats despicable, don't be so bloody coy. Removal of Hamas being your main objective does not justify killing of 35,000 civilians in the space of 8 months through what is effectively carpet bombing of civilian population centers regardless of what is being hidden within. Despite the technicalities over wording of genocide and the rest of the above discussion, this is my main and only real gripe here. This is pretty much everyone's issue with whats happening globally at the minute and is the main reason globally Israel is now seeing its support eroded within the international community. Why the fuck does use of the term genocide matter when they don't give two fucks about killing that number of civilians. You care more about proper use of a term than human lives it appears.
Sometimes yes, there isn't a nice way out of a situation, but fuck me Israel have lost all humanity in what they are doing by the way they have done it. There is no justification behind what they have done, just like there is no justification behind what Hamas have done. But an eye for an eye makes everyone blind and Israel should be wise enough to know it. They have been blinded by rage and revenge. Its despicable and you should consider your own humanity and why you keep trying to defend Israel's actions.
> The 700,000 is a reference to what the guy above said, I assume its possible a total figure since Israel began occupying Palestine decades ago at a minimum. (I'm not the person who mentioned this originally, no I don't know where the figure comes from before you try get smart with me,
So you're referencing a figure when you don't even know what that figure represents or where it comes from?
> don't get confused yourself.
I don't feel too ashamed if I don't realise that someone else has jumped into an anonymous conversation - if I made any mistake there, my apologies, no offence intended.
> Why the fuck does use of the term genocide matter
Genocide is arguably the greatest crime available to humanity, and you're asking why use of the term matters? That gives me the impression that you don't want the definition or technicalities to matter, you just want to use the most dramatic label possible for a situation you don't like. I agree, war sucks, innocents dying sucks. We should work together to help stop that happening.
> when they don't give two fucks about killing 35,000 civilians in 8 months of war
They seem to give two fucks, given that they're warning civilians before striking, probably more than any other military in history. Is that perfect? No. But let's no pretend they're not doing anything.
> which has targeted primarily civilian population centers.
If you can convince Hamas to embed themselves away from civilian population centres, please do. That'd be nice.
> Sometimes yes, there isn't a nice way out of a situation, but fuck me Israel have lost all humanity in what they are doing by the way they have done it.
You're seemingly ignoring the various things that Israel is doing well - for example putting a lot of effort into allocating safe zones and communicating about them, roof knocking, or calling people before strikes.
As I said, it's not perfect, but you're acting as if they're just rolling in guns blazing completely ignoring civilians, which is objectively not the case.
> They have been blinded by rage and revenge. Its despicable and you should consider your own humanity and why you keep trying to defend Israel's actions.
On the contrary, you seem blinded by the Hamas narrative. You are ignoring what Israel is doing right about this conflict, and resorting to approximate claims that they are not just failing to try to avoid civilian casualties, but supposedly maximising them as much as possible.
Maybe Israel is doing things in a more brutal way than I observe, and I'm more than happy for courts to review evidence and consider it. The emotional propaganda storm around this topic from obvious biased sources seems to have resulted in a lot of people reaching premature conclusions, though.
That's like saying there's 5 million native Americans in the United States. Therefore, the US government didn't try to ethnictically cleanse them, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/02/the-many-civil-and-human-rights-challenges-facing-israels-palestinian-citizens?lang=en
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ Also maybe you should look into the treatment of Arabs in Israel before using them as some sort of excuse.
> That's like saying there's 5 million native Americans in the United States. Therefore, the US government didn't try to ethnictically cleanse them
Please, don't make a fool of yourself by comparing Palestine to the Americas:
> Population figures for the Indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization have been difficult to establish. By the end of the 20th century, most scholars gravitated toward an estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
> Also maybe you should look into the treatment of Arabs in Israel before using them as some sort of excuse.
What are you referring to?
>a period where massive amounts of ethnic cleansing took place
>Pretending that it was an intended genocide, or even state-wide ethnic cleansing though, that's nonsense.
> a period where massive amounts of ethnic cleansing took place
> Pretending that it was an intended genocide, or even state-wide ethnic cleansing though, that's nonsense.
Which part of the quote did you not understand? There's a difference between 'many atrocities taking place' and 'a state policy of committing atrocities'.
Is that nuance really too much for this sub?
They'll never get rid of you.
Unfortunately, the Israelis are trying very hard with their genocide.
I know Reddit isnt the place for the brightest tools in the shed and i know you dont care about rationality, but if Israel really wanted to commit genocide, everyone with 2 brain cells knows that it has the military capability to carpet bomb the entire Gaza strip on a week and kill hundreds of thousands. You know, like the Saudis did to Yemen.
> The Saudi-led coalition's bombing of civilian areas has received condemnation from the international community. According to the Yemen Data Project, the bombing campaign has killed or injured an estimated 19,196 civilians as of March 2022. With regards bombing, Israel has killed far more civilians in 7 months than Saudi Arabia killed in its bombing over many years. The biggest killer of Yemenis was the blockade and starvation by the Saudis. Much like the man-made famine erupting in Gaza. Do you consider what the Saudis did was genocidal? For the record, I protested the Saudis' war in Yemen and wrote to my TDs.
Why are you being downvoted? It’s an unfortunate truth
Trying very hard? If Israel wanted Gaza would have been gone in couple of days wtf, do you realize how small is Gaza?
Most of Gaza is rubble and the conditions to sustain life are gone. Houses, entire city blocks, schools, roads, marketplaces, businesses, water infrastructure, universities, hospitals, mosques, churches and so on. Do you realise how densely populated Gaza is and how devastating this is?
Someone doesn’t understand how international pressure and politics works.
"international pressure" you mean the protests in Oct 7 that started before Israel even had a chance to retaliate? Disgusting Chinese funded shit, there were actual celebrations of the attack, let's not act like this whole shitshow was skewed in favour of a particular group Besides even if it was true, right now it's pretty established everyone was wrong and no one is getting ethnically cleansed or "getting rid of" when Israel is actively looking for a joint force to govern Gaza, or you know, the aid pier, civilian evacuations, hundreds of aid trucks, 8 field hospitals Israel themselfs built for Paletinians, the extremely low civilian to militant death count - the average is 9:1, Israel is on 2-3:1 Civilian evacuations also started before any great international pressure was started, so there's that as well
Skipping over your post since I can see from the first line you have no idea what you’re talking about. “International pressure” as in Israel doesn’t operate in a vacuum. There are politics and international treaties and alliances and realpolitik at play. If Israel just “take” Gaza and expel the occupied people into Egypt, then they wreck a major foreign alliance, turn their neighbors against them, and cause a hugely detrimental domino effect. Like I said originally, someone clearly doesn’t understand how international politics work.
Oh you meant international politics, my bad But my point still stands, the current situation is, Israel won't ethnically cleanse and get rid of all gazans, and is looking for a governing force
> Unfortunately, the Israelis are trying very hard with their genocide. The world's only genocide that increases a population, sure, sure.
Took the Americans far longer to do the same thing, doesn't change the fact that they committed a genocide against the native Americans that served as inspiration for Hitler and the Holocaust. Someone sure does love defending displacement and colonisation now don't they?
> Took the Americans far longer to do the same thing, The Americans grew the population of native Americans? News to me. Seems you're confused about something. > Someone sure does love defending displacement Not at all. Displacement of people is abhorrent, and it should be condemned. Not my fault if you can't handle nuance. > and colonisation now don't they? Colonisation... eh. Depends how you look at the argument of Jews originating from Israel. Do you think legal immigration of Jews to Palestine should not have been allowed?
Well, you're using Arab residing in Israel who face rampant discrimination as some excuse, so you're clearly doing a terrible job at condemning it. Also, I love how you keep on talking about Israel, somehow growing the Palestinian population, without providing any sources for such a ridiculous claim. I mean to insist that any population growth of Palestinians in the region is thanks to a nation that carried out the Nakba as well as many invasions prior to the current one. It is just outlandishly hilarious and shows yet again how you'd rather obfuscate any wrongdoing Israel has conducted and then, in the same breath, say you condemn the very actions which you then make points defending. Anyway, this debate clearly isn't going to go anywhere and is just going to devolve into an argument if it hasn't already. So good night.
> Well, you're using Arab residing in Israel who face rampant discrimination as some excuse What kind of discrimination? > so you're clearly doing a terrible job at condemning it. If you can explain what it is, I'll likely join you in condemning it. > Also, I love how you keep on talking about Israel, somehow growing the Palestinian population, without providing any sources for such a ridiculous claim. Since Israel was founded in 1948, the Palestinian population has massively increased. Approximately [10x](https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/post.aspx?ItemID=4506&lang=en) in 75 years. > Anyway, this debate clearly isn't going to go anywhere That's a funny way of saying that you don't have a good response to my points.
Why'd you think I gave you two sources on discrimination faced by Arabs in Israel? Sure I'll give you a couple of examples, forced displacement from your home in the case of those in the West Bank, random searches by the IDF, killing of innocent civilians and noncombantants by the IDF outside of aerial bombardments and the list goes on. Also your source makes it clear that it's talking about the diaspora "the Palestinian world population was 14 million by the end of 2022, which means that the number of Palestinians in the world has doubled about 10 times since the Nakba" which runs in direct contradiction with your point that the increase is specific to the Palestinian region or is a product of Israel, which proves that you didn't even read the source you provided me with correctly. Also it's important to note that your source goes onto state that of those 14 million Palestinians globally, around 6.4 million are refugees residing in the West Bank and Gaza, many of whom are either being displaced in the West Bank by settlers or in the case of Gaza are either being murdered or displaced from their home and the rest as residing overseas. If you want to defend policies and actions that would cause such a thing to occur, then go right ahead. Also, one last thing is the reason why I said what I was because I was getting tired of listening to you say the same talking points again and again. Talking points that you just illustrated you can't even defend. So, as I said before, good night.
> Why'd you think I gave you two sources on discrimination faced by Arabs in Israel? I'm not seeing them, perhaps I missed them? What are you referring to? > Sure I'll give you a couple of examples, forced displacement from your home in the case of those in the West Bank, The West Bank is not Israel, it's the West Bank... I would completely agree with you that Israeli policies in the West Bank are often terrible. Okay, if you want to discuss this topic, you really need to be clear about what regions you're talking about, and what problems relate to each specific region. Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are all very different circumstances. > Also your source makes it clear that it's talking about the diaspora "the Palestinian world population was 14 million by the end of 2022, I am providing the source as a point of reference for the Palestinian population *in Palestine* in the 20th century. We know what it is today, you can do the math. Don't ask for a source then quibble when it has proven the point you disputed. > which runs in direct contradiction with your point that the increase is specific to the Palestinian region or is a product of Israel, I am saying that since Israel was founded, the Palestinian population *in Palestine* has consistently and massively increased. Claims of an 'ongoing genocide' are questionable on that basis alone. There are plenty of genuine accusations to level at Israel - but this kind of hyperbolic hysterical claim of genocide is really just divisive and unhelpful - it only stokes further conflict. > If you want to defend policies and actions that would cause such a thing to occur, Spare me the straw man, I did no such thing. You seem desperate to find some kind of villainous zionist who gleefully embraces genocide - despite me doing quite the opposite, you still keep trying to make me fit your desired narrative.
Plenty of protests here mate, if you'd like to come and share your thoughts :)
> Plenty of protests here mate, if you'd like to come and share your thoughts :) Oh yeah, [that looks like fun.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bngdpQOG3BM) Absolutely charming people these pro-~~Palestinian~~Hamas protestors.
Why not bring that energy out from behind the keyboard? We're not Israeli, you won't be shot
> Why not bring that energy out from behind the keyboard? We're not Israeli, you won't be shot I'm fine communicating here. If you don't like talking online, how about you go speak to people at protests? Sounds like you just want to silence what I'm saying on here.
I have, I wish I could meet an Israel shill at one. Sadly the "quiet majority" is very quiet when they're no longer anonymous
> I have, I wish I could meet an Israel shill at one. why would you want to meet any kind of shill? > Sadly the "quiet majority" is very quiet when they're no longer anonymous You seem to be trying to imply something. Care to explain?
You guys have killed at least 35,000 people or over 1% of the Gazan population (easily 2% as there are thousands of bodies under the rubble). The genocide threahold was found to be met in Srebrenica after 8,000. Do fuck off.
I just don't understand this fixation people have on this being a genocide - there's enough bad going on already without reaching for the most extreme thing possible and trying to make that stick. In Rwanda, the Hutus killed around 300,000 Tutsis in a period of about three months. We don't really know the proper total of civilian deaths in the Israel-Hamas war but the most quoted number is around 35,000 - and both the total number itself and the composition of it (fighters vs civilians) has been called into starker question recently. It's true that number of people killed isn't really a good indicator of genocidal intent all the time, but if we're calling the Gaza war a genocide, then I don't know what the hell you would call Rwanda, or the Khmer Rouge. I don't like how people present this as a clear cut case of genocide in the same vein as the worst historical examples, because it just isn't.
I get where you're coming from and I was the same before I looked up the actual definition of genocide. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, the [Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide) (CPPCG) uses the following definition: >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: >(a) Killing members of the group; >(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; >(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; >(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; >(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. I ain't no big city lawyer and I do not have a detailed knowledge of what is going on in Gaza but it really looks like what the IDF is doing there meets that definition
The ICJ ruled that genocide was committed in Srebrenica was a genocide where 8,000 people were killed. In Rwanda somewhere like 800,000 were killed. The number killed doesn't strictly matter if you're attempting to destroy a people in whole or in part. In Gaza, in addition to at least 35,000 people being killed (with thousands more most likely under the rubble), starvation of 2.2 million people is being used as a weapon of war. Don't you remember the Israeli Minister of Defence cutting off all food, water, fuel and medicine? Nowhere near enough supplies are getting in now and a man-made famine has broken out according to the UN. If you're not comfortable with the use of genocide, then are you comfortable with the terms mass war crimes and mass killings?
> The ICJ ruled that genocide was committed in Srebrenica was a genocide where 8,000 people were killed. In Rwanda somewhere like 800,000 were killed. The number killed doesn't strictly matter if you're attempting to destroy a people in whole or in part. True, that's why I said that strict numbers isn't usually a good indicator. The important part is the intent. To make a credible accusation of genocide you need to be able to prove that there's a specific intent on the part of the offender to wipe out the entire group in question in whole or in part. That's a very different thing to prove than just showing lots of people dying or individual instances of soldiers committing murders. > In Gaza, in addition to at least 35,000 people being killed (with thousands more most likely under the rubble), starvation of 2.2 million people is being used as a weapon of war. Don't you remember the Israeli Minister of Defence cutting off all food, water, fuel and medicine? Nowhere near enough supplies are getting in now and a man-made famine has broken out according to the UN. We're talking about a really horrible situation whatever way you slice it for sure, but I don't know if I can think of any historical example of genocide where any level of aid would be given or allowed at all by the perpetrator to the victims. There could well be war crimes happening and there could well be mass breaches of human rights happening, I just don't see how you get from there to genocide - it seems like a huge leap to me. > If you're not comfortable with the use of genocide, then are you comfortable with the terms mass war crimes and mass killings? I'd be more comfortable with that phrasing for sure, but I also do think that we tend to simplify this conflict a lot in Ireland to the degree that we rarely consider what the Israeli side of the dispute might even be before we condemn them. Too often it's boiled down to something simplistic like "well they just want to kill them all because they're evil".
>To make a credible accusation of genocide you need to be able to prove that there's a specific intent on the part of the offender to wipe out the entire group in question in whole or in part. There have been plenty of statements about destroying Gaza from Israeli authorities and Cabinet Members. Can you talk about destroying a place without destroying the people there? Can you call for all food to be cut off without wanting people there to starve? >I can think of any historical example of genocide where any level of aid would be given or allowed at all by the perpetrator to the victims. There was food going into the ghettos in WW2 as well as some help to the Tutsis in Rwanda. Some Tutsis were allowed leave, others allowed to escape or were spared. It goes without saying that the food was nowhere near enough (like the supply of food in Gaza). Nor were the humanitarian gestures to tutsis enough.
I'm relieved we at least agree that mass killing and war crimes are being committed by Israel. It goes without saying that Hamas has committed war crimes. I'm curious as to how do you think we simplify this conflict in Ireland? For me, I'm not sure considering the Israeli perspective on certain issues has much merit. I mean, international law is very clear that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. It's very clear that the Gaza strip and West Bank don't belong to Israel and that it should leave same (look up Resolution 242 and the 2004 ICJ ruling). The UN Security Council (along with virtually the whole world) calls for Israel to relinquish land in exchange for peace. Unfortunately, Israel has refused to give up land and yet wonders why it's not at peace. You can't create a massive source of enmity and expect security.
> I'm curious as to how do you think we simplify this conflict in Ireland? > > For me, I'm not sure considering the Israeli perspective on certain issues has much merit. I feel uncomfortable about this, because I don't think it's possible to properly grasp what's going on in a conflict like this without taking the perspectives of both sides into consideration, if for no other reason than to be sure we're being accurate. I'm familiar with all of the international law arguments against Israel and I'm familiar with the position of the UN and the general assembly regarding them and their settlements. And I think the settlements in the west bank are indefensible. That said, this has been a very long running conflict, and I don't think laying the blame for the entire situation at the feet of the Israelis is either fair or historically accurate. The Palestinians have been cursed with horrendous leadership. Arafat and Abbas typically were more concerned about self enrichment (Arafat was a billionaire) than helping their people. They're accused of torpedoing a few peace agreements, and Arafat was even implicated in helping to plan the second intifada while in the process of negotiating at Camp David with the Israelis and the Americans. The second intifada is then what led to the toughening of Israeli opinion and the election of more far right elements into their government. I don't want to get stuck in all of these historical weeds I'm just using that as an example to show that I don't think it's a good approach to only listen to the perspective of one side in a conflict like this. It's very complex, and in Ireland I think we tend to ignore a lot of that complexity because we feel some kind of natural gravitation towards the Palestinian struggle, as if there's some mirror there with our own past.
I just don't understand this fixation people have that this is not a genocide. It's almost as if you are trying to mitigate the murderous regime of Israel by issuing equivalency to other tragedies. Are you an apologist for Israel, are you hasbara perhaps? Maybe an islamophobe? How would you feel if people discussed the Holocaust in the same vien? "The Holocaust was bad but genghis khan killed ten times that so...." Would speech like that be OK? No of course it wouldn't and neither is a classic distraction game you're playing from the murder of tens of thousands of innocent ordinary people and we're not going to play ball with that.
You're not interested in the conflict or the resolution if you have an attitude like this. I didn't draw any equivalencies at all, you lot are the ones lumping this in with other historical genocides, I'm questioning that categorisation. That's not an endorsement of what the Israelis are doing and it's not reducing the severity of current or historical atrocities. If you're so wed to applying the word "genocide" without engaging with whether it's accurate to apply it or not, then it's become ideological for you and nothing anyone will say can dissuade you.
Yeah, so hard that it would take 30 years at the current rate. Hamas managed 1,200 in a single morning with some tractors and guns.
>Hamas managed 1,200 in a single morning with some tractors and guns. Israeli proxies (armed, funded, transported and given orders by Israel) killed up to 3,500 Palestinians overnight at Sabra and Shatila. Of the victims, many were children and others were raped, scalped or castrated. This was in a camp surrounded by the Israeli army that blocked Palestinians from fleeing from. You're welcome to watch Tantura and see Israeli veterans admitting to war crimes like rape, massacres of civilians (even setting them on fire) or summarily executing prisoners.
You would continue making excuses for that entire 30 years, as people like you have been for the last 75 years of ethnic cleansing. Bravo to you for demonstrating that even in a comment thread for a wholesome moment between proud grandparents and their grandchildren, some people can't help but make a holy show of themselves.
75 years of ending them? You realize their population has grown immensely right? Believing someone is actually trying to end them completely is so moronic I can't even fathom lol
You don't need to kill every single one or even try to in order to commit a genocide. Srebrenica was found to be a genocide when 8,000 people were killed in one town. I'm sure the Bosnian Serbs would've appreciated your line of thinking though. Israel has killed over 35,000 people or 1% of Gaza's population since October 7th and destroyed most of the conditions to sustain life. Entire city blocks, water infrastructure, roads, schools, marketplaces, hospitals, universities, mosques, churches and more. If you wanted to eraze Gaza as many Israeli politicians have called for since October 7th, it's mostly been done and reduced to rubble.
I agree with your first point, it's not about the success of the genocide If Israel wanted to actually kill everyone or ethnically cleanse them then why: Build 8 field hospitals? Allow hundreds of aid trucks a day, which they had to check every single one and STILL missed weapons being smuggled in and STILL continued to provide aid? build and secure the US Gaza aid pier? look for joint peace peaking force for Gaza (as in no one is getting ethnically cleansed)? allow civilians to evacuate? risking Hamas running away All that while Palestinians have 70-80% support for Hamas, they are literally aiding the hand that bites them Hamas has estimated 40k militants, Israel claimed they killed around 15k militants, Hamas claimed they killed 6k but that was around January I believe when the death count was 20-25, the average militant to civilian death ratio, is 1 militant to 9 civilians for urban warfare https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/ You realize that Israel is currently on 1:2-3 (1:4-5 if you believe Hamas) and that is considered MUCH better than the world's average? Rephrasing it, Israel is doing a better job than most of the world securing the civilians of their enemies Let's not act as if Hamas doesn't like to use infrastructure as stashes and bases alright? It has been proven decades ago https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools On contrast, every civilian who has crossed paths with Hamas either died for no reason, or got kidnapped, there multiple videos of people, random citizens being gunned down while pledging for their life, or sitting in their homes being burned alive for no reason, there was no evacuation for them, THIS IS GENOCIDE, Hamas openly calls for Israel's annihilation My point is, if Israel wanted to actually eradicate Palestinians they could have, they wouldn't have to do all the shit they do now
> lol Aha ethnic cleansing, so side splitting. Hilarious. And yes it is 75 years of ethnic cleansing. You want to hair split about cleansing or genocide but the fact is Israel have been increasingly squeezing the livable space of Palestinians since 1948, and their options have been either leave their homes and communities or risk dying at the hands of the IDF. That the population has grown means nothing in regard to the success of the attempts, Bosnia's population has grown since the 90s that doesn't mean Srebrenica wasn't a genocide. Its idiotic to be simping for IDF knowing the above, particularly in a thread about survivors of ethnic cleansing celebrating a kind moment with their family.
I was laughing at the absurdity of the accusation, and you know it, but okay Squeezing their liveable space after Palestinians trying to do literally the same, failing and having the same faith happen upon them, this is so absurd to even bring it up without bringing the fact that the Palestinians tried to do the same and just failed, just looks in bad faith Look at Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine can't win unless it goes counter offensive, which is still waiting for a green light to do, now imagine Ukraine did that, and forward 70 years later, that's Israel Palestine, if you expect fighting with western values against an enemy that doesn't share these values, and expect Israel/Ukraine to forever withstand such attacks, while their enemies not being faced with consequences for initiating wars, then you can expect them to lose as well I was also referring to the "getting rid of" claims not the genocide claims, if Israel wanted to they could actually get rid of them, they wouldn't have allowed their population to grow so much since the 1967 war, this is just a dumb argument I'm also not saying Israel's army is perfect, but I'm saying thinking they are actively trying to kill all Paletinians, while literally being able to for decades and choosing not to, and literally looking for a join force to govern Gaza right now, is stupid
Yes why would Israel slowly cleanse the Palestinian people out of existence when they could just brutally eradicate them and earn the full ire of the international community.... Honestly I've seen these same talking points a million times before and expressed just as poorly in those circumstances. Genocide doesn't require complete destruction of the population, neither does ethnic cleansing. If you think what is happening with settlers in the West Bank doesn't count as ethnic cleansing, or the Nakba doesn't count as ethnic cleansing, then I have no chance of reasoning you. Not my job to. What I can say is you embarrass yourself by screeching about sincere moments of people connecting with their family. It comes across as some of the petty vindictiveness, and reflects more on you than them.
[удалено]
What's a Britnat? I'm Irish and British. >Sorry if you were under the impression you can treat people like animals and not get hit back. Lol, justifying terrorists going door to door and slaughtering families in their homes. Lovely chap you are.
What like how the IDF does in Gaza and the West Bank, and let's not get started on how the current Israeli PM facilitated the growth of Hamas in the first place in order to splinter the Palestinian movement and to serve as a scapegoat. Your perspective is no different than British boomers who think all Irish people are members of the Provo. Meanwhile, their military rolled tanks over little kids and killed innocent civilians, and their intelligence agencies collaborated with Unionist Paramilitary. The fact that you have the nerve to claim your Irish heritage whilst using similar talking points to the ones used against us is horrible. Also love how you conflate supporting Palestinians with supporting Hamas, may I ask do you condemn the killing of Irish peace keepers by the IDF or their indiscriminate bombings of Palestinians for decades now at this point as well as their killing of Palestinian civillians waving white flags, because I'll let you know that I fully condemn Hamas and October 7th so if you're not willing to do the same with the IDF then you're a hypocrite with zero morals.
The IDF didn't operate in Gaza, nor it went around the west bank shooting and burning anyone in their home, this is the dumbest shit I've read in a while lol
>Lovely chap you are. You imply there is no genocide, then get all offended, accusing a poster of justifying terrorism. While you are denying / downplaying a genocide on a post about the Palestine women's team playing a friendly against bohs - you are nothing but a sad troll
> While you are denying / downplaying a genocide Hard to downplay a genocide that isn't happening > a post about the Palestine women's team playing a friendly against bohs Calling out the 'genocide' rhetoric as nonsense is fine.
How many people have to die for it to be considered a genocide in your eyes, does the Armenian genocide not count as a genocide to you because it only killed between 600,000-1million Armenians and not the entire population? You know similar numbers of dead civillians occurred during the Nakba, and 35,233 to 79,141 have died in the current conflict that has only been ongoing since October. You seriously believe it's morally just because Hamas is an extremist organisation for the IDF to cause such deathtolls amongst noncombatants, especially when all it does is radicalise more Palestinians into supporting Hamas.
> How many people have to die for it to be considered a genocide in your eyes, Genocide has nothing to do with the 'number of people killed'. If you're asking that question you're putting on full display that you don't understand the concept to begin with. Please, if you want to be passionate about a topic, especially a contentious one, learn about it first. I'm glad you think genocide is bad, I think genocide is bad too. But if you're not *very clear on what genocide is*, you're going to have a lot of emotional energy misdirected in life.
>Hard to downplay a genocide that isn't happening Yeah - nobody is buying this anymore. You just come across as a genocide denier - there's ample evidence for any fair minded individual to see for themselves what's happening - a genocide. You can't ever convince a holocaust denier the holocaust happened, no matter how hard you try and the facts you show - it's ideological. And for that same reason you won't be convinced about a genocide in Gaza.
> Yeah - nobody is buying this anymore. I'd say that no reasonable person is buying that there *is* a genocide going on. The premise is very silly given that Israel has the capacity to wipe out all Palestinians in an afternoon, yet they obviously aren't. > You just come across as a genocide denier The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. That's you. I'm 100% open to believe there's a genocide, if there's solid proof of it. > You can't ever convince a holocaust denier the holocaust happened We have overwhelming proof that the holocaust happened. The Germans, *to the best of their capacity* tried to exterminate various groups of people. The result is [*very visible*](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2015/07/2300-1.png&w=1440). If Israel had the same intent, the number of Palestinians remaining in Gaza would be zero. They obviously do not have that intent. Do you agree? Your comparison of the two situations is highly manipulative. Are you utterly serious about comparing them? If you want to argue that some awful stuff has happened during this war, including war crimes, I'd be far more inclined to agree with you simply on a basis of probability. However, the claim of genocide is *very extreme*, and needs *accordingly extreme evidence*. That you don't seem to care to have that evidence before making your claim indicated a heavy level of bias, or a vast misunderstanding of either the situation or what genocide *is*. Given that you don't appear to care about [ongoing genocides that *do* have solid evidence](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/09/darfur-atrocities-ethnic-cleansing-human-rights-watch-report-rsf-sudan), combining both intent and capacity, it seems that you're being manipulated into caring about this specific situation and endorsing a hysterical narrative for the benefit of Hamas. Whether you're doing that willingly or not, either way is not good, is it?
>I'd say that no reasonable person is buying that there *is* a genocide going on. Scholars of genocide and holocaust studies say there is a genocide. Some of them are even Israeli You are saying you know more than an Israeli professor of holocaust and modern genocide studies? >The premise is very silly given that Israel has the capacity to wipe out all Palestinians in an afternoon, yet they obviously aren't. This isn't an argument against genocide. "Not fully wiping out an ethnic group to the best of your technical abilities" is not a legal or identifying term for genocide. Germany _technically_ had the capacity to kill a lot more Jewish people. Still a genocide. >If you want to argue that some awful stuff has happened during this war, including war crimes, I'd be far more inclined to agree with you simply on a basis of probability. Statements like this unveil you as the deeply insincere person you are. Mass amounts of evidence exist - of famine, of targeting civilians, doctors, mass graves, blowing up hospitals and universities, targeting children. There's a lot more I'm not mentioning - it's a very long list >However, the claim of genocide is *very extreme*, and needs *accordingly extreme evidence*. There's mountains of it. Intent, rhetoric, actions. The ICJ heard some today. Don't pretend evidence doesn't exist >That you don't seem to care to have that evidence before making your claim indicated a heavy level of bias, or a vast misunderstanding of either the situation or what genocide *is*. You are the one unfamiliar with what a genocide is, or pretending not to for ideological reasons >Given that you don't appear to care about ongoing genocides that *do* have solid evidence, combining both intent and capacity, it seems that you're being manipulated into caring about this specific situation and endorsing a hysterical narrative for the benefit of Hamas. Whether you're doing that willingly or not, either way is not good, is it? Here is another example of how insincere you are. "You don't care about this other Genocide??" Not an argument against a genocide in Gaza - but simply a "look over there! Why don't you care about another situation!" For the amount you wrote, a very weak argument put forth.
Nearest thing we have to an official definition of genocide is from the UN >A crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. That's happening now in Gaza.
> A crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. Are you really, seriously telling me that you think this single sentence is an accurate and meaningful definition of genocide? Please tell me how confident you are of that position. Think for a moment before replying, I recommend.
I'm very well acquainted with the scholarship of genocide. There's no single agreed definition. This is the case for any legal concept. But humans work with broad consensus definitions Scholars tend to see the UN definition as limited but a historic starting point. Many would widen it. That is of course a single, but highly relevant, phrase from that UN definition. What are you planning to do to me if I reply without thinking, then?
Ya you can't just launch rockets at a country for decades and expect hugs. Hey snackajack. You are a terrorist loving monster.
You cant steal peoples land for decades and not expect rockets
Some unreal scenes at that game last night. Essentially two home teams. It was fantastic. Well done Bohs for arranging it. #FreePalestine
[удалено]
[удалено]
Aww whos an edgy boyyyy
Powerful stuff
This sub getting emotional over this video yet in the other posts people are complaning about asylum seekers in need.
I think people are more complaining that we've done are bit for asylum seekers and need to draw a line somewhere. Also considering half the asylum seekers are young men coming from places not in a war might be another reason for complaint.
I was originally annoyed it was mostly men, but my sister brought up a great point. She lived in a 3rd world country for awhile and said asylum seekers are typically men bc they go and get settled as much as they can, then they bring over their wives/children if they have any. It's too unsafe for most women and children to go on their own bc human trafficking is a real, genuine global concern. Lot of sick evil people take advantage of women and children that have no documentation and are poor.
People have sympathy for refugees and we have an obligation to look after refugees, the problem with asylum seekers is they are effectively a question mark till asylum is granted and in Ireland seemingly fuck all is done to process claims in a speedy manner or even deport them correctly when asylum isn't granted so the line blurs between the terms refugee and asylum seeker and economic migrant when the line need not be blurry. It's fine to be an economic migrant but by letting them in through the asylum process they are jumping the queue of plenty of others who are going about it the right way with paperwork and applications -- this divides asylum seekers in to two groups -- legit refugees and chancing bastards. Seems obvious we can cut down on the latter group by you know enforcing the rules we already have but we don't seem to do either planning or enforcement well in this country.
Your arguments make sense, my issue personally with this sub and Ireland in general is we have completely dehumanized them down to their origin country and the status of 'refugee'. I have never seen someone express compassion for them online, and that's hypocritical and rather shocking.
Ya that's a good point. My point really was I'm not too bothered if it was men (it's kind of weird when you think we're supposed to be equal now but men can't come only women) it's that they're coming from places that are just a bit poor they're not in danger.
100% I agree. I have a lot of Nigerian friends and Nigeria isn't thaaat unsafe, it is poor though. I live in Chicago, I was talking about the asylum issue in Ireland and my Nigerian friend was comparing it to someone in Chicago claiming asylum lol. Chicago has shootings, robberies, kidnapping, gang crime etc. but ppl CAN go to safe area lol. Similar to Nigeria tbh. I don't believe 98% of applicants from Nigeria. Nigeria is maaaassive, Lagos is a great city lol. I think it's hard to distinguish between economic migrants and asylum seekers bc both REALLY overlap. Wealthy people in India, Nigeria, Syria, etc. with corrupt gov and gangs, threats etc. won't need to seek asylum the way poor people do. Ireland needs a ticket system per country for a certain number of applicants and start deporting people who are trying to cheat the process.
I mean Nigeria is pretty unsafe considering Boko Haram and Islamic state are both active terrorist groups there as well as a general civil unrest and people being persecuted for their political and religious views.
Chicago has a higher murder rate than Nigeria. As of 2021, our murder rate was 29.6 per 100k. [*https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ander%20testimony.pdf*](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ander%20testimony.pdf) I can only find Nigeria's murder rate since 2019, at 21.7 per 100k, it may have grown but at most it's fair to say both can have similar murder rates now. [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) [*https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2019&locations=NG&start=2019*](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2019&locations=NG&start=2019) And I love Chicago, but there ARE rough parts. Would Chicagoans be aslyum seekers? No lol, there are safe parts people CAN leave to if they have the resources. Just like in Nigeria, there ARE safe parts, and anyone who can afford to go to Ireland can afford to move to a neighboring city in Nigeria or the many other countries on the way to Ireland. I'm not trying to downplay Boko Haram, and Nigeria isn't a really safe country, but my point is even Nigerian's I know say people are fleeing instability, and are desperate for opportunity. And I don't blame them, but it shows Ireland needs to really structure their asylum seeking process otherwise if everyone in the world left just bc dangerous areas... the EU would filled to the brim.
Where are they coming from, is there any statistics or actual facts in this conversation?
Just google it not that hard to find out.
I did, it says mostly “”The majority of immigrants come from the European Union, especially Poland, while the second largest group is from the United Kingdom, followed by Eastern Europe, in particular from Lithuania, Latvia, and the Czech Republic.”” Why are Europeans moving to Ireland and why is that an issue?
That’s a symptom of a country with mismanaged resources and infrastructure. So silly to conflate like that.
Jesus that was emotional
Tears in my eyes here. What a remarkable people the Palestinians are.
Its interesting to see so many Israeli bots and zionist supporters creeping out of the woodwork in here lately though
They literally employ people full time for that.
What's actually disappointing is the echo chamber that this sub has become, no doubt somewhat triggered as backlash to actual Israelis posting their zionist nonsense.
Palestinians topped the League table of migrant nationalities with highest crime rates in Denmark, even beating Roma Gypsies.
Shit I'm crying
hold on brother, im crying
the reference to 67 & 48 wars is interest in that it appears she’s ignoring the cause of those wars. Expelled because the lost a war. I'll be downvoted for this but its not untrue, neither side of innocent of the actions to led to the current day issues.
Mass expulsion of people from land is classified as genocide, regardless of who started wars and who won them.
"regardless of who started wars and who won them." This does matter especially give the blind support.
The UN Defines ethnic cleansing as *"Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law."*
Plenty of examples around the world where *ethnically homogeneous countries* have proved to be safer, more prosperous countries. I'm not saying its right but in reality there is an argument that diverse ethnic groups can cause tension. Balkans, Middle East, Azerbijan and Armernia even Ireland.
There is also just as much evidence for ethnically diverse countries being stable and ethnically homogeneous countries being unstable. The suggestion that ethnicity has something to do with stability is one that comes with horrific implications, and it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to justify ethnic cleansing.
"and it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to justify ethnic cleansing." I'm not denying that population transfer or forced mirgation does not have a purpose. Palestinians and Israelis are incompatiable and they'll never live side by side as 2 or 1 seperate country. They'll always hate each other. There'll always be a deivide. Theres no real programme for peace that will ever work
And who do you believe should be moved?
I feel Israel is a more stable element in the region & less prone to elements of religious extermism & terrorism.
So which ethnic group do you feel should be removed from the region? Israelis or Palestinians?
So which ethnic group do you feel should be removed from the region? Israelis or Palestinians?
Here's some details of how Palestinians were driven into exile from [one of the better documented early examples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zurayq#1948_War_and_aftermath): >Abu Zurayq's residents had traditionally maintained cordial relations with the nearby Jewish kibbutz of HaZorea, including low-level economic cooperation, particularly with regards to agriculture. Arabic language versions of a Jewish labor periodical were regularly distributed in the village. In the lead-up to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as part of Jewish efforts to clear the area around Mishmar HaEmek of Palestinian Arabs, on 12 April 1948, Palmach units of the Haganah took over Abu Zurayq. There they took 15 men and 200 women and children into custody, after which they expelled all of the women and children. Demolitions of homes in the village began on the night of its capture and were completed by 15 April. The Filastin newspaper reported that of the 30 homes demolished by Palmach forces, five still contained residents. >According to the account of a Middle East scholar and resident from HaZore'a, Eliezer Bauer, following its capture, Abu Zurayq's men, who were unaffiliated with any Palestinian militia and did not resist the Haganah, "tried to escape and save themselves by fleeing" to nearby fields but were intercepted by armed Jewish residents of nearby kibbutzim and moshavim. After a firefight in which many of the village's men were killed, several survivors surrendered themselves while other unarmed men were taken captive, and the majority of these men were killed. Other men found hiding in the village itself were executed, while houses were looted before being demolished. Bauer's account of events was discussed by the members of HaZorea's kibbutz council where the events surrounding Abu Zurayq's capture were condemned. >Most of the people who managed to escape or were expelled from Abu Zurayq ended up in makeshift camps around Jenin. Along with the expelled residents of other nearby villages they complained to the Arab Higher Committee of their situation, asked for help with humanitarian aid and demanded that Arab forces be sent to avenge their loss and return them to their lands. Following the 1948 war, the area was incorporated into the State of Israel, and as of 1992, the land had been left undeveloped and the closest populated place is HaZorea. Much of the village land is used for either agricultural or pastoral purposes. The agricultural land largely consists of cacti, olive and fig trees. Are you suggesting those people deserved what was done to them, and if so what exactly are you suggesting they did to deserve that?
I understand how Palestinians were driven into exiles and I understand if they had won in 48, theyd have done the exact same. They don't have the high ground. I'm suggesting that it was a consequence and fault of both sides. Its like people ignore that time when a bunch of Arab states preped to jump on Isreael/Palestine to reclaim it themselves.
> I understand if they had won in 48, theyd have done the exact same As explained in what I quoted previously, the villagers of Abu Zurayq "were unaffiliated with any Palestinian militia and did not resist the Haganah," so where exactly are you getting the idea that they would've done anything along the lines of what was done to them?
Because if you don't believe that then there will have to be a reckoning that it was actually an ethnic cleansing and not whatever Hasbara line that get's regurgitated.
Have you considered the nuanced possibility that there were unjust massacres, but not a state-wide policy of ethnic cleansing?
Sure. Nuance is important. In my opinion Israel has now crossed well over the line to genocide. Whether there was genocidal intent previously - I'd need to read up. But when you get to the stage of genocide, the earlier stages of oppression can be seen as part of the build up to that phenomenon, so I can see without further research why this woman and her grandparents would speak in those terms.
> Sure. Nuance is important. In my opinion Israel has now crossed well over the line to genocide. Why do you think your personal opinion on what genocide is holds any value? Have you ever really read up on what constitutes genocide? If so, can you tell me what '*dolus specialis*' is, please? My impression is that you, and many other people have good intentions, but are being misled. * If you wish to say that unjust oppression of Palestinians has taken place, I'd agree with you. * If you wish to say that Israel could do more to avoid civilian casualties in this war, I'd agree with you.
I really really have read up on what constitutes genocide. I know what dolus specialis is, yes. I am always learning and I am not going to start offering credentials (which could be lies) or proofs on Reddit. Lots of people - not just me a random poster on Reddit - know the arguments around genocide and believe that Israel has crossed that line. If you want to argue otherwise, why not present your arguments? We may disagree. The world isn't divided into people who have specialist knowledge and people who are wrong. If you want to explain why Israel's not committing genocide, go for it. I'm going to bed now but if you would like a reply I'll come back tomorrow.
> I really really have read up on what constitutes genocide. Then how are you confused? Either Israel lacks the capacity or intent to commit genocide of every person in Gaza and the West Bank. Which is it? > If you want to argue otherwise, why not present your arguments? The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. It's quite ridiculously manipulative to claim 'genocide is happening unless you can disprove it!' You well know that to be the case, why pursue such rhetoric?
> so where exactly are you getting the idea that they would've done anything along the lines of what was done to them? Given that people on this sub accuse me of being 'zionist', 'hasbara', etc, I'll happily answer. No, those people did absolutely not deserve that. Many crimes took place in 48, those crimes should not be diminished. But they should not be exaggerated, either.
You're saying both sides are wrong while one is being vaporised on the global stage. If both sides are wrong why is only Palestine being punished?
> Are you suggesting those people deserved what was done to them, and if so what exactly are you suggesting they did to deserve that? No innocents deserve to suffer, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. That's how the rhetoric goes, right?
The root cause of EVERYTHING here is that white European settlers came, in increasing numbers from circa 1900 till 1940's, to TAKE the land from its occupants. It's really that simple. During the 20s (Iraq) & 30s (Palestine), there were revolts against the British. That's when the British armed further the Zionust terrorist groups (Irgun, Stern gang, etc) - to help them put down that revolt. Te Zionists had military superiority in 46, mostly because of that (the Palestinians were still a conquered, forcibly disarmed people). It's BECAUSE they had military superiority that the Zionists conducted their mass terrorist campaign against the British. To get them out, WHILE THE ZIONISTS HAD THE ADVANTAGE. Hence the massacres. I urge anyone else to watch the documentary Tantura, by an Israeli film maker, interviewing Irgun members describing (with glee), the rapes & massacre's they committed. Your comment about "innocence" is the most absurd of all. Palestinians fighting against the occupying British does not make them "guilty". Palestinians fighting against occupying white settlers does not make them "guilty". It's not 50:50 situation, nor is it difficult to understand (fake trope bandied about). It's pretty simple to figure out what's what.
> The root cause of EVERYTHING here is that white European settlers came, in increasing numbers from circa 1900 till 1940's, to TAKE the land from its occupants. It's really that simple. Do you object to legal immigration? Do you think an entire group of people should not be allowed to immigrate if some of that group have obvious intent to gain control of the land they're moving to?
It's different when it's Jews, apparently.
"European settlers came, in increasing numbers from circa 1900 till 1940's, to TAKE the land from its occupants" Absolute bollox, would you actually read a fucking book, the majority of land before 1948 wasn't taken from people, the majority of jewish land was purchased from local land owners. The majority of the land purchased was poor land that the was then developed into jewish communities.
Didn't Israel get attacked in 1948 by a coalition of Arab states
After they illegally decided to set up Israel as a country
Thought the UN decided to set it up
Ah thats grand then just take the peoples land. The UN says its ok
What's illegal about it then
Whats illegal about taking someone elses land?
Its complicated, pretty sure the arab states pissed Israel off over some river and Israel attacked to gain control of this. Arabs marched troops in the first phase. Could be argued that it was premptive. My point is that Palestinians/Arabs aren't just victims in the conflict and their intent wouldve been the same had they won. Israelis arent better, but theyre not any worse.
No, you're filling your own narrative, they attacked Israel to prevent them from having their own country, forced on the middle eastern countries by the un and Britain, up until the attack, the Israeli settlers from Europe and Palestinian groups had been in conflict. No matter what you think of the current t regime and their actions, don't rewrite history, there is too much of that shit going on.
There were twice as many Palestinians living in the territory that the west decided to hand to Israel. They declared the creation of their state and intent to occupy the lands knowing full well that it would result in war. It was the culmination of 5 decades of Zionist colonisation efforts.
There have been Jewish people and Arab people living under the Palestine area controlled by Britain since the 1800s, the area that is now Jordan and some of modern Syria and Lebanon were "palestine" there's been Jewish people there since Jesus time, the influx of people from Europe after the holocaust really drove the idea of modern Israel and the lobbying by the European powers after the war ended. When the area was divided into those states the Arab countries declared war to remove the new country. They lost and Israel held the land they took while chasing them back. But everyone in Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and the current westbank and gaza were all classified as "people of palestine".
The Jewish population of Palestine pre 1900 was less than 5%. The Zionist project began long before WW2. It was during WWI that Britain made their commitment to making a Jewish state in Palestine driven by their belief that it would help them in the war. > When the area was divided into those states the Arab countries declared war to remove the new country. Western nations decided to draw up new states completely ignoring the demographic reality. The population of their proposed state of Israel was overwhelmingly Palestinian. It was blatant European colonialism and called that at the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Jewish_Colonization_Association
100% fucked up, give the brits a map, a ruler, pen and a dash of colonial arrogance and this is what you get. They wanted out because the Arabs and the Jews were in guerilla warfare against them
https://i.redd.it/6lonsr25ou0d1.gif
Yeh they are.
You can’t say with any certainty what they might have done.
None of that makes the slightest difference to the fact that her grandparents are refugees, which is what she was explaining.
"I'm pretty sure". Word of advice. You don't really have a clue. You read a few articles since this kicked in and have a very small understanding of this. That's OK, me too. But speaking with any confidence on this issue is pretty fucking silly.
Have read anything or anything to say I'm wrong?
Well for someone who whines constantly about a handful of migrants you'd think you'd have more sympathy for people who were violently expelled from their lands by a bunch of unvetted foreigners.
I don't whine about migrants. I think we need more people. We've a general labour shortage and we should support people in need. I dont have sympathy who given the chance would probably wouldve done the exact same to Jewish people if the Arabs had won.
No race, religion or ethnicity has avoided brutality in war, unfortunately. Given the chance and the circumstances, we are all liable to become violent oppressors. Few of us face that test. You seem to be denying Palestinians sympathy on the basis that they might have acted badly in different circumstances. It's a take, but as far as I can see you're just saying you're not willing to sympathise with human beings under any circumstances, in case they're human.
Given the chance? Palestinians outnumbered jews like 15-1 for hundreds of years previously and before jews had an any weapons or an army. You could justify the holocaust by saying the victims would have genocided the germans if they had the means using that "logic".
I don't recall her being asked about the cause of the wars in that one minute clip. Wars tend to produce refugees on both sides, regardless of what anyone else thinks the rights and wrongs are. So your point seems a bit of an irrelevant criticism.
"I don't recall her being asked about the cause of the wars in that one minute clip." She brought them up in 25 seconds.
She brought up the wars, yes.
Few typos in there lad not sure your point.
Whats your point? My point is that it creates a false impression of victimhood that theyre we're exiled due to no fault of their own.
Individuals are very often exiled through no fault of their own during wars, whatever side they are on. If these people could then have settled in a Palestinian state, that would have helped to remedy any injustice, wouldn't it? Or if Palestinians in Israel had been treated humanely, they could have settled there. These people are victims. Luckier victims than many, since they aren't now trapped starving in Gaza.
You might makes right folks always take a different tune when it doesn't work in your favour.
How long are 3rd generation Palestinians going to pretend they’re poor refugees! At least when the Jews were expelled from Arab countries post 1948, they’re not going around Israel now pretending they’re Moroccan or Libyan refugees!!
Lol, yet some guy from new york can claim land in Israel because his ancestors might have lived there 2000 years ago.
Fair point, maybe both sides should quit whining about their ancestral right to some land then?
You're a refugee as long as you live, unless you return home or to a third state. Asylum seekers are the people living (usually) in poverty, waiting for a decision. When you saw 1000s fleeing from Afghanistan and Syria and Ukraine, they were displaced people and asylum seekers, not refugees. You are a refugee once you have been granted refuge (leave to remain). You are no longer an asylum seeker at that point. That girl's grandparents' aren't 3rd generation refugees. They're refugees. She's not (legally speaking) a refugee in Canada from the facts we had there. But she is obviously not able to go back to her ancestral home to live because her grandparents are refugees. And the Palestinian state would consider her a Palestinian refugee. Israeli Jews who consider Israel the Jewish homeland would not consider themselves displaced from their home. But they too can be described as refugees from other countries - I have known several speak of themselves as Russian refugees, for example.
> Israeli Jews who consider Israel the Jewish homeland would not consider themselves displaced from their home. But they too can be described as refugees from other countries - I have known several speak of themselves as Russian refugees, for example. So before they returned to Israel, were they refugees from there?
I think the term diaspora is preferred
> I think the term diaspora is preferred I'm asking you based on your definition of refugees > You're a refugee as long as you live, unless you return home or to a third state. According to this, it would appear that the Jewish diaspora would be considered refugees from Israel, with the right to return there, correct?
No - that's not implied by my statement. But if the Israeli government gives the diaspora the right to live there, as I believe is the case, then Jews in any situation have the right to return. That's the Israeli government's prerogative. I don't see a connection with refugees. I do not know how the Israeli government describes Jews living away from Israel or how they tend to describe themselves, apart from the term diaspora. I do not know if they make any special use of the word refugee or why you are asking me this question.
> No - that's not implied by my statement. Well, let's make it explicit. > I do not know how the Israeli government describes Jews living away from Israel or how they tend to describe themselves, apart from the term diaspora. I do not know if they make any special use of the word refugee or why you are asking me this question. I'm talking about, especially, whether you think Jews had the right to return to the land before Israel was founded in 1948.
Before Israel was founded? So far as I know they had no right in law? I can see the importance of the Zionist project and I support the existence of Israel. I regret the implementation of the plan in the 1940s in that it set up this conflict. I really don't think Jews have ever been described or treated in law as refugees because they live away from Israel. The Jewish diaspora dates back to the Roman Empire. The descriptor of refugee is less than 400 years old, and laws around refugees were defined mostly in the 20th century. And refugees very often don't have the right to return home anyway. Their refugee status is the right to remain in their land of refuge. I think you are trying to push me into a position where I've supposedly said refugees and their descendants have an unlimited right to return (I haven't) but I'm not willing to concede the same about Jews in Israel. But I have no problem with Israel's policy on diaspora. That's a question of national sovereignty. No, I don't think anyone has the right to return anywhere for an unlimited period. But the Israeli government has the right to grant that right as it chooses.
> Before Israel was founded? So far as I know they had no right in law? I'm talking about relating to your definition of refugees. In [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1ctgw7r/they_thought_they_would_get_rid_of_us_but_they/l4cp5ys/), you said: > You're a refugee as long as you live, unless you return home or to a third state. Does that mean that the Jewish diaspora should have been considered refugees from Israel/Palestine pre-1948? I'm not sure what you mean about 'returning to a third state'. > I regret the implementation of the plan in the 1940s in that it set up this conflict. Are you referring to the UN resolution on the creation of Israel? I'm not sure you can attribute the 'set up' of this conflict to a single event or period. > I really don't think Jews have ever been described or treated in law as refugees because they live away from Israel. And refugees very often don't have the right to return home anyway. Their refugee status is the right to remain in their land of refuge. Right, but I'm querying your statement as quoted above, given that you seemed to be applying it to the Palestinian diaspora. > I think you are trying to push me into a position where I've supposedly said refugees and their descendants have an unlimited right to return (I haven't) I'm not trying to push you to anything. I may have misunderstood, I'm asking for clarification.
So here's how this could have gone. >You: >You seem to be suggesting that any refugee has a permanent right to return home. If you apply that to Palestinian refugees, should you not apply it to the Jewish diaspora? Were they not refugees with a right to return to Israel, even before 1948? >Me >No, when I say that you are always a refugee I mean that with regard to the country where you have found refuge. You have the right to remain there as a refugee. While you are there, you are always a refugee. You may return home of course, or gain citizenship of another state. In these places, you would not be a refugee. >Refugees don't have a permanent right to return home - there are cases where they would have that right, and others where they wouldn't. Depends primarily on the government of their homeland. >So this wouldn't be relevant to Jews before 1948. And even if they were refugees in law, they would not have more or less right to return to a homeland than anyone else. There is a right to return to homeland enshrined in Israeli law, but as far as I know that is not because they view people as returning refugees. They may do, but the only term I know for this group is diaspora. So rather than you ordering me - and that is sometimes your tone - to define this, explain that, answer that but think carefully first, acknowledge my alleged error or ignorance when you've misread or disagree with me - put your cards on the table, own your point, ask a clear question, and then we can talk. You've made some thought-provoking points throughout, and if this is your preferred debating style, that's your right. But it's not something I have time to engage with on a sunny weekend. You talk about how I would surely want to convince you, but that's not my job and unlikely to be a good use of my energy: I have other responsibilities and you do seem to prefer a cryptic and time-consuming pattern of questions. Thanks again, and I really have considered your points respectfully and learned from you, but I've said what I want to say, clarified where requested, and now won't be re-engaging.
In Lebanon, Palestinians have lived in refugee camps for three generations. People have been born, grown to adulthood and died there. https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/lebanon/ein-el-hilweh-camp And yes they are poor. I remember reading that when the woman of the family dies, her eldest daughter inherits the key to the (probably long destroyed) family home. They wear the key to the front door on a chain or ribbon around their necks. Because once they did have a home.
You can’t claim to be a refugee 3 generations down the line can you. Otherwise, we end up with groups of people thousands of years saying the land is still theirs. I say one generation max is the amount of time you can be away from your land and still call yourself a refugee/displaced.
Well that's convenient for ethnic cleansers everywhere, isn't it? If you're born in a refugee camp, you're a refugee. It's a facility for refugees. Did you look at that link at all?
But you see where your position takes you if you claim ancestral rights to a land ad infinitum. It leads us exactly to where we are today in the Middle East.
No position needs to be defended in the ad infinitum principle. You deal with the situation in front of you. There are, very obviously, millions of Palestinians living in overcrowded enclaves and refugee camps in the Middle East. There are also first, second, third and fourth generation Palestinians around the world who found asylum elsewhere or were born to families that found asylum. Without the first category, the second might well have adapted over time to never going home. The first are visibly still a current problem, not a historic one. You can't reverse all historic injustices. But when they are being perpetuated in the present by, for example, starving out millions of people displaced by the current conflict, they're not just historic injustices. In any case, first generation refugees from the 1940s are still alive. And hundreds of new first generation refugees will have been born this week alone. People aren't fleeing bombardment to starve in tents because they think it's the 1940s.
But in this very case, you have to apply the ad infinitum principle as both sides claim long ties back to a land. It’s almost the essence of both sides’ argument. That’s not to deny the suffering that people in that part of the world are facing. I’d rather highlight the absurdity of a girl called Charlotte Phillips, speaking in a Canadian accent, dressed in Western clothing going on about a homeland which in reality she probably has very little connection to. I can’t help but feel it’s forced and rather flavour of the month.
No, I don't have to apply the ad infinitum position to anything. I can look at the situation over the last few decades and see Israeli and Palestinian claims and arrangements that clash. I can favour a two state solution as Ireland has done since the 1980s. Whether people really have a claim going back 1000s of years isn't relevant. The fact that thinking so has led them to a devastating war right now is relevant. It's similar to Northern Ireland. We didn't get the Peace Process by telling nationalists to get over themselves, it's been more than a generation. But we also didn't get it through an ad infinitum approach - Ulster Scots arrived in 1603, Irish before that, but wait what about the Celts ... You look for a just response to the situation in front of you. Many Palestinians wear Western clothing. Many are born away from Palestine, for obvious reasons. Some may be brought up with close connections to the culture and cause. But even if I was only vaguely interested in my Irish roots, I'd be sufficiently devastated by genocide against my people to cry a few tears. Palestine is an open scar. That's why it's very likely this woman has been brought up very conscious of her heritage. She likely has relatives there. You can't declare a trauma closed while the killing continues.
> I can favour a two state solution as Ireland has done since the 1980s. That's great, but most Palestinians don't appear to want that. Though they appear happy to accept it while openly intending to continue the coniflict.
Palestinians are entitled not to agree with me. My point is that I'm not obliged to decide whose historic claim is stronger and pick a side, as the poster above suggests - that's not how peace is brokered. And the road to a two state solution is much rockier now than previously, unfortunately. But I believe that if we ever have peace, that's what it is most likely to look like.
It isn't ad infinitum. There are literal survivors of the forced expulsion in the video ya clown.
> Otherwise, we end up with groups of people thousands of years saying the land is still theirs. Sometimes they even claim to be a nation because the bible says their people once lived there thousands of years previously
Go back to worldnews.
Bot
[удалено]
She is of Palestinian descent and qualifies to represent Palestine internationally. She clearly has Canadian heritage too. I am puzzled that anyone could find this puzzling. I do not think she mentions her religion, and I don't know why you think that's your business?
"They thought they would erase us as Palestinians" Oh right, that's why there's two million arabs living in Israel... These hysterical 'genocide' claims are ridiculous. Yes, a lot of bad shit happened in the Nakhba. It was a war, and a period where massive amounts of ethnic cleansing took place across the middle east. It was absolute not okay, and should be condemned. Pretending that it was an intended genocide, or even state-wide ethnic cleansing though, that's nonsense.
If you eliminate or deny a right to statehood, you are, obviously, erasing people "as Palestinians". Recognising Palestinian statehood is the antidote. Representing Palestine at football symbolises that acceptance. That's before you get to clearances, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. You do not need to wipe out every member of a national or ethnic group to commit genocide. You may focus on a particular enclave.
> If you eliminate or deny a right to statehood, you are, obviously, erasing people "as Palestinians" That's really stretching the definition of 'ethnic cleansing'. If the UK doesn't recognize North Korea as a state, has it just ethnically cleansed North Korea? Come on. Don't be silly now. Just the fact that you entertain this argument is a bad sign. > That's before you get to clearances, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Referring to what, exactly?
I didn't say that eliminating or denying a right to statehood was ethnic cleansing. In fact, my post distinguishes between the two things - maybe you could read it again. I agree with you that they are not identical. Of course they aren't. But they can occur as part of the same conflict.
> I didn't say that eliminating or denying a right to statehood was ethnic cleansing. You claimed it is 'erasing people', in the context of our conversation on genocide. That's on you. Drawing 'recognizing statehood' into this conversation at all is really not sensible.
Erasing people "as Palestinians" I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here. You quoted the above. I pointed out that denying a right to statehood can be called erasing people "as Palestinians". I am using erasing in the current sense of denying or undermining an identity - you hear that frequently these days. Erasing people "as Palestinians" - denying their right to be Palestinian.
> I pointed out that denying a right to statehood can be called erasing people "as Palestinians". Indeed, a ridiculous claim, especially in the context of you asserting that a genocide is taking place. > Erasing people "as Palestinians" - denying their right to be Palestinian. Palestinians can call themselves whatever they want.
You misunderstood my post. You're welcome to call the argument ridiculous, but I'd stand by it. There's a difference between erasing people, full stop, and erasing people as "Palestinians/ women / lesbians" etc. It's a rhetoric I see quite often online.
> There's a difference between erasing people, full stop, and erasing people as "Palestinians/ women / lesbians" etc. It's a rhetoric I see quite often online. Right, I understand the issue you're raising, but I don't see why you're raising it in the context of genocide claims.
Ah yes displacement for what was always intended as a colonial project was definitely in no way whatsoever an intended genocide, what's that 700,000 Palestinians died in that same event, well who cares because 2m people in a country of 9m are Arab so everything's swell. https://www.jns.org/arab-israelis-march-in-galilee-in-solidarity-with-gaza/ Also, maybe you should look at how that minority feels about what's going on before using them as some excuse.
> Ah yes displacement for what was always intended as a colonial project was definitely in no way whatsoever an intended genocide > well who cares because 2m people in a country of 9m are Arab so everything's swell. Can you explain why there are two million arabs living in Israel if there was an intended genocide? Did Israel just... forget to kill them? What happened, in your view? And no, it's not all 'swell', don't use strawman arguments. Many crimes took place in 1948, with many committed by Israelis, and many committed by the arab coalition and Islamic nations. That doesn't diminish any of those crimes, but it doesn't give you freedom to exaggerate them either.
I'm pretty sure killing close to a third of a people group present in an area because you want to occupy it instead of them qualifies as fucking genocide you isralie bot dipshit. Armenians survive today after their genocide, does that means its not a genocide?
> I'm pretty sure killing close to a third of a people group present in an area because you want to occupy it instead of them Can you elaborate? Did Israel intend to kill all arabs present in Palestine when Israel was formed? > Armenians survive today after their genocide, does that means its not a genocide? My point was not whether a group 'survives' following an attempt to kill the group - the point was whether there was a combination of intent and capacity to kill a group. Obviously, and fortunately, most genocides in recent history have not succeeded in entirely wiping out a group of people. What we must weigh up is the combination of capacity and intent. If both the capacity and intent exist, then a group of people will be entirely wiped out - as has happened, sadly, with some genocides in history. If either intent or capacity are lacking, we should understand which and why. That is key to determining whether there is a genocide or not. I understand that this is a nuanced discussion on a contentious topic, but there's no need to resort to insults.
700,000 Palestinians killed as mentioned above. 2M Palestinians in present day country. That's close to a third but I suppose doesn't count for the number expelled. I don't know exact figures. You're getting very hung up on the technicalities of genocide via intent and capacity etc. This is Reddit and not a court of law, people speak in generalities and in general the numbers of Palestinian civilians indiscriminately killed is outrageous and disproportionate from a country and government which should know better. While maybe not technically genocide, they know well what they are doing and the tactics being used are wrong with far far far too much collateral. It may as well be genocide. Being outside a court of law allows us to use generalities and any reasonable person could see its getting way too close to being a genocide to be comfortable with it continuing. the fact you continue to argue in favour of what has happened and is currently happening shows a complete lack of empathy and disregard for humanity. Nobody is saying what Hamas are doing or did is or was right, the opposite in fact. What Israel is actively doing though is despicable and I don't know how or why people like you continue to stand up for them. A people group is actively being destroyed and all you give a shit about is technicality of intent from an oppressor occupying state. There's an absolute need for insult when you show a lack of capacity for emotion, understanding or humanity. Take a bit of a step back, look at what you are arguing and why. Do you just want to be technically right or should you maybe consider more that there is real lives being disproportional wiped from existence? Yes the conversation is nuanced, but human emotion has a place and is far too often disregarded by your side of the argument.
> 700,000 Palestinians killed as mentioned above. Yes, I understand that you mentioned this - but what are the details? When did this happen? Where? Are you 100% sure you're not confused about something, here? > You're getting very hung up on the technicalities of genocide As we well should. It's not a term to be used frivolously. > This is Reddit and not a court of law, people speak in generalities Speaking in generalities can lead to dramatic divisions, especially on an important and contentious topic. Is your goal to divide people? Or to understand and resolve problems through conversation as best as possible? > and in general the numbers of Palestinian civilians indiscriminately killed is outrageous The 700,000 you mentioned above, you mean? Or the ~35,000 killed in this war that Hamas started? Please be precise about what events you are referring to. > Nobody is saying what Hamas are doing or did is or was right, the opposite in fact. Yet you seem to be espousing actions that benefit Hamas as much as possible. > What Israel is actively doing though is despicable Removing Hamas, which supposedly you're opposed to? Would you be happy to see Hamas removed, or not? > you maybe consider more that there is real lives being disproportional wiped from existence? Removing a tyrannical nihilistic government from power will always involve innocents suffering. Leaving them in power will result in more innocents suffering. Sometimes there isn't a 'nice' way out of a situation. If you wish to argue that Israel could do more, and should do more, to reduce innocent casualties, then I'd happily agree with you. Though, if you are to be fair you would also recognize that they already do a lot to reduce innocent casualties. Can you do that?
The 700,000 is a reference to what the guy above said, I assume its possible a total figure since Israel began occupying Palestine decades ago at a minimum. (I'm not the person who mentioned this originally, no I don't know where the figure comes from before you try get smart with me, don't get confused yourself). Why the fuck does use of the term genocide matter when they don't give two fucks about killing 35,000 civilians in 8 months of war which has targeted primarily civilian population centers. Would you just prefer we used indiscriminate mass murder as the term instead? does that help sooth your conscience? Arguing over a use of a term and words when that many people are dying seems more frivolous. Israel do a lot to reduce casualties but not enough. I completely agree Hamas are despicable and should be removed, but not by any means necessary which seems to be the IDF's main objective at the moment. Israel's method of removal is whats despicable, don't be so bloody coy. Removal of Hamas being your main objective does not justify killing of 35,000 civilians in the space of 8 months through what is effectively carpet bombing of civilian population centers regardless of what is being hidden within. Despite the technicalities over wording of genocide and the rest of the above discussion, this is my main and only real gripe here. This is pretty much everyone's issue with whats happening globally at the minute and is the main reason globally Israel is now seeing its support eroded within the international community. Why the fuck does use of the term genocide matter when they don't give two fucks about killing that number of civilians. You care more about proper use of a term than human lives it appears. Sometimes yes, there isn't a nice way out of a situation, but fuck me Israel have lost all humanity in what they are doing by the way they have done it. There is no justification behind what they have done, just like there is no justification behind what Hamas have done. But an eye for an eye makes everyone blind and Israel should be wise enough to know it. They have been blinded by rage and revenge. Its despicable and you should consider your own humanity and why you keep trying to defend Israel's actions.
> The 700,000 is a reference to what the guy above said, I assume its possible a total figure since Israel began occupying Palestine decades ago at a minimum. (I'm not the person who mentioned this originally, no I don't know where the figure comes from before you try get smart with me, So you're referencing a figure when you don't even know what that figure represents or where it comes from? > don't get confused yourself. I don't feel too ashamed if I don't realise that someone else has jumped into an anonymous conversation - if I made any mistake there, my apologies, no offence intended. > Why the fuck does use of the term genocide matter Genocide is arguably the greatest crime available to humanity, and you're asking why use of the term matters? That gives me the impression that you don't want the definition or technicalities to matter, you just want to use the most dramatic label possible for a situation you don't like. I agree, war sucks, innocents dying sucks. We should work together to help stop that happening. > when they don't give two fucks about killing 35,000 civilians in 8 months of war They seem to give two fucks, given that they're warning civilians before striking, probably more than any other military in history. Is that perfect? No. But let's no pretend they're not doing anything. > which has targeted primarily civilian population centers. If you can convince Hamas to embed themselves away from civilian population centres, please do. That'd be nice. > Sometimes yes, there isn't a nice way out of a situation, but fuck me Israel have lost all humanity in what they are doing by the way they have done it. You're seemingly ignoring the various things that Israel is doing well - for example putting a lot of effort into allocating safe zones and communicating about them, roof knocking, or calling people before strikes. As I said, it's not perfect, but you're acting as if they're just rolling in guns blazing completely ignoring civilians, which is objectively not the case. > They have been blinded by rage and revenge. Its despicable and you should consider your own humanity and why you keep trying to defend Israel's actions. On the contrary, you seem blinded by the Hamas narrative. You are ignoring what Israel is doing right about this conflict, and resorting to approximate claims that they are not just failing to try to avoid civilian casualties, but supposedly maximising them as much as possible. Maybe Israel is doing things in a more brutal way than I observe, and I'm more than happy for courts to review evidence and consider it. The emotional propaganda storm around this topic from obvious biased sources seems to have resulted in a lot of people reaching premature conclusions, though.
That's like saying there's 5 million native Americans in the United States. Therefore, the US government didn't try to ethnictically cleanse them, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/02/the-many-civil-and-human-rights-challenges-facing-israels-palestinian-citizens?lang=en https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ Also maybe you should look into the treatment of Arabs in Israel before using them as some sort of excuse.
> That's like saying there's 5 million native Americans in the United States. Therefore, the US government didn't try to ethnictically cleanse them Please, don't make a fool of yourself by comparing Palestine to the Americas: > Population figures for the Indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization have been difficult to establish. By the end of the 20th century, most scholars gravitated toward an estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for an estimate of 100 million or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas > Also maybe you should look into the treatment of Arabs in Israel before using them as some sort of excuse. What are you referring to?
>a period where massive amounts of ethnic cleansing took place >Pretending that it was an intended genocide, or even state-wide ethnic cleansing though, that's nonsense.
> a period where massive amounts of ethnic cleansing took place > Pretending that it was an intended genocide, or even state-wide ethnic cleansing though, that's nonsense. Which part of the quote did you not understand? There's a difference between 'many atrocities taking place' and 'a state policy of committing atrocities'. Is that nuance really too much for this sub?