Israel, Palestine and Iran

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

All I'm interested in is what you think constitutes genocide, where does it start? You keep referring to a loose set of principles set by the Holocaust memorial as some sort of gage, when in reality that gage is achieved by a large proportion of wars since the Holocaust. The UN has shown that its incapable of adding the label 'genocide' equally, even if the same conditions are met in many other conflicts than the horrible #¤% going on in Gaza right now, partially due to veto powers, partially due to voting blocks.

What Israel has done and is doing meets/crosses the threshold for most if not all accepted definitions of genocide. But to take your point about previous genocides, sadly there have been genocides far greater in scale in the past, but that doesn't diminish from the utter barbarity and cruelty of what Israel has done to Palestinian civilians.

I don't believe any of us are legal experts, or experts in international law, but as "men in the street" it is impossible not to see a clear intent, or to hear statements from members of the Israeli government which demonstrate absolutely that the characteristics defined as genocidal have been met by the actions and words of Israel, the IDF and members of the government there.

Quote

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Israel officially claims that it is engaged in a conflict to destroy the Hamas terrorist organisation and that it takes care to protect the lives of civilians and so on. But its actions (and words) show that as a lie. The scale of death and destruction is completely disproportionate. Now you could argue, perhaps, that these are "merely" war crimes, with a disregard for humanitarian law by the rulers, leaders and troops of the IDF, but the sheer reality is that it's worse than that. It's not "just" the unfortunate deaths of some civilians in close proximity to a firefight between opposing forces (IDF/Hamas), but instead a conscious effort, whether by design, or wanton disregard for rules of engagement, to kill men women and children, to deny aid, to deny food, power, water, medicines, to target aid workers, hospitals, places of worship, shelters, to deny safe passage to Palestinians collectively, and specifically because they are Palestinians. It's genocide.

[sheepyvillian]

I know it's a cliche, but it's so apt for this horrific conflict, give people in power an inch and they invariably take the proverbial mile.

[sheepyvillian]

Regardless of any atrocities committed by Israel, the fact is, you're never going to see Benjamin Netanyahu before a war crimes court.

[magnkarl]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

What Israel has done and is doing meets/crosses the threshold for most if not all accepted definitions of genocide. But to take your point about previous genocides, sadly there have been genocides far greater in scale in the past, but that doesn't diminish from the utter barbarity and cruelty of what Israel has done to Palestinian civilians.

I don't believe any of us are legal experts, or experts in international law, but as "men in the street" it is impossible not to see a clear intent, or to hear statements from members of the Israeli government which demonstrate absolutely that the characteristics defined as genocidal have been met by the actions and words of Israel, the IDF and members of the government there.

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Israel officially claims that it is engaged in a conflict to destroy the Hamas terrorist organisation and that it takes care to protect the lives of civilians and so on. But its actions (and words) show that as a lie. The scale of death and destruction is completely disproportionate. Now you could argue, perhaps, that these are "merely" war crimes, with a disregard for humanitarian law by the rulers, leaders and troops of the IDF, but the sheer reality is that it's worse than that. It's not "just" the unfortunate deaths of some civilians in close proximity to a firefight between opposing forces (IDF/Hamas), but instead a conscious effort, whether by design, or wanton disregard for rules of engagement, to kill men women and children, to deny aid, to deny food, power, water, medicines, to target aid workers, hospitals, places of worship, shelters, to deny safe passage to Palestinians collectively, and specifically because they are Palestinians. It's genocide.

My point wasn't that though, my point was that the term genocide is being thrown around for a conflict with 30.000 dead over 7 months, when the reality is that it isn't even unique in the last year. Does the UN call the war in Ukraine genocide? Do we need to re-write what we consider a genocide based on what's trending to support? Myanmar, Ukraine and Sudan have worse figures than Gaza. I don't see the same effort to paint other conflicts with this very serious word, even if all the conditions of the charter are met.

I'm sure there's intent to commit genocide within Israel's rabid government, I just don't see how a nation with as much firepower as Israel is doing such a bad job of the allegation when out of 2.4 million people that they've 'only' killed 30.000 people (and I'm in no way saying that killing 30.000 people is in any way shape or form okay), those 30.000 are also likely to include some Hamas-fighters - in 7 months. It just doesn't sit right with the other genocides of the past where 30.000 is almost a daily figure. To me it just seems like hyperbole to call it genocide, when more people likely died in one city in Ukraine (Mariupol, over a shorter period) and the same organ (UN) refuse to call that a genocide. It feels and sounds political.

Perspective has gone out of the window for both sets in this conflict. The perspective for me, at least, is that 30.000 people out of a group of 2.4 million people doesn't constitute genocide. In that case we'll need to apply the same badge to many our own wars in the last 60 years. It's a lot easier to get Benny tried for war crimes than it is genocide. Genocide won't stick. Intent is much harder to prove.

Edited April 5 by magnkarl

[bobzy]

15 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

My point wasn't that though, my point was that the term genocide is being thrown around for a conflict with 30.000 dead over 7 months, when the reality is that it isn't even unique in the last year. Does the UN call the war in Ukraine genocide? Do we need to re-write what we consider a genocide based on what's trending to support? Myanmar, Ukraine and Sudan have worse figures than Gaza. I don't see the same effort to paint other conflicts with this very serious word, even if all the conditions of the charter are met.

I'm sure there's intent to commit genocide within Israel's rabid government, I just don't see how a nation with as much firepower as Israel is doing such a bad job of the allegation when out of 2.4 million people that they've 'only' killed 30.000 people (and I'm in no way saying that killing 30.000 people is in any way shape or form okay), those 30.000 are also likely to include some Hamas-fighters - in 7 months. It just doesn't sit right with the other genocides of the past where 30.000 is almost a daily figure. To me it just seems like hyperbole to call it genocide, when more people likely died in one city in Ukraine (Mariupol, over a shorter period) and the same organ (UN) refuse to call that a genocide. It feels and sounds political.

Perspective has gone out of the window for both sets in this conflict. The perspective for me, at least, is that 30.000 people out of a group of 2.4 million people doesn't constitute genocide. In that case we'll need to apply the same badge to many our own wars in the last 60 years. It's a lot easier to get Benny tried for war crimes than it is genocide. Genocide won't stick.

Israel has killed over 1% of the Gaza population in this one particular war - and a far greater number "over time" - and seem to actively want those Arabs in Gaza wiped off the face of the Earth.

It's absolutely genocide - to imply otherwise is just daft.

[magnkarl]

39 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Israel has killed over 1% of the Gaza population in this one particular war - and a far greater number "over time" - and seem to actively want those Arabs in Gaza wiped off the face of the Earth.

It's absolutely genocide - to imply otherwise is just daft.

So 1% is the threshold? 

To play devil's advocate here, to show people how a likely genocide trial would go, is 300.000 civilians dead in Iraq when UK\US led forces bombed the hell out of that country also genocide? It constitutes roughly the same percentage.

Historically the numbers are:

Armenian Genocide: 65-70% of the Armenian population.

Assyrian Genocide: 70-80% of the Assyrian population

Holocaust - 62% of the Jewish population, 90% of all Jews in occupied areas.

Rwanda: 77% of all Tutsi.

Holodomor: 10% of all Ukrainians in Ukraine dead, 80% in Kuban, 35% in Kazakhstan. 

Darfur: 15% of all Fur, Masalit and Zanghawa tribespeoples killed.

Cambodia: 99% Viets, 50% of Cham, 40% of Thai, 15-25% of the Khmer.

Timor: 30-40% of the East-Timorians killed.

Burundi: 10-15% of all Hutus killed.

Guatemala: 40% of the Maya population killed.

Most of the above genocides doesn't have the part being killed attacking the others first either, which is a card Israel will use for whatever it's worth. They've gone way overboard with their reaction, but they'll argue that we did the same when we lied about Saddam's WMD's, bombed the country to hell and caused 250-300k deaths.

Edited April 5 by magnkarl

[bobzy]

28 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

So 1% is the threshold? 

To play devil's advocate here, to show people how a likely genocide trial would go, is 300.000 civilians dead in Iraq when UK\US led forces bombed the hell out of that country also genocide? It constitutes roughly the same percentage.

Historically the numbers are:

Armenian Genocide: 65-70% of the Armenian population.

Assyrian Genocide: 70-80% of the Assyrian population

Holocaust - 62% of the Jewish population, 90% of all Jews in occupied areas.

Rwanda: 77% of all Tutsi.

Holodomor: 10% of all Ukrainians in Ukraine dead, 80% in Kuban, 35% in Kazakhstan. 

Darfur: 15% of all Fur, Masalit and Zanghawa tribespeoples killed.

Cambodia: 99% Viets, 50% of Cham, 40% of Thai, 15-25% of the Khmer.

Timor: 30-40% of the East-Timorians killed.

Burundi: 10-15% of all Hutus killed.

Guatemala: 40% of the Maya population killed.

I wouldn't say there's a threshold persay, just that's it's a large number.  

I'm not also not entirely sure why you're so strongly arguing against this.

[magnkarl]

17 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I wouldn't say there's a threshold persay, just that's it's a large number.  

I'm not also not entirely sure why you're so strongly arguing against this.

I'm not against it being a genocide if that is proven. I just see a lot of conjecture about this, when the reality for other conflicts is worse and people won't call those genocides. Other than hinting at a vague definition and saying there's intent I don't really see the proof of genocide. War crimes and horrible death, sure. Genocide? I don't think we're quite there.

My biggest fear around the 'opinion' being that this is genocide is that it won't be provable and the barbarians who have committed the crimes here won't be prosecuted. 

What constitutes a 'large number'? 1% in a full on conflict is really not considered anything out of the ordinary, and a lot less than the civilian casualties we inflicted in Germany during WW2, attacking an enemy who attacked us first.

Comparatively I think we're looking at a similar sentence (if we ever go to trial) for the culprits as Milosevic got. Crimes against humanity and breaking the rules of war. Milosevic was the head of an operation that killed 100.000 civilians.

Edited April 5 by magnkarl

[colhint]

I think @magnkarl is right though. It's not genocide. In law if they were to try and charge israel with genocide they would fail. They may get some one war crimes but even that's doubtful.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

My point wasn't that though, my point was that the term genocide is being thrown around for a conflict with 30.000 dead over 7 months, when the reality is that it isn't even unique in the last year. Does the UN call the war in Ukraine genocide? Do we need to re-write what we consider a genocide based on what's trending to support? Myanmar, Ukraine and Sudan have worse figures than Gaza. I don't see the same effort to paint other conflicts with this very serious word, even if all the conditions of the charter are met.

I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of the situation and the laws is that it's not "just" the number of dead that tally up to decide whether something is genocide. As per the definition(s) posted earlier, other facets are also relevant. It looks to me like the criteria are met, but I respect your view that there's inconsistency or that it's not proven.

I too doubt that anyone will be tried for genocide at the moment. The court case at The Hague brought by South Africa found that "some of the acts alleged by South Africa appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention", though they didn't order Israel to stop their campaign. I suspect further measures may come about, but who knows?

I also get that of all the nations to be accused of genocide, Israel is gonna be the most "sensitive".

Finally, though you may (or may not) be right about other conflicts not being tagged as genocide, that doesn't alter the reality of the current Israel/Palestine situation.

[magnkarl]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of the situation and the laws is that it's not "just" the number of dead that tally up to decide whether something is genocide. As per the definition(s) posted earlier, other facets are also relevant. It looks to me like the criteria are met, but I respect your view that there's inconsistency or that it's not proven.

I too doubt that anyone will be tried for genocide at the moment. The court case at The Hague brought by South Africa found that "some of the acts alleged by South Africa appear to fall under the provisions of the Genocide Convention", though they didn't order Israel to stop their campaign. I suspect further measures may come about, but who knows?

I also get that of all the nations to be accused of genocide, Israel is gonna be the most "sensitive".

Finally, though you may (or may not) be right about other conflicts not being tagged as genocide, that doesn't alter the reality of the current Israel/Palestine situation.

All fair points, but let’s just go back to the points about what the UN considers genocide and go through what’s happening in Ukraine. As far as I gather Russia hits all points with 100% accuracy, yet the UN isn’t calling it a genocide. 

80k kids kidnapped, civilians backbound, shot and dumped in mass graves, targeting of women with sexual violence, open admittance to wanting to wipe out Ukrainian culture and nationality.

If Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine doesn’t constitute genocide, Israel’s off kilter reaction to Hamas’ invasion into Israel won’t be considered genocide, no matter how many people feverishly argue for it.

[chrisp65]

That’s quite a wide band of description we have now. From genocide, to off kilter.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

All fair points, but let’s just go back to the points about what the UN considers genocide and go through what’s happening in Ukraine. As far as I gather Russia hits all points with 100% accuracy, yet the UN isn’t calling it a genocide. 

80k kids kidnapped, civilians backbound, shot and dumped in mass graves, targeting of women with sexual violence, open admittance to wanting to wipe out Ukrainian culture and nationality.

If Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine doesn’t constitute genocide, Israel’s off kilter reaction to Hamas’ invasion into Israel won’t be considered genocide, no matter how many people feverishly argue for it.

Thanks. As a non expert, both genocide. Both utterly appalling. Nothing more to add, really.

[OutByEaster?]

12 hours ago, magnkarl said:

If Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine doesn’t constitute genocide, Israel’s off kilter reaction to Hamas’ invasion into Israel won’t be considered genocide, no matter how many people feverishly argue for it.

I think intent counts for something here.

In terms of what I can see, Russia has invaded Ukraine with the intention of ruling the territory - the intention isn't to eliminate the Ukrainians, it's to put them (and the area) under Russian control - I'm sure to the Russian mind that's a liberation of sorts. In their own twisted mind, I don't think Russia hates Ukrainians, it wants them to be Russian.

In Gaza, the intent seems to be to eliminate the Palestinian people that live there, the pretext is chasing terrorists, but anyone who crosses a road or looks up is labelled a terrorist and the action is the clearing of ground, the removal of people - Gaza is the threat and the intent is to remove the threat - at this point Israel doesn't look like a nation that wants to rule a neighbouring population, it looks like a nation that wants to remove a neighbouring population.

Those are very, very different things.

 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think intent counts for something here.

In terms of what I can see, Russia has invaded Ukraine with the intention of ruling the territory - the intention isn't to eliminate the Ukrainians, it's to put them (and the area) under Russian control - I'm sure to the Russian mind that's a liberation of sorts. In their own twisted mind, I don't think Russia hates Ukrainians, it wants them to be Russian.

In Gaza, the intent seems to be to eliminate the Palestinian people that live there, the pretext is chasing terrorists, but anyone who crosses a road or looks up is labelled a terrorist and the action is the clearing of ground, the removal of people - Gaza is the threat and the intent is to remove the threat - at this point Israel doesn't look like a nation that wants to rule a neighbouring population, it looks like a nation that wants to remove a neighbouring population.

Those are very, very different things.

 

I don’t agree for one second that Russia isn’t committing genocide. Just today the Russian orthodox leader announced that ‘Ukraine must be wiped out’ in his conference with all the other priests in the Russian Orthodox Church.

It appears like you put more goodwill to the actions of Russia, than you do to Israel’s, all the while many more people have died in Ukraine from a war with no attack from Ukraine on Russia to begin with.

Imagine if Israel said that Arabs had no culture of their own, and that whoever says that they do needs to be killed. Aren’t the actions of Russia in Bucha and Kupyansk actions rather than intent?

Edited April 6 by magnkarl

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think intent counts for something here.

In terms of what I can see, Russia has invaded Ukraine with the intention of ruling the territory - the intention isn't to eliminate the Ukrainians, it's to put them (and the area) under Russian control - I'm sure to the Russian mind that's a liberation of sorts. In their own twisted mind, I don't think Russia hates Ukrainians, it wants them to be Russian.

In Gaza, the intent seems to be to eliminate the Palestinian people that live there, the pretext is chasing terrorists, but anyone who crosses a road or looks up is labelled a terrorist and the action is the clearing of ground, the removal of people - Gaza is the threat and the intent is to remove the threat - at this point Israel doesn't look like a nation that wants to rule a neighbouring population, it looks like a nation that wants to remove a neighbouring population.

Those are very, very different things.

 

Russia thinks Ukrainians are just misguided Russians, and they’re happy to torture and / or execute anyone that considers themselves Ukrainian rather than Russian. The population of Ukraine could potentially remain on their land if conquered, provided they are willing to utterly give up their freedom, language and cultural identity (although of course the “real” Russians would continue to treat them as second class citizens, like they do with the Russians from places like Tartarstan).

The hard-right Israeli political faction want to remove or kill the Palestinians and take their lands, and I don’t think there’s any realistic way for a Palestinian to pretend to be an Israeli and integrate into that new future were it to come to pass. So there is a distinction there, but in practical terms it’s an extremely thin one.

The fact that you think one is genocide and one is not (and indeed that the two are very, very different) is exactly the point @magnkarl is making. There’s a lot of people who will accuse Israel of genocide but not hold any other nation to the same standard, and I struggle to work out if it’s ignorance, cynicism or just plain anti-semitism.

(Of course, I’ve got no problem with people arguing both constitute genocide, although I think there’s still a discussion to be had about how influential the hard right pro-genocide lobby actually is over the IDF behaviour).

[chrisp65]

Let’s not get too bogged down in war top trumps. This is the Israel Palestine thread where refugees have been kettled in to ever smaller spaces, and bombed. Where children are being starved. Where snipers pick off fathers running to food parachute drops. Where snipers pick off grandmothers trying to help shot children. Where bulldozers flatten the zip tied bodies. But where this isn’t bad enough for us to stop supporting and assisting one team.

I’d balance it with some Hamas atrocities, but we’re not on their side, so there’s less to be frustrated about.

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

The fact that you think one is genocide and one is not (and indeed that the two are very, very different) is exactly the point @magnkarl is making. There’s a lot of people who will accuse Israel of genocide but not hold any other nation to the same standard, and I struggle to work out if it’s ignorance, cynicism or just plain anti-semitism.

They are very different, one is a war, between two nation states using their military forces, the other is the clearing of a civilian population with an embedded group of terrorists by a nation state - they are very different things, that's a simple fact. World war one contained horrendous casualties, but it wasn't genocide, the casualties weren't the point, the point was the territory and the control - it was a war; the point in Gaza is killing anyone who might pose a future threat to Israel, it's about the casualties, it's about killing the people, that's the intent, it's not a war - it's a very different thing. To ignore that is wilful ignorance in an attempt to defend something that shouldn't be defended.

[magnkarl]

38 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

They are very different, one is a war, between two nation states using their military forces, the other is the clearing of a civilian population with an embedded group of terrorists by a nation state - they are very different things, that's a simple fact. World war one contained horrendous casualties, but it wasn't genocide, the casualties weren't the point, the point was the territory and the control - it was a war; the point in Gaza is killing anyone who might pose a future threat to Israel, it's about the casualties, it's about killing the people, that's the intent, it's not a war - it's a very different thing. To ignore that is wilful ignorance in an attempt to defend something that shouldn't be defended.

So genocide doesn’t come from war between states? Is this your argument? Hamas was/is the government of Gaza, their military is the military arm of the government of Gaza.

If one state invades and occupies, gathers up people of a certain group (see Bucha, Krakow) and kills them, it’s just atrocities if it happens in a war between two states?

Parts of  both world wars were most definitely genocide if you apply the standard you are now holding Israel to here, in example Russias pogroms in now Ukraine when they defeated Austria-Hungary.

Edited April 6 by magnkarl

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, magnkarl said:

So genocide doesn’t come from war between states? Is this your argument?

I'm saying that intent counts, to commit what should be regarded as genocide, one of the things I think is important is if the nation involved sets out to commit genocide - Russia has set out to 'regain' Ukraine (as it sees it), casualties will be a byproduct of that, now that doesn't mean they haven't been an aggressor, or that they haven't committed war crimes, but their aim is to control the territory - that's different to the situation with Israel and the civilian population it's targeting - there have been more civilian casualties in Gaza than in Ukraine.