Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If we have to choose, it seems the world would be better off without Israel committing genocide
 help



Israel can do better, but Israel committing genocide is not the fact legally.

It is a fact factually, however.

I could witness a murder and the murderer committing murder would still not be a fact legally. It's still a fact.


Murder and genocide is not the same. Genocide has strict definition.

So does murder.

So what's your definition of genocide? Maybe we are discussing about different things.

The deliberate destruction of a group of people and its culture (completely or partially).

This fits the general description of what Israel has been up to in Palestine since 1948, but especially during the past few years.

Indiscriminate killing of civilians. Planned starvation. Poisoning wells. Denying Palestinians the right to return to their homeland. Forbidding the use of Palestinian cultural symbols. Denying Palestinians the right to fish/conduct business. Keeping them under curfew and surveilling their every move, making them as miserable as possible. Mass imprisonment. Denying Palestinians home-ownership.

Systematically destroying Palestinians and any chance for them to thrive/ found a state/ have human rights.


I see you have replied, but your comment has been marked as dead, so I cannot reply back.

You fed my comment to an AI and based your response on what it said. You said some of the claims were "incorrect".

Let's leave aside how ridiculous it is to fact-check with an LLM. if you go back and read what the AI actually generated, however, you will see that every claim has factual basis, the LLM just marked some as "narrow factual basis", for no particular reason. If it has been documented, it is fact, the LLM is just confused.

Every one of these, when done systematically (and they are) is a component of genocide. About half of them would be enough to constitute genocide on their own.

Displacing more than half of a population (as Israel has done TWICE in history) is definitely genocide.

If you are truly interested in educating yourself, you can start by reading the following wikipedia page (even just the intro):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide


Thank you, I will check the article

So why isn't what Israel doing genocide?

Genocide definition is: the deliberate, systematic destruction—in whole or in part—of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group

Israel most probably did war crimes (white phosphorus usage seems to be confirmed, while IDF says they have not used it), but I don't think that Israeli has intention to destroy Palestinians. The have intention to destroy Hamas or Hezbollah.


1) Hezbollah is not Palestinian.

2) Israel has had genocidal plans for Palestinians since before Hamas existed (see the Nakba). In fact, Likud brought Hamas to power, because they saw them as a more fitting opponent than other groups (who were less militant).

3) Israeli politicians (not just current ones) have candidly stated they wish to destroy Palestine, Palestinians, and any chance for them to live in theur homeland

For gods sake, educate yourself. One easy thing to look up is a timeseries of deaths/year of Israelis due to Palestinian violence vs. deaths of Palestinians due to Israeli violence. That should do enough to dispel you of the idea that Palestinians are the terrorists in this case


In your opinion, which international entity do you regard as the final authority for the formal recognition of this legal fact?


So you would believe an authority of the UN. Considering the US has imposed sanctions on UN employees, do you see any conflict of interest there?

In this specific case it is something interesting to follow and to analyze. This will definitely have consequences on Russian-Ukrainian war too. UN overall is powerless - there are 7000+ UN peacekeepers in South Lebanon right now. What are they doing there?

I don't understand your point. You contested a fact "legally", but in your opinion the only authority that should have the final "legal" say in the matter is an impartial and weak one.

That's the best we have and it is better than random internet commenters who make judgement like they have a solid evidence of what's going on. Lastly depending on outcome this can be used for more fruitful discussions in the future.

It is not the best we have at all, and the choice is not between random internet commenters and the ICJ. You have the International Association of Genocide Scholars and a plethora of human rights associations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Academic_and_leg...

You are choosing who to listen to because you don't like what you are being told by everyone else.


"...is an ongoing case..."

Exactly

I don't see how anyone can defend Israel at this point. How?

Why not? There is at least theoretical chance to get some justice regarding Benjamin Netanyahu crimes if they are proved. As well Israel is democracy and can be changed. It is not like Russia where people don't have freedom of word.

What's your proposal and vision regarding Israel?


Well, considering that the odds of a person on Earth not being a descendant of Abraham is practically zero, why not give Israeli citizenship to everyone? Of course, with special protections for the Jewish people. Then, we can be done with the everlasting conflict.

No you make fun of me and that’s it.

I'm sorry that came across that way - I honestly wasn't trying to make fun of you.

Getting downvoted by all the emotional people here is not worth it; this thread does not welcome a polite discussion especially from the pro-Israel side. Like in any social media with a voting system (terrible idea, I might add), the vocal and active majority wants to disentivise the disagreement.

I don’t see any pro-Israel side commenter here but me at best. IMHO I do my best to keep discussion as polite as possible having in mind the sensitivity of the topic.

I probably wasn’t clear in the above comment - but what I tried to say is that the thread disincentivizes pro-Israel comments; I am pro-Israel as well and prefer not to engage.

We are all being civil here. Could you please stop insinuating otherwise.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" followed closely by the bestseller "If I Did It: Confessions of the Genocider"

I guess this is sarcasm, but I don't even understand what you want to say.

The strict definition of the Geneva conventions does not include forced displacement but in some parts of the world that is included in the definition of. And legality is a matter of tribunal and none has been held so far.

You are mixing war crime and genocide IMHO.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: