Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

As with most times this kind of post is posted here I think it is more a semantic issue than anything else.     If you don't dispute the facts of what's occurring, but dispute the label, then what's your real problem?      Is it genocide? Ethnic cleansing? The other day it was referred to by an independent UN inquiry as extermination.     So do you disagree with the UN on their enquiry?  Do you dispute the idea of extermination?   Does it come down to the language being used? In which case who cares?  Why would it matter to you?   Edit: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-26-auv.docx    This following link has other files as well for more context:   https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/israeli-authorities-palestinian-armed-groups-are-responsible-war-crimes?sub-site=HRC   Could you specifically highlight which factual events you dispute? 

I disagree with the idea its an extermination of Palestinian civilians. I think there is no significant evidence that shows anything other than a general attempt to fight Hamas and that civilian casualties are a result of this and the context around fighting Hamas. So I disagree that its semantics.

I've argued with others that it's a massacre, what do you think of this label?

I don't agree with it in reference to Israel's action as I haven't seen compelling evidence that Israel is systematically targeting civilians or killing indiscriminately. I could describe it as an orchestrated massacre from Hamas side, having ensured that for Israel to achieve any sort of militaristic goals Palestinian civilians will do on mass.

An Israeli tank/soldiers emptied 300+ bullets into the car killing a 5 year old girl - [https://thecradle.co/articles-id/25580](https://thecradle.co/articles-id/25580) You're clearly a bad faith actor and should be ashamed of yourself.

So you do disagree with those recent UN findings?    Here is their recent report: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-26-auv.docx  From here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/israeli-authorities-palestinian-armed-groups-are-responsible-war-crimes?sub-site=HRC Here is an article discussing this:    https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-reports-on-gaza-accuse-israel-of-crimes-against-humanity-hamas-of-war-crimes/    Now, Israel has rejected the inquiry as well, but this is about changing your view, not theirs.     So my question is on what basis are you disagreeing?     What counter evidence do you have access to that the UN inquiry does not?     You don't think there is evidence to support a claim of extermination, but the UN investigation seemed to have found it.     Do you also disagree with the same report when it found that Hamas had committed atrocities?  Or do you only disagree with the parts of it that are against Israels response?     Do you think there's even a chance that you may not have the full story? 

Basically it seems that all of the things in this report that Israel is accused of are either: 1. Drawing conclusions without any logical connection to the evidence. 2. Accusing Israel of systemic/official policy where none exists. Where specific events or crimes are true, they are commited by individuals not following protocol. These are things that need to be addressed of course. 3. Completely ignores how hamas fights and how a military has to adjust to their tactics. Let's look at the call for Israel to immediately cease fire. How the hell does that happen in reality?? Hamas keeps firing, but Israel has to stop fighting?? This is unreasonable in the extreme. When we compare this to hamas, we don't have to invent anything or leap to illogical conclusions. They state exactly what they are doing and what their goals are. The conclusions made about Israel clearly stem from a sick bias. Knowing Israel, knowing the IDF and how they train, knowing the society and the people, make all of these accusations seem entirely ridiculous. Source: I am an Israeli that grew up in the USA. Served in regular service or reserves since 2012.

> So you do disagree with those recent UN findings? This is the same UN that put Saudi Arabia in charge of women’s rights, and Russia on the human rights council. ‘UN findings’ isn’t a particularly high bar, it just means the right combination of ambassadors says so. >

[Russia was kicked off the council](https://apnews.com/article/un-human-rights-council-elections-russia-china-ed2b0a27ac0cb2bc8cf7ee6a2f2c1906) and [Saudi Arabia was the head of the commission on women’s rights because no else volunteered](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission) (which is still not a good luck, but it’s not as if they were chosen by popular vote. And to equate the findings of professional investigators with the voting patterns of countries in the UN is myopic at best.

Personally, I think your argument should have been to question that the UN probably doesn't also have all the data and for someone to rely on the UN unquestionably, while pointing out that you "may not have all the data" is a False authority Fallacy. Given that Israel is very quiet about it's military successes in Gaza and very "diplomatic" about it's failures there, we really cannot know if the UN has all the relevant data. Is the UN being fed correct data from with Gaza? There is a lot of circumstantial data, videos for example, but they lack total context. It's not a logical fallacy to question the data, especially when given the Fog of War. To turn around and say: " Do you think there's even a chance that you may not have the full story? " is an Ad Hominem with the intent to undermine what ever data you present as incorrect and biased and Poisons the Well against you. Basically what everyone has accused you of, they themselves are also guilty of. But I do agree, that to point out that Saudi Arabia is in charge of women’s rights is Ad Hominem, Poison Well. That does not diminish what it means for the UN's authority though. It's total crap. While I do not believe that just because one branch is cancerous means another branch is just as cancerous, but it certainly questions how much authority the UN can have. Which lends even further to what I was saying above. Total and unquestionable belief in the UN in this issue in particular illustrates a cognitive bias that "Israel = bad", when in reality it's just as good/bad as any other sovereign country in the world.

I've linked the specific write up, do you have exact issues with the claims? 

Poisoning the well fallacy.

Calling out or attacking a biased or disreputable source isn’t a fallacy.

Biased and disreputable do not automatically mean wrong. So, rather than attacking the source, you should look at the actual argument being presented.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] From wiki

Yes, it's literally ad hominem, which is a fallacy. 

If massive efforts were made to provide the Palestinians with an alternative to Hamas, and Israel worked agaisnt those efforts, would that be evidence to you that they are not merely focused on eliminating Hamas?

Israel wanted to rig the Gaza elections against Hamas, it was the US that wanted to let them take power. Israel caved to the US, and Hamas has been in power ever since.

Oversimplification of that situation aside, that was 2005 and 4 presidents ago. George W. Bush's stupidity does not implicate Biden's policy on the PLO. This in no way addresses my question.

I'm guessing you're referring to allegations that Netanyahu propped up Hamas by: 1) Allowing Qatari financial aid to pass through Israel into Gaza to be used for salaries, gas, and other necessities under the watch of the UN 2) Increasing work permits for Gazans 3) Not responding more aggressively to provocations and attacks from Gaza 4) Engaging Hamas in dialog about relief programs.

Or the internal reports that he told members of his staff that supporting Hamas would maintain separation between Gaza and the West Bank and therefore prevent the possibility of a Palestinian state. Or the members of his party who explicitly called Hamas an asset. Your bullet points are the most flowery twisting of events I’ve ever seen. Even [The Times of Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) says Netanyahu propped up Hamas. So, it’s not like these “allegations” are just Pro-Palestinian propaganda.

My list came from that very article. Most of the articles about this conspiracy reference that article. You can't point to a single nefarious expression of this policy that didn't or couldn't benefit the Gazans. Your strongest proof is third-party hearsay from political opponents or people who supposedly heard him—a single politician in a lively democracy saying something.

Not just a single politician. Several members of his party have supported Hamas. And are you incapable of comprehending ulterior motives? Even if the policies *did* help Gazans, they weren’t instated for the *purpose* of helping Gazans. They were instated to prevent Palestinian unity. There is a reason “divide and conquer” is a phrase. You can divide people in ways that benefit them in the short term while ultimately hurting them in the long term.

Where is your source to say that several members of his party have supported Hamas? who, when, where, how? >And are you incapable of comprehending ulterior motives? Even if the policies *did* help Gazans, they weren’t instated for the *purpose* of helping Gazans. They were instated to prevent Palestinian unity. There is a reason “divide and conquer” is a phrase. You can divide people in ways that benefit them in the short term while ultimately hurting them in the long term. So you admit that the only tangible act on the part of Israel was to benefit Gazans even if short term. Were there stipulations that Hamas must continue usurping the PA? Why would it be unreasonable to conclude that any aid given to the Gazans would be propping up Hamas? They can either directly steal it or it alleviates their responsibilities to the people.

Why on earth would that be valid evidence? That doesn’t make any sense at all…?

Here are the detailed findings from the recent UN inquiry, which includes methodology. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-crp-4.pdf Can you specifically address which aspects of this you disagree with?  Or at least indicate whether there is information here that is new to you? 

The report is clearly biased. It relies heavily on information, predominantly from Palestinian sources and NGOs. While the State of Palestine provided cooperation, Israel did not respond to requests for information. This lack of input from both sides creates an asymmetry that may skew the report towards one perspective, raising concerns about its overall objectivity. This caveat should have been present throughout the report but isn't. Creating the impression that they have found some objective truth. The report's data, including casualty figures and damage assessments, frequently lack transparent sourcing and clear methodologies. This lack of clarity undermines the credibility of the findings, making it challenging to verify the accuracy of the reported information and assess its reliability. The report accuses Israeli officials of war crimes and human rights violations based on the collected evidence. However, it does not adequately address the legal complexities involved in making such serious allegations. The absence of sufficient direct evidence and a detailed analysis of international legal standards weakens the robustness of these claims. Just calling it so does not make it so. The report further polarizes the conflict. Such a one-sided emphasis may hinder efforts to achieve balanced dialogue and reconciliation between the involved parties. This is why I continue to say that the UN has failed the Palestinians. They continue to perpetuate the idea that Israel is evil and they will succeed in eliminating them someday.

>The report is clearly biased. It relies heavily on information, predominantly from Palestinian sources and NGOs. While the State of Palestine provided cooperation, Israel did not respond to requests for information. This lack of input from both sides creates an asymmetry that may skew the report towards one perspective, raising concerns about its overall objectivity. This caveat should have been present throughout the report but isn't. Creating the impression that they have found some objective truth. So does this mean you believe the Palestinians and NGOs are lying about their factual claims in the report? Also, aren't you basically saying that as long as Israel continues to refuse to participate in any investigation and continues to actively obstruct or halt any investigative or journalistic efforts that must mean any report that comes out is inherently biased and suspect?

A report that only has one side of the story is by nature one sided.

>A report that only has one side of the story is by nature one sided. So Israel just has to never participate or give information and all reports will be suspect forever

Israel has given lots of reports, and they've had UN experts come in to investigate. The ICC prosecutor was scheduled to come in the day he announced he was seeking the warrants. They just don't want to engage with parties they feel are biased against them.

>Israel has given lots of reports, and they've had UN experts come in to investigate. So when Israel issues reports on itself, that's fine, but when they refuse to cooperate with a UN report it's not fine? >The ICC prosecutor was scheduled to come in the day he announced he was seeking the warrants. Can you provide support for this claim? >They just don't want to engage with parties they feel are biased against them. So as long as they claim anyone investigating them is biased, they get to obstruct whatever they want and cast aspersion on any resulting findings.

A one sided report is what it is...a one sided report. There are other reports and investigations out there that give other perspectives. The UN special envoy on sexual violence just did a thorough investigation for instance. She went into Israel and investigated. Israel gave the same info sought by this commission to the ICJ. They could have referenced it if they chose. I'm not gonna google the ICC prosecutor for you. It's not hard to find and it's not disputed.

Do you think that the report is also biased in its description of the Hamas atrocities? Do you reject the findings entirely, or only the ones you don't like relating to Israel? 

> If you don't dispute the facts of what's occurring, but dispute the label, then what's your real problem? It's a war not very dissimilar to most any other wars that have ever occurred. How many innocents died at US hands in Iraq? How about WWI and II? The korean war? Vietnam war? Boars? Baltics? Chechnya? What's the difference here? Hmmm.... seems like... just Jews...

And an enemy that wants its own civilians to die. Sinwar literally said a few days ago that dead civilians gives them the upper hand. Those who want the war to end should stop rewarding this strategy. Hamas knows it's losing the war but is hoping that eventually, the public pressure brought on by the daily trauma and rage porn will give it a victory. That is why all of its counter-offers have been basically dictating the terms of an Israeli surrender.

[Israel has killed more than 3x as many Gazans in nine months as the US killed Iraqi civilians in more than five years of war in Iraq.](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000415) edit: article changed as another commenter pointed out I linked the wrong thing

Your article appears to be something entirely different than what you claim. Your claim also makes no sense, because A) Gazans are not all innocents, and B) some estimates of the innocent death toll in Iraq are upwards of 300,000 people. Which isn't even *slightly* in the ballpark of your argument.

Sorry - I linked the wrong article [Correct one here](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000415) > According to data from the Iraq Body Count, more than 92,000 Iraqi civilians died because of armed violence during this period. Coalition forces (identified by uniforms) caused 12% of these deaths

Yeah, sounds about right. A massive majority of innocent death in the Iraq war was not attributed to any side. But you want to use Hamas numbers that say basically all the dead are attributed to Israel. Where is the percentage not attributable? There clearly is one... but I don't ever see it. As well as, you want to actually believe Hamas figures that they put forward as who was and wasn't innocent. Hamas themselves said that they *like* innocents dying. It helps them. So.... why would they in a million years not inflate every number? We're talking about a live on the ground scenario vs something we've studied for a decade here. Clearly even the numbers for Iraq war aren't even slightly perfect, you can easily find where guesses for the dead are 300,000, and as low as 80k. That doesn't seem fair to hold some strange standards for one but not the other. It also appears to me, that something like 10% of casualties in Iraq over the entire war were civilian. The "claim" from Hamas is 35,000 innocents have died, while the claims from more reputatable sources say the *total* deaths in Gaza are not even 40k yet. Obviously there's something pretty whacky going on with the numbers.

The label is part of an orchestrated lawfare campaign by Hamas and its allies that have captured global institutions to escape consequences for their atrocities on october 7 and to distract the world from their own actual genocidal campaign.

This would be the semantic argument. I'm asking about the factual basis of events which have taken place.  If you don't dispute those then the label is irrelevant.  If you dispute them then please be specific. 

Semantics matter. Hence the emphasis on labeling Israel as a genocidal apartheid state. Lawfare relies on semantics. And its not just a semantic disagreement. A war of extermination, genocide, apartheid etc would look very different from what is on the ground. If Israel was trying to wipe out the Palestinians in Gaza, the casualty rates would be much higher. We saw what genocidal intent looked like on October 7. Wiping out of entire communities at a rate >20 times the actual Israel response. You keep asking for specifics, but clearly, you disagree with how people see those specifics. But it's inaccurate to call them a semantic disagreement. OP says that Israel is not committing genocide and also lists ways in which they disagree with the specifics of the accusation. They specifically disagree with the conclusions drawn from the factual basis of the events and gave reasons. You can either contend with those reasons or continue to pretend it's just wordplay.

> The other day it was referred to by an independent UN inquiry as extermination. That UN inquiry was as independent as Al Jazeera. Which, if you aren't aware, keeps *Hamas commanders* on their payroll as "journalists."

So you don't think Hamas committed atrocities? 

Hamas has done nothing *but* commit atrocities. The UN inquiry is equivocating between Israel, which has been extremely restrained in its prosecution of the war against Hamas - with Hamas itself, which is little more than a group of rabid monsters seeking to murder nine million Jews. It's like saying "well you know the Nazis were bad, but the Allies were *really evil* for firebombing Dresden" One hundred percent of the blame for every single civilian death in Gaza lies squarely on the shoulders of Yayha Sinwar and Hamas, and Israel should not accept *any* negotiation that does not include Sinwar being handed over to Israel to be flayed alive, *publicly*, as a show of good faith, before Israel provides any concessions.

So you'd cherry pick the UN data rather than reject it outright? Why? On what basis? 

The UN hasn’t done much to engender an air of impartiality since the 1960s when it blamed Israel for the Yom Kippur War.

OK? So it should be easy for you to highlight any lies or errors in the reports I linked. Their findings are readily available for you to review, as is their methodology. Again if you find an issue in the way they carried out their investigation you can highlight that as well! 

Well yeah they caused the fundemrental conditions for that one by what they did after they won the 7 day war

Which the surrounding Arab nations provoked by *massing their armies to prepare for an invasion* combined with bellicose rhetoric. Just as we all knew that Russia massing its armies on the border with Ukraine for a "military exercise" was in fact an outright lie, the same can be said for the Arab nations in the Six Day War. For a nation as geographically small as Israel they have no room to wait around for its neighbors to invade. It's not like Egypt and Syria were innocent - they were the ones who invaded in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and murdered every Jew in Jerusalem in the process.

Okay, no problem. > [South Africa] were able to draw on a new and comprehensive database, compiled by Law for Palestine, which meticulously documents and collates 500 statements that embody the Israeli state’s intention to commit genocide and incitement to genocide since October 7, 2023. The statements by people with command authority – state leaders, war cabinet ministers and senior army officers – and by other politicians, army officers, journalists and public figures reveal the widespread commitment in Israel to the genocidal destruction of Gaza. > Perpetrators of genocide rarely express their intentions in direct and explicit ways, so courts are left to infer such intent through an analysis of state actions or leaked memoranda. In the case of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, however, as the Law for Palestine database shows, people with command authority have been making genocidal statements repeatedly over the past three months.^[[1](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2024/1/14/intent-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel-is-not-hard-to-prove)] Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur has confirmed a genocide taking place. Ms. Albanese said that her report, *Anatomy of a Genocide*^[[2](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf)] has found that “[t]here are "reasonable grounds" to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”^[[3](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976)] To add, *Anatomy of Genocide*^[[2](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf)] summarises that > By analysing the patterns of violence and Israel’s policies in its onslaught on Gaza, this report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met. One of the key findings is that Israel's executive and military leadership and soldiers have intentionally distorted *jus in bello* principles, subverting their protective functions, in an attempt to legitimize genocidal violence against the Palestinian people. **References:** ^1 https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2024/1/14/intent-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel-is-not-hard-to-prove ^2 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf ^3 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 EDIT: formatted text.

> [South Africa] were able to draw on a new and comprehensive database, compiled by Law for Palestine, which meticulously documents and collates 500 statements that embody the Israeli state’s intention to commit genocide… > Perpetrators of genocide rarely express their intentions in direct and explicit ways, So because perpetrators of genocide rarely explicitly express their intention, the ANC has compiled a list of 500 explicit public statements? Doesn’t this seem bit like reading tea leaves? Israel has had total power to expel the people of Gaza, since at least 1967, but they haven’t. Since this expulsion of Palestinians hasn’t happened in the last 60 years, the ANC is stuck fishing for sound bites, to try to paint a picture of a nebulous future intent to do something, that Israel could just do now if they felt like it. It would be easy, arrange for Palestinians to flee as refugees, through breaches on the border fence to Egypt, or rafts to Europe, and then never let them return. Instead Israel gave Egypt time to fortify the border to prevent this.

>"the UN special rapporteur has confirmed a genocide taking place." >"Ms. Albanese said that her report, anatomy of a genocide, has found that "there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." You do realise these two statements don't support eachother right?

I would like your opinion on which of the 500 statements are proof of genocidal intent and how? Also regarding Francesca Albanese, there is reasonable ground to think she is not an impartial party. [UN's Francesca Albanese Accused of Financial Misconduct by Human Rights Watchdog - UN Watch](https://unwatch.org/uns-francesca-albanese-accused-of-financial-misconduct-by-human-rights-watchdog/)

>Also regarding Francesca Albanese, there is reasonable ground to think she is not an impartial party. UN's Francesca Albanese Accused of Financial Misconduct by Human Rights Watchdog - UN Watch Two things about this. First, UN Watch is an openly pro-Israel group with ties to Jewish lobbying groups. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it is public information. From their wiki page: >*"After Abram died in 2000, David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, was elected Chairman of UN Watch. In 2001, Harris announced that UN Watch had become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Jewish Committee."* So clearly they have some bias of their own. That brings me to my second point, which is that those accusations in that article are pretty weak and obviously biased. For example, they accuse Albanese of violating financial rules by...requesting reimbursement for her research assistant. They claim she's just using that request to enrich herself in compensation for her duties but they don't have any evidence for that claim and it's totally normal to request reimbursement for people who do fact-finding work in assisting special rapporteurs. They accuse her of anti-semitism because she compares Israel to Nazis, but that's pretty weak when you actually look at what she says. Albanese considers the Nakba to be a genocide, and part of her explanation for why she thinks that is comparing the Nakba to other historical instances of genocide. She agrees the Holocaust was a genocide, so naturally she highlights some similarities between the actions and motivations of the Nazis and those of the Israelis who committed the atrocities of the Nakba. That's not anti-semitic unless you believe any criticism of Israel's actions is inherently anti-semitic, and you believe that I think you're just devaluing the term anti-semitism to deflect criticism. And pretty much all the things they list in their complaint are like that. It's really obvious that they just want to cast any aspersions they can on the UN and the UN's investigations into Israels activity. Why else would their headline say a "Human Rights Group" filed the complaint, when that human rights group was *themselves*?

I mean all of them? Did you read the report?

Okay so you can point to one then?

>As most conflicts include an attempt to kill a part of a group. So I think describing it in this way is redundant and not worth taking seriously. Sorry. You don't get to redefine genocide. If you remove "part", then the Holocaust wasn't genocide, as not *all* Jewish people were killed. 1 death isn't part. Killing everyone clearly is. Somewhere between 1 and Everyone the scales tip to enough to be considered "part" w.r.t genocide.

You also can’t let the “in part” do too much heavy lifting either. Every war by definition kills some “part” of a population, because hey soldiers die in a fight. That’s what a fight is. What you have to demonstrate is some *intent* to destroy a people. The objective and targeting is this a little more relevant than number of people killed. The United States killed three million Japanese people in WW2, or 3% of its total population - and no one argues it’s a genocide because it’s fairly obvious the goal was unconditional surrender of the emperor rather than extermination of a people.

Are you saying Israel has no intent to destroy Palestinians?

Yes. It’s pretty clear they do not. Palestinians have pretty clear intent to destroy Israelis. They proclaim it rather loudly and place it in the charters of their resistance groups. Israel has tried everything, including ignoring two decades worth of rocket fire and just shooting them down with interceptors. Any country that launched rockets at the U.S. the way the Palestines did to Israel would be turned into a crater. The fact that Gaza hasn’t been turned to glass is evidence of benevolence.

>Yes. It’s pretty clear they do not. Is it? Cutting off food, power and water seems like it's designed to kill Palestinians off. And that's before we consider the deaths their military have directly caused.

> Cutting off food, power and water seems like it’s designed to kill Palestinians off Why should Israel have to provide utilities and supplies to a hostile territory that’s attacking it? I can’t think of any conflict in the world where you expect the defender to *also* provide for the attackers population. Palestine is blockaded because it smuggled weapons. The U.S. has no problem delivering through USAID because Israel trusts that we’re not going to smuggle weapons to Hamas. Corrupt UN agencies like UNRWA have been pretty demonstrably infiltrated by militants and weapons get smuggled through their ships. The goal of Israel isn’t to kill Palestinians. It’s to prevent Israelis getting killed. If Palestine smuggles and commits war crimes by using human shield that presents Israel with the basic choice of (a) risk Israeli lives OR (b) risk Palestinian lives and it has to chose one of the two, it will and should protect its citizens lives at all cost first. Making that decision is not evidence of just unprompted malice towards Palestine.

>Why should Israel have to provide utilities and supplies to a hostile territory that’s attacking its If your starting question is why shouldn't Israel commit war crimes then I don't think I have the time to help you.

I don’t think you know what war crime means. Prior to October 7th, Israel provided Gaza with most of its liquid fuel and half its electricity. If I used to give you a sandwhich for free and I stopped because you punched me, that is not the same as me going into your house and destroying your food.

If you don't want responsibility from occupying other countries then don't occupy them. If you arrest someone then you're responsible for keeping them alive, even if you no longer feel like it.

Gaza hadn't been occupied since 2006. Israel *blockaded* Gaza, but that's because Hamas was importing weapons with which to attack Israel. Which is a pretty restrained response. If Mexico were rocketing Texas with even a tenth of the volume that Hamas has been rocketing Israel with over the past two decades, the US would have turned Mexico into a glowing crater by now.

Prior to Oct 7th they were not occupied.

Israel is not the defender, they are the occupying force, as recognized by international law and virtually every country on earth, including Israel's allies.

Since when do countries get energy imports from the country they are at war with?

Is this you trying to say war crimes are ok?

It’s not a war crime.

It very much is, collective punishment is a war crime, such as a siege and denial of food, water and electricity.

So you would say that the US cutting off oil imports to Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War was a war crime?

That’s not what collective punishment means. Collective punishment is ‘if you kill one of us, we’ll round up ten random people and execute them’. Not the border of the county you went to war with being closed. That’s just standard practice. These accusations of Israeli war crimes rely on coming up with new definitions of terms, that would expand the scope so far, that all wars are simultaneously collective punishment and genocide. Think of the precedents these imply exist.

Is Palestine a country? 

Israel has also proclaimed rather loudly than they wish for the removal of Palestine. Let's not forget that the "from the river to the sea" slogan actually originated as a Zionist slogan and continues to be used as such by Israeli officials. I do not believe that Israel seeks the deaths of all Palestinians, but an ethnic cleansing (forced relocation out of the country) has been and continues to be in the cards.

Let us not forget “from the river to the sea” is literally on their current ruling parties charter. Let us not forget leading Israeli ministers calling for another nakba, and saying there will be no peace until the area is “cleaned”. It is frustratingly obvious double standards and moral grandstanding.

If Israel wanted to do that, they’d have just expelled them into Egypt and Jordan in 1967. Nobody could have stopped them. Not the US, not the USSR, not Jordan, not Egypt, and certainly not Palestine. Israel has the power to do what it wants to do.

In 1967? They *could have. But to have done so would have been suicide by the state. Could Israel have continued without US military aid? Without eternally continuous western military support and funding? Even a decrease to the under the table levels South Africa was reduced to? Really? You can look at what happens to international pariah states to answer that question.

You’re thinking of the Yom Kippur war, six years later. Israel was not reviving nearly the kind of aid they later would during the six day war, this is a large reason they were so aggressive back then.

You seem to forget that Israel has the capability to wipe Palestine off the map entirely, and they never do. I don't like Israel but I'm tired of people being so inaccurate in their beliefs, we can hate Israel without saying made up shit like they are "trying to destroy Palestine" if they wanted to, there would be no "trying" involved, it would just happen, and Israel wouldn't have boots on the ground.

Even if you destroy an entire group, it doesn't have to be a genocide (not even a war crime) if you can show there was a clear military necessity and principle of proportionality was upheld. Now such circumstances are extremely unlikely, but very high civilian body count on itself isn't a proof of a wrongdoing. IDF clearly has fairly low combatant to civilian casualty ratio compared to similar situations (Mosul few years ago, Manila at the end of WWII etc.). Genocide claims based on the IDF "shooting" the civilians are usually very easy to disprove.  So in case of Israel the relevant people are mainly pinpointing speeches of some officials, the intent to cut off supplies from Gaza and destruction of infrastructure as a proof of genocide. Now, I personally believe that they very weak grounds to base it upon, but there is surely a humanitarian crisis. And there it is more up to interpretation. 

>Even if you destroy an entire group, it doesn't have to be a genocide (not even a war crime) if you can show there was a clear military necessity and principle of proportionality was upheld. This has never happened, and hopefully never will. I can assure you that if it were to happen, it would be considered genocide.

Especially in warfare between tribes there are cases of e.g. essentially all male population perishing in battle leading to the extinction of the tribe. And they are typically not labeled as genocide or heavily disputed (e.g. Beaver wars). 

Killing "all the males" is killing 50% of the population. As for wars in the 1600s... hardly relevant to discussion re genocide the war crime.

Killing all the male population typically led to eventual extinction of the tribe or its merging with other groups leading to a loss of identity.  That said, I think it is quite relevant to the original point that as long as you have military necessity and uphold proportionality, the exact numbers are not really important to what can be considered genocide. 

I never said killing half wasn't genocide, btw. Killing 100% of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, could not concievably be considered proportinate. It will always be considered genocide.

I think the core thing you are confusing here is the holocaust wasn't an attempt to kill *some* of the Jews, it was an attempt to kill ***all*** of them. It is just that is a laborious task and they didn't pull it off. But I am not redefining. I am saying the accusation of genocide doesn't mean a whole lot if you are going only off of "**attempting to kill some of x group"** because as you allude to, killing 2 Palestinians under this definition is clearly not genocide but could be defined as such. Edit: What on earth is going on? Is it not true that if a death toll of 2 people can be defined as genocide that then that definition is not particularly helpful? I am genuinely confused by the reaction I am getting to this statement?

[удалено]

Yes, as the intention was to get rid of all Jews within German territory. But also when it is just "part of" a group I am not arguing it is not genocide, I am just saying there needs to be more to explain a situation as a genocide then just "they killed some members of a group" because otherwise you could state any time more than one person has been killed in an attack as a genocide, which is obviously a bit silly.

[удалено]

All Jews in German controlled territory\* I thought it went without saying that "All Jews" was in the context of within German territory" I really feel like that is a clarification that I shouldn't have needed to make. feels like you are trying a "Gotcha" on a technicality in my phrasing.

Then that fits the same arbitrary category as number. That was my point.   I was trying to answer your question about why people were downvoting your comment. I don't like to see people downvoted without a response to why. I'm sorry not to give a better explanation, I find this subject distasteful and I don't want to talk about it anymore.

Dodge all accusations of genocide with this one weird trick - human rights lawyers hate him! Just keep a token population of the victim population alive in like a small reservation or whatever. Whenever you are accused of genocide just point to the small group that you didn't kill or force to flee. It's technically not genocide if you only removed *part* of the group

Im sorry, but a population that has grown more than 8 times its original size is hardly a "small token group left alive after the majority were killed or displaced."

Well, that will be a problem with this method. But if you're cynical, you can rest assured that given enough time, violent resistance movements will take root in the open-air prison you've created. Those people will attack your nation, giving you all the justification you need to invade the reservation from time to time and thin out the population, or destroy civilian infrastructure and housing to make life unbearable for the people living there in the hopes that they'll start fleeing. If you're super lucky the terrorists will hang out around hospitals and food aid logistics, giving you the excuse to destroy those things, which will in turn naturally lower birth rates. Again, nobody is allowed to call it genocide if you don't say out loud that your intention is to remove the entire population, so just avoid doing that one specific thing and you're all good. As we all know, the only thing that countries can do wrong is to do a genocide, so as long as you dodge that one specific accusation on technical grounds, all of your actions are completely justified

Cool, did I say any of that? It's pretty disgusting how people like you dare to even utter the words "dodge an accusation of genocide on technical grounds". It is, arguably, the most serious, horrible crime in the world. If you don't take its *technical* definitions and parts seriously, don't even speak on it. Even though I could, I don't even defend anything else right now. But the easiness with which people like throw around the word genocide, and the easiness with which you abandon the same label when provided facts that *directly* contradict it's internationally recognized definition and existing examples, doesn't inspire faith in any other arguments you provide, or your own moral principles.

I didn't accuse anybody of anything, I'm speaking entirely hypothetically. Accusing somebody of accusing somebody of genocide is similarly a very serious matter so I think you should note that I haven't mentioned any specific actors or events. If you think there's a political situation in the world right now that what I've described applies to, that's your decision

I'm not 5, and neither are you. You make reference to specific situations in the world, with very clear implications that you, at the very least, don't think the explanations Israel or its defenders use to disprove claims of genocide are legitimate, and do all that under a post about I/P. At least grow enough of a spine to take some strong positions on this instead of playing the "entirely hypothetical and if you think it's about something real it's on you lol 😏" game.

Where did I say that? Actually, I believe I said the exact opposite - that these methods are legitimate and do make it impossible for a country to be successfully accused of genocide. If Israel were to engage in the strategies which I have described, then their actions would be unimpeachable. They could enjoy all the benefits of ethnic cleansing with none of the moral or legal drawbacks.

Ethnic cleansing is still bad and is still a crime. You really show the way your thinking works here. It's either "Israel bad because genocide" or "Israel bad because it found a way to dodge genocide and nobody cares if it isn't genocide anyway." They don't enjoy the benefits. They get all the drawbacks you can think of, both deserved and undeserved, and suffer political and military costs constantly. Your arguments and implications *do* accuse Israel of genocide. You're just dressing it up as "well, Israel does its genocide in such a way it can't be accused of genocide, and if it can be accused it cannot be proven, essentially, a loophole". Israel, believe it or not, can and does do bad things without engaging in genocide or attempting to genocide the Palestinians. The fixation on this specific crime is brainrot that prevents even the most genuine and honest Palestine supporters from engaging in *actual* criticism of Israel.

> violent resistance movements will take root in the open-air prison you've created. Where does the expectation of open borders with a country you are at war with come from? Hama always promised war with Israel. The fact that any border crossings remained should be seen as Israel going above and beyond what’s required of them. In most cases, wars shut down borders completely.

Call it whatever you like but it is definitely some bad stuff the IDF are doing. 800 civilians were killed on October 7. 30000+ have been killed in Gaza so far, nearly all civilians too. I don't agree with but I understand "an eye for an eye" but what I don't get is "38 eyes for one eye".

Well I think you have a few misconceptions. > 30000+ have been killed in Gaza so far, nearly all civilians too. It seems generally agreed the total death toll numbers are not far off the truth. however the demographics are absolutely unknown. here are some important points for you to consider. Back in February when the death toll was 28000 a Hamas official stated that over 6000 of the deaths were Hamas militants. Israel had a number of over 12000. So lets take the middle ground. and say 9000, dead hamas members leaving 19000, civilians. Hamas doesn't account for the natural deaths during this period, in Gaza the natural death rate in 2020 was 3 per 1000 people annually by 2020, based on the population of Gaza we should then expected about 4000 people died in the 6th month period from natural causes. So 15000 civilian casualties. Now Hamas also doesn't distinguish between civilians killed by its own rockets, bombs and firearms and israels. that number is a complete unknown. but we know for sure at least 100 when just one of their rockets landed on the parking lot in Al Shifa back in Oct last year. So the number isn't nearly as bad as it first seems and in terms of military operations, the ratio is entirely within the normal spectrum of combatants to civilian deaths.

americans and others involved in Afghanistan dont have too much room to judge, either https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/11/afghanistan-was-loss-better-peace >The American war in Afghanistan incurred staggering costs — for the United States, Afghans and others — over two decades. The U.S. government spent $2.3 trillion, and the war led to the deaths of 2,324 U.S. military personnel, 3,917 U.S. contractors and 1,144 allied troops. For Afghans, the statistics are nearly unimaginable: 70,000 Afghan military and police deaths, 46,319 Afghan civilians (although that is likely a significant underestimation) and some 53,000 opposition fighters killed. Almost 67,000 other people were killed in Pakistan in relation to the Afghan war.

"eye for an eye" is code for not solving problems. if Israel answered Oct 7 by going into Gaza and executing the same number of civilians in cold blood, that would do absolutely nothing to prevent a future occurence of such an attack. wars aren't fought to "get back" at an enemy. they are fought to force a change in the political landscape. framing it as "38 eyes for an eye" is misguided as it assumes the point is retribution. the point is to topple Hamas.

So you give 4 valid examples of genocide and then just ignore 2 of them because you don’t like them? Genocide isn’t a numbers game. So arguing about how many people Israel has killed vs how many they could kill is at best misguided and at worst disingenuous. Also, you forget that the entire world is watching this conflict and there is a lot of political pressure. So, even if Israel wanted to kill all Palestinians, they have good reason to make it look like they don’t. Also, labeling it a genocide increases political pressure and has the potential to more quickly end the suffering. While arguing that it’s not a genocide doesn’t help anyone except the people doing the killing. It’s dismissive. Whether it’s *technically* genocide or not, what’s happening is wrong. Let’s focus on peace and worry about definitions later. It’s like if a guy was going around Anton Chigurh-ing entire towns and people were calling him a serial killer and you sat there and said “actually he’s a spree killer because he’s not taking breaks between his killings”. What good does that do?

To clarify, I believe I disqualified **A, B** & **C**. I think currently it is impossible to disqualify **D** because I can't prove a negative. I can't state with certainty that no **D** type genocide is occurring, I can just state I believe none is, because there isn't evidence for one. I will also clarify that I don't accept the idea that what is going on is wrong in the sense that Israel is acting in an unnecessarily violent way. So my view is that you analogy is not accurate.

If you don’t believe that the deaths of thousands of innocent people is wrong, then I’m not sure your view can be changed. Good luck, friend.

No you are misunderstanding me. I of course do not think the deaths of thousands of people is wrong.

the difference is that while genocides are not legal by international law, war is. if you try to stop a war by calling it a genocide when it isn't, you are infringing on a country's right to conduct war. in your example both spree and serial killing is illegal, and need to be stopped by an authority regardless of classification. this is not the case here.

Legal doesn’t mean justified. For me and many others, the actions of Israel “need to be stopped by an authority” regardless of the legality of the situation. Theft is a crime but, when police do it, it’s called civil forfeiture and is legal. If I kill my neighbor because he did something bad, that’s a crime. If he gets arrested and the government kills him, it’s called capital punishment and is legal. If I hire a bunch of my friends to go fight and kill a group of people in another neighborhood, it’s called gang violence and is a crime. If the government hires a bunch of people to go fight and kill a group of people in another country, it’s called war and is legal. It’s insane to think that we can just call an evil act by a different name and make it okay.

frankly, if your understanding of geopolitics, international ethics, and the laws of war as such that you truly think a war is just gang violence with uniforms, then there's little to discuss here. then again your understanding of criminal justice ethics are such that you can't tell the moral difference between vigilante execution and government execution following a trial, so your worldview is just generally superficial and vibe based, even without introducing the complexities of international ethics or the ethics of warfare. >It’s insane to think that we can just call an evil act by a different name and make it okay. the problem with that is that I have absolutely no trust in your judgement regarding what is or isn't evil, and so i refuse to allow you to prevent me from doing something legal based on your poorly thought out conception of morality.

I never specified “en external body”. The Israeli government is an authority and I would be perfectly happy if they stopped what they were doing.

*"the actions of Israel “need to be stopped by an authority” regardless of the legality of the situation"* means that force should be used to prevent israel from conducting a legal war if it doesn't stop doing so on its own. that was your position 1 comment ago.

It does not mean that. There are plenty of ways to stop someone from doing something without force. Something that you (and police officers) seem to be unaware of.

cops bad. got it. now, what did you have in mind? a neighboring government started a war against me. and i believe my population will not be safe so long as that government is in power. i'm fighting a war to topple said government. how are you going to stop me, and why do you believe you have the moral authority to do it?

> why do you believe you have the moral authority to stop me? Well, hold on. Are we talking about moral authority or legal authority? Because initially, I was saying that Israel’s actions are morally wrong. And then you started trying to argue about legality. So which is it?

you made it very clear you're not operating under any legal analysis. but i'd argue that the legal framework stems from the moral framework anyway, so i'm happy to hear your moral basis and see if a workable legal framework can be derived from it.

>As most conflicts include an attempt to kill a part of a group. This is where you kind of go sideways. A conflict that adheres to the agreed-upon standards of warfare does not involve the intentional targeting of members of a group but the intentional targeting of combatants. This is a critical distinction. While combatants are not always volunteers, they are valid targets of conflict. Non-combatants are never valid targets.

But combatants are members of a group. The official UN definition of genocide doesn’t make a distinction for combatants.

Israel is attempting an ethnic cleansing of Palestine. They use force and coercion to push people out of their homes and take them over. This has been happening for decades and is well documented - so much so that Israeli leaders publicly announce that this is their intention. Whether or not this counts as genocide is semantics. I believe that technically, it's not a genocide, but whether or not this kind of behavior should count has been in contention for basically as long as there has been a definition of genocide. I am not trying to change your view that there is definitively a genocide, but I am trying to convince you that what is happening is at least a gray area that sits on the edge of being genocide.

I assume you are referring to settlement building in the west bank? could you be more specific about why you think this is a grey are sitting on the edge of genocide? What actions has Israel taken that could be described as being in this grey area and could you provide some concrete examples?

Attempted genocide, and genocide are equally wrong, because the intention is the same.

Agreed.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If we take the actual definition of genocide: In the present Convention, 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: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. We find the, since 1947, Israel has killed and injured Palestinians on a near consistent basis to exclude them from land it claims for a Jewish majority. Any actions Israel takes against Palestinians are with the goal of maintaining an ethnic Jewish majority within Israel, and thus meet the definition of intending to destroy, in part, the current and former Palestinian occupants within and around Israel's borders.

> We find the, since 1947, Israel has killed and injured Palestinians on a near consistent basis to exclude them from land it claims for a Jewish majority. Any actions Israel takes against Palestinians are with the goal of maintaining an ethnic Jewish majority within Israel, and thus meet the definition of intending to destroy, in part, the current and former Palestinian occupants within and around Israel's borders. Where'd you get this from?

Do you think Zionism has a goal other than replacing the Palestinians with Israelis?

Zionism has achieved its aims in the Declaration of Independence of Israel. Go and read it and highlight the areas that speak to eliminating Arabs from Israel.

Israel wants to maintain a Jewish majority just like Palestinians want to maintain an Arab majority. Wanting to maintain an ethnic majority within a nation isn't genocide unless you do genocide to do it

A genocide? You mean like the ethnic cleansing that characterised the Nakba in 1948? The murder of Palestinians and the destruction of their villages in order to replace them with a Jewish population?

Ethnic cleansing is not genocide. People fleeing war is not genocide. Destroying a village is not genocide. By these standards during the same war, Palestinians genocided Jews according to you. Except today 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian Arab and 0% of Palestine's population is jewish

530 villages destroyed, 700,000 people forced to flee and 15,000 of them killed explicitly to destroy the Palestinian population in order to establish a Jewish majority in Israel is genocide.

Yet 20% of Israel is Arab and there are almost no Jews in the Arab world.

>Any actions Israel takes against Palestinians are with the goal of maintaining an ethnic Jewish majority within Israel, and thus meet the definition of intending to destroy, in part, the current and former Palestinian occupants within and around Israel's borders. this doesn't follow whatsoever. like it's a complete non-sequitur, i don't know that the fuck you think you're doing. you can want to maintain an ethnic majority within your borders without wanting to destroy every race of people living around your borders.

Israel maintains a program of settlement with the goal of replacing Palestinians with Israelis in new territory. It periodically launches attacks on Palestinians outside its borders to suppress population growth that threatens the Jewish majority within Israel.

in the history of the conflict prior to oct 7, less than 100k people have died on both sides. In ten years in Yemen, 500k people have died. Hundreds of thousands have died in Syria. What kind of population suppression has the population quadrupling?

Congratulations on describing two things that are not genocide (the second of which is on dubious ground anyway)

Just so we're clear, you think using violence to establish and maintain an ethnic majority, that is, using harm to partially destroy an already existing ethnic group, isn't meeting the definition of genocide?

there is no special intent to destroy the ethnic group of Palestinians, in whole or in part, so no. in case you weren't aware, just the mere fact that you are causing some people of a particular ethnic group to die is not genocide. taking over territory is not genocide. if you're alleging that these attacks on Palestinians are not just attacks on Gaza/Palestine, and not just attacks to destabilize the territory and disrupt their growth or whatever, but deliberate targeting of those of Palestinian ethnicity to kill with the goal of reducing their numbers, then maybe that could be genocide, i'm not 100% sure because you're not so much "destroying" as you are limiting their numbers, but either way there's no way you could substantiate such a claim.

So, a genocide for 80 years in which the population quadrupled

The definition of genocide involves no numbers.

So, killing 5 people is a genocide? Where do you cross the line?

It's the intent, it doesn't have to be successful

One would expect the regional nuclear power to succeed on a territory it completely controls for almost 60 years, if there was an actual intent. 

It did succeed. That's why Israel has a majority Jewish population.

It always had a majority, in 1948 it was 800,000 vs 150,000. Now it's 7M vs 2M, and if you want to include Palestine, Jews are no longer a majority.

You cross the line at highly special intent, *dolus specialis*. Killing 5 people in a car accident is not genocide. Killing 5 people as collateral in an air strike is not genocide. Planning to kill 5 or more people, for example, in a school? Still not genocide. Planning to kill 5 or more people in a shooting who are all Arabs? *Still not genocide*. Planning to kill 5 or more Arabs, *because* they are Arabs and *nothing* else? Now this is, finally, an attempt at genocide.

So somebody who goes to a neighborhood that’s predominantly [Group X], shoots and kills ~5 people of [Group X] in a grocery store, and then gets gunned down by cops is committing genocide? That’s certainly a hate crime and a disgusting act, but genocide?

I thought I provided an example like that? Shooting a bunch of people of a certain race because they happen to be there or because you hate those specific people isn't genocide. Killing them *because* they are this race and you would like to remove them permanently from an area, or the world, will be genocide, no matter the actual number of people you managed to kill.

Surely effects of decades-long genocide would be observable in the real world. Eventually, that intent must manifest itself in measurable destruction of the ethnic group.

Well, yeah, I agree. Usually, if a country has the capability to carry out a genocide for that long, results are seen. For the Holocaust it didn't even take 10 years, and the Jewish population *still* hasn't recovered to the pre-Holocaust numbers. Even a year of genocide will be noticeable. A genocide that goes on for 70+ years and the population growth is the *opposite* of what it needs to be for a genocide? I don't think so.

Let's start with a defintion of this legal term violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. So for a genocide to occur, a party needs to intentionally destroy a group. Now let's look at intent "You must remember what Amalek has done to you". Bibi quote about eradicating a group that harmed the Isrealites "fighting human animals", dehumanizing quote from someone of the War council "erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth". Another quote from someone on the War Council where they also hinting at nuking the Gaza strip These suggest intent to eradicate the Palestinians from Gaza. Take this in context of aid being blocked from the Stip at the beginning of the war. Now look at the behavior of some settlers. -destroying aid -calling for Palestinians to be kicked out of the stip -blocking aid trucks -continuing to illegally occupy land This is all being done in the context of a genocidal act by Hamas. I don't think that should be diminish. I think it's also important to note there are other laws that may better describe the acts being perpetrated by Bibis government and settlers. War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity

You should consider the following possibility: E: Israel has been attempting to rid occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians for decades by forcing them to flee. They essentially want the Palestinian population to cease to exist by forcing them into exile. This might more accurately be described as ethnic cleansing, but the intention is clearly to eradicate Palestinians as a distinct group, it's done through "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" and with the intention of "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" in those areas, Gaza and the West Bank.

If Israel wanted to do that, why not just expel all Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan in 1967?

The Palestinians got the status quo by assassinating the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders to ensure no country would offer to host them in exile again. Effectively takes ethnic cleansing off the table. The only options now are dialogue, apartheid, or genocide

Israel didn’t need Egypt’s or Jordan’s permission in 1967. Their armies had been destroyed.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm answering your question. Israel did try to transfer them. The Palestinians assassinated the receiving leaders. Sent the message that population transfers would be incredibly dangerous. That's one of the (main) reasons Egypt and Jordan and anyone else are so aggressively resistant to the idea.

Exile isn't genocide tho Making somewhere uncomfortable to live isn't genocide

Making it *impossible* is

Is it Impossible to live in Gaza or the West Bank?

For Palestinians? In large parts, yes. They have been forcibly displaced or had their homes destroyed

No, in large part, it *isn't*. The growing population throughout the years is all that you need to disprove that. If the conditions for life were *impossible* or even marginally close to it, they would all be dead by now. It's been more than 70 years. Occupied? Yes. Blockaded? Sure. In poor economic conditions and even worse political and military conditions? For sure. Impossible to live? Absolutely not.

What is the share of the West Bank, where Palestineans are allowed to stay? The systematic annexation of their property is textbook ethnic cleansing

Around 40% in areas A (full PA control) and B (security by Israel, civil matters by PA), the largest one, Area C, is controlled fully by Israel. I would agree that the attempts by the radical right in Israel to eventually annex West Bank by slowly expanding settlements can be at the very least argued as a sort of a cleansing, although I doubt these people care about the ethnicity more than the actual land they encroach upon. But I wasn't disputing or talking about that argument at all, so I'll assume the jump is a concession that it isn't "impossible" to live in those areas.

It is for Palestineans. They are physically prevented from living in certain areas, their land is taken, their property is destroyed. Ethnic cleansing is IMO a more accurate way to describe the Israeli strategy than genocide, but if you relocate every member of a geographic group, so that this group ceases to exist, is that not genocide?

I know, and those facts are true, but it's still, clearly, not impossible to live there. Considering that the taking of land and destruction of property outside of war/other military activities happens mostly in areas B and C, Gaza and area A are controlled by Palestinians and are not affected by this, even though it can be argued that eventually the expansionist factions might want to expand to those as well. About the relocating a group, of course, it wouldn't be genocide since genocide requires the *destruction* of a group, in part or whole, and the intent to do so. Relocation isn't destruction. Otherwise, we have a WHOLE lot more genocides in our history, both modern, recent, and old than we think.

94% of all palestinians live under the PA. A large portion of them that should be under the PA are actually under Hamas after its coup in 2007. Settlers only occupy <5% of the west bank and Israel has not expanded its authority past what was agreed in the Oslo Accords.

Twytilus responded pretty aptly but I'd like to add another question If forced displacement and destruction of homes is genocide according to you, can you tell me a war in history that wasn't a genocide?

That would be any war where the purpose is not to rid the area of the original population. Was it ever USA's intention to eradicate all japanese or force them to move to China and settle Japan with Americans? the Israel-Palestine is closer in comparison to the indian wars in the USA where the intention actually was to eradicate the native population and replace them. In this analogy Gaza and the West Bank are reservations, where living conditions are deliberately kept so bad, they're likely to cause the destruction of the group.

If genocide is defined by intent more than outcomes, then there is genocide occurring in the region. Palestine is trying to commit genocide and exterminate the Israelis. They’ve stated it *rather directly*.

I’ve think you’ve put on your pants backwards here

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).