Hacker News Reader

Comment by fastball | Hacker News Reader

Genocide is an attempt to eradicate a group. The only group Israel is trying to eradicate is Hamas. They're not genociding Palestinians, they're genociding Hamas.

Are they killing an excessive number of civilians as collateral damage? Certainly seems like it. But collateral damage is not genocide.

If they wanted to genocide the Palestinians, they'd be shipping 'em to camps and gassing them, like the Nazis did. Looking at it another way: let's say that (hypothetically) Hamas stopped using people as humans shields by firing rockets from hospitals and building tunnels under schools. Do you think the number of non-combatants killed by the IDF would go down? Because I do, and to me that says Israel's goal is not in fact killing non-combatant civilians, even if they're killing far too many as is.

View on HN

Omer Bartov is an Israeli-American Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He is considered one of the world's leading authorities on genocide.

Here is a 15-minute clip of him explaining that what Israel is perpetrating in Gaza is systematic genocide: https://x.com/amanpour/status/1869818758501675259

This argument merely serves to justify murder and is inhumane, in and of itself. Please re-consider your position on the subject of the wanton and willful murder of your fellow human beings.

Genocide is not a matter of scale, it is a matter of intent.

The definition fits: the people of Palestine are being genocided. The Nazi’s took years to murder 6 million Jews and other classes of humans they deemed undesirable - should we just wait until Israel catches up in terms of scale of magnitude, or should we stop trying to justify their actions and do everything we can to make sure the scale of the atrocity does not continue to sky-rocket, as it has done for the past 15 months…?

It is because genocide is a matter of intent that people in debates will disagree. Just taking a look on the war on terror. Was the intent to grab oil, revenge, fund the military complex, or was it to liberate people? Its been over 20 years and people are still debating the intent of all those wars that occurred after 9/11. Intent is really hard to prove, and that is even if we have proof of policies that defined every killed male over the age of 15 as terrorist regardless of situation.

We could just define all wars as genocide and be done with it. The definition do fit, with all wars ending up behaving as if the intent was the destruction of a people. If the genocide definition helps to reduce the scale of the atrocity being done then I am also for using it in any war which has that effect. However, if it is just used as a media tool in order to define which side is good or bad then Im unconvinced it will help to reduce atrocities.

> Just taking a look on the war on terror.

The war on terror is a criminal farce, with the purpose of fleecing the Western states of, literally, trillions and trillions of dollars. It has not successfully defeated terrorism - in fact, the architects of the war on terror have only produced more terror, in more places around the world, than ever before.

It is important to define and use the word genocide when it happens because we have international institutions that were built - because of the genocide of the Jewish people in fact - explicitly to prevent the world from experiencing yet another holocaust.

But as we can see, we in the West would rather argue semantics and play tribal politics than hold our own war criminals to account for their heinous crimes.

> Intent is really hard to prove

In the case of the genocide currently happening in Gaza, alas, intent has been very, very easy to prove.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I completely agree that genocide is a matter of intent. That is why my comment was about intent, not about scale. in fact I specifically said Israel is killing too many non-combatants, indicating the scale is bad and if scale is what mattered I probably would call it genocide. But as you say, it is not about scale. That is why I made the point that the non-combatant casualties would almost certainly significantly decrease if one side of this conflict was not aggressively using humans as shields – that to me speaks to the intent of Israel/IDF.

The people ultimately to blame for the high civilian casualties are the people who 1. started the war and 2. insist on staging that war entirely in civilian areas. That is Hamas on both counts. I am certain that if tomorrow Hamas said "hey, let's have a pitched battle in the style of Middle Ages Europe, where we go to a field and send all our fighters against all your fighters and and the victor is the one left standing", the IDF would be happy to oblige.

But Hamas will not do that, because they want the destruction of Palestinian peoples more than Israel does. After all, it helps their cause much more than it does the cause of Israel (and they clearly can't actually win the war without the human shields).

> the IDF would be happy to oblige

Do you speak for the IDF? How is it then that you can also represent Hamas?

> insist on staging that war entirely in civilian areas.

Gaza is an open-air concentration camp which has suffered under Israeli military control for decades. Where else are they going to fight - specially constructed stadiums built for the purpose? Outside, in the no-mans land between Gaza and Israel? 2.1 million human beings have been uprooted from their homes and herded into a 360km2 area by their oppressors - should they escape the military barriers that surround them and bring the fight elsewhere?

> But Hamas will not do that, because they want the destruction of Palestinian peoples more than Israel does.

This position is duplicitous and preposterous. The Palestinian people want to be free from the oppression they have suffered for decades. Israel, a powerful nation, had many, many chances to make peace happen in Gaza - it didn’t happen because Israeli society is fundamentalist, militaristic and racist, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

You keep conflating Hamas with Palestinians. It seems deliberate. I for one do not think they are the same thing, but if you do I'm not sure this conversation can go anywhere. I am also unsure why you think you should be able to speak to the motives of Hamas and Israel (and therefore assert the intent is genocide) while I cannot.

As a side note, you argue like you are on Reddit. It might be helpful to review the site guidelines[1] about discussion on Hacker News.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I don’t conflate Hamas with Palestinians at all, in fact I believe that it is those justifying the wanton murder of the Palestinian population by an oppressive military force who are doing exactly that.

But we know full well that duplicity has been weaponized in this conflict.

As for your ‘tone policing’, I’m not sure I can take your advice to heart given the position you take, of justifying the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people. Provide evidence that this statement is true and then perhaps we can discuss your desire to manipulate my position to fit your rhetoric:

“But Hamas will not do that, because they want the destruction of Palestinian peoples more than Israel does.”

The only ones destroying the Palestinian people are the IDF.

> Gaza is an open-air concentration camp

Really? How many concentration camps have car dealers in them?

e.g. Kia Motors Gaza https://g.co/kgs/pVeLh8E

Maybe you should rethink your rhetoric.

Maybe you should re-think what it takes to violate human rights at massive scale while fooling the rest of the world into believing its not happening…

[flagged]

How many non-combatants have died due to being killed deliberately, and how many have died due to being collateral damage in a warzone?

I believe the distinction and ratio between the two things is very important when trying to determine the intent of Israel (as outside observers) and whether or not they are perpetrating genocide.

[flagged]

I didn't say "its gas chambers or its no big deal", those are words you put in my mouth. Rather, I made the point (with an example) that the actual actions being taken matter, you can't just say "innocents are dying therefore it is genocide".

The burden of proof is on those claiming genocide, not on me.

You were presenting an either-or argument, pretty much along those lines. A basically very specious argument, it was.

I was paraphrasing you, but not unfairly in that sense.

The burden of proof is on those claiming genocide, not on me.

The burden of proof is on the occupying forces, to show that they are not causing undue harm to the population affected.

We could adjudicate this further, but as said - you've simply worn me out, via your patently spurious opening.

Sorry I wore you out, glad you were able to find the strength the post three comments afterwards.

Life is short. Just doing what I can.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com