Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, because they claimed to be aiming for Ukrainian troops hidden underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
Other estimates appear lower, but seem to be sticking with confirmed numbers. Confirming numbers out of a place like Mariupol would presumably be pretty hard.
Also, don't forget about the thousands of children that were kidnapped by the Russians and are currently being raised in Russia. But thanks for making our point. It is funny how much atrocity will be overlooked by the left--Uyghurs, Bangladesh, Yemen, Sudan, etc.--when the Jews cannot be blamed.
Yes. Iran gives money to Hamas to commit terror attacks, and we know they are guilty of these war crimes already: waging offensive war, deliberately murdering civilians, taking hostages, using civilains as human shields, using civilian infrastructure of military purposes, and failing to distinguish themselves from civilians-- and maybe sexual assault.
Focusing on Gaza, I don't know. None have been proven. There has been one actual charge, that early on the IDF cut off essentials like electricity, water, etc. as a tactic against Hamas, but that it improperly affected the entire population. The weight of bombs does not establish a war crime; the existence of civilian casualties does not establish a war crime, though it does and should call that into question. Neither do numbers of casualties cited by Hamas establish that a war crime has occurred. By the way, a statistics professor at the Wharton School did an analysis of Hamas casualty figures which concluded that daily reports do not reflect naturally occurring--i.e., real--events. Rather they appear to be numbers increased randomly. (I had his name jotted down but I can't at the moment lay hands on it.)
A UN inquiry says Israel and Hamas have both committed war crimes since October 7. Amnesty International agrees. three IDF soldiers were convicted in May of 2023. Since then more IDF soldiers have been indicted even as recently as two weeks ago. Israel's military has also accepted in briefings that the overall Gaza casualty numbers are broadly reliable. Many experts believe that Hamas is actually under counting casualties, while other experts claim Hamas is padding causality figures. Whatever. It is still far too many either way.
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, Claiming to be aiming at Ukrainian troops in underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII.
BTW, the US used one 2000 lb bomb in their urban campaign in Fallujah in Iraq. How many 2000 pound bombs have the Israeli troops precision targeted the civilians of Gaza with? Because Jill Biden didn't like that, now the IDF has to use 500 pound bombs. If a 500 pound bomb dropped on your neighborhood, would you feel it was precisely targeted?
"And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII." That cheapens the word. There is a large difference between indiscriminate bombing and the targeted killing of members of an ethnic/racial/religious group with the intent to annihilate the group. So for example, the slaughter of Tutsis by the Hutu in Rwanda was an actual genocide. The targeted killing of Jews in WWII was a genocide. The blitzkrieg of France by Hitler was NOT a genocide. The Russians war crimes in Ukraine do not necessarily constitute a genocide. Genocide is not about waging a war (even a war of conquest) where a disproportionate number of civilians are killed. It's not even about war crimes. It can still be bad and yet not fall under the term "genocide". It's like when the Bush II administration was calling everything 'terrorism'. Or when anti-abortion organizations call abortion a 'holocaust'. It's important to keep definitions rigorous rather than misuse a term just to add impact.
So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse. I'd be happy to give this behavior a new name as long as it is recognized and punished as a war crime.
"So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse". I did not say or imply anything of the sort. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you know that I think things can be bad without being genocide. War crimes are ALREADY prosecuted without being classified as genocide. Slobodan Milosevitch is one example. In fact, the international criminal court already makes the distinction https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc
Well, I hope the pressure is kept on Israel until some of its leaders are successfully prosecuted for war crimes. Israelis have also committed an untold number of crimes on the West Bank.
On one thing we can absolutely agree: Those Israeli criminals in the West Bank need to have the book thown at them, and hard. And I also hold responsible the right wing political leaders who gave a wink and nod permission structure for it. In fact, Netanyahu is the Israeli Donald Trump: It's not clear he is actually trying to win the war or come to a practical agreement. If the war ended, there would be elections and he'd lose. That would mean he'd have to face criminal prosecution for existing cases.
The US dropped over 5,000 2,000 lb bombs in just the early stages f the Iraq war. They dropped one 20,000 lb bomb that was called a bunker buster. It's horrible, but your enthusiasm got away from the facts to heighten the rhetoric on this one. And it's not important, it's only semantics, but if you term every instance of mass killings in extended wars genocide, then the term has no definition other than mass casualties. Genocide is usually used to imply the intent of completely stamping out a given nationality or race or culture using violence, indiscriminately, not even bothering to warn the population of an impending bombing campaign first, as little good that that does.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
That said, Netanyahu is slime mold.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
Well said…:)
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, because they claimed to be aiming for Ukrainian troops hidden underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
I wouldn’t, because I know what genocide is.
And they’ve killed more than that.
"an investigation by AP from the end of 2022 gives a number of up to 75,000 killed civilians in Mariupol area alone"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties
That's the first and only time I've heard that and I follow the news from Ukraine very closely.
Other estimates appear lower, but seem to be sticking with confirmed numbers. Confirming numbers out of a place like Mariupol would presumably be pretty hard.
Also, don't forget about the thousands of children that were kidnapped by the Russians and are currently being raised in Russia. But thanks for making our point. It is funny how much atrocity will be overlooked by the left--Uyghurs, Bangladesh, Yemen, Sudan, etc.--when the Jews cannot be blamed.
For everyone claiming reliance on Hamas figures is believing propaganda, there is someone claiming reliance on IDF figures is believing propaganda.
Everyone lies in war.
So then why does anyone rely on statements made by IDF? Simply because the US broadly supports Israel?
No one should believe them without qualification, but it's in their interest to play by the rules of war. Itis far less so in Hamas' case.
Why? Because we consider Hamas to be terrorists?
Yes. Iran gives money to Hamas to commit terror attacks, and we know they are guilty of these war crimes already: waging offensive war, deliberately murdering civilians, taking hostages, using civilains as human shields, using civilian infrastructure of military purposes, and failing to distinguish themselves from civilians-- and maybe sexual assault.
What about the war crimes committed by IDF? Are you arguing they do not commit war crimes?
Focusing on Gaza, I don't know. None have been proven. There has been one actual charge, that early on the IDF cut off essentials like electricity, water, etc. as a tactic against Hamas, but that it improperly affected the entire population. The weight of bombs does not establish a war crime; the existence of civilian casualties does not establish a war crime, though it does and should call that into question. Neither do numbers of casualties cited by Hamas establish that a war crime has occurred. By the way, a statistics professor at the Wharton School did an analysis of Hamas casualty figures which concluded that daily reports do not reflect naturally occurring--i.e., real--events. Rather they appear to be numbers increased randomly. (I had his name jotted down but I can't at the moment lay hands on it.)
A UN inquiry says Israel and Hamas have both committed war crimes since October 7. Amnesty International agrees. three IDF soldiers were convicted in May of 2023. Since then more IDF soldiers have been indicted even as recently as two weeks ago. Israel's military has also accepted in briefings that the overall Gaza casualty numbers are broadly reliable. Many experts believe that Hamas is actually under counting casualties, while other experts claim Hamas is padding causality figures. Whatever. It is still far too many either way.
That is absurd. How many civilians did the US kill in its various wars?
And you know perfectly well the bombing wasn't indiscriminate.
If Israel had wanted to commit actual genocide, it would have killed at least a million Gazans by now.
People like you ignorantly throw around the word "genocide" the way the middle schoolers of my youth threw around the word "faggot."
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, Claiming to be aiming at Ukrainian troops in underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII.
BTW, the US used one 2000 lb bomb in their urban campaign in Fallujah in Iraq. How many 2000 pound bombs have the Israeli troops precision targeted the civilians of Gaza with? Because Jill Biden didn't like that, now the IDF has to use 500 pound bombs. If a 500 pound bomb dropped on your neighborhood, would you feel it was precisely targeted?
"And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII." That cheapens the word. There is a large difference between indiscriminate bombing and the targeted killing of members of an ethnic/racial/religious group with the intent to annihilate the group. So for example, the slaughter of Tutsis by the Hutu in Rwanda was an actual genocide. The targeted killing of Jews in WWII was a genocide. The blitzkrieg of France by Hitler was NOT a genocide. The Russians war crimes in Ukraine do not necessarily constitute a genocide. Genocide is not about waging a war (even a war of conquest) where a disproportionate number of civilians are killed. It's not even about war crimes. It can still be bad and yet not fall under the term "genocide". It's like when the Bush II administration was calling everything 'terrorism'. Or when anti-abortion organizations call abortion a 'holocaust'. It's important to keep definitions rigorous rather than misuse a term just to add impact.
So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse. I'd be happy to give this behavior a new name as long as it is recognized and punished as a war crime.
"So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse". I did not say or imply anything of the sort. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you know that I think things can be bad without being genocide. War crimes are ALREADY prosecuted without being classified as genocide. Slobodan Milosevitch is one example. In fact, the international criminal court already makes the distinction https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc
Well, I hope the pressure is kept on Israel until some of its leaders are successfully prosecuted for war crimes. Israelis have also committed an untold number of crimes on the West Bank.
On one thing we can absolutely agree: Those Israeli criminals in the West Bank need to have the book thown at them, and hard. And I also hold responsible the right wing political leaders who gave a wink and nod permission structure for it. In fact, Netanyahu is the Israeli Donald Trump: It's not clear he is actually trying to win the war or come to a practical agreement. If the war ended, there would be elections and he'd lose. That would mean he'd have to face criminal prosecution for existing cases.
I agree regarding the West Bank, but that does not equate to Gaza war crimes.
The US dropped over 5,000 2,000 lb bombs in just the early stages f the Iraq war. They dropped one 20,000 lb bomb that was called a bunker buster. It's horrible, but your enthusiasm got away from the facts to heighten the rhetoric on this one. And it's not important, it's only semantics, but if you term every instance of mass killings in extended wars genocide, then the term has no definition other than mass casualties. Genocide is usually used to imply the intent of completely stamping out a given nationality or race or culture using violence, indiscriminately, not even bothering to warn the population of an impending bombing campaign first, as little good that that does.
I forgot to add the detail that this was in the US urban campaign in Fallujah.
That’s ridiculous. It’s war.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
There are more Arabs every year.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
I'd be happy to call it mass murder, as long as it's recognized and punished as a war crime.