I was born the same year as Israel and grew up in a Zionist home and school. I spend a good part of my day reposting news of the deaths of Palestinian babies and families, and footage of every settler attack because I feel called to come as close as I can to bearing witness. One can parse words forever, but I personally, cannot unsee what I have been seeing. It’s not important to me whether these heinous, state-enabled acts technically qualify as a genocide or not, when thousands continue to be butchered and stripped of every human dignity. Nothing good will come of this for the people of Israel. There will be no safety. And globally, Jews are in the greatest danger they have been since 1945. I don’t see the point of this piece when the cruelty and brutality is endless and there is no accountability. But hey, that’s just me.
I just find this so bizarre. Hamas started this attack with the intent of provoking a response, and CONTINUED to fight from civilian structures the whole time. No polity in the history of manking would not have attempted to eliminate an organization which kidnapped 250 of their civilians, murdered several hundred more, and continued to fight, killing hundreds of soldiers including the son of the likely future prime minister. But hey, I hope you have fun in your "small village" in Italy while you pass judgment on the half of the world's remaining Jews.
Netanyahu has been cynically funding Hamas since forever, to prevent the PA from being in power, and thereby, risking a Palestinian state. This is a known fact. The attack on October 6 was horrific, but does not entitle Israel to a massacre in perpetuity with no accountability.
Israel has never funded Hamas. Sure a divided leadership in the Palestinian Territories benefit Netanyahu politically, but Israel has never given money to Hamas. This sort of misinformation is one of the reasons we’ve seen such a rise in antizionism and antisemitism.
The founding of the state of Israel was not genocide nor was it an expression of Nazi politics. Your moral outrage might be more appropriately directed toward the foundation of the United States (where I assume that you are a resident citizen). A "colonial settler" state certainly applies to the American regime vis a vis the indigenous native population. Until I hear serious claims from you insisting upon returning sovereignty to the "tribes" and divesting all authority from state and government I can only conclude that your comfortable reference to "Nakba" is made in bad faith.
Immigrants to or from the U.S.? If it was to the U.S. you are indeed culpable to the extent that you continue to enjoy the comforts of a regime whose founding you deem "criminal"
I hear your grief in seeing suffering. It is painful to bear witness.
But words have meaning.
And a loaded word like genocide, takes away from what I think you're wanting to get at. And I'm bothered that you don't care if it technically is or not.
To call immense suffering a gut punch word like 'genocide' may help explain how big the suffering feels when you witness it.
it isn't what the word means and no amount of devastating footage changes that.
Genocide has a legal bar, which is what this author is communicating. It requires "intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part." That's what separates it from other atrocities.
It's not about scale, or how many died, even if the numbers are horrifying.
The court case will make evaluations based on evidence and it will take years to be adjudicated. While I claim no expertise, I am aware that international law allows 'collateral damage' (civilian deaths) based on the law of proportionality. That 'law' is often understood as being about 1 dead to 1 dead, but that's not at all what it is. The military target has to be 'big enough' to make the civilian dead acceptable.
That's not my theory of how it should be. That is my understanding of the law.
And maybe from there, you can see how adjudicating that will take years and requires access to information that we don't have.
Hamas uses asymmetric warfare and I'm sure you know, they use civilian infrastructure and humans as shields. That is why international law allows civilian targets as per the above paragraph.
I'm not a military or international law expert.
But I ask you, not as a gotcha, what do you think Israel's response should have looked like? What do you think Israel should have done instead?
Do you repost news of the death of Israelis? Terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians, whose perpetrators are paid by their government, in proportion for how many Jews they managed to kill? Or do you feel you've done your part when you post the videos that get you kudos in your social circles, and don't worry about the hit you'll take if you post these other videos?
This is, by the definition that you parrot in point three, EXACTLY what a genocide is. There have been efforts to destroy hospitals and health care facilities (under the premise of destroying “command centers in bunkers under the hospitals”) food aid is reduced to a trickle (and what gets through has been the target for attacks by military/armed settlers,) and… you know what? Fine.
You want to paint people who have actually studied genocides as all like Graham Platner, I can’t stop you. That’s your agenda, that’s your choice, and that’s your selective blindness to the realities of the world around you. I have to ask, though: is Rwanda’s situation in 1994 a genocide, or just a bunch of mass killings? What then about Bosnia from 1992 to 1995? Hell, what then can we say about the Herero people in what is now Namibia in the 1900s? That it wasn’t a genocide, but just mass killings? Do such distinctions matter to those who bear the psychological scars of violence meted out at the hands of neighbors?
You call it “mob mentality.” I call it “calling a thing what it is.”
Russia in Ukraine? U.S. in Germany during WWII? Hiroshima/Nagasaki? "Genocide" is the systematic attempt to "kill" an entire population based upon their presumed ethnic identity. Despite all of the moral ugliness perpetrated by the Israeli government; they have not hunted down Palestinians and subjected them to mass execution for the purpose of annihilating the "race". If that were, indeed, the Israeli intent then they must be mocked for gross incompetence since the Palestinian population has substantially increased in the past 10 years.
You're telling on yourself by comparing those conflicts, absurdly, to Gaza. Israel has sent more aid to its enemies than any adversary in human history, and even Hamas' own numbers show that military age man made up the majority of casualties. No one with a brain believes in this libel: https://maartenboudry.substack.com/p/they-dont-believe-it-either
Genocide is an intentional and systematic extermination of an ethnic, religious or racial group.
To put it very bluntly, ifIsrael did something that awful in Gaza there would be no one left alive there in three months. Literally.
In three month of Rwanda genocide nearly a million Tutsi were killed- with no bombing or airforce, with machetes and rusty rifles. If one believes HAMAS , 75000 people died in Gaza , this including both civiltheir fighters ( estimated 20000-25000). This isn’t a picture of genocide. This is what happens in two years of war in a dense urban area with half of population below 18.
Sorry the whole conversation is a crock of shit. Hamas started a brutal war. Losing the war you start isn't genocide no matter how many feeble minded terrorist apologists say it. It's hard to watch war. Today's Hamas supporters would be convinced by Hitler to support the Nazis with a few propaganda movies. If the Palestinians want peace, they should ask for it. If the morons cosplaying terrorist in Europe would stop supporting them they might have to. Instead, every falsehood spread by the media and made into gospel by the Left is going to perpetuate the suffering of the Palestinians, the people that the Left claim to be so concerned about.
Language matters, as does being precise. I just can't get my head around the fact that 2 million Palestinian Arabs live within the borders of Israel yet the genocide claim is taken as gospel. It's not a political argument -- it's just common sense, no? War is brutal, and if war crimes occured (which they likely have, on both sides) it should be treated as such. But diminishing a powerful term that reflects the intentional erasure of an entire people just can't apply here.
Nearly 3 years into this phase of this truly ancient conflict, we should challenge ourselves to go well beyond merely stating “it’s not a genocide” and detail for those who have watched and think the misery of war in Gaza could only be by Israel’s intention the true nature of Hamas’s unthinkable strategy to intentionally mass sacrifice their own people as martyrs for their holy war.
Ron, on the face of it, you basically want people to say "alleged" before genocide because it has not been ruled as such by the ICJ. That's a valid point. But you also admit that there have been genocides that were not ruled as such by the ICJ. So you need to address the arguments of those genocide scholars who have called it a genocide, not to mention the human rights groups. Until you actually cite experts in the field and not a partisan like Benny Morris, who publicly regretted not finishing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, or one genocide expert who questions whether there can be genocides according to the definition currently used, why on earth would anybody give credibility to a partisan journalist? That you are partisan is crystal clear; you are a liberal Zionist worried about the impact the genocide charge has on Israel and on Zionism. (Frankly, you seem to worry more about the impact of the genocide accusation than you do about the impact of the mass destruction, but perhaps that is uncharitable. I didn't see your substack on that.) And what is the relevance of Lemkin being a Zionist to the question whether Israel committed a genocide? Do you really think that Lemkin thought that Zionists were incapable of committing genocides? And do you really want to argue that the Nazi war against the Jews was not a genocide because there was no convention then? You write: "Defining the Ottoman era massacres of Armenians as a genocide is a political and moral question." It is first of all a question of fact, and that depends on how one defines genocide, and I leave that up to the experts. I don't use the term because I think "willful and intended mass destruction of Gazans without caring at all about their lives except for Hasbara purposes" is just as bad as genocide. Here's an argument against calling Gaza "genocide" -- in order to commit a genocide you have to acknowledge the existence of a people you want to kill. The vast majority of Zionists and Israelis have never acknowledged the existence of the Palestinian people, whether in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, or Detroit, because to do so would be to acknowledge the primal sin of Zionism -- building a Jewish state/commonwealth/homeland by erasing the state/commonwealth/homeland of interlopers, of "Arabs" of people with no local identity. At best, some Zionists have been willing to cede some of their historical land to Palestinian Arabs for demilitarized bantustans that they can call a state. And the vast majority of Israelis oppose that now.
I mentioned Lemkin because members of his family object to associating him with accusations Israel is committing genocide, which Sands did; I mention he was a Zionist, because that appears to be one of the reasons his family is objecting. You're right, he might have still recognized a genocide as taking place, which Sands says, and I thought it was germane that Lemkin's biographer (or quasi-biographer -- Sands' book is not entirely about Lemkin) believes it; then, for full context, I thought it was important to report on what his family members believe and then, for fuller context, on why they believe it. I have written about the mass destruction of Gaza on this substack, and elsewhere, and I note it in this piece, but that is less the point than why I keep a substack, which is to write when I think I have something to contribute not seen elsewhere. My insights come mostly from a lifetime of analyzing Israel, antisemitism, Jewish life, so that is likely to be the areas where I am ready to sit down and write at length. Benny Morris has some weird opinions, so do a lot of folks, but he is also a trenchant historian and I thought his analysis was spot on in this case. I quote folks if they have astute analysis whatever their outlook is (and man, I have gotten crap for doing so, when I did so for JTA, and good for my bosses for always standing by me). I don't draw conclusions about a writer based on her analysis, if the analysis works.
Benny Morris is (on all substantive points) correct and that pisses off the charlatans that you follow (and various rightoids who want to think all Palestinians immigrated in from 1883 to 1947). Not much else to talk about.
If Israel wants to survive, it has to reckon with the fact that it erased a country and most of its people in order to build its own state. It needs to make amends for its past and abandon much of its ambitions. You don't agree with the analysis; that's not surprising given your partisanship. Look, I am an Israeli living in Jerusalem, and I believe that all recognized states have a right to exist, but that doesn't mean that all regimes have a right to exist because some regimes are discriminatory. Germans felt threatened; South Africans under apartheid felt threatened; the Southerners in the United States felt threatened, and all with good reason. The Soviet regime felt threatened and the Iranian regime feels threatened. But these are not good reasons to keep those regimes.
Given no competent court has adjudicated on the Armenian and second Darfur genocides, should we also always descend to the vulgarity of prepending ‘alleged’?
The truly damning part is that there is infinitely more effort from Israelis on the term used, rather than what has and is being done. No regrets. Full dehumanization. Daily killings of innocent people. West Bank settlers unleashed. 100% of the population is displaced, and IDF bombings of refugee camps.
Doesn’t matter one bit what you call it. Just stop.
You might want to argue with Israelis who are either calling this a genocide,or serious war crimes. These are not the usual suspects either, as in two generals and a former PM. The taboo has broken in Israel. As to intent, conversant with Hebrew, so went swimming in Israeli media and telegram in the deep end of the pool, intent exists. Yes, also conversant with IHL.
The ICC has already issued warrants. Mind you, they are one step from genocide, cause intent is shown during interviews. So please stop trying to cover the sun with one, maybe two fingers. It really is not working any longer. And it is time to face reality.
There is a lot of nasty things swimming in the American media and social networks too, Nadin. Including the left wing , when Israel is concerned, for example. Does this mean the Americans are guilty of genocide? Or at least intend to perpetuate one?
Israeli politics is pretty nasty and they are happy to accuse each other of crimes. What Israelis don't understand is that people who throw around the genocide accusation outside of Israel are doing it to work towards Israel's destruction, not deposing Netanyahu.
The three people using the term ARE NOT INSIDE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. I know this is not a happy thing, but a former CO of northern command, Amiram Levin, former chief of staff and minister of defense Moshe Ha’Yalon, and very much former PM Ehud Barak (he is just in the warcrimes department) are no longer part of the political system.
Your information is incorrect. I keep hearing this antisemitic wishful thinking story. It's not what they said, although they are critical of government.
I was born the same year as Israel and grew up in a Zionist home and school. I spend a good part of my day reposting news of the deaths of Palestinian babies and families, and footage of every settler attack because I feel called to come as close as I can to bearing witness. One can parse words forever, but I personally, cannot unsee what I have been seeing. It’s not important to me whether these heinous, state-enabled acts technically qualify as a genocide or not, when thousands continue to be butchered and stripped of every human dignity. Nothing good will come of this for the people of Israel. There will be no safety. And globally, Jews are in the greatest danger they have been since 1945. I don’t see the point of this piece when the cruelty and brutality is endless and there is no accountability. But hey, that’s just me.
I just find this so bizarre. Hamas started this attack with the intent of provoking a response, and CONTINUED to fight from civilian structures the whole time. No polity in the history of manking would not have attempted to eliminate an organization which kidnapped 250 of their civilians, murdered several hundred more, and continued to fight, killing hundreds of soldiers including the son of the likely future prime minister. But hey, I hope you have fun in your "small village" in Italy while you pass judgment on the half of the world's remaining Jews.
Netanyahu has been cynically funding Hamas since forever, to prevent the PA from being in power, and thereby, risking a Palestinian state. This is a known fact. The attack on October 6 was horrific, but does not entitle Israel to a massacre in perpetuity with no accountability.
Israel has never funded Hamas. Sure a divided leadership in the Palestinian Territories benefit Netanyahu politically, but Israel has never given money to Hamas. This sort of misinformation is one of the reasons we’ve seen such a rise in antizionism and antisemitism.
It was actually Oct 7th. Listen to @Haviv Rettig Gur for nuanced understanding of the situation.
You conveniently left May 15, 1948 out, when ZioNazis initiated the Nakba.
Still whining about the ‘Nakba’ when 5 regular Arab armies failed to annihilate Israel? Pathetic.
The founding of the state of Israel was not genocide nor was it an expression of Nazi politics. Your moral outrage might be more appropriately directed toward the foundation of the United States (where I assume that you are a resident citizen). A "colonial settler" state certainly applies to the American regime vis a vis the indigenous native population. Until I hear serious claims from you insisting upon returning sovereignty to the "tribes" and divesting all authority from state and government I can only conclude that your comfortable reference to "Nakba" is made in bad faith.
I have nothing to do with the criminality of the United States of America.
You can’t accuse me of anything that would stick except that I am the grandson of long dead immigrants.
Immigrants to or from the U.S.? If it was to the U.S. you are indeed culpable to the extent that you continue to enjoy the comforts of a regime whose founding you deem "criminal"
Ok I feel so guilty now lol
In what world did you read what Rachelle wrote and interpret it to apply to Israel’s treatment of Hamas?
I hear your grief in seeing suffering. It is painful to bear witness.
But words have meaning.
And a loaded word like genocide, takes away from what I think you're wanting to get at. And I'm bothered that you don't care if it technically is or not.
To call immense suffering a gut punch word like 'genocide' may help explain how big the suffering feels when you witness it.
it isn't what the word means and no amount of devastating footage changes that.
Genocide has a legal bar, which is what this author is communicating. It requires "intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part." That's what separates it from other atrocities.
It's not about scale, or how many died, even if the numbers are horrifying.
The court case will make evaluations based on evidence and it will take years to be adjudicated. While I claim no expertise, I am aware that international law allows 'collateral damage' (civilian deaths) based on the law of proportionality. That 'law' is often understood as being about 1 dead to 1 dead, but that's not at all what it is. The military target has to be 'big enough' to make the civilian dead acceptable.
That's not my theory of how it should be. That is my understanding of the law.
And maybe from there, you can see how adjudicating that will take years and requires access to information that we don't have.
Hamas uses asymmetric warfare and I'm sure you know, they use civilian infrastructure and humans as shields. That is why international law allows civilian targets as per the above paragraph.
I'm not a military or international law expert.
But I ask you, not as a gotcha, what do you think Israel's response should have looked like? What do you think Israel should have done instead?
Yeh that’s just you, shilling for barbarians
Do you repost news of the death of Israelis? Terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinians, whose perpetrators are paid by their government, in proportion for how many Jews they managed to kill? Or do you feel you've done your part when you post the videos that get you kudos in your social circles, and don't worry about the hit you'll take if you post these other videos?
For decades, there has been little to no due process for atrocity after atrocity.
Oh, feck off.
This is, by the definition that you parrot in point three, EXACTLY what a genocide is. There have been efforts to destroy hospitals and health care facilities (under the premise of destroying “command centers in bunkers under the hospitals”) food aid is reduced to a trickle (and what gets through has been the target for attacks by military/armed settlers,) and… you know what? Fine.
You want to paint people who have actually studied genocides as all like Graham Platner, I can’t stop you. That’s your agenda, that’s your choice, and that’s your selective blindness to the realities of the world around you. I have to ask, though: is Rwanda’s situation in 1994 a genocide, or just a bunch of mass killings? What then about Bosnia from 1992 to 1995? Hell, what then can we say about the Herero people in what is now Namibia in the 1900s? That it wasn’t a genocide, but just mass killings? Do such distinctions matter to those who bear the psychological scars of violence meted out at the hands of neighbors?
You call it “mob mentality.” I call it “calling a thing what it is.”
Russia in Ukraine? U.S. in Germany during WWII? Hiroshima/Nagasaki? "Genocide" is the systematic attempt to "kill" an entire population based upon their presumed ethnic identity. Despite all of the moral ugliness perpetrated by the Israeli government; they have not hunted down Palestinians and subjected them to mass execution for the purpose of annihilating the "race". If that were, indeed, the Israeli intent then they must be mocked for gross incompetence since the Palestinian population has substantially increased in the past 10 years.
You're telling on yourself by comparing those conflicts, absurdly, to Gaza. Israel has sent more aid to its enemies than any adversary in human history, and even Hamas' own numbers show that military age man made up the majority of casualties. No one with a brain believes in this libel: https://maartenboudry.substack.com/p/they-dont-believe-it-either
It is a genocide
You’re a genocide.
Genocide is an intentional and systematic extermination of an ethnic, religious or racial group.
To put it very bluntly, ifIsrael did something that awful in Gaza there would be no one left alive there in three months. Literally.
In three month of Rwanda genocide nearly a million Tutsi were killed- with no bombing or airforce, with machetes and rusty rifles. If one believes HAMAS , 75000 people died in Gaza , this including both civiltheir fighters ( estimated 20000-25000). This isn’t a picture of genocide. This is what happens in two years of war in a dense urban area with half of population below 18.
Sorry the whole conversation is a crock of shit. Hamas started a brutal war. Losing the war you start isn't genocide no matter how many feeble minded terrorist apologists say it. It's hard to watch war. Today's Hamas supporters would be convinced by Hitler to support the Nazis with a few propaganda movies. If the Palestinians want peace, they should ask for it. If the morons cosplaying terrorist in Europe would stop supporting them they might have to. Instead, every falsehood spread by the media and made into gospel by the Left is going to perpetuate the suffering of the Palestinians, the people that the Left claim to be so concerned about.
We don’t need permission to name what we see. Deference to officialdom is a window of opportunity for bad faith actors.
You don't need permission to call a crow a bumble bee either. But calling it that, doesn't make it so. Words still have meaning.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Disingenuity is the lowest form …. I don’t know … but it’s kinda what someone reaches for when they know they’ve been caught out
Language matters, as does being precise. I just can't get my head around the fact that 2 million Palestinian Arabs live within the borders of Israel yet the genocide claim is taken as gospel. It's not a political argument -- it's just common sense, no? War is brutal, and if war crimes occured (which they likely have, on both sides) it should be treated as such. But diminishing a powerful term that reflects the intentional erasure of an entire people just can't apply here.
Nearly 3 years into this phase of this truly ancient conflict, we should challenge ourselves to go well beyond merely stating “it’s not a genocide” and detail for those who have watched and think the misery of war in Gaza could only be by Israel’s intention the true nature of Hamas’s unthinkable strategy to intentionally mass sacrifice their own people as martyrs for their holy war.
https://thegoldenpill.substack.com/p/the-martyrcide-of-gaza?r=31tulb&utm_medium=ios
I've been trying to explain this to people for years.
Substack needs a bookmark feature so I can send people back to this one.
Thank you.
Ron, on the face of it, you basically want people to say "alleged" before genocide because it has not been ruled as such by the ICJ. That's a valid point. But you also admit that there have been genocides that were not ruled as such by the ICJ. So you need to address the arguments of those genocide scholars who have called it a genocide, not to mention the human rights groups. Until you actually cite experts in the field and not a partisan like Benny Morris, who publicly regretted not finishing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, or one genocide expert who questions whether there can be genocides according to the definition currently used, why on earth would anybody give credibility to a partisan journalist? That you are partisan is crystal clear; you are a liberal Zionist worried about the impact the genocide charge has on Israel and on Zionism. (Frankly, you seem to worry more about the impact of the genocide accusation than you do about the impact of the mass destruction, but perhaps that is uncharitable. I didn't see your substack on that.) And what is the relevance of Lemkin being a Zionist to the question whether Israel committed a genocide? Do you really think that Lemkin thought that Zionists were incapable of committing genocides? And do you really want to argue that the Nazi war against the Jews was not a genocide because there was no convention then? You write: "Defining the Ottoman era massacres of Armenians as a genocide is a political and moral question." It is first of all a question of fact, and that depends on how one defines genocide, and I leave that up to the experts. I don't use the term because I think "willful and intended mass destruction of Gazans without caring at all about their lives except for Hasbara purposes" is just as bad as genocide. Here's an argument against calling Gaza "genocide" -- in order to commit a genocide you have to acknowledge the existence of a people you want to kill. The vast majority of Zionists and Israelis have never acknowledged the existence of the Palestinian people, whether in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, or Detroit, because to do so would be to acknowledge the primal sin of Zionism -- building a Jewish state/commonwealth/homeland by erasing the state/commonwealth/homeland of interlopers, of "Arabs" of people with no local identity. At best, some Zionists have been willing to cede some of their historical land to Palestinian Arabs for demilitarized bantustans that they can call a state. And the vast majority of Israelis oppose that now.
I mentioned Lemkin because members of his family object to associating him with accusations Israel is committing genocide, which Sands did; I mention he was a Zionist, because that appears to be one of the reasons his family is objecting. You're right, he might have still recognized a genocide as taking place, which Sands says, and I thought it was germane that Lemkin's biographer (or quasi-biographer -- Sands' book is not entirely about Lemkin) believes it; then, for full context, I thought it was important to report on what his family members believe and then, for fuller context, on why they believe it. I have written about the mass destruction of Gaza on this substack, and elsewhere, and I note it in this piece, but that is less the point than why I keep a substack, which is to write when I think I have something to contribute not seen elsewhere. My insights come mostly from a lifetime of analyzing Israel, antisemitism, Jewish life, so that is likely to be the areas where I am ready to sit down and write at length. Benny Morris has some weird opinions, so do a lot of folks, but he is also a trenchant historian and I thought his analysis was spot on in this case. I quote folks if they have astute analysis whatever their outlook is (and man, I have gotten crap for doing so, when I did so for JTA, and good for my bosses for always standing by me). I don't draw conclusions about a writer based on her analysis, if the analysis works.
Benny Morris is (on all substantive points) correct and that pisses off the charlatans that you follow (and various rightoids who want to think all Palestinians immigrated in from 1883 to 1947). Not much else to talk about.
We care about surviving more than if you hate us. (And you’re wrong, for anyone else reading this.)
If Israel wants to survive, it has to reckon with the fact that it erased a country and most of its people in order to build its own state. It needs to make amends for its past and abandon much of its ambitions. You don't agree with the analysis; that's not surprising given your partisanship. Look, I am an Israeli living in Jerusalem, and I believe that all recognized states have a right to exist, but that doesn't mean that all regimes have a right to exist because some regimes are discriminatory. Germans felt threatened; South Africans under apartheid felt threatened; the Southerners in the United States felt threatened, and all with good reason. The Soviet regime felt threatened and the Iranian regime feels threatened. But these are not good reasons to keep those regimes.
You're psychotically delusional.
We can't believe you typed that sentence, either. And many others. (Allegedly, of course!)
Given no competent court has adjudicated on the Armenian and second Darfur genocides, should we also always descend to the vulgarity of prepending ‘alleged’?
Just to add to the mix: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/21/opinion/israel-gaza-palestinians-genocide.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
The truly damning part is that there is infinitely more effort from Israelis on the term used, rather than what has and is being done. No regrets. Full dehumanization. Daily killings of innocent people. West Bank settlers unleashed. 100% of the population is displaced, and IDF bombings of refugee camps.
Doesn’t matter one bit what you call it. Just stop.
You might want to argue with Israelis who are either calling this a genocide,or serious war crimes. These are not the usual suspects either, as in two generals and a former PM. The taboo has broken in Israel. As to intent, conversant with Hebrew, so went swimming in Israeli media and telegram in the deep end of the pool, intent exists. Yes, also conversant with IHL.
The ICC has already issued warrants. Mind you, they are one step from genocide, cause intent is shown during interviews. So please stop trying to cover the sun with one, maybe two fingers. It really is not working any longer. And it is time to face reality.
There is a lot of nasty things swimming in the American media and social networks too, Nadin. Including the left wing , when Israel is concerned, for example. Does this mean the Americans are guilty of genocide? Or at least intend to perpetuate one?
Oh my lord. My judgement comes from ISRAELI media and telegram. I speak and read Hebrew. Also that taboo has broken over there.
And the US is likely guilty of genocide in the 18-19 centuries. A conversation we should have as a country.
Israeli politics is pretty nasty and they are happy to accuse each other of crimes. What Israelis don't understand is that people who throw around the genocide accusation outside of Israel are doing it to work towards Israel's destruction, not deposing Netanyahu.
The three people using the term ARE NOT INSIDE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. I know this is not a happy thing, but a former CO of northern command, Amiram Levin, former chief of staff and minister of defense Moshe Ha’Yalon, and very much former PM Ehud Barak (he is just in the warcrimes department) are no longer part of the political system.
The taboo has cracked.
Your information is incorrect. I keep hearing this antisemitic wishful thinking story. It's not what they said, although they are critical of government.
Ok, you can go argue.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/former-pm-olmert-tells-bbc-israeli-actions-in-gaza-close-to-a-war-crime/
I will add one more thing, pointing out what is happening in Gaza is not antisemitic, you are trying to avoid the issue with typical deflection.
What it is doing is dividing Jews…and it is what it is.
Close to a war crime is different than saying genocide. Wishful Antisemitic thinking
I said he was in the war crimes department. But you know what? You do you. Keep calling Jews antisemites. I will call you what you are, a zealot
How many stages left after denial and anger?
Trolling and bullying, if you’re any indication. Seems like an indefinite stage if you want it to be.
No shit Reinhard.