“Genocidal acts” doesn’t mean that a genocide is happening. “Destruction of civilian infrastructure” is an “act of genocide”. That happens in almost every conflict in the world, and not every one is a genocide.
A genocide is a specific thing. For me to be convinced that there is a genocide happening, specific things need to happen and with a specific intent - and those things aren’t happening in Gaza. Hamas want a genocide. They’re very open about this. Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. If Hamas surrendered, the killing would stop.
Unfortunately in war there are casualties. Casualties will be increased when one of the parties at war - Hamas - use civilians, including kids, as “meat shields”, like putting their military bases in schools and hospitals as Hamas has been factually proven to do. Hamas have been caught faking civilian deaths and casualty numbers too, and they’re an internationally recognised terrorist organisation - they are not to be trusted, no matter what you think of Israel. Again - Hamas openly call for the genocide of Jews and Israelis. Very openly.
A question for you - if you were to agree that Israel are doing what they are doing in retaliation to what Hamas did on October 7, and will not stop until Hamas are defeated, would you still consider that a genocide? If Hamas surrendered and Israel stopped killing Palestinians, would you still say it was a genocide?
Another question - are you open to reconsidering your views? Or are you steadfast in them but expect me to consider changing mine?
Also, if a large amount of “genocidal acts” doesn’t amount to genocide, then what does? Is Israel allowed to commit the most horrendous crimes as long as it is in “good faith”?
I am probably just as steadfast as you, but I try to understand the views of the opposite side. You seem to do that too, given that you’re discussing with me. That is appreciated.
To answer your question: Yes it is still obviously genocide even if it is in retaliation. There are many legitimate ways of retaliating against a militant group - starving an entire population is not one of them. Israel could be conducting this war in a very different way.
Then why don’t they conduct the war in a very different way? Because they want to get rid of Gaza’s population, I say. See this, for example (although just reports for now): https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-reportedly-developing-plan-to-resettle-1-million-gazans-in-libya/ which also points towards the US complicity in the genocide. 1 million Gazans aren’t Hamas fighters. 1 million Gazans are just arabs/muslims, and that’s apparantly enough reason to force them from their homeland?
“Genocidal acts” doesn’t mean that a genocide is happening. “Destruction of civilian infrastructure” is an “act of genocide”. That happens in almost every conflict in the world, and not every one is a genocide.
A genocide is a specific thing. For me to be convinced that there is a genocide happening, specific things need to happen and with a specific intent - and those things aren’t happening in Gaza. Hamas want a genocide. They’re very open about this. Israel are trying to eliminate Hamas. If Hamas surrendered, the killing would stop.
Unfortunately in war there are casualties. Casualties will be increased when one of the parties at war - Hamas - use civilians, including kids, as “meat shields”, like putting their military bases in schools and hospitals as Hamas has been factually proven to do. Hamas have been caught faking civilian deaths and casualty numbers too, and they’re an internationally recognised terrorist organisation - they are not to be trusted, no matter what you think of Israel. Again - Hamas openly call for the genocide of Jews and Israelis. Very openly.
A question for you - if you were to agree that Israel are doing what they are doing in retaliation to what Hamas did on October 7, and will not stop until Hamas are defeated, would you still consider that a genocide? If Hamas surrendered and Israel stopped killing Palestinians, would you still say it was a genocide?
Another question - are you open to reconsidering your views? Or are you steadfast in them but expect me to consider changing mine?
Also, if a large amount of “genocidal acts” doesn’t amount to genocide, then what does? Is Israel allowed to commit the most horrendous crimes as long as it is in “good faith”?
I am probably just as steadfast as you, but I try to understand the views of the opposite side. You seem to do that too, given that you’re discussing with me. That is appreciated.
To answer your question: Yes it is still obviously genocide even if it is in retaliation. There are many legitimate ways of retaliating against a militant group - starving an entire population is not one of them. Israel could be conducting this war in a very different way.
Then why don’t they conduct the war in a very different way? Because they want to get rid of Gaza’s population, I say. See this, for example (although just reports for now): https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-reportedly-developing-plan-to-resettle-1-million-gazans-in-libya/ which also points towards the US complicity in the genocide. 1 million Gazans aren’t Hamas fighters. 1 million Gazans are just arabs/muslims, and that’s apparantly enough reason to force them from their homeland?