They had escaped or were released only to be shot by their own soldiers.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-admits-shooting-three-hostages-184842831.html
Of course, they were being used as human shields by Hamas.
shareDid you read the article? The only victims in the confrontation were the 3 hostages, and the army statement says they didnt know whether they were released or escaped.
That means they were alone.
That means idf shot first, asked questions later.
That means idf shoots everything that moves there.
yup the jews are committing the same genocide they always bitch and whine about happened to them
shareNo, 18,000 dead isn't the same thing as the 6 million killed in the Holocaust. It's not even close to the 300,000-600,000 dead German civilians killed by Allied bombing during World War II. That wasn't a genocide and this is that much more clearly not a genocide.
shareSo you are saying that israel has the right to murder 6 million palestinians because what the germans did?
Or israel has the right to murder 600.000 palestinians by bombing because what the allies did?
I'm not saying that Israel has the right to murder 6 million or 600,000 Palestinians. I'm just saying that what Israel is doing now doesn't come anywhere close to genocide.
shareSo you say it becomes genocide only if its worse than what the bombing allies did or the holocaust germans did, right?
I'm only saying that for what the Israelis are doing to be genocide at the very least it would have to be worse than what the Allies did to Germany during World War II.
sharePerfect.
German population in ww2 was 60 million. 600k is 1% of that population.
Now , you are saying israel should kill 1% of the gaza population (which is approx 20k - 1% of the approx 2 million ) or 600.000 of the gaza population in order for it to become a genocide?
I didn't say anything about 1%. I'm only saying that it has to be more than that. I also remind you that at least a quarter million Southern whites died in the Civil War and their deaths were also not considered a genocide. And that was out of a population of 6 million Southern whites so that was about 4% of the population.
You're counting all the Palestinians that have died. Thousands of the Palestinians that have been killed were terrorists. And on top of that, most Palestinians live outside Gaza. There are also Palestinians in the West Bank, other parts of the Mideast and the rest of the world.
So basically you have the iq of a 7 year old. I am asking at what point in time, based on whatever metric you decide to use it becomes a genocide, and you are blabbing about civil wars. Are you mentally capable of understanding a question and giving an exact answer?
shareYou have no cause to insult me. You put words in my mouth. You said "you are saying israel should kill 1% of the gaza population" "in order for it to become a genocide" even though I said no such thing. I saw that you asked the question about how to define 'genocide' in a *subsequent* post and I answered it but at the time I typed my post referencing the Civil War I had *not yet seen it* and I was simply responding to your post mentioning numbers and percentages and that post did NOT include any question about how to define 'genocide'.
shareI think I spotted the problem.
Lets try to start simple :
Question 1 : How many fingers does a hand usually hold ?
a) 3
b) 5
c) other : specify
Question 2 : At what point during the israel-gaza conflict, given the mounting civilian casualties, would you be inclined to call it a genocide ?
a) I will never call it a genocide, even if 5 million palestinian civilians are killed, because maybe 4,9 million were hamas
b) 345.235 civilians and 87% of civilian infrastructure destroyed
c) other: specify
Lets see if you are able to answer at least a question
Will you stop with the needless insults? I already answered this question in my response to you down below. And again, as I said there, I can't give a definite answer about when exactly it would be genocide.
shareThen you cannot give a definite answer if its genocide right now. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt, by your own words.
Case closed.
No, it doesn't work like that. The burden of proof is on those making the accusation of genocide against Israel. And I don't need to exactly define 'genocide' in order to simply note that what Israel has done is far below the threshold of recognized past genocides.
And your logic cuts both ways. If the people accusing Israel of genocide can't properly define 'genocide' then you have to admit then they can't give a definite answer if it's genocide right now.
You still haven't defined what actually constitutes a "large" number of people for determining what is genocide.
Historically recognized genocides all involved much larger numbers of people killed.
60 is an absurdly low number to define what constitutes "large" for determining what is genocide. I looked at Wikipedia's list of genocides and I didn't expect it to be so big. I'm skeptical whether everything on that list truly counts as genocide. I don't know who determined that all of these things were genocide or how they did so. I looked up the definition of genocide and it says that it's the intentional destruction of a people so it seems that intention plays a role in the determination of genocide.
shareOr maybe you would use data like number of injured people ? (Tip: when you hear about injured people in wars, noone ever counts people with scratches or cuts. They count serious cases like losses of limbs, extreme burns etc, because people with non life threatening injuries would not even be admitted into overcrowded hospitals)
Or maybe data like percentage of destroyed infrastructure?
Or maybe data like deaths or lifelong afflictions because of disease/starvation?
Use any data you like, and please define the exact point in which it becomes a genocide.
I don't claim to be an expert on genocide. I couldn't explain to you the exact point that anything becomes genocide. All I can do is compare what's happening to historical genocides and see that it's not anywhere close to genocide yet.
shareHow can you claim that you dont know what genocide is and at the same time says that some action of some entity does not qualify as genocide?
I will make it simpler for you.
Does what hamas did on october 7 classify as genocide?
I will give you my opinion also: 100% it is genocide and terrorism, not to mention cowardice.
I don't have to be an expert on genocide to know what Israel is doing isn't genocide. I can do that because it isn't even close to genocide. And that sword cuts both ways. If you don't know the definition of 'genocide' then how can you be sure that Israel is committing genocide?
I would not classify what Hamas did on October 7th as genocide. It's just terrorism.
I think you may be mentally defficient.
You dont seem to have the mental capability to comprehend a question that is formulated clearly towards you and give a concise answer.
I didnt ask you to admit israel is committing genocide, and I did not say israel is committing genocide.
At some point, the deaths and injuries of innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure will reach a threshold. That threshold will be the moment a military conflict turns into genocide.
Does that threshold exist? If it exists, how would you define it?
I think *you* may be mentally deficient. I properly answered each question you asked me. And I will now answer your new question. I don't claim to know where that threshold is or how to define it.
shareWell if you dont know where your threshold lies, then you have no frame of reference.
Then how can you describe something as NOT GENOCIDE, if you cannot define what is GENOCIDE ?
If for example you say a car is not yellow, isnt it safe to assume you understand the concept of "yellow" ?
That logic cuts both ways. If others can't define 'genocide' then they can't legitimately accuse Israel of genocide. And as I said before, I'm saying that what Israel has done so far isn't genocide because it doesn't even come close to it based on comparison to historical genocides.
shareIn 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.
Check what applies and draw your own conclusions.
what Israel has done does not meet these criteria for genocide
shareThe problem you are having, is that you have framed the question of what a genocide is, by looking at numbers of dead, when here in the formal definition, it is clear that the defining issue is one of INTENT.
War, such as wwii, or the invasion of Gaza, is an INTENT to wage war and destroy an enemies ability to wage war. War can be very bloody and have high causulty rates. But the intent is different.
ALL the people comparing body counts, are historically uneducated, children of Pax Americana to the point that.... are completely removed from the normal way that enemies deal with each other.
If Gaza war has only the intent to destroy enemy's ability to wage war, how come Israel is actually destroying civilian infrastructure in West Bank as we speak ( schools, roads) not by using bombs, but by bulldozing.
What is the connection between waging war against armed groups and this?
Bulldozers can be a more effective weapon than bombs in some situations. If you have soldiers on the ground right where you want to destroy something then it's safer for them and also more precise to use a bulldozer instead of dropping a bomb from a plane.
shareCompletely agree that they are much more effective.
But WHY destroy civilian infrastructure which is basically a road that people use to drive cars and go shopping, if the purpose is eliminating combat capability.
that civilian infrastructure is also used by Hamas for terrorist/military purposes
shareI am talking about West Bank.There is no hamas there.
shareActually, Hamas does have a presence in the West Bank.
shareYou are confusing the issue. By your posts it seemed that you were claiming that Isreal is bulldozing roads in GAZA, now it seems that that is not the case.
Being vague and conflating seperate issues, is a common tactic among the left when they know that their position is weak.
I specifically said west bank, if you cannot pay attention of course everything is vague to you XD
So, drop the shit about the West Bank.
My answer stands.
The problem you are having, is that you have framed the question of what a genocide is, by looking at numbers of dead, when here in the formal definition, it is clear that the defining issue is one of INTENT.
War, such as wwii, or the invasion of Gaza, is an INTENT to wage war and destroy an enemies ability to wage war. War can be very bloody and have high causulty rates. But the intent is different.
ALL the people comparing body counts, are historically uneducated, children of Pax Americana to the point that.... are completely removed from the normal way that enemies deal with each other.
War is Gaza demonstates the intent to ethnically cleanse palestinians.
It is clear on all fronts.
War in West Bank, parallel to this one, further proves this.
Israel has now proven it is a terrorist state, worse than even hamas, and a genocidal state, soon to be worse than the nazis.
It is 100% clear
Well said. I really like the clear way you asserted your conclusion and supported it with additional assertions presented as though they were supporting arguments, when of course, they are just you saying the same thing, over and over again.
I take it that is all you have to justify your hostility to Isreal? I mean it is what you are LEADING with.
I doubt you would LEAD with that, and keep somethign BETTER in reserve.
So, circular logic mixed with repeated assertions. That is all you have.
Pretty funny. Complete and UTTER FAIL.
Lol.
almonigal,
How does the war in Gaza demonstrate an intent to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians? The Palestinians are all still in Gaza! You can't legitimately claim that Israel is worse than Hamas just because it's killed more Palestinians than vice versa. All that proves is that Israel is militarily stronger and more sophisticated than the Palestinians. By your logic, America was worse than Nazi Germany during World War II because the U.S. killed a lot more Germans than vice versa.
It wasn't genocide when the Allies killed 300,000-600,000 German civilians by bombing during World War II so how is it suddenly genocide now that 20,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza? And I remind you that the Nazis killed millions. How the hell is Israel "soon to be worse" than the Nazis after only killing 20,000? How do you define "soon"? You didn't think very carefully about the conclusion you made, did you?
That logic cuts both ways.
For purposes of genocide, you have to define what constitutes a "large" number of people. Neither Hamas killing 1,400 Israelis nor the IDF killing 17,000 Palestinians is genocide.
shareBoth are a large number of people.
shareYou still haven't defined what constitutes "large" for purposes of determining whether there was genocide. Some would say that 50 is a "large" number of people.
shareNevertheless, since there is no official number, both can be defined as a large number of people.
But what would make it simple for the sake of argument is a ratio of population to number of deaths, for example: 1,400/9-million vs 17,000/600,000K.
Both are very different numbers and you've arbitrarily defined both of them as "large". That's no indication of genocide. Taking those numbers and determining their ratio to total population wouldn't make it genocide either. On that note, there are 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, not 600,000.
shareI was using the gaza pop from 2017 which was 600K.
That's no indication of genocide.
That number for the population of Gaza in 2017 is completely wrong. I have no idea where you could have possibly gotten that number from.
I'm no expert on genocide so I don't know how to indicate what constitutes genocide without an exact number.
Oh, I see, I'm using the pop of "Gaza City" while you are referring to the entire "Gaza Strip."
I'm no expert on genocide so I don't know how to indicate what constitutes genocide without an exact number.
No, it doesn't work like that. You still haven't defined what actually constitutes a "large" number of people for determining what is genocide. Historically recognized genocides all involved much larger numbers of people killed.
shareWe don't have to go by numbers though to define what is a genocide.
Experts who know more than you do and have studied war more than you have agree that this is the worst killings from war they have ever seen with this large number of Palestinians killed in this amount of the short time it has been going on for what is now 2 months.
Since the Nazi terrorist IDF is targeting civilians, which there is no excuse for doing so, they are doing all they can to wipe out as many innocents as possible.
So yeah, it is a genocide no matter how much you disagree you dumb moron.
Even though you will still disagree it is a genocide, because you are stupid, you should not disagree this is wrong.
Esp. where innocent women and children are involved.
Having compassion is the right way to be.
Actually, we do have to go by numbers to define what is genocide because otherwise the word 'genocide' doesn't actually mean anything. This is the "worst killings" of Palestinians from war in that more Palestinians have died in this war than in any other war but that was just as true for Germans in World War II. That doesn't mean that what happened to the Germans in World War II was genocide.
The IDF isn't "targeting" civilians. It *incidentally* kills civilians in the process of targeting terrorists. That's inevitable when an army fights in a terrorist-held urban area. Israel has the capability to actually kill most of the people in Gaza. If it wanted to "wipe out as many innocents as possible" it could have easily killed most of the people in Gaza by now if it wanted to. The number of bombs dropped in Gaza is actually greater than the number of people killed, clearly indicating that the IDF has actually been very discriminatory in its bombing.
Innocent women and children have died in every modern war. Women and children have died in Gaza only because Hamas wanted this war. If Hamas had any compassion they never would have carried out the 10/7 attack and started this war. Hamas should have compassion on the people of Gaza by freeing all the hostages and surrendering themselves to the IDF.
Typical bullshit response, where I will not bother to read all that, from a pro war mongering racist idiot who is cheering on this genocide and justifies all of the deaths of the innocent which are being purposely targeted and murdered while ignoring the war crimes of the Nazi terrorists of the IDF.
Fuck Israel.
Hamas is now the lesser of the two evils and is now on the defensive and may they prevail.
The only good IDF soldier is a dead IDF soldier.
Every dead one is one less terrorist and one less threat to the innocent Palestinians in this genocide.
No, *YOU'RE* the one with a typical bullshit response. How the hell do you know that I'm wrong about anything even if you don't even read what I said. Telling me that just makes your response that much less compelling. I'm not "cheering on" genocide because as I explained to you there is NO genocide. You can't explain why I'm wrong about that and you just don't want to admit it.
Claiming Hamas is the lesser of 2 evils all because the IDF has killed far more people than Hamas would be like claiming that Nazi Germany was the lesser of 2 evils during World War II because America killed far more Germans than vice versa, which was especially true when it came to bombing the other side's civilians. It doesn't mean anything to recognize the evil of Hamas unless you accept the need to destroy Hamas because of it and accept the costs of destroying Hamas. Your logic boils down to the fact that you don't feel that enough Israelis were killed on 10/7. If 10,000 Israelis had been killed on 10/7 you would be totally fine with everything Israel has done so far in Gaza. Your claim that there's genocide is based purely on the ratio of deaths between the 2 sides and NOT on any actual objective criteria for genocide.
Why is "from the river to the sea" not genocide when Israel does it, but a call for genocide when Palestinians wish it?
shareI didn't say anything about the chant "from the river to the sea". As far as I'm aware neither Israelis nor supporters of Israel have ever done a pro-Israel version of that chant.
shareNo, they are just in the process of actually carrying out that objective. Displacement and extermination of an entire group, until there is no such thing as a Palestinian anymore, hence a genocide.
shareOh, please. There are millions of Palestinians. At the rate the IDF is going, how long is it actually going to take to exterminate all the Palestinians?
shareMany German civilians were also killed right after the war.
As a matter of fact, more than 9-million Germans died as a result of deliberate Allied starvation and expulsion policies after World War II.
0.5-2.5 million Germans were killed by the ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe but nowhere close to 9 million Germans died after the war. There were food shortages after the war all across western Europe. The Allies didn't deliberately starve Germans and actually brought food into Germany to help alleviate the shortages.
shareMore than 9-million based on real historical facts and first hand accounts.
The version of history that you were spoon-fed is falsified.
"Spoon-fed" version of history? I never even learned about the post-war ethnic cleansing of Germans in school. I only know about that from doing my own personal reading about World War II. 9 million dead would obviously not be based on first-hand accounts. The number of 9 million is based on James Bacque's claim that 5.7 million Germans died because of Allied occupation policies. But the number of 5.7 million dead isn't accepted by historians because it has no correspondence at all in historical literature.
shareBecause history books or literature have never been falsified or never been inaccurate.
shareThat logic goes both ways. You could just as easily say that the claim that it was 9 million dead is based on falsified or inaccurate data. And that's exactly what historians have said about the number of 9 million dead.
share>More than 9-million based on real historical facts and first hand accounts.
Is this is "historical fact" then can I see your data please?
Please list your sources for the 9 million Germans stat. A book, website, yt vid, Stormfront article, anything.
9 million is higher than the estimated 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. This claim seems designed to minimize The Holocaust and argue that the Germans were the true victims.
[deleted]
It's an understandable mistake.
These soldiers have been schooled in the philosophy that unarmed, defenseless civilians waving white flags of surrender and pleading for their lives are in fact actually terrorists and that it's safer just to shoot them down.
They're bound to mix up the religion of those that it's safe to gun down from time to time...
And when exactly were IDF soldiers "schooled" in that "philosophy"?
shareMore proof that it ain't about the hostages.
They shouldn't have taken the advice from the movie Speed.
shareYou are such a broken person.
How many Muslims do you think Hamas murdered or raped or set on fire in their attack? Far more than 3. I might take some time to consider anything you say if you were ever the least bit honest or rational in anything you ever say.
How many Muslims do you think Hamas has killed with their indiscriminate rocket bombings of Israel - almost every day - and please include the rockets that fall back on Gaza and kill their own people.
You post first and think later ... except you never think.
You're an apologist for Israeli soldiers who commit war crimes.
share