On 9/3/2025 at 1:34 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Your defense against the accusation of genocide is the Israelis are not slaughtering Palestinians at a sufficiently high rate?

 

How many Palestinians must Israel slaughter per day before it reaches the point you might even consider it to be a war crime, let alone genocide?

 

Genocide is not determined by the number killed but by intent.  In WWII, between 1.5 and 3 million German civilians were killed by Allied forces, mostly through aerial bombing.  Between 350,000 and 900,000 Japanese civilians lost their lives, the overwhelming majority killed by aerial bombardment.  This isn't considered to be a war crime, much less genocide, because the civilian deaths were not intentional but "collateral damage."  The goal was to destroy the enemy's capacity to wage war, not to eliminate Germans or Japanese as a nation.

 

On the Allied side, the number of civilian deaths ran into the tens of millions, mostly in China and the Soviet Union.  These were definitely war crimes, but the only real  genocide attempts were aimed at the  Jews, Romani and Sinti in the Holocaust.  Outside of any military action, these groups were rounded up and sent to execution in death camps or in front of firing squads.  That's what made it genocide.

 

The Palestinians who died in Gaza were killed in military attacks aimed at taking out Hamas' fighters, weapons' depots, tunnels, etc.  The heavy loss of civilians is tragic, but it is in part an inevitable consequence of warfare in a densely populated urban area. However, civilian deaths on Gaza are mostly down to Hamas hiding its operatives and equipment among civilians, which puts the blame on Hamas and not the IDF.

 

You're using loaded words when you write Israelis are "slaughtering Palestinians."  Would you say the Allies "slaughtered" German and Japanese civilians?

 

4 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

1. So, do you support the murderers?

2. Palestinians, who are not members/followers of Hamas are involved in a Terrorist Organisation?

How that?

 

Not all German civilians whom died in WWII were members of, or even supporters of, the Nazi party. In the 1950s, my father got to know a German man who had been active in the German underground resistance and later emigrated to the U.S.  Sadly, his wife and two children had been killed in an Allied air raid.  Undeniably, innocent civilians die in wars.

 

Very few Japanese civilians had connections with the Imperial Army, but they nevertheless died by the thousands.  Deaths of civilians in war are tragedies, but they aren't always war crimes or genocide.

3 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

Genocide is not determined by the number killed but by intent.  In WWII, between 1.5 and 3 million German civilians were killed by Allied forces, mostly through aerial bombing.  Between 350,000 and 900,000 Japanese civilians lost their lives, the overwhelming majority killed by aerial bombardment.  This isn't considered to be a war crime, much less genocide, because the civilian deaths were not intentional but "collateral damage."  The goal was to destroy the enemy's capacity to wage war, not to eliminate Germans or Japanese as a nation.

 

On the Allied side, the number of civilian deaths ran into the tens of millions, mostly in China and the Soviet Union.  These were definitely war crimes, but the only real  genocide attempts were aimed at the  Jews, Romani and Sinti in the Holocaust.  Outside of any military action, these groups were rounded up and sent to execution in death camps or in front of firing squads.  That's what made it genocide.

 

The Palestinians who died in Gaza were killed in military attacks aimed at taking out Hamas' fighters, weapons' depots, tunnels, etc.  The heavy loss of civilians is tragic, but it is in part an inevitable consequence of warfare in a densely populated urban area. However, civilian deaths on Gaza are mostly down to Hamas hiding its operatives and equipment among civilians, which puts the blame on Hamas and not the IDF.

 

You're using loaded words when you write Israelis are "slaughtering Palestinians."  Would you say the Allies "slaughtered" German and Japanese civilians?

 

 

Not all German civilians whom died in WWII were members of, or even supporters of, the Nazi party. In the 1950s, my father got to know a German man who had been active in the German underground resistance and later emigrated to the U.S.  Sadly, his wife and two children had been killed in an Allied air raid.  Undeniably, innocent civilians die in wars.

 

Very few Japanese civilians had connections with the Imperial Army, but they nevertheless died by the thousands.  Deaths of civilians in war are tragedies, but they aren't always war crimes or genocide.

I think you need some extra lessons in history and essential definitions of war crime and genocide.

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I think you need some extra lessons in history and essential definitions of war crime and genocide.

Why don't you define them for us?

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why don't you define them for us?

Oh, you're trying to maneuver out by deflection and try to answer by asking a question? 55555. Very poor

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Oh, you're trying to maneuver out by deflection and try to answer by asking a question? 55555. Very poor

No, I was not deflecting, you did not ask a question.  I think your need extra lessons in history and essential definitions of English such that you understand what a question is, rather than trying to maneuver out by deflecting and pretending you asked a question when you did not. 

 

In any event, apparently, the current Oxford definition of genocide is: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

 

Alternatively, the current Webster definition of genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

 

This may be why there seems to be a lot of confusion. Because I do not believe that Israel can be said to be committing genocide reading the Oxford definition, but because Israel is trying to destroy Hamas, a political group, in that sense, they are committing genocide. 

 

Less confusing is Hamas, who are clearly attempting to commit genocide as defined by both Webster and Oxford. 

 

Interestingly, per the Webster definition, clearly both the Republican and Democrat parties are attempting to commit genocide, as they are both systematically attempting to destroy political groups. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I was not deflecting, you did not ask a question.  I think your need extra lessons in history and essential definitions of English such that you understand what a question is, rather than trying to maneuver out by deflecting and pretending you asked a question when you did not. 

 

In any event, apparently, the current Oxford definition of genocide is: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

 

Alternatively, the current Webster definition of genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

 

This may be why there seems to be a lot of confusion. Because I do not believe that Israel can be said to be committing genocide reading the Oxford definition, but because Israel is trying to destroy Hamas, a political group, in that sense, they are committing genocide. 

 

Less confusing is Hamas, who are clearly attempting to commit genocide as defined by both Webster and Oxford. 

 

Interestingly, per the Webster definition, clearly both the Republican and Democrat parties are attempting to commit genocide, as they are both systematically attempting to destroy political groups. 

 

 

Gibberish😁

15 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

Genocide is not determined by the number killed but by intent.  In WWII, between 1.5 and 3 million German civilians were killed by Allied forces, mostly through aerial bombing.  Between 350,000 and 900,000 Japanese civilians lost their lives, the overwhelming majority killed by aerial bombardment.  This isn't considered to be a war crime, much less genocide, because the civilian deaths were not intentional but "collateral damage."  The goal was to destroy the enemy's capacity to wage war, not to eliminate Germans or Japanese as a nation.

 

On the Allied side, the number of civilian deaths ran into the tens of millions, mostly in China and the Soviet Union.  These were definitely war crimes, but the only real  genocide attempts were aimed at the  Jews, Romani and Sinti in the Holocaust.  Outside of any military action, these groups were rounded up and sent to execution in death camps or in front of firing squads.  That's what made it genocide.

 

The Palestinians who died in Gaza were killed in military attacks aimed at taking out Hamas' fighters, weapons' depots, tunnels, etc.  The heavy loss of civilians is tragic, but it is in part an inevitable consequence of warfare in a densely populated urban area. However, civilian deaths on Gaza are mostly down to Hamas hiding its operatives and equipment among civilians, which puts the blame on Hamas and not the IDF.

 

You're using loaded words when you write Israelis are "slaughtering Palestinians."  Would you say the Allies "slaughtered" German and Japanese civilians?

 

 

Not all German civilians whom died in WWII were members of, or even supporters of, the Nazi party. In the 1950s, my father got to know a German man who had been active in the German underground resistance and later emigrated to the U.S.  Sadly, his wife and two children had been killed in an Allied air raid.  Undeniably, innocent civilians die in wars.

 

Very few Japanese civilians had connections with the Imperial Army, but they nevertheless died by the thousands.  Deaths of civilians in war are tragedies, but they aren't always war crimes or genocide.

The UK government has concluded that Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza but "must do much more" to prevent and alleviate the suffering.

Britain's position was clarified by David Lammy, as foreign secretary until a few days ago, in response to questions from the chair of the International Development Committee, Sarah Champion.

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-not-committing-genocide-in-gaza-but-casualties-and-destruction-are-utterly-appalling-says-uk-government-13427380

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why don't you define them for us?

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

 

In 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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

5 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

 

In 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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

I am not sure YAGODA would understand.

49 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

 

In 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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

Per that definition, both Israel and Palestine are guilty of genocide, as are any number of other countries.

 

Correct?

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Per that definition, both Israel and Palestine are guilty of genocide, as are any number of other countries.

 

Correct?

 

Per that definition?

 

There is only one definition, the one linked.

 

Glad you finally agree Israel is guilty of Genocide, I don't think anyone on here disagrees that Hamas are guilty as charged.

2 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

 

In 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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

As the source article clearly states: The UN and a number of Western nations have said that they will only consider a ruling by a court that genocide is taking place as authoritative.

16 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Per that definition?

Yes, there are a number of definitions. 

16 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

There is only one definition, the one linked.

Both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries disagree.

16 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Glad you finally agree Israel is guilty of Genocide, I don't think anyone on here disagrees that Hamas are guilty as charged.

No, what I said was, that per the definition, both Palestine and Israel are committing genocide. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

As the source article clearly states: The UN and a number of Western nations have said that they will only consider a ruling by a court that genocide is taking place as authoritative.

And of course, they redefined "genocide" such that most anyone that hurts most anyone else can be accused of committing genocide.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And of course, they redefined "genocide" such that most anyone that hurts most anyone else can be accused of committing genocide.

They did, as did Amnesty International and Abbas of the PA

 

Orde Kittrie, a former attorney at the US State Department who now teaches law at Arizona State University, said the effort to change definitions to fit Palestinians’ claims had long been promoted by Ramallah before the issue became supercharged by the Gaza war.

In 2011, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas advocated for “the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter.”

 

“Part of that is, if there’s a crime that you want to accuse Israel of and Israel doesn’t fit the definition, ‘I’ll change the definition,'” said Kittrie, who is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/critics-accused-of-quietly-rewriting-meaning-of-genocide-to-fling-charges-at-israel/

14 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I think you need some extra lessons in history and essential definitions of war crime and genocide.

 My knowledge of history and the definitions of war crimes and genocide are fine, but I'm always willing to learn.  Perhaps you can enlighten me and indicate why they are lacking.  What is the difference between the  Allied aerial bombing of Germany and  Japan during WWII and the Israeli bombing of Gaza?  Why is the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan not considered a war crime but you claim the Israeli bombing of Gaza is?  I've asked these questions before but no one has answered them in a coherent fashion.  I would be thankful if you would try.

 

Some more background, definitions and history for you:

 

On 12/2/2024 at 12:34 PM, Evil Penevil said:

According to the definition of genocide used by the U.N. in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,  the intent of genocide is "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

See Article II at https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/1948-convention

 

Israel's intent is not to eliminate the Palestinian people but Hamas as a terrorist organization.  A large number of civilians have died in Gaza because Hamas used them as human shields to protect its tunnel system and other military targets.  The situation is akin to the civilian deaths caused by Allied aerial bombing in Germany and Japan during WWII.  An estimated 100,000 civilians were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo, while over 100,00 civilians immediately died from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The Dresden fire bombing killed at least 25,000 civilians and the bombing of Hamburg about 43,000.  Tens of thousands of other civilians died in the bombing of other cities in Japan and Germany.                                                                                                                                                 Why would the Israel bombing of civilians in Gaza be considered genocide when the Allied bombing of German and Japan isn't?

 

On 9/3/2025 at 4:42 PM, Evil Penevil said:

The U.S. would veto any U.N. resolution aimed at sending U.N. forces against Israel, so that's not going to happen.  And even if such a resolution were able to pass, what countries would be willing to send their troops to confront the IDF?  The IDF is probably the best trained and equipped military force in the world and definitely the most experienced in modern war.

The whole point of the Uniting for Peace resolution is that it is passed in the UN General Assembly when the Security Council is unable to act. It requires a 2/3 majority. It can decide all necessary measures to organize a protection force. It's true that Israel is already an international pariah, so attacking a UN force would be just another feather in Netanyahu's cap, but maybe the IDF has some red lines. The UNGA can also suspend Israel's membership as it did for around 20 years in the case of South Africa. That only ended with the end of apartheid.

On 9/3/2025 at 12:50 PM, EastBayRay said:

think they check that? Make sure everything checks out as declared?

 

or just check that the membership fee cleared?

 

I bet I could be a member by 5pm

Are you a university professor or affiliated with a group concerned with genocide (not the IDF, Likud or associates)? There seems to be some such requirement for joining.