When I look at your image it appears to trivialize what is happening in Gaza. Perhaps if one looked at Gaza through another lens, the horror would be clearly acknowledged:

1. Displacement of population AFAIK its as follows:

a. Gaza (80% displaced) (I think we are not allowed to say its ethic cleansing or genocide, so if you want you can call it "mowing the lawn" thats the term the israeli's use apparently) (intriguing how for the other countries listed they are clearly marked as genocide or ethnic cleansing, but no, thats not happening in gaza, honest).
b. Cambodian (80% displaced) (genocide)
c Bosnia and Herzegovina (80% displaced) (ethnic cleansing)
d. Sudanese Civil Wars (80%) (genocide)

% of children killed:

1. Gaza (40% of people killed are children)
2. Rwanda Genocide (30%)
4. Syria Civil War (25%)
5. Bosnia War (20%)

Time of Blockade:

1. North Korea (70+ years after the US and Russia carved Korea up like a piece of meat)
2. Cuba (60+ years after Russia attempted to have a military alliance with it)
3. South Africa (30+ years, think of it the blueprint of what Israel is doing)
4. Gaza (16+years, a blockade by Israel supported by the US)

South Africa is the odd one out noting it was an internal blockade, and not supported by the US. the other 3 were blockades supported by the US.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 30 2025 05:25am

ya i dont like the israeli action in gaza, at all. i just dont think genocide is the correct term, as i think it should be reserved for more serious campaigns to literally eliminate a group of people. genocide and extermination are synonymous to me.



the term genocide has been trivialized imo, i dont like that. its being used along with apartheid for emotional effect. i think apartheid is more correct linguistically than genocide. this is a lopsided war, not a genocide.

i'd make 2 points however:

1. if there was no displacement casualties would be FAR higher. they could have just bombed all of the urban areas with no aid or refugee camps. that doesnt mean that enough aid is given, or that camps are safe inherently, but its still true.

2. i personally would have zero issues with a blockade if more food got through, if it were a weapons screen only i dont think there's any issue with it. its just a slightly too restrictive blockade, at least it was pre 10-7.

I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying. I listed 4 areas, Gaza, Cambodia, Bosnia and Sudan. Are you suggesting Genocide did not occur in these places, or that the term genocide is exclusive to WW2 ? This is a very difficult point for anyone to argue when viewing events as % total population re: Gaza and Genocide.

what i would say is: the legal definition of the term genocide is, in my opinion, wrong, as it does not fully convey the horror of WW2 the concentration camps and the rounding up of the jewish people throughout europe, and the conflict in Gaza is NO WHERE near that threshold.
However, what is occurring in Gaza does meet the legal definition threshold. The TLDR here is (a) genocide is not exclusive to WW2 and (b) If they dont like the definition they should update it to make it more restrictive.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 30 2025 11:20am

Disclaimer, and important to keep in mind, none of what follows justifies Israel's actions, nor is it a defense of Hamas. this is simply a question on the definition in context of "genocide".

i have 2 points:

1. i think there are a lot of criteria that need to be met to qualify something as a genocide, and i dont think that Gaza currently meets those criteria.

2. i think that genocide is being used for emotional effect, and not historical accuracy, when that's unnecessary. if you cant argue something is bad without exaggerating and using emotional arguments then its a bad argument, and bad arguments arent really needed in this case.

this is the aftermath of WW2 in which for almost 100 years people have been on the look out for "the next Holocaust", and a few have certainly met that standard. Sudan, Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia, etc have all met that standard in my opinion.

we should also note that the calls of "genocide" predate this latest gazan war. israel was apparently guilty of genocide from 2007 retreat up until the 10-7 attacks. while the population nearly doubled. the people were starved to death, but doubled. the blockade let zero food through, but they doubled. they grow almost nothing, but it doubled, and they smashed the green houses they were left.

if we have to get into the weeds on specifics im happy to. i think there are 3 criteria that Gaza does not meet to qualify as a genocide, and they are deaths in proportion to population, lack of cultural destruction, and displacement.

1. lack of death compared to population seems self evident, even if we take Hamas #s of casualties as 100% accurate and do not control for the # of legitimate Hamas targets we have about 65k last i checked. in a population of over 2.1 million, accounts for about 3%. this is low even for a war of this size and scale, let alone a "genocide".

2. lack of cultural destruction, seems fairly self evident. outside of the overall destruction of the urban centers no specific cultural destruction has happened from what ive seen. they're not burning mosques specifically, etc. in fact that's been surgical, in order to not enflame the wider arab world into joining.

3. displacement. genocidal displacement is generally with the goal of permanence. either kill or run all of the people out of the country. so far from what ive seen the displacement has been in an attempt to clear urban areas without major loss of life in an effort to clear tunnels and infrastructure which is paramount to Hamas operations in the future. yes they happen to be in schools, hospitals, mosques, apartments, etc. and yes there are piles of rubble which make Dresden look like a 5 star hotel. but at the end of the war they'll likely be allowed to rebuild with foreign funding. And yes i understand memos have been drafted talking about exporting the population to some degree, but i think they're more think-tank pieces that would never actually work or be carried out. it would cause a scandal for the IDF they dont want in any way.

imagine if Hitler killed 3% of the jews, shuffled them into tents, then handed them back their stars of david and said move back into your old homes. its insane to think on. the african genocides are the real modern comparison, Hutu leaders had the explicit goal to kill all Tutsis in their nation. and rape all of the women to create a new generation of Hutu babies to entirely replace the culture. barbarism that even the SS might have turned their nose up at.

any specific questions tho im happy to answer.



that definition has been expanded to serve political goals. anything the UN creates is largely toilet paper, tbh.

same goes for every time i read a "such and such center from south africa says _____ is apartheid". thats fairly valid in Gaza, but i must have read that a dozen times in all sorts of inapplicable cases.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 30 2025 11:39am

What I truly dont understand is how you appear to be the only rational person arguing this side. I personally agree with you.

you're in a PVP zone, anyone in this blood moor is looking for ears.

didnt used to be that way, but 2016 broke this place.

the presence of literal israeli conservatives in this specific thread means you take a LOT of shots for any position, wither its river to sea or just plain common sense middle grounding.

its why i try to stick to very specific topics (irony as i posted a block text on genocide), but it works out ok. "was this building bombed", etc. wider discussions just get nasty.

40% of Gaza victims being 'children' is also a very disingenuous framing

Hamas recruits tend to be very young, a boy that's 15-18 is technically a child but once they pick up an ak or chose to fire an RPG at Israelis they lose that label in my mind. So much of what Hamas does is basically have these framings to attract global support to their side.

>Israelis are bombing hospitals --never mind the fact that Hamas is using tunnels under those hospitals or HQ's
>Israelis are killing children --never mind that militants purposefully mix in with civilians or the fact that half these children are combatants
>Israelis are blockading and segregating the Palestinians--yes because every chance at freedom or autonomy Palestine has had has always led to huge arms flows into Gaza to kill jews. Time after time.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 30 2025 11:55am

1. The tunnels under hospitals, used by Hamas, was never proven. Its an Israeli assertion.
2. Your facts are even more off then Israel's. Even Israel is not saying that Hamas has that many soldiers. This argument is very weak noting on the other end of the spectrum we have pictures of babies, too young to hold a hand, nevermind a weapon.
3. Blockading (starving) and segregating (apartheid) this point has way too many holes in it for me to respond to.

all 3 of your points are not stable.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 30 2025 12:03pm

The hospital tunnels were virtually proven, the only outstanding question is if it was a "command hub" or not. which seems fairly moot.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/middleeast/gaza-tunnel-shaft-al-shifa-hospital-intl-hnk

its also no illogical, they wanted sites that before war were not bomb-able. schools, hospitals, mosques, all prime sites for that.

2million arabs which represent over 20% of the population live and work in Israel. There is no apartheid, that's a complete myth. Gazans are not Israeli citizens, why would they have freedom to go within Israel?