back
266 comments
Related, interesting:

> https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2024/gaza-before-after...

> https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/gaza-is-i...

The strip is bombed out and half in ruins. With the import of construction material into Gaza highly restricted, I wonder how, or if, it'll be rebuilt. It is becoming a true open-air wasteland prison, barely capable of supporting life. So it's hard to dispute the conclusion drawn by Doctors Without Borders, even if the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.

> the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.

It is pretty clear that the death counts from Gaza are widely inaccurate and incomplete. They are only counting dead if they are brought to the hospitals and then buried. But Israel is bringing down building after building with people in them that are never recovered. And then secondary deaths caused by lack of health facilities are not being counted as dead directly as a result of the conflict, but are definitely caused by it.

This was true early in the war, but Gaza's health ministry has long since shifted to collecting reports of deaths from "reliable media sources". One source of data is a Google form which they set up in March. There are also reports claiming that GHM has counted natural deaths in their figures, which I don't think GHM has really denied (their releases don't say much about methodology). And of course they include militant deaths.
How does this compare to other wars?
Well, I'm pretty certain by any reasonable (UN, AI, HRN, etc.) standard, it became genocide quite some time ago when Israel:

1. Used precision guided weapons in unguided-mode to take out entire buildings including schools and hospitals

2. Used precision guided weapons in guided-mode to take out cars and food supply trucks of the World Central Kitchen workers when the cars were clearly demarcated as UN

3. Blocked I18n (not just UN) food & water aid

4. Precisely demolished water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure

5. Denied PoWs fundamental rights under the UN charter

I'm not so sure - a standard definition is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.

And then you'd wonder if things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden count as genocide. And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.

I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.

Genocide as defined in international law is very broad, it also includes cases where 0 people are killed:

- displacing a group in a wider region to try and dilute the ethnicity/culture is genocide

- trying to increase infertility in a group can be genocide

- forcing children from a group to attend schooling of another culture can be genocide

Any action or set of actions that causes going from condition "this cultural/ethnic/national group exists in some state" to condition "the same group is has suffered irreparable damage" can be genocide if done with that objective.

For example when Canada was sending Native American children to boarding school it was clearly a genocidal act, the only uncertainty would be around the intentions:

1) if the Canadian government was trying to improve the standard of education and literacy then it wasn't a genocide

2) if they were trying to bring some good old Christianity to new continent pagans then it was genocide.

In general forced boarding school of a minority definitely would sound like genocide.

You can guess how starving a country while bombing it to scraps scores on this scale

I know this is a controversial issue. But honest question: what is a ceasefire going to do?

Hamas refuses to surrender, so it’s only a few years until another Oct 7, and then it starts again. What other option does Israel have? They’ve been fighting these wars for years and they’ve now decided to continue this one vs waiting for a new one in three years

They could stop persecuting and murdering Palestinians, stop occupying Palestine, and agree to either a one state or two state solution that recognizes Palestinians as human beings with a right to live.
A cease-fire may buy us time to figure out a long-term solution.
What are any of the options available going to do? They don't have any fundamental fixes for the situation available.

Fundamental to Isreal's problems is that all security issues seem to only have temporary fixes available.

> What other option does Israel have?

seriously? yeah, so lets just reduce Gaza to rubble, ruin the lives of 1.5M people and kill 45,000 men, women and children in order to root out remaining fighters who refuse to lay down their arms. In fact why don't we just go ahead and nuke the whole place -- that should get rid of Hamas once and for all.

-- except that it won't actually get rid of Hamas--or whatever comes out of the ashes of Hamas. When a population has been oppressed as long as the Palestinians in Gaza have, it gives rise to people who don't care anymore, people who have seen their families and loved ones killed. Even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter today, how many 10 year old boys do you think there are today who are going to take up weapons to avenge their fathers and older brothers as soon as they are able? Just like today's fighters want to avenge their fathers from the last intifada? So yeah, Israel will be fighting this again in 5 year's time (unless of course they just kill most everyone or make Gaza unlivable, which seems to be the case now that this has gone on for over a year, thus ... genocide). The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with, but that it is unwilling to do. So the cycle will continue.

You’re implying that the genocide is, somehow, beneficial to carry out?

Besides, the war isn’t even against Hamas. It’s against civilians, with an intent to kill as many as they can manufacture consent for.

The enlightened option from a felicific calculus method it seems to me would require putting the destiny of Israel democratically in the hands of the Levantine majority; scaling back its territory occupied and settled illegally. But of course, this is not an option. This risks the genocide of the Israelis by putting power in its neighbors, when they have the wealth and US support to ensure that it is their more numerous enemies that risks genocide instead
No offence, yours is an effective altruist take on any problem: <If there is no final solution that can be achieved fast and with minimal effort, it is not worth doing anything.>

There is NO FINAL SOLUTION to any human problem: not hunger, not disease, not poverty, not racism. All effort counts and smart effort contributes more, but it is not a once and done deal. We must eat everyday, we must not shit plastic in our air, all children must get polio vaccine, and taxes have to be paid one way or the other.

It's ugly, it's hard, it's long, it's life!

Sadly, there's a reason the "Gaza tourniquet" had to be invented. https://glia.org/pages/the-glia-tourniquet-project
The fact that you look at this banner- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/giant-anti-israe...

.. And instantly know what it's about, pretty much rests the case.

The fact that there is a debate as to whether the Gaza actions constitute genocide does not in itself prove that they do or don't.
Genocide requires proving intentionality. Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This is a serious and complex standard, and it’s central to the legal definition.

It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria.

That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed.

Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..

And HRW says the same thing specifically with regards to Israel's targeted destruction of water resources: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat...

That adds to Amnesty International's declaration that Israel's action fit the definition of genocide a few weeks ago: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...

Anyhow, there are so many companies in the US that are complicit including in particular Google - it knew its software was likely to be used for human rights violations in Israel and they valued getting money over going the right thing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-said-worried-contract-w...

EDIT: Instantly downvoted to -2 on a factual comment that links to high quality resources? Feels like bots to me.

so was the dam-busters raid by england in ww2 against nazi germany also “genocide”? or were they both just “warfare”

as the events of Rwanda showed, it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide. So are the israelis really incompetent at genocide, to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out? or is this just the usual propaganda and hyperbole?

I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43. Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft given the historical precedent on dealing with these kinds of movements.
On the surface this is just another callous comment but you are making a few dangerous implications here:

1. Gaza is not as bad as Hamburg (for which no proof was provided) 2. Gaza has to be as bad as Hamburg for it to be called a genocide 3. You want Israel to make Gaza look like Hamburg ‘43 4. The historical precedent (without even getting into land occupation) of movements justifies a genocide.

I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43.

In fact the numbers of civilians killed are roughly similar (probably 30k for Gaza vs. 40k for Hamburg 43-45) against roughly equal pre-war population size (about 1.5M for each). And the pictures are of course awfully similar as well (depending on where one wishes to zoom in). And Israel's not anywhere near done with Gaza yet.

But of course you were just hand-waving, which is why you started off with "I dunno".

Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft

An incredibly crass and nasty thing to say about a largely innocent population being steadily bombed into the ground.

If Israel commits genocide, and US actively supports Israel with weapons, do they imply US is at least supporting genocide in 21 century?
Another day, another organization redefines genocide to fit their narrative, doesn't mention hostages held in Gaza and gets manually unflagged by admins. Business as usual.
there are many definitions already. what's yours?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_d...

Why was this flagged?
Clearly off-topic for HN.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Political content of all kinds often gets flagged on HN as lots of people don't like it and flagging is the easiest way to express that disapproval and impact front page placement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE

This guy has a very accessible take on the proper United Nations definition of genocide and how it applies to the Gaza and Ukraine war.

Gemini summary:

>>>> This video discusses the definition of genocide and its application to current events. The speaker argues that many people misuse the term to describe any atrocity, while genocide specifically refers to the intent to eliminate a group of people. The speaker uses the examples of the war in Gaza and the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin to illustrate this point. They argue that while there are many civilian casualties in Gaza, it's unclear if there's an intent to eliminate the entire Palestinian people. In contrast, Putin's forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia aligns more clearly with the definition of genocide. The speaker emphasizes the importance of using the term accurately to avoid diluting its meaning and to properly address serious crimes. <<<<

This take is only possible if you trust anything Tel Aviv says with no fact checking

Israel is:

- blockading humanitarian aid

- targeting UN and aid workers (more that half of all deaths of UN personnel in war zones happened in Gaza in the last 14 months)

- starving the population by blocking food from entering Gaza

- bombing every hospital

- destroying almost every building in the strip.

- already selling beachfront land for planned settlements

- Holding thousands of children hostage in administrative detention without any charges

- carrying terror campaign in the West Bank

- explicitly applying a strategy of collective punishment against the entire population (matching the definition of terrorism)

This computing over the already inhuman apartheid regime in the West Bank

I would posit that counting all children Putin illegally deported you get less that half of the numbers of children killed or kidnapped by the Israeli army

So Putin wouldn’t be committing a genocide if he returned the children and started bombing 90% of the buildings in Ukraine?

Got it!

Anders Puck Nielsen is a Danish military analyst and naval captain at the Royal Danish Defence College, he is not a human rights lawyer. I will trust the organisations and experts that have studied human rights in deciding if a genocide is occuring.