Cause, as I stated before, the tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths over the past 100+ years cannot be considered large enough scale to fit the term Genocide. But it is proper to use the term "holocaust," which details a slow burn killing over an extended period of time. — Vaskane

Ah, so not a genocide, but a kind of holocaust. The same objection applies: while there's a holocaust going on, Palestine's population triples in 40 years? Not really much of a holocaust, is it? Nothing at all like the actual Holocaust. Why do you think Israel is so ineffective at killing Palestinians?

"Article II
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.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

Seems a, b, c are clearly engaged. Not sure about d and e.

For genocide, you need an actus reus and a mens rea it seems. You have to do certain acts. And you have to do them with a criminal intent, in this case, the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

The actus reus seems clear - plenty of killing, engendering mental health issues, inflicting very difficult living conditions.

Statements by Israeli officials, and the acts themselves, also seem pretty clear evidence of the mens rea.

EDIT: this is certainly enough to establish that there is a case to answer I would have thought. Actually hearing the case needs a lot longer of course.

prima facie, I'd agree, thought intl law isn't my area. It seems quite clear that this would need to be 'heard'. I do have serious reservations above proving criminal intent though. All the statements i've seen from Israeli officials, while uncomfortable to me, appear to be sane, if heavy handed, responses to a terrorist attack aimed at maiming your population and geopolitical stability.

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:

If Israel had the intent to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, the population of Palestine would not have doubled the past thirty years. Compared to America, that's extremely fast population growth. How many deaths have their been in four months of conflict? 25,000? America killed four times that many in one night bombing Tokyo. If Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, they're remarkably bad at it.

For just about the twentieth time in this thread: you can destroy a people without actually killing them. There are still native Americans but they suffered a genocide as well, the Uighurs are being destroyed as well through internment and reeducation. The displacement and destruction of an entire regional culture or people is genocide. And as far as crimes go, the efficacy of the crime is not a measure for its unlawfulness. Your defence amounts to no more than that only because Israel is not killing them fast enough to keep up with the birth rate it's not genocide, which in itself is a cavalier attitude to the sanctity of life.

While we see eye-to-eye on a lot of this, it is patently hte case that there is no analogy whatsoever between Native Americans who were purposefully killed through many avenues, with the express aim of their absolute removal from the Earth - and largely succeeding - and Palestinians who are growing, as a population.

Your defence amounts to no more than that only because Israel is not killing them fast enough to keep up with the birth rate it's not genocide — Benkei

I think you are unfortunately playing the same weird equivalence game the 'other side' does here. That's not what the defence amounts to, whatsoever. It is a fact that a genocide isn't occurring when a culture has retained its status and grown in population.

Trying to reorient this from the quagmire of defining genocides which have yet to be fulfilled …

----------

Israel paints Palestinians as 'animals' to legitimize war crimes: Israeli scholar

This seems to be common knowledge to all but us Westerners. But, then, this portrayal of Palestinians as animals far precedes the current conflict, and is old news. For example:

Ben Dahan has made controversial remarks about Palestinians. While discussing the resumption of peace talks in a radio interview in 2013, Ben Dahan said that “To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.” — https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-deputy-defense-minister-called-palestinians-animals/

----------

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the extermination of animals is not to be confused with the extermination of humans. Animals, be they technically human or otherwise, are after all by definition sub-human. Lest it becomes forgotten, “Untermensch” was the term commonly used prior to WWII, and it means no more and no less than “subhuman”.

Can one commit genocide against animals? Definitely not. So say those who deny other humans the claim to an authentic humanity.

Irrespective of what’s now taking place being genocide, attempted genocide, or something other, it’s still unjustified mass killing of a peoples sponsored by supremacist views, if not outright ideology - which as history shows can only lead to calamity if not nipped in the bud sooner or later. Such as in the unpleasant possibility of a WWIII … in which quite blatant genocides might readily occur (this, at least, according to those who are and will remain humanists).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68232883

"There is no other solution but a complete and final victory"

It is very, very hard to have sympathy for the Israeli state at times like this, despite under standing full well they were provoked into this military action.

I think you are unfortunately playing the same weird equivalence game the 'other side' does here. That's not what the defence amounts to, whatsoever. It is a fact that a genocide isn't occurring when a culture has retained its status and grown in population. — AmadeusD

Except the culture had not retained its status. There is a community in Jerusalem slowly being evicted. A few more decades and there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. There were coastal cities. Gone. Just in Gaza, most heritage sites have been destroyed or damaged. Like most of Palestine. When the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues everybody was shocked. Where's the outrage Israel just destroyed a harbour going back to 800 BC?

Jaffa, Acre and Nablus had close connections to other middle Eastern cities. Destroyed. The close connection with the land is being made impossible because the best land is stolen. Life is being made impossible in the long run. And it's strategic and always has been for the likes of Herut and Likud.

So yes, genocide, a slow one so everybody can pretend it isn't happening.

https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15337.doc.htm

Why have sympathy with policies like this?

If all those countries would just opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck, why did they end up in this clusterfuck in the first place? — neomac

One reason, which should be trendy, old white European men with moustaches:

Misters Sykes and Picot:
the-skyes-picot-agreement-was-concluded-in-london--1436469334493.jpg

Mr Balfour:
1025371-271125035.jpg?itok=4vDl7FtY

Or perhaps WW1 in general and it's aftermath, which basically started modern Zionism and the inherent instability of countries like Iraq etc. — ssu

Sure, trendy as all historical grievances are everywhere (while the contrition for such historical grievances seems particularly trendy ONLY in the West). Yet, I’m not sure what we have to do with such information.

Palestine has been a multi-ethnic land (partially populated by some nomadic Arab tribes in ancient times) under the domain of foreign powers practically since ever until the end of the British mandate. And when it ended, did the Palestinians/Arabs pursue peace, stability and prosperity? No they started a full scale civil war because they didn’t like how it ended, which was much better than what they got later, I guess. So we can’t easily discount their agency in what happened later either.

But if that’s the case, why do we keep stopping our explanatory investigation at old white European men with moustaches and don’t go further back to the Ottoman men with moustaches or the Islamic men with moustaches or Persian men with moustaches?
Or why do we not stop earlier at when Hamas decided to massacre Israelis on the 7th October?
Why the explanatory chain has to stop always where there are Europeans or Israelis making decisions?
And why do we call Misters Sykes and Picot Europeans and not just a British politician and a French politician?
If we believe in human agency and individual responsibility, it’s really hard to understand how the outcome of past political choices of certain political leaders should burden future generations around the world just because part of it could benefit from it and part of it wasn’t. Or why past political choices should be scrutinised through the lenses of future generations instead of the ancient generations, which were much more used to brutality and foreign domination.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no age of innocence in world history. And there is little benefit in pointing fingers at nasty games (like the British are accused of) when people around the world were historically exposed to cycles of foreign/local dominance and abuses for centuries under kingdoms and empires. On the other side the dominant influence of the West in the rest of the World was not enabled just by scheming and nasty political games out of greediness for personal wealth and power more than by technological and economic progress. So much so that, at some point, the rest of the World too benefited from the Western progress in medicine and agriculture which improved life conditions in the Rest too, and Western cultural progress (the notion of human rights and state nation) is what allows the Rest to retort the Western ideas against the West while nurturing their identitarian revanchism. Concerning the latter, to the extent such identitarian revanchism (like the Iranian Islamic revolution and ISIS) is incompatible with Western institutions (like democracy, human rights) it can potentially grew hostile and aggressive toward the West. So even if Westerners should feel concerned for the fate of the Jews and of the Muslim world, the point is that Jews integrated with and contributed to Western economic, political, financial and technological progress significantly more than the Muslims. And still do.

Indeed, why would Iran even care about the fate of Palestinians? — neomac

It is as interesting question like as why is US treating Israel so differently than any other of it's allies. (No wait, Israel isn't actually an ally of the US, meaning there is no actual defense treaty, hence Israel doesn't have to come to the aid of the US.) — ssu

The Jewish community and lobby in the US shape also the American national interest in the middle east region. While there is no Palestinian lobby in Iran worth the name, to begin with.
And I’m certainly not underestimating or dodging the issue of American historical hegemonic ambitions: the very existence of Israel can be a way of containing regional powers to become more ambitious in a very strategic place for world balance, as much as an independent and military strong Ukraine (with which he US has no military alliance either) can support the containment of Russian imperial ambitions. I’m just insisting that the Russian, Chinese and the Iranian governments do question the American hegemonic ambitions most likely out of THEIR OWN hegemonic ambitions and not out of identitarian (or even humanitarian) concerns about the World. So until the US pursues hegemonic ambitions in the world or in the middle east, Israel will likely get its support to counter Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia’s hegemonic ambitions.

Well, it maybe hard for Christians to understand that the Muslim community, the Ummah, means a lot for Muslims if Christendom is now days totally meaningless for us. That's the first reason. — ssu

Since the prophet Mohammad, the Ummah was built through blood: first as tribal and family feuds then later as empire building. And TODAY muslims as muslims kill other muslims which are not the right kind of muslim (Sunnis consider Shiites heretics). Iran supports also Armenia vs Azerbaijan even though Armenians are mainly Orthodox Christians while Azerbaijan is muslim. Kurds are Muslims but the Iranians do not give a shit about the Kurdish nation-state aspirations (nor the Turks nor the Saudis for that matter). It’s hard for Muslims too to understand that the Muslim community, the Ummah, means for Muslims. BTW Palestinians are fighting for a nation state not for the Muslim Ummah.

Secondly, not only is the cause of Palestine popular in the Arab street (remember Pan-Arabism etc), but also there are the Shiias in Lebanon, which formed and fought against Israel after it attacked and occupied Southern Lebanon. Not only are they defending Muslims, but also fellow Shiites. And since Iran is an revolutionary state that wants to promote it's Islamic revolution and islamic values like revolutionary states typically do (just like, well, the US), this is a perfect way for Iran to show it's the vanguard of the Ummah against the West and that all these Monarchies or Arab republics close to the West and US aren't doing anything about the genocide against Palestinians. — ssu

Sure, the fellow Shiites and the Islamic Ummah are a convenient narrative for the Iranian propaganda to spin in order to seduce the Arab people. Still the Iranian revolution ideology is not just revolutionary but fanatic and barbaric in nature wrt Western standards of life: see how the Iranian ayatollahs treat THEIR OWN Iranian people. Besides the populism of the Iranian Islamic revolution ideology is rather dangerous to Arab monarchies and military dictatorships.

Thirdly, when the US has made Iran part of the Axis of Evil and Americans talk of attacking Iran and how a threat it is to everybody, then it's far more better to have the conflict been played out somewhere else than in Iran. Far more better to have the fight somewhere else, like in Lebanon, Yemen or Iraq and Syria. — ssu

Sure, still Iran is part of the Axis of Evil not by chance, they defied the West as Putin is doing.

Trump's Abraham records was basically an attempt to bribe the countries in normalizing relations with Israel and simply to sideline the troublesome question of the Palestinians. — ssu

Well, choices can fix some problems to some extent not all problems at once and forever, so all choices can be said to sideline some other problems which are claimed to be more urgent . Besides States compete over material resources as much as over narratives and the political competition is such that the value of one move is not independent from how other competitors will move next. In other words, politics is not about taking time to solve the matrix of all possible outcomes and find the optimal path toward peace and prosperity for all, before acting, while the rest of the world is holding their breath. Nobody will give politicians the time and serenity to do any of that. But about more or less reliable heuristics to gain relative advantage vs competitors. In the hindsight, all can seem so stupid or evil, especially to nobodies who have never navigated the political and unscrupulous pressure to which state political leaders (especially of hegemonic countries) may very likely be exposed to before and after making their choices, i.e. a clusterfuck on its own. See what happened to the political and biological fate of the enlightened Rabin. (BTW the popularity of Netanyahu plummeted to 15% according to certain polls, so is there a chance angry Israelis will assassinate him too?)

I’m afraid the is no recipe to get out of this mess, which nobody fully understand or dominate. — neomac

Actually, you can understand it. And the more you understand it, the less hopeful you are of a negotiated peace deal. — ssu

If you really think you understand how to fix this mess, fix it. What are you waiting?
Literally nobody can say: “I understand how to fix this mess” and then fix it, as far as I can tell.
There have been negotiated peace deals and yet they failed. It’s not only hard to reach negotiated peace deals, it’s also hard to keep them over time. Like in Ukraine.
Hopefully by trial and errors they will find a way to stabilise the situation for the better of all involved parties.

I find it very hard to be optimistic about it, though. — neomac

I feel the same way. What would be the reason why a two state solution would be reached? Perhaps that Bibi really fucks up and we aren't going to be talking about tens of thousands of killed Palestinians, but perhaps a hundred thousand killed. Or two hundred thousand. When does Israel loose the "beacon of democracy" role in the eyes of Americans. And how after will gentile Americans and Europeans feels towards Jews in general when Israel is in the international arena like white South Africa?

Hamas has actually come out and admitted that things got a bit out of control in October 7th:

The group said that avoiding harming civilians “is a religious and moral commitment” by fighters of Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. “If there was any case of targeting civilians; it happened accidentally and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces,” read the report.

It added that “maybe some faults happened” during the attack “due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the areas near Gaza.

(See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’

Well, I guess that statement of "Oops, partly sorry about that!" above puts Hamas in the same category of the "most moral" army in the Middle East, the IDF. — ssu

First, that’s a questionable categorization. If we are talking about civilian casualties, as far as I’ve understood, IDF can still play the card of proportionality of their military operation over collateral civilian casualties because they still can claim to follow the principle of distinction which Hamas doesn’t (I’ve discussed that already with another interlocutor). It doesn’t matter if they do it dishonestly or if some authoritative and influential tribunal or Human Rights ONG will condemn IDF for committing a genocide (which is a bit counter-intuitive since the Palestinian population has significantly grown since the Nakba and despite the continuous Israeli fight with Hamas) or severe war crimes against Palestinians. The point is that the massacre of October the 7th was directly and unequivocally targeting civilians as civilians in legal Israeli territories (for the UN), as far as I can tell. Besides it wasn’t a response to an evident escalatory provocation from Israel. Indeed, the timing betrays wider geopolitical objectives, given that the assault took years of preparation and it happened when Saudis and Israel were getting too close.
Second, as I argued elsewhere, politics is not all about propaganda. We shouldn’t discount how influential propaganda is in international politics, but we shouldn’t overestimate its importance either. Propaganda is but one political tool among others.

Maybe states can’t easily skip historical stages: Nordic countries evolved to nation-state status through all the bloody wars of the Middle Ages. — neomac

Actually the last war between the Nordic states happened between Sweden and Norway in 1814, which was the last war Sweden has fought (and actually was victorious). And just think what needed to happen in Europe for Europeans to want integrate and be so peaceful. We had to have WW1 and WW2 where millions of died.

So perhaps both sides have to have the Polish experience of WW2, a war where at least EVERY SIXTH POLISH DIED. After that kind of Holocaust/Nakba, I think the survivors won't in order care a fuck about who controls the Temple Mount and just where the border goes, but want peace. — ssu

As far as I’m concerned, the primary worry for us is not Palestinians or Jews getting their nation-states (neither are perceived as necessary to people other than them themselves) because we can’t write their history for them, it’s about keeping us as far as possible from WW3. And the dilemma for the US as global hegemonic power remains: how is it possible to deter rivals without escalating or risking an overstretch?

The displacement and destruction of an entire regional culture or people is genocide. — Benkei

Do you think a culture can ever be so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed?

Yet, I’m not sure what we have to do with such information. — neomac

It's not a grievance: WW1 happened and the Ottoman Empire took part. It wasn't the only Empire to be cut into pieces, Austria-Hungary was also chopped and fell in bits too (Russia before that).

And when it ended, did the Palestinians/Arabs pursue peace, stability and prosperity? — neomac

What peace and prosperity was there to pursue when Mandate Palestine ended? The British had been fighting the Zionist terrorists already and the Zionists and the Palestinians were already engaged in hostilities. The end was just the Brits pulling out and leaving the locals to fight, which then invited neighbors to join in.

Wanted terrorists in Mandate Palestine, starting with Menachem Begin:


This place is where former terrorists became later honorable politicians. Both Arab and Jewish.

And I’m certainly not underestimating or dodging the issue of American historical hegemonic ambitions: the very existence of Israel can be a way of containing regional powers to become more ambitious in a very strategic place for world balance, as much as an independent and military strong Ukraine (with which he US has no military alliance either) can support the containment of Russian imperial ambitions. — neomac

This is the strategic containment bullshit that just wrecks everything. At least Russia is one state and actually a real former empire, but what is then this Arab-Muslim entity to be confined? What just is wanted to be "contained"?

During the idea of Israel as the bulwark against Soviet Union was at least logical. But so threat of Soviet Union to Iran was too extremely real: Soviet troops had occupied the northern parts of Iran in WW2 and had created a communist satellite there, which the Iranian army had to squash afterward. So the hostility of the Soviet Union wasn't something theoretical for Imperial Iran either. And Soviet Union armed Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, so the alliance is far more tactical for Iran than people think. Saudi-Arabia didn't either like the Soviet Union and Arab socialism.

So then the reason is now what "bulwark" is now Israel? It simply doesn't make any sense. The only thing that makes sense is the Israel is using the US, it's that way around.

If we are talking about civilian casualties, as far as I’ve understood, IDF can still play the card of proportionality of their military operation over collateral civilian casualties because they still can claim to follow the principle of distinction which Hamas doesn’t — neomac

Which principle distinction? Of Bibi's reference to Amalek? Well, if Hamas was OK with 1967 border some time ago, perhaps the principle is different from Bibi's principles...

Nope sorry, both Hamas and IDF have done what earlier were called warcrimes. But that's now something irrelevant, I guess.

:brow:

Do you think a culture can ever be so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed? — BitconnectCarlos

It's usually the other way around: those people who think some culture is so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed... deserve to be destroyed themselves, or at least contained so not to spread their vitriol.

I don't think you're in touch with the facts on teh ground, in this case.

Do you think a culture can ever be so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Khmer Rouge, Stalinist Russia, CSA, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, DPRK.

Well I don't care about what you think if you don't back it up with an actual argument, so I guess we're done.

I did. Your response was just an emotional reaction to either incorrect interpretations or outright nonsense, such as:

Except the culture had not retained its status. — Benkei

I'm glad you don't care what I think. That's healthy.

I gave several examples so that's neither nonsense nor emotional.

Hey mate, It seems we are closer to each other's position that most others in this thread. I want to avoid getting into some kind of pissing match because we disagree on some detail. It is not, to me, a genocide, any further than 'arguably'. You feel differently. Fine. Lets deal with the actual things we're saying...

As I see it, what you did was describe other things, and then ascribe to them the character of genocide. while also mentioning irrelevant aspects of unconnected events in time. See:

There is a community in Jerusalem slowly being evicted. A few more decades and there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. — Benkei

To my mind, that's not an example indicating genocide. These things do not count toward the status of genocide. Communities are evicted, and populations move. Though, i concede that if all you're using here is the definition regarding moving a population, then sure, you're right. But essentially no one is using that.
If that isn't the case, and you think the above indicates a genocide proper (i.e attempted destruction of a people or culture) then i would say you, as do the other side, take your emotional reaction to be an accurate assessment of it. Of course, I may be suffering the same illusion - but I have no hard line on either side's status as 'right' or 'wrong', so only these kinds of details interest me. Its hard to see where bias is getting in there, but please do point it out instead of just claiming some other mode of analysis on my part. Would prefer to be aware. And, fwiw, my emotional reaction to the activities of Israel in attempting to move/oust the Palestinian population (at least on the lets say anti-Likud side of things) makes me very, very uncomfortable. My emotional reaction to it, and Palestinian plight in general is indignation.

When the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues everybody was shocked. — Benkei

That's true, but they called it religious ideology run amok, which it seemed to be by all accounts. No one seriously claimed it was an attempted genocide, because it wasn't. I should say though, it's not clear you were intimating this. Just my comment - might just serve as something to glom on to in clarifying your position.

Lets discuss, instead of pissing on each other :) Or, if you don't want to, that's fine too. Just, avoid pissing heh

Yet, I’m not sure what we have to do with such information. — neomac

It's not a grievance: WW1 happened and the Ottoman Empire took part. It wasn't the only Empire to be cut into pieces, Austria-Hungary was also chopped and fell in bits too (Russia before that). — ssu

I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

And when it ended, did the Palestinians/Arabs pursue peace, stability and prosperity? — neomac

What peace and prosperity was there to pursue when Mandate Palestine ended? The British had been fighting the Zionist terrorists already and the Zionists and the Palestinians were already engaged in hostilities. The end was just the Brits pulling out and leaving the locals to fight, which then invited neighbors to join in. — ssu

You asked me “you really think that these countries wouldn't opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck?”. So, I wondered: what evidence do I have to answer this question? Since at any time one can appeal to historical grievances to reject a peace-deal, was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? Unfortunately, as Benny Morris claims (1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War) “The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal.”, not the Palestinians/Arabs.
And later, failed wars against Israel simply entrenched Israel in a defensive position and provided them with all the necessary security concerns averse to Hamas-style of resistance, while the Palestinians (certainly in Gaza) ended up relying more and more on Hamas-style of resistance (since there was no meaningful alternative to represent them).

And I’m certainly not underestimating or dodging the issue of American historical hegemonic ambitions: the very existence of Israel can be a way of containing regional powers to become more ambitious in a very strategic place for world balance, as much as an independent and military strong Ukraine (with which he US has no military alliance either) can support the containment of Russian imperial ambitions. — neomac

This is the strategic containment bullshit that just wrecks everything. At least Russia is one state and actually a real former empire, but what is then this Arab-Muslim entity to be confined? What just is wanted to be “contained”? — ssu

You can call it “bullshit” and dislike it all you want, that doesn’t make it less intelligible and real as far as I’m concerned. As I said Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia as regional powers CAN and DID project ideological, economic and/or military power outside their borders and create alliances that are competing if not expressly hostile to the West by controlling areas which are relevant for World balance (for commodities, commercial routes, migratory routs, etc.). There is absolutely nothing “theoretical” about it, if “theoretical” means something like hypothetical or speculative.
To my understanding the idea of the US wasn’t just to use the stick of military support and diplomatic pressure but also to offer opportunities for economic growth through globalization. That is true also for China, Russia, Iran which exploited this opportunity to consolidate their authoritarian regime and project power abroad in defiance of the US hegemony, instead of improving standards of life and increase freedoms for their people.
The comparison with the containment of Soviet Union should be taken just as an analogy. During the cold war the existence of two political and economic blocks made the containment strategy by the US more easy to be implemented. The globalization weakened the US and made its competitors stronger and defiant, even in the West (see Germany). So the US is now trying to catch up with this predicament but with evident difficulty also due to a national political crisis. The logic of containment still remains the default approach (at least for the bipartisan establishment, which resists the isolationist temptation), because the alternatives are withdrawal (i.e. giving up on the role of global hegemon) or direct engagement (i.e. dangerously overstretching). To compensate the US is kind of forced to turn down globalization (with protectionism against Europe and China, and break the link between Germany and Russia/China as they have turned into security/economic threats) on one side, and concede/solicit greater military engagement and/or discretion to its strategic allies (as long as national interests converge), like the Europeans and Israel.
Maybe with Trump things may change. Not sure to what extent, though (especially in the case of Israel).

If we are talking about civilian casualties, as far as I’ve understood, IDF can still play the card of proportionality of their military operation over collateral civilian casualties because they still can claim to follow the principle of distinction which Hamas doesn’t — neomac

Which principle distinction? Of Bibi's reference to Amalek? Well, if Hamas was OK with 1967 border some time ago, perhaps the principle is different from Bibi's principles...

Nope sorry, both Hamas and IDF have done what earlier were called warcrimes. But that's now something irrelevant, I guess. — ssu

Let’s not mix things up. This is the principle of distinction I was talking about: https://casebook.icrc.org/law/principle-distinction which IDF generally respects and Hamas generally doesn’t. The war between IDF and Hamas is asymmetric or non-conventional by Hamas’s choice, but this choice violates the principle of distinction, so Hamas can be more easily charged for Israeli civilian casualties, than Israel for Palestinian civilian casualties which is why I question your equivalence in principle (without excluding that IDF may be suspected or proven to be de facto much worse than Hamas in terms of unscrupulous targeting of Palestinian civilians).
My reasoning doesn’t depend on Netanyahu which is an ADDITIONAL complication. Even if the Israelis will manage to remove him at some point, I’m not sure how much of the damage he has inflicted on the Palestinians can/will be recovered by a peace deal on Israeli initiative with Hamas. Do you have any solid evidence that hints in this direction? I couldn’t find any (by comparison, Biden however critical of Trump’s foreign policies, he didn’t reintroduce JCPOA with Iran). And assuming that 85% of the Israelis would end Bibi’s political carrier after this war is over, would this 85% still be willing to reach a peace deal with Hamas after the massacre of October? I doubt it (https://time.com/6333781/israel-hamas-poll-palestine/). And arguments against the two state solution are stubbornly there as the arguments against one state solution from the Israeli perspective.
Maybe some foreign actors could broker peace for Israeli and Palestinians after Netanyahu, but who? Whatever one suggests there are reasons to doubt it would work assuming the current international predicament persists or worsens.

but who? — neomac

Luxemburg.

All the statements i've seen from Israeli officials, while uncomfortable to me, appear to be sane, if heavy handed, responses to a terrorist attack aimed at maiming your population and geopolitical stability. — AmadeusD

https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-11/wipe-gaza-off-the-face-of-the-earth-the-statements-made-by-israeli-politicians-on-which-south-africa-supports-its-genocide-case.html

A few snippets from the article:

“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”

“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

“there are no innocents”

"Tally Gotlib, from Likud, has called for “merciless bombing from the air” so as not to endanger the soldiers and to stop “feeling sorry for the uninvolved Gazans” because “there are none.”"

This combined with the clearly unnecessary and disproportionate actions of the IDF in terms of destroying buildings and infrastructure, combined with the video footage of IDF soldiers having a laugh all adds up to intent to destroy Gaza and its residents. Israeli Zionists jumping around shouting about wiping them all out. Then there's the stuff about 'encouraging' Gazan's to leave and talk of moving settlers into the area. There's too much of this stuff for it to be put down to one or two rabid zionists. The intent seems really clear.

Even if I'm just watching left wing media, this stuff isn't made up by lefties. This is real isn't it?

If Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, they're remarkably bad at it. — RogueAI

October 7th was the first realistic chance they had to go full-on genocide. They couldn't have done that under the gaze of the rest of the world without a really good bit of provocation. And they got it. Makes me wonder if they knew. Anyway, they've been doing as much as they can get away with before that anyway, what with the settlers and land-grabs. Not that I can remember the details now.

Yes, I updated this with the recent statement from Bibi about 'total victory'.

I've now seen a few I take to be ridiculous. Thank you.

I doubt that Luxemburg bears a sufficient diplomatic weight on both sides, compared to the Saudis which might benefit from stepping in and:
- get credit for the recognition of the Palestianian State by Israel (which will benefit Israel diplomatically)
- get rid of the Iranian influence in Palestine (better once Netanyahu has completed his dirty job, unless it is too late)
- normalize relations with Israel (which will benefit Israel and the Saudis in terms of bilateral security and business agreements)
- get credit for contributing to rebuild Gaza (which could benefit Saudi projection in the Mediterranean Sea as a reward)

(And both the US and the Arab world may very much welcome it).

It was a joke. Sorry lol, wasn't very good. Thought an entirely uninterested and never-related left-fielder would get a chuckle.

Prussia was abolished in 1947, deemed a "bearer of militarism and reaction" by the Allies. Could this be genocide? Genocide of the focal point of German militarism?