[tety]

I am not sure that's the definition of genocide. The only clear instance of genocide in this war is the October 7 attacks. I'll remind you it included attacking all population centers in a specific geographic area, going house to house and killing whoever was inside, as well as burning the houses in order to prevent the population from returning.

You could argue Israel evacuating the northern of Gaza strip is ethnic cleansing, but that would only be valid if they are not allowed later on to return.

The difference between Palestinians civilian deaths in Gaza is that these were not systematic, not concentrated in a single space (for example all houses in a location) and were done mostly for a military purpose (attacking a defacto non-uniformed military). Choosing to evacuate the population before attacking was done to minimize casualties, although they are still massive even when removing the Hamas members from the statistics and their inflated nature.

[flandish]

[flagged]

[tety]

there are a lot of things here yet i didn’t see how this aligns with the definition of genocide

but care to explain what is the meaning of the dates? what do you refer to in 1916/1917 and 40s?

[flandish]

1916/17 - Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration was pushed by England/the west to split the middle east up. Even though there were already nations there. Thus creating a “home for Zionists”.

The 40’s was the standard “zionists get israel for real this time” after England got its butt kicked by the very same folks it helped in the teens.

But that’s irrelevant to the point that nothing, ever, makes a genocide ok. Stop pretending it’s not just because the fascist and gaslighting zionists claim it’s “not a genocide we promise.”

England did a genocide on the Irish. Zionists are doing on in the Palestinians. There have been plenty of US backed ones over the years too.

Any nation state who says “they’re not doing a genocide” .. totally is.

[tptacek]

Sykes-Picot didn't have much to do with Zionism at all, but it does undermine many of the arguments about the artificiality of Israel as a state, because it establishes that (maybe excepting Egypt) all of Israel's neighbors, none of which have been subjected to decades of campaigning and state-level military incursion, have identically European provenance.

Depending on what you mean by the word "nation", there were not in fact "already nations there". Sykes-Picot partitioned the Ottoman Empire in the Levant. What there was, historically, prior to Sykes-Picot, was the administration of provinces under the Ottoman Sultan.

[flandish]

I am sure the people who had lived there were just fine with europeans dividing up land, huh? Doesn’t help oil was discovered recently …

I mean, look at what happened to France in Vietnam. They were “happily” appreciated while pretending they knew what was best for the people that lived there already.

Y’all will do anything to pretend it’s “ok” for white people to tell folks what to do with their land. Ottoman empire or not.

Bottom line is: Zion != Israel. Zionism is making the call in today’s era and that call is to genocide.

It is wrong.

[tptacek]

I don't know what any of this is trying to say. You brought up Sykes-Picot as if it was a part of Zionism; it is not, and, moreover, it is the reason there is a Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon today. You implied that Sykes-Picot displaced nation states that previously existed; I don't believe that's true, that's not how the Ottoman Empire functioned.

If you're asking me for a long thread about why British, French, and Russian colonialism in MENA was good, sorry, I don't have that for you. But somehow, it only ever seems to be Israel we're talking about when we discuss this stuff. Israel is no less legitimate than its neighbors, some of which have in the last 5-10 years laid a much stronger claim to the word "genocide" as well.

I would suggest maybe you not lead with Sykes-Picot next time you try to formulate this argument.

[maxglute]

> only clear instance of genocide in this war is the October 7 attacks.

That's clearly a military operation with some war crimes thrown in, which is about expected. Then went in and out, there's no systematic intent in the mission to destroy israel for the simple reason that Hamas can't. Hamas is physically incapable of committing genocide despite what the preach.

VS Israel's systematic destruction of Gaza with enough dogwhistles from senior leadership that can credibly push Israeli campaign into genocide territory. Whether that matters under international law is another Q, but the difference when it comes to international opinion (well, global south), is Hamas can't genocide Israel because they don't have the capabilities vs IDF can actually genocide Palestine/Gaza and optic wise, is looking well on their way as mass starvation as systemic blockade settles in. Like if west can delude themselves into thinking Uyghurs are being genocided despite very few systemic killings and leaks from leadership that intent is counterterrorism/deradicalization, then case for Israel doing a genocide is much stronger considering the actual destruction, body count and mask off rhetoric from Israeli politicians.

[tety]

About your regard of the oct 7 as a military operation with some war crimes thrown in, it was a military operation concentrated almost completely on civilian centers, so the war crimes aspect was pretty central. I do not doubt they would continue if not stopped, but maybe you think otherwise.

Is that a universal thing that what politicians say is being taken in such a high regard? Especially the many Israeli ministers of nothing that have no actual ability to affect the situation. Judging by how the war is going on, I don't see any scenario where the Palestinian population disappears from Gaza, and I don't see any Israeli action that is advancing that.

However, you are right that due to the sheer cruelty of Oct 7 there is a major process of radicalization in Israeli society, and if Hamas dreams of recreating this attack 'again and again' materialize, I do think the Israeli side will begin to level its moral base to that of its enemy, which might end in actual genocide. Which is why I believe removing this organization is in the best interest of both people, even though it is causing much suffering currently, it is not impossible it can turn very much worse yet.

[maxglute]

For me, power mismatch = hamas will naturally adopt more terror since they're limited to asymmetric warfare. War crime labelling is lawfare instrument to try to rhetorically constrain actions of less capable adversaries but really doesn't change the fact that Hamas at strategic / geopolitical goals for Oct7, no different than strategic bombing, i.e war is politics by other means. They weren't just doing a random terror operation. And Israel isn't just randomly levelling Gaza looking for Hamas.

IMO they're trying to make situation so dire that other parties capituate to resettling Gaza. The intention is expulsion not nessicarily genocide, but that doesn't mean current actions and rhetoric, even if flippant, can't be used against Israel in international court / opinion. I'm not saying what Israel is doing IS genocide, but there's probably enough bits and pieces for interested parties to weave genocide narrative, especially the longer war drags out and more dire Gaza situation becomes.

> removing this organization is in the best interest of both people

I don't disagree, for short term. But without Israel expressing interest or some effort at making 2 state solution work, it's kicking can down the road. The fundmental problem, as seen with Hamas, and Houthis is technology proliferation of not garbage tier weapons is making Israel's lack of strategic depth less and less defendable by the day. General arab acrimony is not going to go away after this, and US+Israel can only maintain their military advantage for so long before rest of region catches up or surpasses due to sheer scale. Each generation is more capable than the last and ultimately there's 400 muslims in MENA vs 10m jews in Israel on sacred lands. And this war is just setting up for blowback down the road, especially as US FP will likely change as new gens are much more sympathetic to palestine.

As for Palestinians, they will not forget this. Hamas/resistance will come back in one way or another. The other reality, which makes this problem intractable is poor Gaza with 90% literacy rate and limited access to modern tech / resources was enough to overwhelm Israel on Oct 7th. Israel can barely live with a semi capable Gaza, and definitely can't live with a capable (free) one. Given how weapons are proliferating, Hamas rockets likely a few iterations from taking out existential Israeli strategic targets like desalination plants. There isn't isn't enough geographic buffer for both people to exist on the same land, not without one permenantly keeping other down. Hence IMO Israel will try to make Palestinians disappear from Gaza, one way or another.

[tety]

I think it is completely within Israel's ability to dismantle most of Hamas fighting force, and then manage the Gaza Strip similarly to the West Bank. Failing to do so might bring about the scenarios you are talking about, which is the tragedy of those that scream genocide too prematurely. As done in all previous wars with Hamas, the international crowd has called what was happening genocide although it clearly wasn't, thereby pressuring Israel to stop, enabling worse and worse wars in the future and more civilian deaths.

I completely agree though that a lack of a two state solution will lead to catastrophe for either people or both eventually. However, I do not share your pessimism about US/Israel regional prospects. Remember that this is mainly due to self-inflicted restraints, which is how asymmetric warfare really works. As seen in September 11 in the US and October 7 in Israel this can change rapidly when faced with an external threat

[maxglute]

They can manage Gaza like Westbank, but that's settling for two powderkegs. Same with comparison to US post 911 actions. It's buying time, which currently is best of bad options, but IMO blowback will come. Pessimism personally warranted in medium/long term time frames. US been trying to draw down from CENTOM for years, and newer gen who will take over politics are expessing less alignment with Israel. I don't think it's self-inflicted restraints as much as geopolitically inflicted - there's upper limit to what Israel can do before it fucks up things irrevocably for US geopolitical interests with others in the region. Long term, Israel is still a small country without sufficient human capita to maintain high end asymmetric war fighting across domains alone (i.e. aviation). Long term I think US constitutents and politicians will attach more and more strings to Israeli behaviour.