[devzx]

If that was their goal they would have done it on October 8th, quit with the nonsense. They wouldn't send their soldiers in to die when they could obliterate the entire place by air and sea if not for the fact they are purposefully not trying to what you accuse them of.

[oncallthrow]

30% of Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed or severely damaged.

[devzx]

Unless the definition of genocide has been changed, even if all the buildings were destroyed that would still not constitute a genocide. My question still stands, why are Israel risking the lives of their young men and women inside Gaza if they are perpetrating a genocide which they have the capability to carry it out in less than a day?

[oncallthrow]

You argued that Israel are not “obliterating” Gaza. I simply pointed out to you that they are, by any reasonable definition.

As it happens, they are also committing a genocide. I suspect you won’t accept that, but I don’t care. History will look back on this and agree with me, not you.

[devzx]

I argued that they are not committing a genocide and by every provable metric they aren't. I asked you a very simple question that you can't or refuse to answer, and I suspect its because if you answer honestly you'll come to the only logical conclusion. I'll also put to you that the only actual genocide that took place during this conflict was on October 7th.

[AlecSchueler]

> by every provable metric they aren't.

Why does the UN say they are? Do you think destroying the entire people in one day would be as easy to pass politically as what they gave done?

[wqaatwt]

October 7th was inconceivably horrible. But if you do not consider the situation in Gaza a genocide (there are rational arguments that can be made to support that) claiming that the massacre that started the whole thing was a genocide doesn’t make much sense at all.

Was September 11 also a “genocide”?

[jakupovic]

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...

[drankl]

Historians will probably have a range of opinions on this matter.

[jakupovic]

No they won't.

[tpm]

Of course, holocaust deniers exist too. Some of them do it even for free.

[g-b-r]

The definition of genocide has never changed, but you probably never read it.

[devzx]

Thanks for letting me know the definition hasn't changed and I'm glad you agree with me that there isn't a genocide taking place but a very intense war. P.S My people suffered an actual genocide and it didn't look like what is happening in Gaza. Interesting to note is how the "victims" of this genocide can end it immediately by simply returning the hostages but refuse to.

[wqaatwt]

To be fair there was no risk of real political or diplomatic consequences for nazi Germany regardless of what they did (it’s not like the allies we particularly bothered by it until the war was over..)

The situation Israel is in now is very different due to their economic and military reliance on other countries.

Also I don’t think ordinary Gazans can somehow return the hostages..

The people in the suicidal death cult called Hamas might be able to (probably not at this point though) but they don’t seem to care much more about civilian deaths than than the Israelis..

[basisword]

"Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, UN commission of inquiry says"[1]. I'm going to assume that a man who was president of the international tribunal on Rwanda's genocide has more experience in what defines genocide that you do. It's worth reading if you wish to learn and are open to changing your mind.

>> Interesting to note is how the "victims" of this genocide can end it immediately by simply returning the hostages but refuse to.

How it 'can end' doesn't determine whether or not it is genocide.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go

[FridayoLeary]

It's a war and just because you don't like that doesn't make it a genocide. Your appeal to authority is irrelevant because we're suspicious of the motivation of this commitee and therefore the veracity of their findings.

I find it amazing that you can dismiss one of the primary reasons for the continued state of war as irrelevant.

Hamas will rightly hold this up as a major tactical and strategic victory. It will do nothing at all to help palestinians except the fat cats in the plo and qatar.

[g-b-r]

I'm sorry for your people, but most recognized genocides look very different from every other.

And despite your history you don't seem very knowledgeable of what a genocide is, or willing to listen who actually studied the matter.

Hamas is not the victim of the genocide, but I guess you don't think there's any victim here, given the quotes.

The Israeli government said countless times that having all the hostages back wouldn't end the military operation.

And frankly, if all this abomination would actually succeed in forcing the hands of hamas, it would set a terrible precedent.

Others would have an argument to repeat it everytime someone holds hostage something.

Interesting to note, instead, how the Israeli government could have freed all the hostages for years, had it accepted any of the many offers of hamas.

[tguvot]

What hamas offered: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/hama...

[crikeykangaroo]

"We could have dropped a nuke, but instead, opted to drop so many bombs over time which equal a couple of nukes! Totally not a genocide!"

[devzx]

How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden in World War 2? If people like you were listened to back then, you would be speaking German right now and I wouldn't be here.

[wqaatwt]

Germany was still launching ballistic missiles at England a month after Dresden.

It’s a false analogy, the conventional war is long over and hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore.

The equivalent would be the allies refusing to occupy Berlin and still bombing it well into 1946 despite the war being won.

Allies also had a rather clear plan on what goals they want to achieve and why. Israeli government seems to have no idea what do they want to achieve and how (besides extending Netanyahu’s political career..)

[dlubarov]

> Germany was still launching ballistic missiles at England a month after Dresden.

Just in the past 24 hours, there were rockets launched from Gaza toward Ashdod - https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-rockets-fired-at-ashdod-id...

> hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore

They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory. "Destroy military assets and get out" can sometimes be a useful strategy, but it's a pretty short term solution.

> what goals they want to achieve and why

The goal seems to be occupation of the entire strip, to make it difficult for Hamas (and PIJ etc) to operate effectively.

[jakupovic]

"significant minority of Gaza territory" you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

[dlubarov]

Do you have some kind of response that isn't just an ad hominem?

[wqaatwt]

> They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory

If so its only because Israel decided to allow them to maintain that control.

> but it's a pretty short term solution.

Exactly, that seems to be Israel’s strategy. If they actually destroyed Hamas the rightwing government in Israel would lose the bogeyman keeping them in power (that’s why they were propping up Hamas for years).

[permo-w]

how does this follow?

[cubefox]

If likewise fighting the Nazis had been stopped because of people calling it a "genocide" the outcome would have been catastrophic.

[wqaatwt]

Hamas doesn’t have tanks, bombers, cruise or ballistic missiles though.

Destroying their capacity to wage war didn’t require blowing up every building in Gaza.

[cubefox]

Unlike the Nazis, Hamas isn't capitulating. If the Nazis hadn't capitulated, the allies wouldn't just have gone home.

[_DeadFred_]

Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were destroyed without it being a genocide.

[permo-w]

and so were many British towns and cities. atrocity /= genocide. how does the speaking German or non-existence of the commenter follow?

[_DeadFred_]

If we hadn't bombed these cities we might not have won the war. Arguably we didn't have to nuke Japan but chose to over the cost of the lives of our own soldiers (including my grandfather a marine in the pacific). War involves doing horrific things you don't want to do and wouldn't normally do (look at Israel's actions pre Oct 7th versus post, this sort of war is not the natural state for Israel). War requires you lean on the side of doing too much damage versus limiting your military actions. War requires you take maximal actions, unlike policing where we try to use minimal. If the US fought Japan how people want Israel to fight the government of Gaza, I would not exist, my grandfather would have died storming Japan. It would have been a more moral victory, but it is very hard for any society to choose sacrificing their 18 years olds in a conflict initiated by the other side, when war strategy dictates that other paths/actions be taken, paths with less of your 18 year olds dead and a higher chance of reaching your goals. War by it's naturing is fought maximally, not as a police action.

This is also not a gentleman's war. A neighboring government supported by their citizens who joined in spontaneously, launched a surprise attack that killed 1000+, and indiscriminately maimed/raped/tortured thousands more, while broadcasting video of themselves kidnapping random 6 year old girls to the world, neighboring citizens who phoned home to their parents to brag 'I killed 10 jews today'.

War sucks. War is horrific. Which is why it sucks Hamas, the government of Gaza, chose this war. Why it sucks Hamas structured things for the war to proceed, with maximal civilian damage and casualties. Why it sucks Hamas chose to use civilian hostages abducted during the murder/rape/maiming of thousands. No country can just let their citizens be abducted and held captive like Hamas choses to do, intentionally ratcheting up the pressure/tempo of the war that they initiated.

[catlover76]

Your point has some merit, but overall the Israeli government's policy for the past several decades has been to kill and imprison large numbers of them; violently displace them from the West Bank with increasing speed; refer to them as "vermin"; starve the population deliberately; shoot at children; and more!

It seems pretty fair to say that Israel--including, to be clear, a large chunk of its population--wants to annihilate them, but is trying to do it slowly enough so that it can maintain some plausible deniability. The only concrete indication to the contrary is the plan to send the population of Gaza to the Sudan or wherever.