> Genocide is the intentional targeting of civilians. You have no proof of that.
Look at satellite images of Gaza. Consider how people there actually live, in temporary tent cities with little access to food, clean water, and medical treatment. Consider also the extent of "accidental" civilian casualties -- with more deaths among Gazan women and children than among Hamas fighters. Then consider that these unarmed civilians are essentially stateless and should, by rights, be under Israel's protection.
How do you see them living in five years? Almost nothing is left standing in Gaza.
It's not (yet) an out-and-out war of extermination, but it is, emphatically, already a profound moral and humanitarian catastrophe -- and a stain upon the soul of the Western nations who are standing by to watch it unfold.
> How do you see them living in five years? Almost nothing is left standing in Gaza.
Depends mostly on how they react, I think. How would Germany have looked in 1950 if it hadn't surrendered but instead transitioned into a partisan war against occupying Allied forces?
Anyone who is militarily defeated and wants peace must eventually surrender and stop trying to wage war. Germany managed to do that in Europe and make peace, and not immediately try to rearm to try again like they did after WW1.
That's not a statement on what's happening in Gaza today, but on what happens in Gaza in 5 years. Had the Arab nations accepted their defeat 70 years ago, we'd be looking at a very different history.
Even if "genocide" is an overstatement, that doesn't make it right. That doesn't make individual actions less than murder. That doesn't make the overall policy less than oppression that is killing many people.
This isn't a total either-or. It can be "not genocide" and still be wrong.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Hamas has put Israel in the position that they have to totally destroy Hamas, and Hamas has entwined itself among the civilian infrastructure to the point that massive civilian casualties are the only possible outcome, that might be a defensible argument. "Not actually a genocide", while technically correct, isn't going fly very well.
Is there anything that could be done to stop this? Anything that a hypothetical terrorist organization that raped and murdered 1,000 men, women and children could give back that would lead to an immediate ceasefire?
If only there was but I guess we will never know as I am sure there is not an organization so evil that while claiming to represent its people gleefully causes their deaths. An organization so evil that it builds its bases under schools and hospitals to ensure civilian deaths if anyone comes for them.
The post I replied to was referencing genocide in Gaza. [Its been flagged, I can't post the text]
If a terrorist group raped and murdered your wife and took your children is there a line in the sand that you would not want your government to cross to get them back? Would you be willing for your government to kill 2 innocents to get back your 3 kids? What about 10 innocents? What about 100? 1000? Is there a number where you would say "my kids lives just aren't worth it, let them die alone and abandoned by me in the tunnels"?
For me there is not, if a million had to die to get my children back then so be it. That is the view point I look at this war from. Hamas murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped a thousand people. They did it on camera and laughed and celebrated the entire time. The people in Gaza welcomed them back as heroes. The government should do whatever is required to ensure it never happens again and that those still held are returned. Its what I would want my government to do.
Collective punishment and mass starvation of children violates my morality and is not an action I want my government to take in any circumstance.
I also speculate that it will be ineffective at preventing future violence.
Feelings like yours work in both directions - the residents of Gaza, by your point of view, are equally justified to kill more Israelis to avenge the violence being done to them today.
So to be clear because I want you to say it: There is a line at which you would tell the government to stop and let your children die and allow the rape and murder of your wife to go unpunished.
Or is it safe to assume you are unmarried and have no children?
If you do have kids then every time you look them in the eye you should acknowledge that you would let them die due to your morality.
Which if true, that's fine. We are just looking at life and family from 2 completely alien perspectives. There is literally nothing I would not do to get my kids back.
"the residents of Gaza, by your point of view, are equally justified to kill more Israelis to avenge the violence being done to them today"
Sure, and then the Israeli government should punish them to an even greater extent. Or the people of Gaza should rage against the group that unleashed this punishment on them, Hamas. the same group they voted on to lead them.
That's correct. I would not kill a million unarmed people and hundreds of thousands of children, or ask someone else to do it for me, to compel the return of my family.
Of course you don't teach your kids that, never said you should.
I would hope that you don't tell them that if it comes down to them or someone else then you would save someone else.
I have always considered my primary job in life is to ensure my children are safe, no matter what. We differ there. Your viewpoint is utterly alien to me.
I wish you well and will call this conversation. All the best.
Do you feel that way about the last time Israel broke ceasefire in operation Cast Lead, which resulted in similar civilian vs combatant deaths? Maybe no amount of punishment is enough for the evil on the other side?
It's not a helpful frame to think in tbh, because now you get to look at the considerably more evil thing done by Israel and justify - what - a chemical weapons attack or something against its citizens?
Agree, and the only way to stop the killing is for Hamas to return the hostages. There is literally no other way for it to happen, no matter what anyone says, that is the only way. Everything else is rhetoric and not grounded in reality.
I'm under no illusion that Israel has clean hands here.
Israel could have gotten the captives back within a week or two from October 7th but refused, likely because this wasn't a popular opinion among jewish israelis at the time.
It still isn't, and even if there was a captive exchange the political mainstream in Israel would not retreat from the occupation of the Gaza strip, just as they aren't going to end the occupations in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Lebanon or Syria, unless forced to do so by other states.
How is that relevant? Is your thought process that the government should just shrug say “oh those dastardly hamas guys got us this time. Fair play on the torture, mutilation, rape and kidnapping. They got our people fair and square they can keep them”
Would you say the same if a bunch of iraqis murdered and raped your family due to what we did under Bush?
Not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Its the governments job to punish those who hurt their citizens and ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
"Its the governments job to punish those who hurt their citizens and ensure that it doesn’t happen again."
Right, so that's why Hamas took captives and tried to initiate negotiations. This was prompted by the annexation of the West Bank, starvation in the Gaza strip and other factors.
Israel found that their backers in the USA and elsewhere weren't going to force them to seriously negotiate and have since moved on to fulfilling the genocidal intents their leaders declared early on.
