President Joe Biden said Tuesday Israel’s prime minister needs to change his hardline government and support for the country’s military campaign is waning amid heavy bombardment of Gaza. … “This is the most conservative government in Israel’s history,” Biden said, adding that the Israeli government “doesn’t want a two-state solution.”
It’s mind-blowing how thoroughly Netanyahu has bungled this. They had damn near the entire world in full support after Hamas’ horrific attack on Israeli civilians, and they’ve managed to lose it.
See above definition on genocide. If thousands of dead Palestinian civilians (~50% of whom are children) isn’t enough to be labeled as genocide then the definition you are using is a bad one.
Are you saying that when Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, they were not intentionally killing civilians?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/israeli-airstrikes-kill-80-in-palestinian-refugee-camp
Most of those deaths happen due to the lack shelters and lack of places where people can hide. If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they would have done it in a week. Obviously you will have more civilians killed in a crowded city area than somewhere in a field. Also, they would not have to be dead if Hamas didn’t start this.
Regarding the refugee camp: it’s more of an approach where they no longer try as much to limit civilian causalities as much as possible. There was also one of the main Hamas commanders in that camp.
…and the bombs landing on their heads.
Not all genocides are done with equal fervor.
This was started in 1948 when Palestinians were forced from their homes. Playing a game of “who started it” doesn’t justify anything.
Yeah… almost like they are totally OK with killing civilians (genocide).
Of course there are bombs falling on Gaza when they organize a terrorist attack. Literally everyone was expecting this type of response. How should Israel respond? I get that there are unused ways of minimizing civilian deaths but every response would be quite dramatic.
I agree that genocides have different flavors but the results of all is a completely or partially removed ethnicity. By saying partially, I mean roughly 40% killed or moved to a detention facility.
And I also agree this started in 1948 but rather when Israel declared its own independence and all Arab countries attacked it. Arab countries lost and the exodus was a direct result of it.
You know, it’s the same with almost every escalation. Arab countries (or now Palestine, respectively Hamas) attack Israel, they lose and then they cry that Israel is bad to them.
Seems like you already know the answer to that question. Yet for some reason you’re giving Israel a free pass for killing civilians. So effectively you’re just arguing for terrorism. State terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless.
Good people don’t kill civilians.
The definition of genocide contains no percentage threshold. You’re making definitions up out of thin air.
It’s impossible not to kill civilians in such a conflict when the area you are fighting in is a densely populated city. However, I condemn that Israel is also using non-precision weapons.
Of course genocide is not defined by numbers. However, all genocides should have some traits in common. These traits present in every other genocide such as mass population lost are not present in the Israel’s conflict.
But it is possible to not drop bombs on areas you KNOW civilians are at.
This is also not a part of the definition of genocide.
Civilians are pretty much everywhere alongside Hamas members who are usually between them.
Yes, it is not a part of the definition but the common traits of all genocides definitely directly follow from the definition. Hence why all registered genocides are in fact similar to each other. Israeli actions wouldn’t be similar to any of them.
Yeah, so maybe they should stop dropping bombs.
Not only is this not true, but even if it were, as I’ve already pointed out it doesn’t need to be similar. A genocide can be totally unique yet still fall under the definition of genocide.