Israel v Hamas

Genocide is a heavy term let's not dilute it. Israel is defending itself, not targeting a group for extinction.

Even scholars get it wrong sometimes.

I'm not diluting anything - I agree it is a heavy term and that's what makes it appropriate, in my view, and the view of nearly every expert and scholar in the field.

To still be talking about Israel defending itself as this stage is comical - I can accept debate on the genocide label, but there is absolutely no debate to be had that this is about defence.
 
I'm not diluting anything - I agree it is a heavy term and that's what makes it appropriate, in my view, and the view of nearly every expert and scholar in the field.

To still be talking about Israel defending itself as this stage is comical - I can accept debate on the genocide label, but there is absolutely no debate to be had that this is about defence.

No debate you say but Israel are fighting terrorists and not a people. Calling it genocide stretches the term beyond reason.
 
No debate you say but Israel are fighting terrorists and not a people. Calling it genocide stretches the term beyond reason.

They're fighting some terrorists and killing tens of thousands of civilians as they go.

Your argument is held up by a belief that you are better qualified to determine a genocide than people who have spent their lives studying the topic, including many Israelis - why do you think you know better than them?
 
They're fighting some terrorists and killing tens of thousands of civilians as they go.

Your argument is held up by a belief that you are better qualified to determine a genocide than people who have spent their lives studying the topic, including many Israelis - why do you think you know better than them?

Collateral damage in war is not genocide. "Experts" get it wrong all the time.
I’m saying intent matters, and Israel is targeting Hamas and not civilians.
 
Collateral damage in war is not genocide. "Experts" get it wrong all the time.
I’m saying intent matters, and Israel is targeting Hamas and not civilians.

Again, you're patronisingly suggesting that scholars in genocide, or the UN, would not understand what collateral damage is, or that intent matters - it's an absurd argument.

Can you give me an example of a time the UN have labelled something a genocide and turned out to be incorrect?
 
Again, you're patronisingly suggesting that scholars in genocide, or the UN, would not understand what collateral damage is, or that intent matters - it's an absurd argument.

Can you give me an example of a time the UN have labelled something a genocide and turned out to be incorrect?

Have the UN actually officially labeled it genocide in Gaza?
 
Have the UN actually officially labeled it genocide in Gaza?
Yes, they have;

  • The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (a UN body) published a report concluding that Israel’s authorities and security forces have committed genocide in Gaza.
  • The Commission identified that four of the five genocidal acts under the 1948 Genocide Convention have been met:
    1. Killing
    2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm
    3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part
    4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births (for example, damage to reproductive healthcare infrastructure)
  • The Commission also concluded there is evidential “intent” to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, in whole or in part, meeting the legal threshold of genocidal intent.

There's only two other times the UN have ever formally concluded genocide, which was Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in 2005, so it's certainly not a conclusion they come to lightly.
 
Eliminating all Hamas combatants is a perfectly reasonable strategy for the defence of Israel.

If Hamas is not allowing people to leave to use them as human shields then all the more reason Hamas are eradicated asap

The death toll is terrible, as is war which is what this is.
 
Yes, they have;

  • The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (a UN body) published a report concluding that Israel’s authorities and security forces have committed genocide in Gaza.
  • The Commission identified that four of the five genocidal acts under the 1948 Genocide Convention have been met:
    1. Killing
    2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm
    3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part
    4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births (for example, damage to reproductive healthcare infrastructure)
  • The Commission also concluded there is evidential “intent” to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, in whole or in part, meeting the legal threshold of genocidal intent.

There's only two other times the UN have ever formally concluded genocide, which was Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in 2005, so it's certainly not a conclusion they come to lightly.

That's an independent commission not the actual UN.

I asked Grok: "No, the United Nations as an organization has not officially labeled Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide as of September 25, 2025"
 
They're fighting some terrorists and killing tens of thousands of civilians as they go.

Your argument is held up by a belief that you are better qualified to determine a genocide than people who have spent their lives studying the topic, including many Israelis - why do you think you know better than them?

Incredible denial. Just a few then....

If there are so few, and they've been smashed, and the Gazans don't want or like Hamas, then why don't they just overthrow them and get the hostages free, and end it? There's a million in Gaza, facing only "some" terrorists.

Trouble is Saturn, consistently your numbers and assertions don't add up.
 
That's an independent commission not the actual UN.

I asked Grok: "No, the United Nations as an organization has not officially labeled Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide as of September 25, 2025"

It's a UN commission whose reports are published under the UN umbrella, as official UN documents.

We can piddle about with semantics if you want - can you highlight a time a UN commission has incorrectly accused someone of genocide previously?
 
Incredible denial. Just a few then....

If there are so few, and they've been smashed, and the Gazans don't want or like Hamas, then why don't they just overthrow them and get the hostages free, and end it? There's a million in Gaza, facing only "some" terrorists.

Trouble is Saturn, consistently your numbers and assertions don't add up.

Why don't the peoples who have seen their entire livelihood destroyed, families killed, who can't access basic food and water, never mind medical care, and who are displaced and living in makeshift camps, go and overthrow the armed terrorists..?

Do these things actually make sense in your head before you post them?
 
It's a UN commission whose reports are published under the UN umbrella, as official UN documents.

We can piddle about with semantics if you want - can you highlight a time a UN commission has incorrectly accused someone of genocide previously?

Your response should be: No the UN has not officially labeled Israel's actions in Gaza as Genocide.

And I would say I can't see any evidence that the UN have made a mistake. Which leads us back to the UN not officially labeling Israel actions as genocide correct then.

So you are correct they have not made a mistake.
But you are wrong saying the UN have officially labeled it genocide in Gaza.

(Although there are criticisms for potential mistakes in labeling genocide.)
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top