Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/gaza-death-trap-msf-report-exposes-israels-campaign-total-destruction

by lr0 • 2 years ago

327 166 2 years ago

A_D_E_P_T2• 2 years ago

Related, interesting:

https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2024/gaza-before-after...
https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/gaza-is-i...

The strip is bombed out and half in ruins. With the import of construction material into Gaza highly restricted, I wonder how, or if, it'll be rebuilt. It is becoming a true open-air wasteland prison, barely capable of supporting life. So it's hard to dispute the conclusion drawn by Doctors Without Borders, even if the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.

It is pretty clear that the death counts from Gaza are widely inaccurate and incomplete. They are only counting dead if they are brought to the hospitals and then buried. But Israel is bringing down building after building with people in them that are never recovered. And then secondary deaths caused by lack of health facilities are not being counted as dead directly as a result of the conflict, but are definitely caused by it.

hirvi74• 2 years ago

How does this compare to other wars?

dlubarov2• 2 years ago

This was true early in the war, but Gaza's health ministry has long since shifted to collecting reports of deaths from "reliable media sources". One source of data is a Google form which they set up in March. There are also reports claiming that GHM has counted natural deaths in their figures, which I don't think GHM has really denied (their releases don't say much about methodology). And of course they include militant deaths.

bhouston3• 2 years ago

And HRW says the same thing specifically with regards to Israel's targeted destruction of water resources: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat...

That adds to Amnesty International's declaration that Israel's action fit the definition of genocide a few weeks ago: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...

Anyhow, there are so many companies in the US that are complicit including in particular Google - it knew its software was likely to be used for human rights violations in Israel and they valued getting money over going the right thing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-said-worried-contract-w...

EDIT: Instantly downvoted to -2 on a factual comment that links to high quality resources? Feels like bots to me.

ghufran_syed• 2 years ago

so was the dam-busters raid by england in ww2 against nazi germany also “genocide”? or were they both just “warfare”

as the events of Rwanda showed, it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide. So are the israelis really incompetent at genocide, to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out? or is this just the usual propaganda and hyperbole?

FireBeyond4• 2 years ago

to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out

What about the times they tell the civilians to move to, say, Southern Gaza, because they're going to start bombing Northern Gaza more heavily, and then when they do, they increase bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%?

https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...

it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide

I didn't realize you had to "complete" a genocide within a certain time limit. Besides, what's the rush? The global reaction so far is that there'll be loud words and fists thumped on tables, but that they'll let Israel do largely whatever it wants.

esalman2• 2 years ago

The fact that you look at this banner- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/giant-anti-israe...

.. And instantly know what it's about, pretty much rests the case.

drooby3• 2 years ago

Genocide requires proving intentionality. Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This is a serious and complex standard, and it’s central to the legal definition.

It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria.

That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed.

Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..

defrost3• 2 years ago

There's no shortage of material in print calling for the destruction of Gaza, the non personhood of Palestinians, etc. from Israel ministers and commentators from before the October attacks by Hamas.

You can, for example, look to the Journal of Genocide Research at articles that draw parallels between Holocaust scholar Eugene's Finkel's declaration of Ukraine as a genocidal event and his point by point justification and similar parallels with Israel and Gaza.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...

calmbonsai3• 2 years ago

Ironically, I think the closest historical context is the British military in east Africa (roughly what is now Kenya) to the Kikuyu in the late 1880s.

orwin• 2 years ago

They destroy or steal art and books each time they invade. The places with the most Palestinian pre-israel books and art are Israelian archives, where only Israeli historians have access if the government authorize them (i.e if they're not critical of the current politics).

123yawaworht456• 2 years ago

Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group.

Jews were not a protected group in the 30's/40's, so...?

okokhacker10• 2 years ago

Yes, let’s thoroughly review the facts and posit while bombs are being dropped.

Speaking of courts, didn’t the ICC have something to say about this?

esalman2• 2 years ago

What exactly are we being too quick to judge?

tim3333• 2 years ago

The fact that there is a debate as to whether the Gaza actions constitute genocide does not in itself prove that they do or don't.

stogot3• 2 years ago

I know this is a controversial issue. But honest question: what is a ceasefire going to do?

Hamas refuses to surrender, so it’s only a few years until another Oct 7, and then it starts again. What other option does Israel have? They’ve been fighting these wars for years and they’ve now decided to continue this one vs waiting for a new one in three years

jfwuasdfs• 2 years ago

A cease-fire may buy us time to figure out a long-term solution.

insane_dreamer4• 2 years ago

What other option does Israel have?

seriously? yeah, so lets just reduce Gaza to rubble, ruin the lives of 1.5M people and kill 45,000 men, women and children in order to root out remaining fighters who refuse to lay down their arms. In fact why don't we just go ahead and nuke the whole place -- that should get rid of Hamas once and for all.

-- except that it won't actually get rid of Hamas--or whatever comes out of the ashes of Hamas. When a population has been oppressed as long as the Palestinians in Gaza have, it gives rise to people who don't care anymore, people who have seen their families and loved ones killed. Even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter today, how many 10 year old boys do you think there are today who are going to take up weapons to avenge their fathers and older brothers as soon as they are able? Just like today's fighters want to avenge their fathers from the last intifada? So yeah, Israel will be fighting this again in 5 year's time (unless of course they just kill most everyone or make Gaza unlivable, which seems to be the case now that this has gone on for over a year, thus ... genocide). The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with, but that it is unwilling to do. So the cycle will continue.

stogot3• 2 years ago

Your answer is unrealistic, but I didn’t provide a long enough question. I’m not justifying genocide obviously. The initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza.

Im asking why “not continuing to fight” (a ceasefire) is even a viable option for Israel’s politicians per the article’s demands. I am a realist not an optimist. Give a viable alternative. The cycle continues

thruway5167• 2 years ago

They appear to be trying to end the cycle once and for all. And they have bullied/co-opted the rest of the world into silence or indifference.

fuzzfactor7• 2 years ago

The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with,

That would be good. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's a little too late since IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists. And with hesitation from Israel, only after terrorists proved repeatedly to have too much freedom of movement outside of Gaza.

Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression, and what now looks like for the first time (or maybe finally?) an equally hateful genocidal response from Israel.

But "equal" is now more lopsided than ever since Israel had to bolster its defenses so much for so long that it's now incredibly destructive when deployed as an offensive force.

We shouldn't lose sight of what could have been, even though so much has been lost already.

If they want to stop the killing as seriously as possible, every day since Oct 7 Hamas continues to have the opportunity to surrender the hostages and lay down their arms.

Hamas clearly started this present war whether it was intended to get out of hand or not. What kind of conclusion is supposed to be possible other than complete vanquishment unless they surrender beforehand and agree to more effective security demands going forward?

As a neutral observer you just have to accept that initiating a war like this directly establishes Hamas in at least a slight moral deficit compared to whom they viciously attacked.

All other things being equal, it does point the finger of responsibility at Hamas for all subsequent destruction until the war is completely over.

Even if things are not equal at all, Hamas could always end it any time they wanted.

It would have saved a lot of lives, but not as many as if Hamas refrained from slaughtering civilians to begin with.

The situation will eventually settle and judgment will coalesce whether it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to trigger a response-in-kind from the IDF the way they did.

fuzzfactor7• 2 years ago

Not my downvote, corrective upvote actually.

One of the saddest things is the religious hatred that underlies the ongoing animosity over the centuries.

There have been a few generations since 1945-1948 but not a significant number compared to way back when this all started.

It is difficult to be sure how the balance of actual oppression swung between the hating parties over that much time. I would imagine that during times of no oppression there was still lingering hatred which has risen and fallen, most likely in a political way. Always available to be stoked into destructive action by populists and/or mobs who favor that type of inhumanity. Actual oppressive action was probably taken more often during times when one hating faction is much more capable of destruction than the other. Whether or not violence still existed during times when there was not true oppression occurring simultaneously.

Compared to that, the 20th century was already incredibly advanced up until World War II, great progress had been made but worldwide inhumanity had of course not been overcome, and the ultimate destruction would finally be enough to end the world. Ever since. As we are not supposed to forget. But before the war the people of the Mideast seemed to be so much more advanced than they are now in the way that so many Arabs & Jews had been living in relative "complete harmony" for centuries in a lot of places, scattered throughout the Mideast, compared to how it is between Israel & Palestine recently. There was still scattered hatred too, and if that could have been addressed back then the situation would not be as bad now.

By 1948 it was already too late, WWII came and went without a complete cessation of hostilities in the Mideast. Like almost no where else. Missed it by that much.

When most of the world is fighting truly evil political parties in WWII because those parties are an existential threat to the entire world, you're going to have to build up some kind of a defense just in case the threat comes your way, regardless of whether you are completely non-aggressive and totally neutral otherwise.

Most of the world is fighting, the whole thing is threatened, practically that means the whole world is at war. This had never happened before or since, not nearly with WWI even though it was quite international too.

A HUGE dividing line for the existence of human beings which makes EVERYTHING that happened before the war far less meaningful in some ways. Or makes absolutely meaningless any hatred which existed in the pre-war world, or anything else which could possibly lead in any other direction than world peace.

No matter what anybody's ancestors thought before that, some of them almost destroyed the world and that was more widely recognized as stupid than it is now. It was more unanimous back in the 20th century that those kind of political parties would never have a chance again after such a devastating worldwide war. Because if another world war comes, there will be nothing left. Remember what it was like during the "Cold War"? If it had gotten hot none of us would even be here to oppress or be oppressed.

If you can come out on the other end after the most-evil political parties have been overcome, and the whole world is supposed to relax and quit fighting, you are supposed to quit fighting too if you had participated. And if you never did face a direct enough threat which required you to participate in the destruction, the stupidest thing you could do with your strengthened defense apparatus would be some saber-rattling or to start fighting when the "smart money" has quit for good reason. Well hard-core humanity is just not yet universal enough to fix stupid, and stupid or inhumanity may or may not have been more prevalent then than now.

Not everybody will be able to make the connection between stupidity, inhumanity, and ego, but it's there more prominently sometimes than others too.

People have pinpointed a critical dividing line of 1948 which can not be denied or ignored, and I'll add something generic that not everyone considers which doesn't apply more to the Mideast than anywhere else. It's not the number of years since WWII that allows the forgetfulness of maximized inhumanity to occur, it's the number of human generations since. And some cultures, intentionally or not, beget numerous more generations over the same number of decades than others.

Remember I wasn't born yet in 1948, but when the 6-day war took place in 1967, I first recognized the significance of that much-earlier 1948 upset, and have been exposed to all kinds of opinions and facts about it ever since. Some from people who were actually supporting either side before they were too elderly. Mostly one-sided one way or the other, which is not easy to navigate. I have always refused to take a side, and admit that my distillation has not yielded an unchanging response to either extreme yet.

Now when I say human generations that means human beings, but look at it even deeper and an almost-separate element of "humanity" has its own generations. I guess there's a certain amount of forgetfulness that accrues through time on either terms.

So really I'm worried about the oppression of the current generation more so than going back to 1948 most of the time any more.

Now the WWII generation worldwide, which picked up after the war by declaring the most prosperous peacetime in living history, has dwindled to almost non-existence, it is naturally no longer a political force.

While they were still influential might have been why civilization has lasted this long since 1948.

When I take sides I try to make it humanity over inhumanity, and brilliance over stupidity.

When all you have left is inhumanity and stupidity do you really want to be on one side or the other?

Sorry for the long messages but this is more serious than ever and it's been on my mind for a while now.

Trying to post in good faith.

UniverseHacker3• 2 years ago

They could stop persecuting and murdering Palestinians, stop occupying Palestine, and agree to either a one state or two state solution that recognizes Palestinians as human beings with a right to live.

UniverseHacker3• 2 years ago

I'm very disappointed in people flagging everyone that disagrees with me. What is the point of even coming on here if you won't have a discussion with people you disagree with, but want to censor their ability to participate? Echo chambers are useless for everyone.

EvgeniyZh8• 2 years ago

While all of these should be done (well not the one-state solution, but nobody really considering it anyway), how do you think it will stop the terrorist attacks?

edanm6• 2 years ago

How, exactly? Israel was in negotiations with the official representative of the Palestinians, the PA, and they refused all offers and walked away from the negotiations.

The opposite approach happened in Gaza - Israel just unilaterally walked away. They then elected Hamas, who is bent on Israel's destruction, and who proceeded to wage war on Israel for twenty years, culminating in the October 7th attacks.

What now?

Edit: I'm not saying I agree with your framing of the question.

jhanschoo• 2 years ago

The enlightened option from a felicific calculus method it seems to me would require putting the destiny of Israel democratically in the hands of the Levantine majority; scaling back its territory occupied and settled illegally. But of course, this is not an option. This risks the genocide of the Israelis by putting power in its neighbors, when they have the wealth and US support to ensure that it is their more numerous enemies that risks genocide instead

invalidname2• 2 years ago

You do know Israel offered Palestinians a state and unilaterally left Gaza giving them an option to build a state... We tried that and it didn't work.

catlikesshrimp• 2 years ago

No offence, yours is an effective altruist take on any problem: <If there is no final solution that can be achieved fast and with minimal effort, it is not worth doing anything.>

There is NO FINAL SOLUTION to any human problem: not hunger, not disease, not poverty, not racism. All effort counts and smart effort contributes more, but it is not a once and done deal. We must eat everyday, we must not shit plastic in our air, all children must get polio vaccine, and taxes have to be paid one way or the other.

It's ugly, it's hard, it's long, it's life!

thruway5167• 2 years ago

I literally cannot believe the phrase FINAL SOLUTION is being used here without any irony

nitwit005• 2 years ago

What are any of the options available going to do? They don't have any fundamental fixes for the situation available.

Fundamental to Isreal's problems is that all security issues seem to only have temporary fixes available.

vr46• 2 years ago

All they seem to offer the world has been revenge since the 1980s.

throw310822• 2 years ago

Fundamental to Israel's problem is that they want "security" while they keep oppressing Palestinians and grabbing more land. They do not want peace- quite the opposite, peace means establishing fixed borders, possibly evacuating illegal settlements, not having an excuse for further expansion, etc. They want a permanent state of attrition that allows them to keep doing what is convenient to them while being safe from all reprisals.

This was said clearly by one of Sharon's advisors explaining the motives for Israel removing settlements from Gaza:

"The significance of the disengagement plan [from Gaza] is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem."

okokhacker10• 2 years ago

You’re implying that the genocide is, somehow, beneficial to carry out?

Besides, the war isn’t even against Hamas. It’s against civilians, with an intent to kill as many as they can manufacture consent for.

stogot3• 2 years ago

I never said that and that’s an unreasonable interpretation of what was written

thruway5167• 2 years ago

Why was this flagged?

drooby3• 2 years ago

Clearly off-topic for HN.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

thruway5167• 2 years ago

Really? Change the conflict to a different one and it doesn't seem all that unusual or off topic by hn standards

And they have bullied/co-opted the rest of the world into silence or indifference.

kbelder2• 2 years ago

HN often covers major news events, and wars fall into that category. Their impact is wide-ranging and of large import. I don't see an issue with the occasional HN coverage of it.

I could see an argument that this conflict might be getting a disproportionate amount of posts, because it seems to have aroused a lot of passion among some of the HN audience. Would Doctors Without Borders condemning Russia in Ukraine warrant a HN post? Don't know, probably not.

aguaviva14• 2 years ago

Evidence of some interesting new phenomenon

Not entirely new, but certainly interesting and relevant in the sense of one of the world's most highly respected organizations weighing in on one of the most flagrant large-scale violation of human rights in our time (that many prefer to pretend to believe isn't happening at all).

Clearly on-topic for HN.

shkkmo4• 2 years ago

Political content of all kinds often gets flagged on HN as lots of people don't like it and flagging is the easiest way to express that disapproval and impact front page placement.

thruway5167• 2 years ago

Yes, flagging is a way for some people to express disapproval of what THEY don't like. A major organization makes a big statement about a major conflict. This is of general interest and would normally make front page headlines, even on HN.

calmbonsai3• 2 years ago

Well, I'm pretty certain by any reasonable (UN, AI, HRN, etc.) standard, it became genocide quite some time ago when Israel:

1. Used precision guided weapons in unguided-mode to take out entire buildings including schools and hospitals

2. Used precision guided weapons in guided-mode to take out cars and food supply trucks of the World Central Kitchen workers when the cars were clearly demarcated as UN

3. Blocked I18n (not just UN) food & water aid

4. Precisely demolished water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure

5. Denied PoWs fundamental rights under the UN charter

tim3333• 2 years ago

I'm not so sure - a standard definition is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.

And then you'd wonder if things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden count as genocide. And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.

I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.

aguaviva14• 2 years ago

And then you'd wonder if things like the bombing of Dresden count as genocide.

Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if we count all the other terror bombings conducted by the Allies - Dresden was but one of many) the size of the vastly larger genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. But there's little point in arguing that that's what the deliberate targetting of civilian populations in Germany (both during and after the war, considering the mass expulsions that followed) did not effectively amount to a "mini" genocide, nonetheless.

And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.

No, pointing out this fairly obvious fact does not, by any stretch, imply that "all war" is genocide.

Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.

That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content.

That's a valid point, and indeed the article should probably be flagged on that basis.

afiori9• 2 years ago

Genocide as defined in international law is very broad, it also includes cases where 0 people are killed:

- displacing a group in a wider region to try and dilute the ethnicity/culture is genocide

- trying to increase infertility in a group can be genocide

- forcing children from a group to attend schooling of another culture can be genocide

Any action or set of actions that causes going from condition "this cultural/ethnic/national group exists in some state" to condition "the same group is has suffered irreparable damage" can be genocide if done with that objective.

For example when Canada was sending Native American children to boarding school it was clearly a genocidal act, the only uncertainty would be around the intentions:

1) if the Canadian government was trying to improve the standard of education and literacy then it wasn't a genocide

2) if they were trying to bring some good old Christianity to new continent pagans then it was genocide.

In general forced boarding school of a minority definitely would sound like genocide.

You can guess how starving a country while bombing it to scraps scores on this scale

okokhacker10• 2 years ago

round them up and kill them all type genocides.

You’re implying that this doesn’t happen already in Gaza.

https://news.sky.com/story/footage-shows-palestinians-blindf...

I’m sure you can search this up yourself, but I think your goal with this thread is deflection.

calmbonsai3• 2 years ago

Sadly, there's a reason the "Gaza tourniquet" had to be invented. https://glia.org/pages/the-glia-tourniquet-project

grumpycamel• 2 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE

This guy has a very accessible take on the proper United Nations definition of genocide and how it applies to the Gaza and Ukraine war.

Gemini summary:

>>> This video discusses the definition of genocide and its application to current events. The speaker argues that many people misuse the term to describe any atrocity, while genocide specifically refers to the intent to eliminate a group of people. The speaker uses the examples of the war in Gaza and the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin to illustrate this point. They argue that while there are many civilian casualties in Gaza, it's unclear if there's an intent to eliminate the entire Palestinian people. In contrast, Putin's forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia aligns more clearly with the definition of genocide. The speaker emphasizes the importance of using the term accurately to avoid diluting its meaning and to properly address serious crimes. <<<<

clydethefrog2• 2 years ago

Anders Puck Nielsen is a Danish military analyst and naval captain at the Royal Danish Defence College, he is not a human rights lawyer. I will trust the organisations and experts that have studied human rights in deciding if a genocide is occuring.

Sammi• 2 years ago

That's an impossible standard, and by it you should also stop having opinions on this matter.

okokhacker10• 2 years ago

So Putin wouldn’t be committing a genocide if he returned the children and started bombing 90% of the buildings in Ukraine?

Got it!

afiori9• 2 years ago

This take is only possible if you trust anything Tel Aviv says with no fact checking

Israel is:

- blockading humanitarian aid

- targeting UN and aid workers (more that half of all deaths of UN personnel in war zones happened in Gaza in the last 14 months)

- starving the population by blocking food from entering Gaza

- bombing every hospital

- destroying almost every building in the strip.

- already selling beachfront land for planned settlements

- Holding thousands of children hostage in administrative detention without any charges

- carrying terror campaign in the West Bank

- explicitly applying a strategy of collective punishment against the entire population (matching the definition of terrorism)

This computing over the already inhuman apartheid regime in the West Bank

I would posit that counting all children Putin illegally deported you get less that half of the numbers of children killed or kidnapped by the Israeli army

sershe• 2 years ago

I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43. Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft given the historical precedent on dealing with these kinds of movements.

aguaviva14• 2 years ago

I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43.

In fact the numbers of civilians killed are roughly similar (probably 30k for Gaza vs. 40k for Hamburg 43-45) against roughly equal pre-war population size (about 1.5M for each). And the pictures are of course awfully similar as well (depending on where one wishes to zoom in). And Israel's not anywhere near done with Gaza yet.

But of course you were just hand-waving, which is why you started off with "I dunno".

Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft

An incredibly crass and nasty thing to say about a largely innocent population being steadily bombed into the ground.

okokhacker10• 2 years ago

On the surface this is just another callous comment but you are making a few dangerous implications here:

1. Gaza is not as bad as Hamburg (for which no proof was provided) 2. Gaza has to be as bad as Hamburg for it to be called a genocide 3. You want Israel to make Gaza look like Hamburg ‘43 4. The historical precedent (without even getting into land occupation) of movements justifies a genocide.

EvgeniyZh8• 2 years ago

Another day, another organization redefines genocide to fit their narrative, doesn't mention hostages held in Gaza and gets manually unflagged by admins. Business as usual.

pas2• 2 years ago

there are many definitions already. what's yours?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_d...

EvgeniyZh8• 2 years ago

almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).
This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide

This post mentions intent once:

While we don't have legal authority to establish intentionality

But anyway somehow

What our medical teams have witnessed ... is consistent with the descriptions ... that genocide is taking place in Gaza

and then the title was changed from "Gaza death trap: MSF report exposes Israel’s campaign of total destruction" to "Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide"

tdiff• 2 years ago

If Israel commits genocide, and US actively supports Israel with weapons, do they imply US is at least supporting genocide in 21 century?

Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide

Related Stories