Israel-Gaza : Air strike kills World Central Kitchen heroes

[Revoltingest]

IMO, throwing around accusations of 'genocide denial' to those who are condemning Israel's massacres but have disagreements about what constitutes a genocide is shortsighted and nonproductive.

"Throwing around" is a wee bit dismissive.
Posters I've seen defending Israel's massive death &
destruction toll have been at the forefront denying that
it meets the 1948 UN definition of "genocide".
This isn't mere disagreement over application of the word.
They've been arguing that Israel is acting properly.

Such apologetics is becoming increasingly difficult as Israel
kills UN & aid workers, imposes starvation on the populace,
leaves most utterly homeless, & plans to send the survivors
to Africa. Even Biden is now giving the appearance that
he believes Israel is doing great wrong.

 

[libre]

Posters I've seen defending Israel's massive death &
destruction toll have been at the forefront denying that
it meets the 1948 UN definition of "genocide".

Suffice it to say I find such apologetics extremely unbefitting. It is crucial to be criticizing the IDF and Israeli government right now.

I'm more bringing attention to that there is a big difference between disagreeing on what the definition of genocide is (or what the interpretation of a definition should be) and actually denying the evidence that is being brought forth to place that charge, which I think is lost on many when the term 'genocide denial' is used in common parlance.

I don't agree with Sunrise's post and I don't think quantity of victims is the right yardstick to measure what is or isn't a genocide, but I think that trying to characterize his post as 'borderline' genocide denial is opting to charge the conversation unnecessarily.

 

[Revoltingest]

Suffice it to say I find such apologetics extremely unbefitting. It is crucial to be criticizing the IDF and Israeli government right now.

I'm more bringing attention to that there is a big difference between disagreeing on what the definition of genocide is (or what the interpretation of a definition should be) and actually denying the evidence that is being brought forth to place that charge, which I think is lost on many when the term 'genocide denial' is used in common parlance.

I don't agree with Sunrise's post and I don't think quantity of victims is the right yardstick to measure what is or isn't a genocide, but I think that trying to characterize his post as 'borderline' genocide denial is opting to charge the conversation unnecessarily.

It is difficult indeed to coax people into
using words according to definitions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't agree with Sunrise's post and I don't think quantity of victims is the right yardstick to measure what is or isn't a genocide, but I think that trying to characterize his post as 'borderline' genocide denial is opting to charge the conversation unnecessarily.

Please explain to me how it is not genocide denial to suggest or imply that multiple recorded genocides throughout history didn't actually constitute genocides because they failed to meet the body count of the holocaust?

Imagine if someone responded to the claim that the holocaust was a genocide, and suggested doing so was an insult to the Congolese people because more of them died in their genocide, and to suggest that both belong in the same category is therefore an insult?

There's no getting around that. It is explicitly claiming that A GENOCIDE SHOULD NOT BE CALLED A GENOCIDE.

That is very obviously an attempt to claim the accusation of "genocide" to an exclusive set of criteria that very much ignores what a genocide actually is, what constitutes it, and what the reasons may be for people to allege it. That is genocide denial.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am sorry, but this attitude to what qualifies as genocide is wrongheaded and bordering on genocide denial.

By your own logic, the Rwandan genocide should not be called a genocide, because it's death toll was also much smaller to the holocaust. Similarly, the Cambodian genocide. Or literally ALMOST ANY OTHER HISTORICALLY RECOGNISED GENOCIDE:

List of genocides - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For reference, here is a list of historically recognised genocides that have a death toll lower than the recent bombings of Gaza (much less the whole of the Palestine/Israel conflict):

Rohingya genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iraqi Turkmen genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yazidi genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gukurahundi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Massacre of Arabs during the Zanzibar Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Parsley massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Osage Indian murders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Selk'nam genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

California genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Australian frontier wars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Moriori genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Massacre of Salsipuedes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Black War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1804 Haitian massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By your reasoning, none of these could ever even remotely be considered "genocide" because their death tolls don't match the recent events in Gaza, let alone the holocaust.

Or, hell, why not instead set the standard for calling something "genocide" at the Belgian occupation of the Congo, which resulted in potentially more deaths than the holocaust?

"I really object to the misuse of the word "genocide" which trivializes the deliberate and systemic murder of millions of people. What it says to me is that the death/murder of 2 Congolese people is equivalent to one Jew (or a ratio like that)."

Do you not understand how bad that logic is?

Whether or not something counts as genocide isn't as simple as death toll, it's about the intent and execution. To essentially argue to de-legitimise every genocide other than the holocaust is no different, in my mind, to engaging in a form of historical revisionism tantamount to genocide denial. It is literally claiming that every other genocide doesn't count, because this one specific genocide was an obviously very bad one. I don't accept this logic, and I find it explicitly dismissive to all other genocides throughout history.

What you have to do is demonstrate that the intent and execution of these events is not to ethnically eradicate or displace a group of people. It's not enough to simply point at death tolls and say "See! This number doesn't even closely match THE HOLOCAUST, so we can't use that word to describe it!". That's just an evasion, because it isn't dealing with the INTENT AND EXECUTION that leads people to argue that it counts as genocide. It's just diversionary one-up-manship, and a blatant weaponizing of Jewish history to silence what may be legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state, and may also be an accurate accusation as to the consequences of their actions.

Try harder.

The death toll must rise much higher.
Only then may we criticize Israel for all
the maiming, killing, & destruction, eh.

 

[libre]

Please explain to me how it is not genocide denial to suggest or imply that multiple recorded genocides throughout history didn't actually constitute genocides because they failed to meet the body count of the holocaust?

That cannot be explained because it's formally contradictory axiom. I believe you have misapprehended the viewpoint of the poster you are replying to, but I will leave that to him to account for.

Disagreement over the use of terminology to describe groups and incidents as “genocidal” (or “terrorists” for that matter) is a very complicated academic matter that is well within acceptable academic discourse. I don't think the outrage here serves the people who are suffering from these crimes, just obfuscates the unity that we do have on the actual facts of the matter on the ground.

As an example, a user in another thread went so far as to say that the denial of this genocide is comparable to Holocaust denial.
In my view it is very dangerous to conflate disagreements about the definition of genocide with the question of whether the crimes being categorized in question occurred, such as is typical of Holocaust denial.

I agree with you that raw quantity is the wrong yardstick to appraise a genocide accusation.
I am instead suggesting that the term 'genocide denial' should be used in more precise contexts and accusations practised with more caution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That cannot be explained because it's formally contradictory axiom. I believe you have misapprehended the viewpoint of the poster you are replying to, but I will leave that to him to account for.

Disagreement over the use of terminology to describe groups and incidents as “genocidal” (or “terrorists” for that matter) is a very complicated academic matter that is well within acceptable academic discourse. I don't think the outrage here serves the people who are suffering from these crimes, just obfuscates the unity that we do have on the actual facts of the matter on the ground.

As an example, a user in another thread went so far as to say that the denial of this genocide is comparable to Holocaust denial.
In my view it is very dangerous to conflate disagreements about the definition of genocide with the question of whether the crimes being categorized in question occurred, such as is typical of Holocaust denial.

I agree with you that raw quantity is the wrong yardstick to appraise a genocide accusation.
I am instead suggesting that the term 'genocide denial' should be used in more precise contexts and accusations practised with more caution.

This isn't an argument that the implication of their argument ISN'T genocide denial, it's just hand-wringing that we shouldn't call it genocide denial for purposes of civility. I don't really care about that.

When someone's logic necessarily evokes or implies denial of genocide, I will call it genocide denial. If a poster may realise that their logic implies such, I would hope that they would re-assess or at least re-state their position in such a way that they realise this implication and amend their position (or at least their rhetoric) accordingly. Just as with your example where you believe it's "dangerous to conflate" in that manner, I also think it is EXTREMELY dangerous to suggest that the legal status of "genocide" belongs exclusively (or semi-exclusively) with a specific event or group, and because of this any allegation of genocide that doesn't belong to their group must be false equivalence or easily dismissed.

My issue is not that the poster is attempting to deny genocide, but that the logic of the posters lends itself to denying genocide in such a way that explicitly minimises genocide in almost the exact same way he alleges the other poster did. Again, this is not a mis-characterisation of what that poster did. If you feel their was some implication beyond "This genocide was bigger, therefore any claim to the label 'genocide' by any smaller metric is false equivalence", then please make that implication known to me. Because I want it known, in no uncertain terms, that to engage with that logic explicitly downplays what genocide is and denies multiple genocides.

 

[dybmh]

I'm assuming you have access to Haaretz, including

Israel Army Sources: Gaza Aid Workers Killed Because 'IDF Officers on the Ground Do What They Want'

OK. I read it.

This is not the fog of war; it's the blindness of malignant indifference.

I've been asking for the factual reasons which produced the assertion of "indifference". Where in the article is this "indifference" referenced? The article is criticizing officer autonomy.

Yes, the side angle looks much different. It's almost like those are 2 different cars????

I haven't been following the thread, but, yes. The third car is different. The convoy consisted of 2 heavily armored vehicles and a 3rd conventional civilian vehicle which appears to have been added after the deconfliction orders were finalized. The itinerary changed. As a result, the aid workers were detained ( severely ) at the aid distribution staging area ( an improvised jetty ). That's why they were traveling at night far beyond curfew outside the previously agreed travel plan. The number of the people in the party changed. The number of vehicles changed. Then, as a result, the expected departure, in-route, and arrival times all changed.

Put simply, it looks like the aid worker's plan changed and no one alerted the Israeli military.

 

[Revoltingest]

As an example, a user in another thread went so far as to say that the denial of this genocide is comparable to Holocaust denial.

It is indeed comparable....but differing greatly in scope & completion.
What's highly similar is denial having the same basis, ie, for partisan
reasons, ignoring both the definition of "genocide" & the facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've been asking for the factual reasons which produced the assertion of "indifference". Where in the article is this "indifference" referenced? The article is criticizing officer autonomy.

Seriously?

"It has no connection to coordination," the intelligence branch source said. "You can set up another 20 administrations or war rooms, but if someone doesn't decide to put an end to the conduct of some of the troops inside Gaza, we'll see more incidents like this."

Are you honestly claiming that the Netanyahu regime, the IDF leadership, and the troops (in that order) are prioritizing the wellbeing of the civilian population?

Are you truly suggesting that groups like

• World Central Kitchen,
• OXFAM,
• Doctors Without Borders,
• Amnesty International,
• Human Rights Watch,
• UNICEF

are collectively duped, while the United States and the rest rest of the the "free world," with its abundance of satellite, air, and ground surveillance systems, have somehow missed the fact that there's plenty of food in Gaza and that claims to the contrary are simply Hamas propaganda?

 

[libre]

This isn't an argument that the implication of their argument ISN'T genocide denial, it's just hand-wringing that we shouldn't call it genocide denial for purposes of civility. I don't really care about that.

No, I am arguing that Sunrise's post is simply not 'genocide denial', while I do not agree with it.

Words have meaning and I do not want the terms 'genocide' and genocide denial to become as weightless to the western public as the accusation of antisemitism seems to have become because of the overuse by apologist propagandists.

it's just hand-wringing that we shouldn't call it genocide denial for purposes of civility.

The unbefitting outrage I gestured at was more of a sidenote than the primary objection. I'm not tone policing or arguing that anyone is owed civility.
I would however respectfully suggest that you reflect on how you speak to others when you advocate for the Palestinians.

I once shared a similar attitude in discussions related to Native nations, but interactions with survivors and their communities lead me to realize that my outrage while not misplaced was counterproductive and I was not the one who would bare the consequences of my irresponsible speech.

If you've not seen it I would encourage you to review Gabor Mate's video on this war from October and internalize how carefully he discusses his own experiences and the genocide of the Palestinians. He perhaps has more of a right than anyone to react with indignity and rage but he treats the subject with the respect it deserves. If he can manage that, you can too.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I am arguing that Sunrise's post is simply not 'genocide denial', while I do not agree with it.

But nothing of what you said defends that assertion. I'm here explaining in detail how claiming exclusivity to the definition of "genocide" on the basis of body count explicitly denies multiple genocides (which it does), and you're argument that it doesn't is...?

Words have meaning and I do not want the terms 'genocide' and genocide denial to become as weightless to the western public as the accusation of antisemitism seems to have become because of the overuse by apologist propagandists.

But in this case, it isn't. Because genocide denial is an accurate term to use for someone who denies the legitimacy of multiple historical genocides by implication. Even if it isn't necessarily the intent, the fact that I believe the logic leads in that direction is not a lightening of the terminology - it's a condemnation of just how bad the logic is that it can be used to engage in genocide denial.

The unbefitting outrage

I think the outrage is perfectly befitting somebody claiming that to say something that has a lower body count than the holocaust cannot be called a genocide. I think outrage at that logic is perfectly reasonable.

I gestured at was more of a sidenote than the primary objection. I'm not tone policing or arguing that anyone is owed civility.
I would however respectfully suggest that you reflect on how you speak to others when you advocate for the Palestinians.

"I'm not tone policing you, but I am tone policing you."

I once shared a similar attitude in discussions related to Native nations, but interactions with survivors and their communities lead me to realize that my outrage while not misplaced was counterproductive and I was not the one who would bare the consequences of my irresponsible speech.

Then perhaps you'd be better off aiming your outrage at people engaging in logic that can be used to deny genocide than at the people who accurately point this out.

 

[libre]

As I mentioned previously, outrage is simply not a productive place to come from in these conversations, and it's not where I am speaking from. I have stumbled into it on occasion in recent months though so I don't hold it against you.

I've met survivors of genocide who take great care to be model spokespeople and speak with great precision and responsibility regarding their own experiences and the solutions they've argued. In my view, to speak from a place of outrage or indignation is to do them a disservice with how extensively they must've worked to really serve their cause. I'm not going to drown out their work with my less sophisticated opinions and outrage.

Given that you've definitely interacted with a decent share of my posts criticizing Israel and Zionism at this point, i don't feel need to qualify that I am against Israel's crimes against the Palestinian nation and speaking out accordingly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I mentioned previously, outrage is simply not a productive place to come from in these conversations, and it's not where I am speaking from. I have stumbled into it on occasion in recent months though so I don't hold it against you.

That's fine, and while I understand that, I don't think what I am displaying is undue outrage - and if you read my first post, it's not as if I was short on an explanation or an argument. Your response was purely to my use of a single phrase, ignoring the vast majority of my argument to instead reduce my entire post down to that single phrase. If anything can be called undue outrage, it's that.

Would I much rather people didn't expect the evocation of "genocide" to do all the heavy lifting for them? Of course. Would I prefer people stop comparing what's happening in Gaza directly to the holocaust? Naturally. But all I did was point out the irony of someone's own logic - who is essentially accusing someone else of a form of genocide denial (or, at least, of downplaying genocide) and demonstrate through a lengthy refutation that the logic actually denies and dismisses multiple genocides. I understand the desire to not jerk our knees in this debate - but I also understand the greater need that when genocide denial is ACTUALLY implied, we ought to call it out. Especially when it is used as part of an argument to defend particular events or groups from the claim of actual genocide. Surely, I am not the only one who can be allowed to suggest that such a position is wildly untenable.

I've met survivors of genocide who take great care to be model spokespeople and speak with great precision and responsibility regarding their own experiences and the solutions they've argued. In my view, to speak from a place of outrage or indignation is to do them a disservice with how extensively they must've worked to really serve their cause. I'm not going to drown out their work with my less sophisticated opinions and outrage.

Again, go back to my first post. You picked one phrase that I used out of it, ignoring literally all of the surrounding justification, argument and context, and simply reacted to that. Your displayed more outrage than I did.

Given that you've definitely interacted with a decent share of my posts criticizing Israel and Zionism at this point, i don't feel need to qualify that I am against Israel's crimes against the Palestinian nation and speaking out accordingly.

Like I said, then perhaps you ought to save your time not for knee-jerk reactions telling me to stop using particular phrases, but instead reserve it for responding to argument that literally imply genocide denial. I've never believed you were anything other than in the right on this subject, but when you start to believe that the mere evocation of certain phrases supercedes the actual content and context of a person's argument, you're engaging in tone policing - not debate.

 

[anna.]

One of the more thoughtful things I've read thus far on people grappling with what is very far away yet very close to home for them:

Israel Lost - Egypt Independent

Tina was literally banging on the coffee table. The teacups rattled and a few biscuits slipped off the silver plate on the table. “How could they do that?!” Tina exclaimed for the third time. We were sitting in Edan Levy’s home in McLean, Virginia this Sunday, watching Clarissa Ward reporting...

egyptindependent.com

 

[anna.]

IDF ends active ground invasion, completely withdraws from southern Gaza

The decision came less than two days after Israel opened the Erez Crossing and Ashdod port to transfer humanitarian aid.

www.jpost.com

Although a top IDF official said that this change had nothing to do with US pressure, the timing was unmistakable in coming right after the IDF’s disastrous mistaken killing of seven humanitarian aid workers last week.​

​

The decision also came less than two days after Israel opened the Erez Crossingand Ashdod port to transfer humanitarian aid, decisions made under threat by the US of potentially losing weapons support after Jerusalem had refused these requests from Washington for months.​

​

Critically, this means that Palestinians can, on one hand, move freely within southern Gaza and Khan Yunis and that there is a complete vacuum for preventing a return of Hamas governance, but the IDF is keeping northern and central Gaza cut off from the south.​

 

[dybmh]

Seriously?

Yes.

The quote which you brought from the article refers to officer autonomy, not indifference to the innocent Palenstinians. This matches the an unnamed former intellifence official quoted in the WSJ, The article is behind a paywall. If you or anyone would like to read the entire article, please let me know.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-blames-misidentification-for-strike-that-killed-gaza-aid-workers-f88da70e

Are you honestly claiming that the Netanyahu regime, the IDF leadership and the troops (in that order) are prioritizing the wellbeing of the civilian population?

The "well-being" of the civilian population requires the complete elimination of the VEOs.

Are you truly suggesting that groups like

• World Central Kitchen,
• OXFAM,
• Doctors Without Borders,
• Amnesty International,
• Human Rights Watch,
• UNICEF

are collectively duped, while the United States and the rest rest of the the "free world," with its abundance of satellite, air, and ground surveillance systems, have somehow missed the fact that there's plenty of food in Gaza and that claims to the contrary are simply Hamas propaganda?

Who said there's "plenty of food"? However, over the past few days, the number of aid trucks entering Gaza has reached the important milestone: 400+ trucks in a day.

Netanyahu and decision makers in Israel do include the civilian population as a priority, but not the only priority. A recent air strike of a rocket installation within a humanitarian "safe" zone was eliminated without a single civilian casualty. The innocent were evacuated in advance in spite of surrendering the advantage of surprising the enemy. If they were indifferent, antagonistic, then, the civilians would not have been evacuated.

---

Rockets being fired immediately adjacent to a humanitarian "safe" zone:

The IDF eliminated this target , reported Apr. 8, without a single civilian casuality.​