Anti-semitic pogroms in Europe in 2024

[Si_B]

2021: UEFA sanction Young Boys for crowd disturbances vs Ferencvaros.
2023: Young Boys fined again for hooliganism at Man City.
2025: Young Boys lose in Aarrau. 5 fans hospitalised after being burned by their own pyrotechnics. Police attacked by Young Boys fans - one injured and two cars damaged.

A known hooligan fanbase descended on Birmingham & Ayoub Khan, Owen Jones & Mehdi Hasan were silent. No calls to ban Young Boys supporters. Predictable violence occurs.

Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned from Villa Park because they were victims of a Jew Hunt in Amsterdam.

Make it make sense.

[Si_B]

Rather good summary by Ian Austin of the “evidence” given to the Select Committee on Monday by the WM Police Chief Constable.

https://x.com/lordianaustin/status/1995932661349777703

I watched the @WMPolice Chief Constable's evidence to @CommonsHomeAffs again.

As far as I can see, we are being asked to believe that Dutch Police lied:

- in their report on the Ajax-Maccabi game a year ago
- to the Dutch public
- to the Dutch media
- to ⁠their own inspectorate
- ⁠to the Sunday Times

And, as a result of those lies, senior Dutch politicians and the King of the Netherlands said things that were not true as well.

But don't worry, because the Dutch Police then told the truth, just once, in a secret and unrecorded Zoom meeting with West Midlands Police of which no minute was taken.

Forgive my cynicism, but how plausible do you think that is?

Well quite…

[Tristan]

A couple of articles about the what happened here:

The Times: https://archive.ph/sATSy
The NYT: https://archive.ph/B6UoX

It's increasingly looking like the West Midlands Police shat the bed over this.

[bjn]

This all begs the question of why a football team from a country that is comitting genocude and war crimes on a daily basis is allowed to play in the UK. We don't let Russia play after all.

[Tristan]

Here we go with the whataboutery.

[Martin_B]

I thought that UEFA had looked into banning Israel (and hence Israeli teams) from competitions, but ran into trouble from FIFA (pressurised by the USA).

[bjn]

Here we go with the whataboutery.

Nope.

Anti semitism sucks. So does genocide.

[Tristan]

WMP getting this so wrong does not “beg the question” you say it does. The two are unrelated. WMP have no input or influence of that.

[Tristan]

WMP still can’t get any of this right https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev82g41vpdo

[Si_B]

This all begs the question of why a football team from a country that is comitting genocude and war crimes on a daily basis is allowed to play in the UK. We don't let Russia play after all.

I have been wondering for weeks how to address this statement which is not grounded on any evidence, facts, or judgments. After all, Scrutable did launch from the Bad Science Forums where making unevidenced assertions was generally frowned on, and I thought that you, like me, were from those days.

So I thought I'd write a factual rebuttal, but in the end didn't post it, because I (perhaps unfairly) came to the conclusion that anyone who could post such a statement has already demonstrated an unwillingness to look at facts and is asserting a belief. So a factual answer would be futile, and probably result in a descent into an argument with lots of heat and no light (rather like taking on a Flat Earther and trying to use science to rebut their assertions). I don't have the time or the energy.

However, I read the text of the Robert Fine Memorial Lecture 2025 given by Dave Rich this morning and was struck by the following quote:

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign condemned Trump’s 21-point peace plan that led to the ceasefire as “a continuation of Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people” – a reminder that Israel will be accused of genocide whatever it does. It is an example of how Israel exists in a category of one, where common words take on unique meanings that apply to Israel alone. Apartheid, genocide, colonialism, refugee – these words enter a weird Alice In Wonderland-style vortex of meaning when applied to Israel.

Here too, people respond to the genocide charge through facts and data: how many civilians have been killed versus how many combatants, whether the IDF properly warns civilians to leave combat zones, how the IDF’s targeting decisions are made and executed, and so on. Israel’s supporters take the charge of genocide on its face, as an evidence-based allegation of a crime, and try to construct the case for the defence. But there is no defence, because the charge is not made on that basis, or for that purpose. Paul Weller recently said that he has a “deeply held and non-negotiable belief that the State of Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza” and that this is a “central part” of his moral and philosophical worldview. He said this for a legal case, and I don’t know if he really believes it or not, but I guess if it was in a legal document with his name on it then he must do. And it’s a remarkable and revealing way to put it: that the belief Israel is committing genocide does not depend on the evidence for or against but is a “non-negotiable belief” and part of a philosophical worldview.

You can look at the full lecture here - it's quite a read.

If you are genuinely interested in engaging with the facts, then maybe (in a new thread) you could do so. To make it worthwhile engaging with, it would need to offer evidence that contradicts the list of handy points here.

In order to finish with two points more precisely on topic, I note that in an almost unprecedented move, the WM Police Chief Constable has been recalled to the Select Committee for another evidence session on 6 January (I believe). The implication in the letter sent after the last session is that this is because of the absolute woefulness of his last testimony (and specifically his reliance on unevidenced assertions) in December, given the list of documents they are now requesting.

It is also interesting that the IOPC may use its power of initiative (which is very rarely exercised) given the lack of candour over the decision-making process demonstrated by WM Police and the sensitivities of the case.

[bjn]

That is a nice piece of condescending prickishness.

From the foundation of Isreal, significantly aided by the actions of terrorist extremists to the continued expropriation of other people’s land, it has always been a colonialist project where the only people with a right to sovereignty, security and self determination are Israelis. This is not to excuse for Hamas and its actions, nor to say Palestinians not having screwed themselves over in many ways in the past

When an ex PM of Isreal, who was once a member of Likud, calls Isreal’s current actions war crimes, I’ll take his word for it over an internet random quoting apologist waffle.

[Si_B]

That is a nice piece of condescending prickishness.

From the foundation of Isreal, significantly aided by the actions of terrorist extremists to the continued expropriation of other people’s land, it has always been a colonialist project where the only people with a right to sovereignty, security and self determination are Israelis. This is not to excuse for Hamas and its actions, nor to say Palestinians not having screwed themselves over in many ways in the past

When an ex PM of Isreal, who was once a member of Likud, calls Isreal’s current actions war crimes, I’ll take his word for it over an internet random quoting apologist waffle.

I was very carefully trying to not be insulting but to try and take on your serious unevidenced assertions in good faith - I am sorry that you took it that way and are offended.

You do however appear to have avoided answering my contention, or the points in the lecture, or indeed answering any of the questions about the genocide assertion. You appear to have instead resorted to whataboutery, abuse, and some arbitrary examples that do not support your genocide assertion in any legally meaningful way. Your words therefore rather reinforce Dave Rich's argument "that the belief Israel is committing genocide does not depend on the evidence for or against but is a “non-negotiable belief” and part of a philosophical worldview" much better than my words could.

So a factual answer would be futile, and probably result in a descent into an argument with lots of heat and no light.

Your answer implies that I am probably correct in this prediction.

You don't need to take anything I say as true - I am indeed a random waffler on the internet as indeed are you. I am, however, not the waffler making serious unevidenced assertions.

If you truly want to have a good faith argument based on evidence rather than insult, you are very welcome to start a new thread and address the points raised and I will do my very best to engage. I would also be happy to address your three links as well if I thought you were prepared to listen to evidence from history and a discussion on the legal definition of genocide as per the competent authorities. However, if you prefer to remain at the personal abuse level, then there seems little point in continuing.

In any case I wish you personally a Happy Christmas.

[Allo V Psycho]

That is a nice piece of condescending prickishness.

From the foundation of Isreal, significantly aided by the actions of terrorist extremists to the continued expropriation of other people’s land, it has always been a colonialist project where the only people with a right to sovereignty, security and self determination are Israelis. This is not to excuse for Hamas and its actions, nor to say Palestinians not having screwed themselves over in many ways in the past

When an ex PM of Isreal, who was once a member of Likud, calls Isreal’s current actions war crimes, I’ll take his word for it over an internet random quoting apologist waffle.

I was very carefully trying to not be insulting but to try and take on your serious unevidenced assertions in good faith - I am sorry that you took it that way and are offended.

You do however appear to have avoided answering my contention, or the points in the lecture, or indeed answering any of the questions about the genocide assertion. You appear to have instead resorted to whataboutery, abuse, and some arbitrary examples that do not support your genocide assertion in any legally meaningful way. Your words therefore rather reinforce Dave Rich's argument "that the belief Israel is committing genocide does not depend on the evidence for or against but is a “non-negotiable belief” and part of a philosophical worldview" much better than my words could.

So a factual answer would be futile, and probably result in a descent into an argument with lots of heat and no light.

Your answer implies that I am probably correct in this prediction.

You don't need to take anything I say as true - I am indeed a random waffler on the internet as indeed are you. I am, however, not the waffler making serious unevidenced assertions.

If you truly want to have a good faith argument based on evidence rather than insult, you are very welcome to start a new thread and address the points raised and I will do my very best to engage. I would also be happy to address your three links as well if I thought you were prepared to listen to evidence from history and a discussion on the legal definition of genocide as per the competent authorities. However, if you prefer to remain at the personal abuse level, then there seems little point in continuing.

In any case I wish you personally a Happy Christmas.

I would be interested in factual evidence on this topic, and so, i think, would be many on this forum. i know there is a temptation to regard posts as unique interaction between respondents, but I believe there are many of us who read and reflect on posts without necessarily responding (and who may change their views accordingly). Can I urge you to post your evidence in any case?

[Si_B]

I would be interested in factual evidence on this topic, and so, i think, would be many on this forum. i know there is a temptation to regard posts as unique interaction between respondents, but I believe there are many of us who read and reflect on posts without necessarily responding (and who may change their views accordingly). Can I urge you to post your evidence in any case?

Thank you - that is a very fair point.

Perhaps the discussion belongs in a new thread?

However, if we are to travel down that road, perhaps I could ask one or two favours?

Generally, it is for the person making an accusation to present their evidence first. Accusing a country of committing genocide is an incredibly serious allegation and I would expect to see actual evidence based on facts. Only then does anyone stand a chance of either rebutting or accepting the presented evidence. Like any criminal case, it is for the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.

The list I previously linked to presents 10 questions that should be answered with facts if the accusation of genocide has any semblance of credibility. Before I get too stuck in, I would like to see answers to these. If someone is happy to have a good faith argument on this, then I will try and make the time to research proper factual answers with citations. My worry is that in these debates this rarely happens, so I am reluctant to keep at this without some evidence of good faith presentation of facts rather than the abuse I got above.

Facts clearly matter less than feelings to some in this area. As Dave Rich stated in his lecture:

Whenever anti-Israel campaigners are challenged on why they devote so much time, energy and emotion to the issue of Israel and Palestine, rather than any other situation of appalling suffering around the world, they usually give more material, less spiritual explanations. They point to the scale of death and destruction in Gaza; the complicity of Western governments; and Britain’s colonial legacy. But all three of these factors also apply to Sudan; in fact far more so, on all three counts. The number of people killed, displaced and hungry in Sudan is substantially higher than in Gaza. The amount of arms sold by Britain to the UAE, generally regarded as the sponsor of the force committing most of the atrocities in Sudan, far outweighs the amount sold to Israel. And as for colonialism, some of the most famous events and people in British imperial history happened in Sudan. But none of this counts in the same way, because Sudan carries no spiritual resonance in Western civilisation and no symbolic role in our politics.

P.S. In terms of history, it is very easy to pick single events from the last 3,500+ years of documented history of Israel, and therefore single posts and examples are not very helpful. Can I suggest: "Jerusalem: The Biography - New and Updated 2024 edition" by Simon Sebag Montefiore as a balanced overview of how we got to where we are. If you can survive the 800+ pages (and follow up all of the citations as well), then you will see how complex the history is.

P.P.S. I have to travel and work quite a lot over the next couple of weeks, so silences do not necessarily equate to flouncing off!

[Allo V Psycho]

I would be interested in factual evidence on this topic, and so, i think, would be many on this forum. i know there is a temptation to regard posts as unique interaction between respondents, but I believe there are many of us who read and reflect on posts without necessarily responding (and who may change their views accordingly). Can I urge you to post your evidence in any case?

Thank you - that is a very fair point.

Perhaps the discussion belongs in a new thread?

However, if we are to travel down that road, perhaps I could ask one or two favours?

Generally, it is for the person making an accusation to present their evidence first. Accusing a country of committing genocide is an incredibly serious allegation and I would expect to see actual evidence based on facts. Only then does anyone stand a chance of either rebutting or accepting the presented evidence. Like any criminal case, it is for the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence.

The list I previously linked to presents 10 questions that should be answered with facts if the accusation of genocide has any semblance of credibility. Before I get too stuck in, I would like to see answers to these. If someone is happy to have a good faith argument on this, then I will try and make the time to research proper factual answers with citations. My worry is that in these debates this rarely happens, so I am reluctant to keep at this without some evidence of good faith presentation of facts rather than the abuse I got above.

Facts clearly matter less than feelings to some in this area. As Dave Rich stated in his lecture:

Whenever anti-Israel campaigners are challenged on why they devote so much time, energy and emotion to the issue of Israel and Palestine, rather than any other situation of appalling suffering around the world, they usually give more material, less spiritual explanations. They point to the scale of death and destruction in Gaza; the complicity of Western governments; and Britain’s colonial legacy. But all three of these factors also apply to Sudan; in fact far more so, on all three counts. The number of people killed, displaced and hungry in Sudan is substantially higher than in Gaza. The amount of arms sold by Britain to the UAE, generally regarded as the sponsor of the force committing most of the atrocities in Sudan, far outweighs the amount sold to Israel. And as for colonialism, some of the most famous events and people in British imperial history happened in Sudan. But none of this counts in the same way, because Sudan carries no spiritual resonance in Western civilisation and no symbolic role in our politics.

P.S. In terms of history, it is very easy to pick single events from the last 3,500+ years of documented history of Israel, and therefore single posts and examples are not very helpful. Can I suggest: "Jerusalem: The Biography - New and Updated 2024 edition" by Simon Sebag Montefiore as a balanced overview of how we got to where we are. If you can survive the 800+ pages (and follow up all of the citations as well), then you will see how complex the history is.

P.P.S. I have to travel and work quite a lot over the next couple of weeks, so silences do not necessarily equate to flouncing off!

Safe travels! And if it is for seasonal purposes, best wishes!
But after that I, and perhaps others on the forum, would still greatly value the "factual rebuttal" you have written and not yet posted. Making it dependent on some one else answering 10 questions from someone else again does not help those of us who have not made bad faith accusations of genocide, but yet long for facts rather than feelings.
BW
Allo

[Tristan]

Safe travels! And if it is for seasonal purposes, best wishes!
But after that I, and perhaps others on the forum, would still greatly value the "factual rebuttal" you have written and not yet posted. Making it dependent on some one else answering 10 questions from someone else again does not help those of us who have not made bad faith accusations of genocide, but yet long for facts rather than feelings.
BW
Allo

You may not have made such accusations but others have. Why is it up to Si to rebut rather than you asking those making the accusation to present their case?

[Si_B]

Thanks, Tristan. It does feel a bit iffy!

However, I am happy to at least try and rewrite the beginning of my aborted post in the few minutes I have available to show my good faith. Where we go from there, we will see. (And how much time allows). The original was very long (and this might not be short).

Here we go:

Facts matter. Allegations of serious crimes require factual evidence. If I were to accuse a named individual of murder then, if they hadn't been found guilty in a court of law, I would likely be sued for defamation and would most likely lose. Since (in English Law anyway) no such protection from defamation applies to countries, one can happily fling around the most grave accusations without evidence and without fear of a defamation suit. One would like to feel that people would still act responsibly, but sadly this is not always the case.

The legal definition of genocide rests on the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) as interpreted by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This requires that in addition to the normal mens rea to commit the crimes there must be established a dolus specialis (specific aim) to commit genocide. Here is one example where this principle is discussed by the ICJ themselves where the court found that both Croatia and Serbia had committed acts that might consitute actus reus (guilty acts) under the Convention, but neither party had established a dolus specialis and hence dismissed both claim and counter-claim.

Fact: There is no ICJ judgment that currently establishes any of actus reus, mens rea, or dolus specialis of genocide with relation to Israel's actions. Therefore, it is a false allegation to describe Israel's actions as a genocide.

South Africa has brought proceedings at the ICJ, but these are a long way from being heard. As at the current time, the written stage has not yet completed, the oral hearings are a long way away, and any judgment even further. Asserting a verdict based on one's own opinion before a legal verdict has been reached is one legal defintion of prejudice. Interestingly, leaks from both sides have tried to spin the delay their way. Israel were granted an unusual extension to file their counter-memorial. Israel's opponents claim that this is evidence that Israel is trying to stall the process. Israel's supporters claim that the extension was granted because of serious flaws and initially withheld evidence in South Africa's memorial. I expect that the ICJ will eventually publish its reasoning - until then it is all just speculation. Interestingly, when Ireland applied to intervene in the case, they suggested that the definition of genocide be broadened (which implies that even they think that Israel is not committing genocide according the legal definition), but again we will see what the ICJ determines.

In the meantime, before I head off, a couple of things I would like to know:
1. How can it be genocide if the casualty ratio of combatants to civilians is relatively low compared to other urban conflicts (even using Hamas's figures that are contested). This suggests a targeted attack on Hamas with an intention to reduce civilian casualties rather than a genocide (unlike the Hamas attacks on 7 October which were completely indiscriminate). All civilian casulaties are awful, but war is sh.t - and a nasty war, while distressing to observe, does not equal genocide.
2. Now the evidence strongly suggests that the IPC's charge of causing intentional famine is bogus one has to wonder why so many people fell for it, despite the readily available evidence to the contrary even at the time. Strikingly, the numbers that even Hamas claim for deaths due to malnutrition are insignificant compared to the internationally recognised standards for measuring famine (cf Sudan where there appears to be a genuine and serious famine affecting many more people and with many more deaths that don't appear to trouble the news much).
3. If genocide of Palestinians was the aim, how come the over 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arab (i.e. ethnically the same people as Palestinians) are safe, are well-represented in professions (including medicine, law, and politics), and are free to practice their religion (usually Islam or Christianity), as well as vote in elections? Surely, if genocide was the intent, they would be most at risk, being directly accessible by the Israeli government. That's not to say that everything is wonderful, but I can think of no country in the world where an ethnic minority doesn't face some discrimination, but in Israel, like in the UK, their rights are legally protected (unlike many people in many of the surrounding countries).

I have now run out of time, but maybe I could continue if there are claims based on evidence to discuss or good faith answers. I hope that I have at least established good faith and a genuine willingness to engage on my part, even if people disagree with me.

[Tristan]

That’s a good summary. The need to prove genocidal intent is a key point, and it is exactly the point that keeps being waved away.

What the UN inquiry does instead is substitute inference for proof. It leans heavily on cherry-picked and decontextualised quotes from Israeli politicians and then treats those as if they were evidence of a policy to destroy Palestinians as a group. In context, many of these remarks are plainly about Hamas or are rhetorical statements made during an active war. Stripping that context out does not magically turn them into proof of genocidal intent, however often they are repeated.

The same sleight of hand appears with civilian harm. The report more or less assumes that the scale of death and destruction must itself demonstrate intent, rather than doing the hard work of showing that these outcomes cannot be explained by urban warfare against an embedded armed group. That is not how genocide is established in law. It is how you rhetorically downgrade war to genocide by assertion. The ICJ has explicitly rejected this reasoning in past cases.

This is why pointing out the lack of any ICJ finding is not pedantry. There is no judgment establishing actus reus, mens rea or dolus specialis for genocide in relation to Israel. South Africa’s case is still mid-process. Calling this genocide now requires assuming the hardest legal element has already been proved, when it clearly has not.

So the burden really does sit with those making the accusation. If genocide is being claimed as fact, rather than slogan, then evidence of specific intent has to be produced that stands up to legal scrutiny, not inferred from rhetoric and wartime devastation alone. Without that, Si is right to push back.

Or in other words, EOSTFU!

[IvanV]

I think arguing about what exactly is a genocide, and whether what see is one, is a distraction from the real tragedy. Whatever it is called, the actions of the Israeli government are, to my mind, unconscionable.

The arguments presented as to why the extensive deaths happening in Gaza and the West Bank are not genocide bear some similarity to arguments about whether what I shall call the Armenian Deportations (Wikipedia), was a genocide. The eventual success in getting it widely labelled as a genocide (for that is what the Wiki article I linked calls it), may be why many think they can call what is going on in Gaza a genocide. There are numerous differences of detail, not least there was no Hamas-like organisation in the Armenians, nor prior terrorist massacre of Turks. But to me the most important point of the 10 made in the above cited Aizenberg twitter post as to why Gaza is not genocide applies - the Turkish government was not attempting specifically to exterminate the Armenians, they could have done that if they wanted to. But the Turkish authorities were definitely rather careless of life of Armenians, while deporting them, in a way that they would not done if it had been Turks they desired to relocate to another place.

Governments being rather careless about the lives of people, often of specific subgroups, thus killing rather large numbers of them, has sadly happened quite a bit throughout history, and it is not commonly labelled a genocide. There are arguments to call the Holdomor a genocide. A lot of Russians also died. Stalin hated peasants, including Russian peasants, and probably was pleased to kill a lot of peasants, who represented a great part of those who died. But Stalin was particularly careless about Ukrainians, and doubtless Tatars too. The worst of the urban deaths were in Ukraine. Probably few would label Mao's Great Leap Forward a genocide, but it bears considerable similarity, and many more died. As with the Holodomor, those who died were substantially a social group, peasants, rather than any ethnic group.

But, for all that probably what is going on in Gaza and the West Bank is not what is clearly or commonly labelled genocide, it is nevertheless unconscionable. The Israeli government is being rather careless about Palestinian lives in a way it would not if it was Israeli citizens whose lives might be at risk from their actions. To me, the clear evidence of lack of care and a double standard comes from incidents when a bomb is aimed at a building, because it contains some senior Hamas commanders, killing some quite large number of civilians as collateral. I don't remember enough details to get Google to give me reports of specific cases, but I'm fairly sure there have been examples where the collateral has been at least 30. There is absolutely no way that that the "military necessity" of removing that senior enemy combatant would have been approached, if the potential collateral had been Israelis. For example, from time to time Hamas commanders have been within Israel. It's all very well saying that Hamas operatives commit war crimes by commingling with civilians and failing to wear uniform, thus putting those civilians at risk. But there is proportionality. And in my view destroying a building known to contain many 10s of civilians is a disproportionate way of addressing that target, and the double standard is that it has been chosen only because of the ethnic identities of those who are almost certainly going to die. More generally, aiming bombs with an imprecision that random tents in tent camps are struck would not happen if those at risk were Israelis.

It doesn't help that many prominent and influential people, such as president Herzog, say that all Palestinians are Hamas (and this probably specifically means Gazan and West Bank Palestinians, not Israeli citizen Palestinians.) For Hamas have been defined as enemy combatants who are legitimate military targets. And so such statements imply - at least in the opinion of those making them - that, in the view of those people, any Palestinian (in Gaza or the West Bank) is a legitimate military target whose life can be forfeit.

There are also numerous cases where Palestinians have been killed simply because there was an excuse to kill them. Such as when people have strayed over an unmarked yellow line, and just been killed. The shootings around the food distribution sites was exceedingly suspicious. Of course the Israelis don't allow journalists in to record what is happening.

I recommend watching the 2024 film No Other Land. It won numerous awards. It documents ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Two of the four co-directors, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, are Israelis. It is noticeable that in the specific incidents documented in that movie, for all of the awful things the IDF threw at the Palestinian villagers (how can you declare a military training area in the West Bank when it is occupied territory and not your country, and so say people must leave?), there was a degree of restraint and respect of of boundaries by the IDF. And so the villagers of this one village in that film managed to carry on their life, repeatedly reconstruct their village, for all that the IDF repeatedly demolished it. Although we hear that other villages in the declared military training area were "successfully" emptied by the IDF. It was when the settlers came, and the villagers realised that settlers would be much less careless in how they used their guns, that the ethnic cleansing finally happened, in that village. And again we see a double standard. A settler can point a gun at a West Bank Palestinian to evict them from their land. But if a West Bank Palestinian sought to defend themselves or their property with a gun, or even by stone-throwing for that is the only choice they often have, that would be addressed as a totally different matter by the IDF or police.

[jimbob]

I think arguing about what exactly is a genocide, and whether what see is one, is a distraction from the real tragedy. Whatever it is called, the actions of the Israeli government are, to my mind, unconscionable.

The arguments presented as to why the extensive deaths happening in Gaza and the West Bank are not genocide bear some similarity to arguments about whether what I shall call the Armenian Deportations (Wikipedia), was a genocide. The eventual success in getting it widely labelled as a genocide (for that is what the Wiki article I linked calls it), may be why many think they can call what is going on in Gaza a genocide. There are numerous differences of detail, not least there was no Hamas-like organisation in the Armenians, nor prior terrorist massacre of Turks. But to me the most important point of the 10 made in the above cited Aizenberg twitter post as to why Gaza is not genocide applies - the Turkish government was not attempting specifically to exterminate the Armenians, they could have done that if they wanted to. But the Turkish authorities were definitely rather careless of life of Armenians, while deporting them, in a way that they would not done if it had been Turks they desired to relocate to another place.

<Good stuff snipped for brevity>

Well put.

And the damage to infrastructure looks pretty deliberate

[Tristan]

All the stuff Ivan said

Yes, war is sh.t and brutal and awful. Nobody is disputing this. Many wars happen and they’re all awful.

A very specific accusation is being made though, including by members of this forum, and the evidence for it is lacking.

Not sure what your point about Armenia is getting at though. By your own admission the situations were very different.

[IvanV]

Not sure what your point about Armenia is getting at though. By your own admission the situations were very different.

But with sufficient parallels, we can understand people thinking that if the Armenian Deportations were genocide, then what is happening in Gaza is too.

[Si_B]

Thanks Ivan for the long and considered response. I appreciate the time and effort although you may not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with a lot of it! Thanks jimbob for contributing too.

Grudging thanks to Tristan for pithily summing up my main point in impressively few words making what follows seem very wordy. Cheers!

Below is a bit of a brain dump as I am away from my library of books and am not a great believer in the objectivity of Wikipedia. It is also way longer than it needs to be - I’m trying to answer your points as fully as possible but have been writing notes in small chunks in my breaks and therefore it isn’t as organised as it could be. However, this is a forum post not an academic essay, so I hope you can forgive me. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to post anything at all which would disrespect your contributions.

The problem with diluting the accusation from genocide to an allegation of general carelessness with lives is that it significantly changes the goalposts to a subjective measure with no legal basis. It just becomes a matter of opinion. Those claiming genocide without justification are making the gravest legal allegation available to concentrate attention on Gaza to the detriment of other (in my opinion) greater tragedies around the world which are barely getting a look-in. I wonder why the world’s only Jewish state gathers far more condemnation than other countries where there are conflicts and famines killing people in far larger numbers (in the case of Sudan, at least an order of magnitude more).

In law, (well, in the jurisdictions I understand anyway - English Law and some international tribunals), precedent only applies if you can establish that situations are substantially the same in fact and law. Similar rules apply to the use of historical parallels in serious scholarship (although a little more latitude is usually allowed as long as one is not trying to draw conclusions unsupported by the facts). I struggle to see any meaningful parallels between Gaza and the Armenian Deportation or the Holodomor in terms of the parties involved, or the historical circumstances that led to these awful events. I could have tried to counter your argument by asking the rhetorical question of whether the British were careless with the lives of the quarter to half a million German civilians who died during WW II aerial bombardments in the pursuit of the military aim of defeating the Nazis, but that would be similarly irrelevant. The unique situation in Gaza can and should be judged by experts (military and legal) using due process, not by trying to fit the events on top of an unrelated historical event and then building an argument backwards on that. We’d just end up bickering over the historical examples and not the facts on the ground in the here and now and it wouldn’t advance either of our arguments by 1mm.

Having spent a fair bit of time looking, I still have to find a serious military expert who believes that there is a genocide or that the general actions of Israel are against international law. (It would be a rare war where there weren’t individual cases of actions that should be investigated and, if required, prosecuted. However, if these have occurred (which I suspect they have like in every other war I have looked at) you cannot generalise unless there is evidence of a pattern ordered from the top-down). I would recommend articles by John Spencer (a leading expert in urban warfare at West Point) such as this one, or Andrew Fox (British ex-soldier, urban warfare expert, and Sandhurst lecturer) who co-wrote this analysis . Further experts to look at are General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or General Sir John McColl (former Deputy Commander of NATO Forces). I suspect they know more than any of us about the realities of urban warfare and their opinion is consequently more valuable as to whether Israel’s actions are likely to be found legal or not.

You state: “The Israeli government is being rather careless about Palestinian lives in a way it would not if it was Israeli citizens whose lives might be at risk from their actions.” Can you name me a war where an army did not place a higher priority on defending their own citizens and way of life than protecting those of the opposing power? I am struggling to think of a single one. It is also rather taken as read in the Geneva Conventions that this is the normal state of affairs in a war.

You also talk about proportionality and your opinion. However, there is a legal definition of proportionality and it is not what you appear to think it is (from my understanding of what you have written). Rather than take this on myself to explain (since you do not know who I am or what my qualifications or experience are to be able to opine meaningfully on this), can I direct you to this interesting read where international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff talks about this concept in detail.. It may be tempting to discount it as it is someone defending Israel’s approach to proportionality and just to accuse her of bias, but I urge you to read what she says about the legal principles and then check against the law as it is written. Neither of our opinions matter - the law does and it is the legal definition that rules.

You state: “It doesn't help that many prominent and influential people, such as president Herzog, say that all Palestinians are Hamas (and this probably specifically means Gazan and West Bank Palestinians, not Israeli citizen Palestinians.)” It would really help me address this point if you can point me at the full exact quotes so that I can see them in the complete context. This is because I have seen many examples of quotes obviously being either changed or taken out of context, so I don’t want to guess which ones you are referring to and subsequently waste both of our time. At the moment I would have to rely on your paraphrasing of what you can remember someone being reported to have said, and that doesn’t really give me much to go on.

You talk about “The shootings around the food distribution sites was exceedingly suspicious.” Can you be more specific? I can recall some cases where allegations were made that were subsequently discovered to be incorrect, but the corrections were not reported clearly or at all. So if you can point me at the detailed allegations you are relying on, I would like to read them. I might agree that it is suspicious, I might be able to find evidence to suggest that it was reported inaccurately. I simply cannot comment meaningfully on this vague assertion.

Jimbob says: “And the damage to infrastructure looks pretty deliberate”. Can you specify please? Infrastructure can be damaged in multiple ways during a war. It could have been deemed a legitimate military target, it could have been hit by accident (remember the unfortunate bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia by the US in 1999?), but it could also indicate some kind of war crime. Without specifying what you are referring to and providing reliable evidence that this is outside the normal run of things in a war though, I have no chance of addressing this point. Vague assertions weaken rather than strengthen your point in my mind.

My concern has been the pattern that is most clearly seen in the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital on 17 October 2023. Immediately afterwards, Hamas announced that it was an IDF strike, 500 people had been killed, and the hospital flattened. The BBC and other newscasters took this at face value and broadcast it around the world with no apparent fact-checking. Jon Donnison of the BBC amplified this claim on the BBC News Channel. The daft idea that anybody could establish a casualty figure and make confident attributions of blame within minutes of such a tragedy was not even questioned by the BBC, and Jeremy Bowen went on to take this line too. It turned out to be completely false. The explosion was caught on video and is now generally acknowledged to have been a misfired PIJ missile aimed at Israel from a civilian area in Gaza which fell short and landed in the car park. The hospital was very much not flattened and the casualty figures appear to have been much lower and not in any way attributable to Israel. Jeremy Bowen was later challenged on this and came up with the following beauty of a quote: “That was my conclusion from looking at the pictures and I was wrong on that, but I don't feel particularly bad about that. It was just the conclusion I drew.” This attitude sums up all that is wrong about news reporting at the moment. Rather than verify information and report facts, then analyse later when there is enough information, they present a simple narrative of a complex situation, and if the facts don’t fit, it’s not really that important. When I last checked, Jeremy Corbyn’s accusatory Tweet on this incident was still up, but even he must know that it is untrue by now. This reporting led to an immediate spike in antisemitic attacks around the world (correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but this is highly likely in my opinion) - including a firebombing of a synagogue in Berlin, yet the BBC remains insouciant about it all. As this tactic has worked so well in the propaganda war so far, it seems to be continuing, so please be careful to be detailed in your allegations and to check to see if there is already evidence that rebuts them. Since it takes time to properly refute untrue allegations with facts, the old saying that “A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes” has real punch here.

I have seen “No Other Land”. It is a very well made film that has a clear narrative and intent behind it. It does not however have any evidential value as the directors have full editorial control and only show what they want to. It is interesting that you point out the nationalities of the directors as it makes two clear points that you might not have meant to make.

Firstly, I don’t judge content on the ethnicity or nationality of the content producer. I judge it on the quality of the evidence and the level of objectivity (or otherwise) demonstrated in the information gathering process. One of the main problems with the film is the omission of some fairly crucial facts. The claim that Masafer Yatta is a village with long standing roots is not backed up by evidence. It appears that some caves in that area were used as seasonal shelters but there is no evidence of actual permanent inhabitants in the records of the Ottoman Empire, British Mandate, or Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) (all of whom record the area as uninhabited). In 1980, it became a live-fire training area, but the shepherds were still granted access during training breaks and specific grazing times. Illegal structures started appearing around 1981 (and were immediately demolished). After the Oslo Accords (1995) the area was designated by both Israel and (crucially) fully agreed by the PA as Area C - meaning that permission had to be granted to build there. Structures however continued to be built there illegally and were demolished. And so we get to where the film starts, but the history in the film is incomplete and therefore gives a false impression. This is not to say that I do not believe that there is some genuinely appalling behaviour shown, but without the vital context, the film is a powerful piece of narrative that omits half of the truth and amplifies the bad behaviour of one side only. Good for outrage and Oscars, bad for people who believe in facts and the law.

Secondly, the film could only be made because Israel is a relatively free society with relatively free speech. Robust criticism of the government (and mass demonstrations against it) are regular occurrences. You will find all manner of opinions proudly and loudly expressed, from mad left-wingers who want to tear down the whole state and spend their lives condemning other Israelis, to rabid right-wingers who are racist and violent towards any non-Jews (or anybody who is nice to a non-Jew), as well as all opinions nice and nasty in between. Whatever your bias on the conflict, you can easily find an Israeli voice to provide a quote to back you up. Quote farming is therefore rather meaningless, balancing facts on the ground is what matters.

This is rather different from any of the surrounding areas by the way. Voicing dissent against Hamas in Gaza is often a death sentence. You won’t find many voices advocating for peace with Israel because Hamas silences them. The brutal repression that Hamas dole out on any Palestinian they don’t like is barely reported in the UK press. People who have never visited the region seem to naively think that because they can find many Israeli voices condemning their own government whilst there are so many fewer dissenters on the Palestinian side it must be because Israel is in the wrong! The obvious fact that Israel allows raucous dissent and neither the PA nor Hamas do goes straight to the blindspot caused by their biases.

Let me conclude this rather long and bloated post by apologising for not having time to edit it, and by posing a question. Rather than criticising Israel’s reaction to the horrific 7 October 2023 attacks, what would you do when faced with an enemy on your doorstep who launches completely indiscriminate attacks on you from positions embedded within their own civilian population and clearly stating in their founding charter (which you can easily find online) that you must all be killed. How would you protect your citizens from this?

[IvanV]

The problem with diluting the accusation from genocide to an allegation of general carelessness with lives is that it significantly changes the goalposts to a subjective measure with no legal basis. It just becomes a matter of opinion.

...lots of legal stuff...

Indeed you are quite correct that Israel has been careful to have a veneer of legal cover for what it does. But I am concerned for its morality and ethics, not it's legality. As you might conclude from my opening statement that whether it is legally a genocide or not is a distraction from the reality of what you see. And, since you didn't get that point, just so you understand, when I used the word "disproportionate", I also meant it in a moral and ethical sense, not a legal sense. You dismiss this as "just an opinion". But let's look at these opinions.

Most people can see that the totality of what is going on is a massacre and infrastructure destruction that is beyond any ethical or moral compass. The only people who care about whether a legal veneer can be described for it are those who find it convenient not to condemn it, whether that is because they approve of the ethnic cleansing, they want to do business with Israel, avoid accusations of antisemitism, or keep themselves out of a war crimes court. Because everyone else can see that it is a massacre, and a destruction of means of life quite beyond the scale of any other war. Read the scale of the destruction of infrastructure and means of life as documented by Fishnut.

So the overall effect of what we see is that Israel kills lots of Palestinians, quite immorally and unethically, removes them from their land, and, in the case of Gaza (and also some West Bank villages, as documented in the film No Other Land), destroys it to a level of utter uninhabitability. Except, to quote the title of the film I mentioned, in Gaza the people have No Other Land, and are stuck there. So they have to be kept alive with such minimal aid Israel allows in, finding legal excuses for failing to do what they signed up to do in their ceasefire agreement, because they find legal excuses that it was Gaza that breached the ceasefire agreement, allowing them to breach it themselves to whatever scale they choose. Which was what I said would happen in advance of it happening.

Are you really willing to justify even the shooting of the children out looking for firewood, quoted by Fishnut, which doubtless has legal cover, because they strayed over the ill marked and ever moving yellow line, but is surely quite immoral and unethical? You can, I suppose, dismiss that as just one small exception, and even the Israelis on rare occasion litigate against the most outrageous of the actions that even they find the legal veneer doesn't quite extend that far. But it happens repeatedly, and betrays just how the legal cover is being used. And, ask yourself, just why are journalists kept out? Surely we don't know the fraction of it.

And people like Smotrich are willing to say out loud just why they are doing this.

Go watch that film, No Other Land. It's a documentary, it's not even fictionalised. Tell me what you think. Doubtless it all has a legal veneer. But are you willing to excuse what to the rest of us is quite blatant ethnic cleansing (again using it as a factual description, not a legal term)? Or is the achievement of that ethnic cleansing something you have such a partisan desire for, that it's just fine to you if it has a veneer of legal cover?

For completeness on the "all Palestinians are Hamas" point, it is a meme rather than something some important person specifically said at some point. Ami Ayalon, former Shin Bet chief, said (Al Quds article Jan 2024) (as paraphrased in this article), said that most Israelis believe that all Palestinians are Hamas or supporters of Hamas, do not accept the concept of Palestinian identity, and do not see the Palestinians as a people, because if they did, they would cause a big problem in the concept of the State of Israel. Ayalon was arguing for a Palestinian state as the only way that the conflict can ever be resolved, in contrast to Netanyahu, etc.

In the specific case of President Isaac Herzog, what he actually said was "It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved." He later denied that this was equivalent to saying "all Palestinians are Hamas", and he was disgusted how his words were twisted to be equivalent to that. He said, "I don't shy away from the fact that every Palestinian who was hurt—it aches and hurts me". I think that's what Private Eye would call a reverse ferret, but you draw your own conclusion. There was one positive thing in what Herzog said, and in notable contrast to what Ayalon said about "most Israelis", he called the Palestinians "a nation".

[IvanV]

...posing a question. Rather than criticising Israel’s reaction to the horrific 7 October 2023 attacks, what would you do when faced with an enemy on your doorstep who launches completely indiscriminate attacks on you from positions embedded within their own civilian population and clearly stating in their founding charter (which you can easily find online) that you must all be killed. How would you protect your citizens from this?

What would I do?

I would realise that the terrorism of Palestinians is the inevitable response of a people who have been for long been denied in their ability to negotiate a just settlement, their counter-party having long acted in bad faith, just as in Northern Ireland. I would realise that the outrageous actions of 7 October 2023 are on a scale that reflects the equally outrageous growing repression of the Palestinian people since the Oslo Accords, the absence of much infrastructural investment in Gaza and the West Bank outside of Israeli settlements, the gradual ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and more generally utter disregard for those accords that Israel once signed up to, because it always has a legal excuse.

I would seek to negotiate a just settlement with them, one that enabled Palestinians to work in Israel on non-discriminatory basis, one that provided for infrastructural investment in the West Bank and Gaza to reach modern standards, that enabled those areas to share in the prosperity and growth that Israel itself experiences. I would realise that Israeli settlements in the West Bank must be removed, or at the very least opened on non-discriminatory basis to Palestinian occupation, and administered locally.

I would realise that, as in Northern Ireland, there will always be some who do not find the settlement just, and this minority will continue to commit terrorist acts. I would realise that this was inevitable ever since Israel made the fateful decision to occupy the West Bank and Gaza at the conclusion of the 1967 war. At that point, Israel made its bed, of occupying the Palestinian nation, and now much lie in it. So I would realise that the best that can be achieved is what most would see as a just settlement, and a continuing low level of unpleasant activity that can only be endured and defended against as best you can. But provided the actual outcome on the ground was a thriving and just and non-discriminatory economy for the Palestinians, who would now see themselves as fortunate to live in such a place even though they only had 1/3 of the land of Israel-Palestine, that would be a gradually fading level of terrorism.

Do I have any expectation the above will happen? No. To start with, there is no chance of majority for this kind of position in Israel any more. I recently read that a sufficient number of Israelis of liberal view have left the country, resulting in a reinforced "conservative" majority in the population. I have tended in the past to say that the only way that this kind of thing would happen would be for the US to make its monetary aid conditional upon a timetable for closing West Bank settlements, etc. And that is definitely not going to happen under the present US regime, and such has been the movement in US politics probably not in the foreseeable future, because there would not be any stability in something widely divergent from what the right would do.

I think Israel has recently made itself morally repugnant to the level that South Africa did in earlier times. But it will continue to enjoy the support of the US, and places like India, Russia and China don't care. And Israel's high-tech output is of sufficient desirability it is tempting for countries to continue to find a way to access it, whereas South Africa what had was relatively easily laundered, mainly fruit, gold and diamonds. So I don't see even wider international pressure having much effect on it.