Semites do not exist. Semitic is not an ethnic group. Arabs are not Semites. Jews are not Semites. No one is a Semite.

Semitic is a linguistic group. You can speak a Semitic language. You cannot be Semitic anymore than a speaker of a Romance language can be a 'Roman' or a 'Latin'.

As for antisemitism, you cannot reconstruct its meaning etymologically, because it is not a word that evolved naturally over time. It is an invented word. It has a specific meaning.

While not the first to coin the term antisemitism, the German Wilhelm Marr was undoubtedly the one to popularize its usage outside of academia. Marr used the term Semitismus, from which he derived the term Antisemitismus. Semitismus was derived from another term from the 1780s, when August Ludwig von Schlözer coined the linguistic term Semite, referring most notably to Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic, among others. For some time, Semite was also used as a racial term to refer to all speakers of Semitic languages. However, when Marr used Semitismus and Antisemitismus, he was referred to Jews and Jews specifically. Antisemitism became popular as a more palatable replacement for Judenhass.

Translated literally, Judenhass means Jew-hatred.

In the past, you could be a Semite. However, that racial category largely died with the original hateful ideologues that perpetuated it. In modern parlance, there is no such thing as a Semite. Palestinians are not Semites. Jews are not Semites. Palestinians and Israelis both speak Semitic languages. But neither are Semites.

Furthermore, antisemitism is an invented word. You cannot back-track its meaning etymologically. It was created for a specific purpose. It does not mean hatred of Semites. It does not mean hatred of speakers of Semitic languages. It does not refer to Arabs or Palestinians.

First, let's consider Gaza. The Economist estimated, 8 May 2025, that between 77,000 and 109,000 Gazans had been killed since the onset of war, 8 Oct 2023, giving a middle estimate of 93,000 deaths.

8 Oct 2023 to 8 May 2025 is a span of 578 days. Using this number, we can calculate an upper, lower, and middle estimate of deaths per day.

77,000 / 578 = ~ 133 deaths per day.

93,000 / 578 = ~ 161 deaths per day.

109,000 / 578 = ~ 189 deaths per day.

Those figures are all horrifically high. All of them, I argue, constitute war crimes. But, let's compare with historical genocides.

First, let's consider Cambodia. Probably the world's most grotesque genocide (i am not fucking kidding DO NOT LOOK UP THE DETAILS OF THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE unless you are prepared to have a very bad day), yet far from it's fastest.

Going off Wikipedia figures, the Cambodian genocide spanned from 17 Apr 1975 to 7 Jan 1979, or 1361 days. The generally accepted figure for Cambodia is ~ 2 million, which we will use for simplicity's sake.

2,000,000 / 1361 = ~ 1470 deaths per day.

Dividing by our previous figures for Gaza gives 11.0 - 9.1 - 7.8, or in other words, the death rate in Cambodia was 7.8 ‒ 11.0 times the death rate in Gaza.

But we can go further.

Between 7 Apr ‒ 19 Jul 1994 (104 days) approximately 800,000 Tutsis, Twa, and moderate Hutus were murdered in the Rwandan genocide.

800,000 / 104 = ~ 7,692 deaths per day. Divided by the Gazan figures gives 57.7 ‒ 47.8 ‒ 40.8. In other words, the death rate in Rwanda was 40.8 ‒ 57.7 times the death rate in Gaza.

Yet, there's more.

The fastest genocide in history was a roughly 100-day period of the Holocaust called Operation Reinhard. The purpose of Reinhard was to accelerate the Final Solution and exterminate Europe's Jews as quickly as possible. In 100 days, 1.47 million Jews were murdered.

1,470,000 / 100 = ~ 14,700 deaths per day. Almost twice that of Rwanda, previously considered the fastest rate of genocide in history, before the details of Operation Reinhard were documented by historians.

Dividing that figure by that of Gaza gives us ~ 110.3 ‒ 91.4 ‒ 78.0.

In other words, Operation Reinhard killed Jews at 78.0 ‒ 110.3 times the rate at which Gazans are being killed in the ongoing war.

That is a rate 7,800 ‒ 11,030 % higher than is currently happening in Gaza.

Humans are unfortunately bad at properly recognizing scale when presented with large numbers, so here's a visual aid.

Genocide requires intent. It's in the very definition. Assuming a population of 2.1 million Gazans on 8 Oct and a sustained rate of death, it will take Israel until mid-2059 to exterminate the entire Gazan population.

If Israel's intent is to genocide the people of Gaza, they're not doing a very good job of it.

Ok, so this has been brewing for a while, and I think it's more or less crystalized into a proper, if rambling, argument so here goes.

This example was the incitement of this argument, but the problem is really much bigger than just this. So . . .

The United States did not commit the Cambodian Genocide. The United States is not responsible for the Cambodian Genocide.

Pol Pot, and the Khmer Rouge he commanded, were responsible for the conception, planning, and execution of the Cambodian Genocide. Nobody was twisting their arm. No one was ordering them around. They, independently, made the incomprehensibly evil choice to commit genocide, and the ultimate responsibility for that genocide lies on their shoulders alone.

The United States was responsible for an illegal (both internationally and domestically) and grossly immoral bombing campaign that killed an unconscionable number of Cambodian civilians, and directly contributed to destabilizing Cambodia and driving recruitment for the Khmer Rouge. The United States is partially responsible for fueling the Khmer Rouge's conquest of Cambodia.

But the United States is not responsible for the Cambodian Genocide, and anyone saying otherwise is engaging in genocide denialism and absolving by omission the true perpetrators of one of the most brutal and comprehensive genocides in human history.

The men who ordered the bombing of Cambodia were criminals. Their actions are, to me, incomprehensibly immoral. And yet the decision to commit genocide, especially to commit it in the most brutal and actively tortuous ways, ways that make mass rape and gas chambers seem tame (I am not fucking kidding DO NOT LOOK UP THE DETAILS OF THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE unless you are prepared to have a really bad day), is a decision that would be as alien to those men as their decisions are to me. For a human being to do such a thing . . . responsibility for that kind of act cannot be transferred lightly.

And to those who hold out and maintain that creating the conditions that allowed the Khmer Rouge to commit genocide gives the United States primary responsibility for the genocide, I'll note that none of you have ever blamed Osama bin Laden for the Iraq War.

And while we're at it . . .

If we do want to talk about international responsibility for the rise of the Khmer Rouge and/or the Cambodian Genocide, we should probably start with, you know, the nations that funded, supplied, armed, and militarily assisted the Khmer Rouge's insurgency.

Pol Pot didn't conquer Cambodia with American weapons. He conquered Cambodia with Soviet, Chinese, and North Vietnamese weapons. Between 40,000 and 60,000 Viet Cong fighters directly engaged in military action against the Sihanouk and Lon Nol governments (not to imply that either were anything other than thug rule of different shades) in alliance with the Khmer Rouge. If we're going to point fingers at the international community, I'm afraid the US doesn't even podium at this competition.

To reiterate, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were solely responsible for the Cambodian Genocide. Not the United States, not the Soviet Union, not China, not Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge, and the Khmer Rouge alone. You can litigate responsibility for who helped the Khmer Rouge rise to power, and YOU CAN AND SHOULD acknowledge American responsibility for our bombing campaigns in Cambodia (which has left the country littered with unexploded bombs that regularly kill random unfortunate civilians btw). But for years and years I have seen American bombing seated center stage while never once has the responsibility of Pol Pot's actual military allies been mentioned or even alluded to.

And this extends far beyond Cambodia. The 'America bad' crowd consistently overstate the degree of American involvement in our sordid interventionist history.

The United States provided limited support for the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, and deliberately and directly tried to destabilize the Allende regime in years prior, but it was Augusto Pinochet and his fellow Chilean Army officers who independently planned the coup because they wanted to, and because it furthered their own political aims, and they would have attempted such a coup without any American intervention, if or when the proper circumstances presented themselves.

The United States almost certainly facilitated the supplying of Saddam Hussein with dual-use chemical precursors to chemical weapons under the guise of agricultural aid, which helped prop up Ba'athist Iraq's existing chemical weapons program. The United States was attempting to maintain Iraq's ability to engage in chemical warfare against Iran in the ongoing Iran-Iraq War.

Subsequently, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to carry out the genocidal Halabja Massacre, as well as in the wider genocidal Anfal Campaign. It is basically unconfirmable, but likely, that some of the chemical weapons used in these attacks were created from US-supplied chemical precursors. The United States did knowingly lie and blame Iran for these massacres to protect Iraq and hobble Iran on the international stage. But it was Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein alone, that committed these genocides.

Small diversion, but Saddam Hussein also carried out a genocide of the Marsh Arabs (despite the name, Marsh Arabs are ethnographically and ethnically distinct from Arabs) by draining the Mesopotamian Marshes (thus making this an ecocide as well as a genocide), forcing the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs from their indigenous homeland. For those in the 'America bad' camp who still lionize Saddam Hussein and violent, genocidal dictators like him just because of their opposition to the United States, fuck you.

Real responsibility . . .

None of this is intended to minimize the United States' involvement in these and other horrible events, because it's not minimization to correctly characterize the nature of US involvement in them. It's being historically accurate. We can do that and acknowledge the things America is directly responsible for.

The United States was directly responsible for the 1915 invasion and subsequent occupation of Haiti until 1934 by US military forces under direct orders from Woodrow Fucking Wilson, which resulted in thousands of Haitian deaths and likely strongly contributed to the ascension of Papa Doc to power two decades later.

The United States was directly responsible for atrocities committed by United States forces in Vietnam, including massacres and bombing of civilians and the ecological devastation of enormous parts of the country with extremely carcinogenic pesticides that continue to cause cancer and birth defects in Vietnam today at a nearly incomprehensible rate.

And finally, the United States is and was directly responsible for our support for brutal regimes across the world, regardless of whether we were directly responsible for the crimes perpetrated in the affected nation.

That the United States is or is not directly involved in a particular incident has no bearing on how seriously our actions should be taken. To knowingly support and defend brutal dictatorial regimes is just as immoral as directly perpetrating the crimes of those regimes.

But I rarely have I seen a mention of Pinochet or Cambodia that doesn't center the United States' involvement, which flattens the crimes that took place and reduces them to rhetorical ammunition to use against America.

If your accounting of these events talks more about America's role than the actions of the perpetrators, then you aren't telling the story of these events properly. If one is telling these stories properly and centering the victims and their experiences, the perpetrators are impossible to miss because they are in the fucking room. America's role in these events must be included in a full retelling. It should have its own dedicated chapter or two or the story isn't complete. But it shouldn't be the whole damn book.

The Sorry State of Leftism

There is an infuriating kind of infantilization inherent to this kind of thinking. It is partially a result of the moralization of oppressor-oppressed dynamics where evil is solely the product of the imagined cohesive, organized oppressive 'system', and that implies or outright states that without the interference of the 'American empire' oppression, state violence, racial strife, indigeneity conflicts, and economic exploitation will greatly diminish or outright cease to exist. It denies entire races and ethnicities their fundamental humanity, which includes their extremely human ability to commit atrocities without direction from an outside force.

The United States is not an incorporeal devil planting foul thoughts into the minds of dictators and plotters. Far more often than not, the United States encourages and supports what is already there. American involvement in regime change and national destabilization in Latin America should be a topic of great discussion, but far too often these discussions omit the actual perpetrators of the crimes attributed to the United States, nor acknowledge that many of these coups and massacres and genocides around the world probably would have happened whether the United States was involved or not.

There is in addition a profound double-standard to which the United States (and Israel) is held; not one where the United States is extraordinarily and unfairly maligned, but one where the opponents of the United States are absolved, either by trivialization, omission, denialism, or apologism, of their actions, systemic inequalities, and unjust histories.

Frequently is the real, oppressive, colonial history of the United States with regard to native American Indians spoken of. Yet rarely do I see the same standard applied elsewhere.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many ethnic minorities in Russia, or in China? Did you know that, on the whole, minority communities in Russia and China are poorer and less developed than those of the majority ethic group? Have you ever noticed that many of the neighbors of both nations are both historically and currently extremely wary of them?

Have you ever wondered how the world's four largest countries, Russia, Canada, the United States, and China, all got that big? Could there, perhaps, be something they have in common?

Isn't it odd that Arab culture and ethnicity, originating from one little peninsula in the Middle East, achieved hegemony over more than a dozen states as distant as Morocco and Indonesia? I guess it's only cultural genocide when white people do it.

American military support for Israel become a global cause célèbre, yet I have not seen mention Saudi Arabia's ongoing war in Yemen outside of token lists of "Eyes on . . . so and so" in years.

As I am writing, Greta Thunberg's little PR stunt with her dumb empty aid yacht is front and center on every corner of this accursed website, and yet not once in the year-and-a-half since October 7 have I seen mention of the years-long ongoing Saudi blockade of Yemen. Not. Fucking. Once.

So many here cheer on Russia and call Ukrainians Nazis. They ignore or, worse, deny the Uyghur genocide because it is inconvenient for their anti-American agenda. They hyper-focus on the violence Israel is committing in Gaza, and ignore every other brutal or genocidal conflict on the planet except to virtue-signal their moral correctitude by reblogging meaningless lists of who to 'keep your eyes on' compiled by people who obviously know fuck-all about the actual conflicts they list except that they are useful for their own projection of personal righteousness.

The historical imperialism of the Soviet Union is ignored because it is inconvenient to the historical narrative of 'America bad'. The current imperialism of China and Russia are ignored because it is inconvenient to the current narrative of 'America bad'.

Long lists of books on the history of Israel and Palestine are presented everywhere as essential reading, but memory of the crimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the twin perpetrators of the two largest sets of atrocities and genocides in human fucking history which continue to have lasting repercussions on the contemporary world are not considered important. The crimes of the Soviet Union, a strong contender for a not-so-distant silver medal in that competition, are not merely ignored, but often denied.

Hamas, a brutal regime that executes queer people, murders political opponents and journalists, commits war crimes and terror attacks on civilians, deprives the people it rules over of liberty, steals aid from the mouths of Palestinian children, and commits all manner of other horrors universal among authoritarian regimes against the people of Palestine is hailed as a revolutionary liberator. Fuck. Off.

I am not saying and will never say that we shouldn't talk about America's very real crimes. Concerning our initial example, I think the story of the US bombing campaign in Cambodia, and Indochina more broadly, deserves far more attention than it currently gets. I think especially that comparatively much is said but not much is done. If I were president, one of the many things I would do would be to send over the US army or UN peacekeepers or whoever the fuck I can get and have them doing nothing but bomb disposal for the next half-century.

The point of this post is not to downplay American crimes, nor is it an attempt at whataboutism. It is to hopefully push back a bit of the blindness brought on by this 'America bad' obsession and get more people to acknowledge the reality of our history, and perhaps open some people's perspectives a little bit to get them to subject America's opponents to a great deal more scrutiny. Us-vs-them can be hard to fully overcome. I sure as hell haven't, but I like to think I'm making progress.

The potential to create and maintain oppressive systems, commit genocide, conduct imperialism, obliterate or assimilate foreign cultures, exploit the labor of others, excuse systemic and literal violence for the sake of personal profit, is universal. We are all capable of it; many nations and peoples, around the world and throughout all of human history, have done so.

by viv-hollande

I have made two posts about the death rate in Gaza, and how I believe it is strong circumstantial evidence against the case for genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government. This is a continuation of that in spirit.

I don't think people realize just how brutal urban warfare is and always has been.

In my first post, I calculated three death rates based on numbers provided by The Economist (unfortunately paywalled, go here at the end of 2023–present section). With a low of 77k, high of 109k, and middle of 93k, divided by the days between 8 October and the article, 578, gave us 133, 161, and 189 deaths per day.

I also want you to keep in mind that all figures for Gaza include both military and civilian deaths. The civilian death rate in Gaza is lower than any figure provided here.

As I later noted, however, the death toll in Gaza was not constant, as seen below.

This graph doesn't provide exact numbers, so we're just going to exclude the 24,000 casualties of the first 100 days.

( 77,000 – 24,000 ) / 478 = ~111 deaths per day (vs 133). ( 93,000 – 24,000 ) / 478 = ~144 deaths per day (vs 161). ( 77,000 – 24,000 ) / 478 = ~178 deaths per day (vs 189).

Even those death rates are obviously much higher than some seen on the graph. September 2024 looks to have a little less than 1000 deaths over 30 days, or ~33 deaths per day. Now, these are confirmed casualties, and thus lower than total estimates like from The Economist. But the wider point still stands.

Now, comparison time.

History's Biggest Urban Battles

First, the Siege of Leningrad. I'm choosing Leningrad as something of a counterexample because, unlike all of the other examples here, it was the mass starvation of a population by blockade, not an example of urban warfare.

Going by Wikipedia figures (because I have multiple actual essays to write), we have 1,042,000 Soviet civilian deaths and between 1,300,000 and 2,000,000 total deaths, military and civilian, on both sides. The Siege lasted 871 days, so:

1,042,000 / 871 = ~1196 civilian deaths per day. 1,300,000 / 871 = ~1493 total deaths per day (low estimate). 2,000,000 / 871 = ~2296 total deaths per day (high estimate).

Next, history's most infamous urban battle Stalingrad. Stalingrad saw between 1,100,000 and 3,000,000 total deaths over 200 days. The estimate for Soviet military killed or missing (termed irrevocable losses) is 674,990. The estimate for Soviet civilians killed is 235,232.

235,232 / 200 = ~1176 Soviet civilian deaths per day. 674,990 / 200 = ~3375 Soviet military "irrevocable losses" per day. 1176 + 3375 = 4551 total Soviet deaths per day.

And just for additional context:

1,100,000 / 200 = ~5500 total deaths per day. 3,000,000 / 200 = ~15,000. total. deaths. per. day.

Finally, the Battle of Berlin. Let's get this over with quickly. 9 days, 100,000 German soldiers killed, 125,000 German civilians killed, 81,116 Soviet soldiers "irrevocable losses".

Buckle up, because even I was surprised by these.

125,000 / 9 = ~13,889 German civilian deaths per day. ( 100,000 + 125,000 ) / 9 = ~25,000 total German deaths per day. ( 225,000 + 81,116 ) / 9 =

~34,013. Total. Deaths. Per. Day.

OK, these are big scary numbers, but obviously the deadliest urban battles and sieges in history will dwarf the numbers coming out of Gaza. So let's make some fairer comparisons.

Let's start with Iraq.

The Battle of Baghdad lasted 6 days and saw 34 coalition deaths and between 1700 and 2320 Iraqi military casualties.

1734 / 6 = ~289 total military deaths per day (low estimate). 2354 / 6 = ~392 total military deaths per day (high estimate).

Now let's look at civilian casualties from the early phase of the war. The Iraq Body Count dossier lists 6616 civilian deaths in from 20 March to 9 April 2003, or 21 days.

6616 / 21 = ~315 civilian deaths per day.

Finally, let's look at the 1994-95 Battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War. Wikipedia again lists > 25,000 civilians killed from 22 December 1994 to 6 March 1995, or 74 days.

25,000 / 74 = ~338+ civilian deaths per day.

Let's do some more graphing. Beware, this one is kind of messy, so I've arranged Gaza on the left, others on the right.

Every. Estimate.

for Gaza is surpassed by a number of other comparable urban battles in recent times. And, I remind you again, all figures from Gaza include military deaths. The civilian death rate in Gaza is even lower than depicted here.

Obviously, you can find urban battles with much lower death rates than Gaza e.g. Sarajevo. The point here is not "Gaza is less deadly than every other urban battle." It's "Gaza is not unique, and it is not unprecedented."

Urban warfare just f*cking sucks.

It always has, and it always will. Cover is abundant, civilians are everywhere, armor is difficult to maneuver and easy to outflank, snipers are f*cking everywhere, you're vulnerable to surprise attacks, suicide bombings, IEDs, MANPATS (not manpads, sorry), everything.

No one does urban warfare well. No one does urban warfare cleanly. No one does urban warfare without killing unconscionable numbers of civilians.

What was (and maybe still is?) happening in Gaza was tragic. It was bloody. It was traumatizing. It was murderous.

... and it was all of those things because it was an urban war, not because it was a genocide.

EDIT: in the interest of total fairness, I calculated the death rate for October 2023 based on the graph, estimating 8500 deaths from 8 to 31 October, or 24 days.

8500 / 24 = ~354 deaths per day.

Nothing looks as serious when you're making comparisons to two of the worst genocides in human history.

And not a great look to say the horrifying, systemic murder of a population isn't a genocide because they aren't massacring innocents fast enough.

Referencing this post. I'm getting to this waaaaay late.

My argument circles back to the question of intent. As I discussed here, without intent, there is no genocide. Genocide is thus kind of unique among war crimes and crimes against humanity. With that in mind, let's compare.

The Bosnian genocide was perpetrated by the Army of the Republic of Srpska (VRS). The VRS was one of many splinters of the Yugoslav People's Army, and at the time of Srebrenica (1995) numbered about 150,000 personnel (CIA, Balkan Battlegrounds: Volume 2, p. 268). This force was distributed across the entire Bosnian conflict, including approximately 20,000 at the siege of Sarajevo (1992-96) alone. This was an effective army, and it was a brutal army, but it was not all-powerful. Its resources were limited.

Israel, by contrast, had overwhelming military superiority on land, sea, and air. Their Iron Dome greatly limited Hamas' ability to retaliate. Israel, in collaboration with Egypt, had complete control over all people and goods entering and exiting Gaza. They outnumbered their opponent. They out-equipped their opponent. Barring October 7, they out-intelligenced their opponent.

Dates for Srebrenica are frustratingly difficult to pin down. The starting date is agreed to be 11 July 1995, but the ending date...

Wikipedia (7pm EST 22/10/2025) directly contradicts itself, listing 11 to 31 July on the page for the massacre itself, but listing 11 to 13 July on the page for the Bosnian Genocide. Encyclopædia Britannica lists 11 to 16 July. The BBC lists 11 July as the starting date and says it "did not stop for 10 days," which would put the ending at 20 or 21 July, depending on if 11 July is included or not. srebrenicamemorial.org lists Srebrenica itself as lasting until the 15 or 16 July, with nearby massacres continuing until 20 July.

Using the longest time span, 11 to 31 July, including both dates in the count, gives us 21 days. The death toll at Srebrenica was 8372.

8372 / 21 = ~399 deaths per day.

Using the BBC and srebrenicamemorial's final date 20 July gives us 10 days for the duration of the massacre.

8372 / 10 = ~837 deaths per day.

Using Encyclopædia Britannica and srebrenicamemorial's 16 July gives us 6 days.

8372 / 6 = ~1395 deaths per day.

Let's graph those out with the numbers from the previous post for Gaza and Cambodia.

Huh. Even the lowest death rate for Srebrenica is more than twice the highest estimated death rate in Gaza. And, just to refresh your memory, here's Rwanda and Operation Reinhard.

The Army of the Republic of Srpska had less than 3000 soldiers on hand at Srebrenica. They had artillery support, but minimal air power and armor, and yet they were able to kill at a rate 2 ‒ 10 times higher than Israel in Gaza.

Israel has one of the world's most modern armed forces. It has overwhelming armored, air, and numerical superiority. It is operating on its own border.

If Israel had been determined to commit a genocide in Gaza, why did they drag their feet for so long? They have at least 150,000 soldiers deployed right now. If they had sent in a tenth of that to sweep through Gaza, indiscriminately killing everyone they came across—you know, like Rwanda, Cambodia, Srebrenica, Babyn Yar, Nanking, the roving bands of Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front, or even like individual massacres like Mỹ Lai—they could have easily increased the elimination rate of Gazans twenty-fold.

Israel does not lack the means to commit genocide. As far as means for delivering destruction go, Israel has a greater capacity for such than almost any nation on the planet, barring nuclear weapons. As I said in my previous post:

If Israel's intent is to genocide the people of Gaza, they're not doing a very good job of it.

I was going to ignore this, but the further I read the worse it got, so here goes. Apologies in advance, but this is going to be extremely long.

The doc contains quotes from four men, PM Netanyahu, President Herzog, former MOD Gallant, and Benny Gantz, formerly a minister in Netanyahu's war cabinet. They are categorized as evidence of one or more of the following alleged actions: civilian harm, collective punishment, genocidal intent, forced displacement, dehumanization, and destruction. 

# 1. Yep. That's pretty blatantly threatening civilian harm. Yoav Gallant sucks. 

# 2. This is definitely a war crime. I don't know that I would strictly categorize this as either civilian harm or collective punishment, though. Starting with the latter, collective punishment is, you know, punishment. Mass reprisal killings, mass arrests, punishment of family members or associates. There is no crime specified here that Gaza is being punished for. For the former, this is a little more complicated. Civilian deaths are not, in fact, prohibited in war. There is such a thing as legally acceptable collateral damage. What exactly discerns legal military actions from war crimes is somewhat complex, but the important consideration here is proportionality. The proportionality of a military action is determined by the expected harm to civilian life, property, and infrastructure as compared to the expected military advantage gained. I think this should go without saying, but flattening buildings to kill a single militant constitutes criminally disproportionate use of military force. 

# 3. Oh, wow. No. Not any of those. As per the previous section, harm to civilians proportionate to military advantage gained is legal in war. As a statement without additional context, that quote is completely meaningless. It isn't proof of criminal harm to civilians, it has fuck-all to do with collective punishment, and I have no idea where the hell genocide comes into this. 

# 4. No, not really. The closest this comes to any of these categories is "Gaza is the city of evil..." as dehumanization and "...act everywhere and with full power." as potentially disproportionate use of force. In isolation, I think this quote actually credits Israel more than it discredits it. To my knowledge, warning civilians of imminent military action doesn't really have any kind of legal consideration, but it could potentially be an argument that 'expected harm' to civilians was lower and thus more proportionate. I doubt that would hold much sway in a court. Beyond that, Netanyahu specifically names a Hamas presence as the target criteria. Do I necessarily believe him? No. Does this quote support any kind of criminal action? Also no. Once again, I have no idea where collective punishment comes into this. 

# 5. Denazification is genocide now?!?!

# 6. I notice a hint of editorializing here. The quote itself is so out of context as to be meaningless. 

# 7. This quote is too vague to tease much of anything out of it. Who are the "they" Gallant is referring to? Is it Hamas? Is it the people of Gaza? I looked at the source to try and get some additional context, but I don't understand Hebrew and Firefox's Hebrew-to-English translation isn't great. 

# 8. Humanitarian aid is collective punishment now? 

# 9. I have no idea what this has to do with either genocide or excessive civilian harm. 

# 10. OK, am I going crazy or I'd this list actually just ass? This has fuck-all to do with forced displacement. It's a political statement concerning Netanyahu's distrust of the Palestinian Authority, the governing body of the West Bank and the former governing body of Gaza before Hamas. I went into the source, where I found Netanyahu's reasons for that position. He cites "Abo Mazen" (Firefox's mangled translation of Abu Mazen, another name for the PA leader Mahmoud Abbas) refusing to condemn the 7 Oct attacks, expressions of support for the attacks by members of Abbas' government, and the PA's deposition in Gaza by Hamas. In a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know" moment, I regrettably have to agree with his reasoning here. I don't think it should be his decision to deny the PA control over Gaza in the first place, but he does make some good points here. 

Once again, this has fuck-all do do with forced displacement. 

# 11. Yep. That's textbook dehumanization. Issac Herzog also sucks. However, while dehumanization is one of the steps of genocide, it is not genocide in and of itself, nor does his full statement support the claim of genocidal intent. Herzog says nothing about what actions Israel will or will not do in Gaza. He doesn't say, "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza, therefore we will kill them all as punishment." He doesn't say, "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza, so any action we take is justified," which could be evidence of disproportionate harm to civilians. 

# 12. Yep, that's a war crime. "Restraints" includes stuff like proportionality and distinction, which I haven't mentioned yet, mostly because it's so basic so as to almost go without saying. Distinction is just the legal term that means differentiating combatants and protected persons, which includes civilians and medical personnel. You can't order your soldiers to ignore the laws of war. That's a fucking war crime. I dispute that this quote constitutes evidence of collective punishment, however. 

Yoav Gallant still sucks. 

# 13. This actually comes from the same source as # 11. There are a lot of these that are just different parts of one larger statement, actually. If I were a cynical person, I might believe that this was done to make the list look longer. Back to the quote, just like # 11, it's dehumanizing language, as well as closer to expressing a desire for collective punishment than the previous excerpt. 1,000 % shitty, but not evidence of any acts of collective punishment taking place. 

# 14. Textbook dehumanization. I have no idea what prophecy he is referring to. 

# 15. So he's saying ... that Israel is destroying Hamas ... the terrorist organization that attacked Israel, murdered over 800 civilians, and started the ongoing war? This is quite literally the opposite of collective punishment. Also, "destruction" means nothing in international law. 

# 16. Well that's a whole lot of editorializing. Isn't the whole point of this list that these statements by Israeli officials constitute proof of genocidal intent? 

# 17. Oh, wow! That is the most literal example of dehumanization I've seen in a long time. Yoav Gallant still sucks. 

As for the blockade, that's at least two war crimes. Blockades are legal in war. However certain goods like food and medical supplies are excepted from legal military blockades. To withhold those constitutes a war crime. The second is starvation. Yes, you read that correctly, the act of starving a population is a war crime in and of itself, regardless of considerations of genocide or genocidal intent. 

# 18. I don't accept biblical or metaphorical language as proof of genocidal intent. Dehumanization? Sure. Incitement to violence? I'll hear you out. Genocide? Not even close. 

# 19. I can't access the original source, so I have no idea what the context is. What does the "everything" in "We will eliminate everything" refer to? The people of Gaza? Hamas? Gazan infrastructure? Anything of military ability? 

# 20. Not necessarily even illegal. The laws of war make no place unconditionally off limits to attack, nor is there a requirement to designate zones of sanctuary. Even hospitals can void their protection if they can be demonstrated as having been put to military use beyond the provision of medical care and sustenance. If a valid military target has been identified and is attacked in such a way as to avoid disproportionate harm to protected persons, that does not constitute a war crime, no matter where it happens. 

# 21. More objectively dehumanizing language. Bibi does, in fact, suck, and I eagerly anticipate his obituary. Still not genocidal intent. 

# 22. More metaphorical language too vague to constitute much of anything. 

None of that, based on my understanding of international law and my ability to read, constitutes remotely concrete evidence of incitement to genocide.

War crimes? Absolutely. There's, like, a horrifying number of war crimes there. Everyone and their mother knows Israel has committed war crimes already. But this supposed "proof" of genocidal intent is, at best, extremely dubious.

Genocide is somewhat unique among war crimes and crimes against humanity in that it requires proof of intent.

Bomb a hospital? That's a war crime*. Kill 5,000 civilians to destroy a single, moderately sized factory? That's a war crime. Impose starvation on a population? That's both a war crime and a crime against humanity. Cluster bombs? War crime. Torturing POWs? War crime. White phosphorus?

Not actually a war crime, necessarily. That's a myth. It is legal, but there are restrictions on its usage. You can't drop white phosphorus bombs near civilian areas, for example.

Intent matters to a certain extent; whether or not you can commit a war crime through incompetence is to my knowledge a legal grey area. But for many war crimes, the act is enough.

Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of a modern, developed nation with one of the most powerful and technologically advanced militaries in the world, operating mere tens of kilometers from their home soil, with absolute, unopposed air supremacy, completely unchallenged armored combat units, and supported by the unquestionably effective intelligence capabilities of Mossad. 

Israel, with the co-operation of Egypt, has absolute control over movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. They decide, alone and unchallenged, what aid has made it in, and what aid - by far the greater quantity - has been refused entry. 

Most importantly, they have, since January 2025, the unconditional backing of THE SOLE global military hegemon, the United States. 

The maximum destructive power the State of Israel could theoretically bring to bear on Gaza is unfathomable. If Netanyahu were really determined to genocide the people of Gaza, there would not be any of them left by now. 

A few days ago I saw an article talking about how the Brian Thompson shooting is a sign of the "coarsening of American society", which isn't wrong. That coarsening does exist, and has existed for a long time. It's only being revealed just now.

I am gonna be honest, this shooting does kind of terrify me. Not because I have any sympathy for the 'victim', but because of what it means for the future.

Some people on this site and elsewhere seem to believe that this shooting is the herald of some kind of class solidarity, or the beginning of a class war. Trust me, it isn't.

The people who woke up on Dec 3 hating trans people and gay people and people of color and immigrants and Jews woke up on Dec 5 hating all of those people just the same and, to put it bluntly, they have more guns than we do.

This shooting is a sign of the collapse of American society, and when that collapse comes the fallout won't be limited to those responsible for the collapse. The bigotry and misinformation that propelled Trump back into office still exists, and when he and his oligarch cronies inevitably worsen the American people's already dire circumstances, unrestrained political violence will only worsen. The same knife that might save the UHC shooter also saved Kyle Rittenhouse.

I fear that there may not be any way out of this. The political class are either unable or unwilling to accept and acknowledge that change needs to happen. The coarsening of American society comes not as a result of the actions of the poor but as a result of the wealthy's callous disregard for the poor. The source of the anger is very real, and it won't go away unless material conditions improve.

I sincerely hope this is the last time I have to do this.

I've now made three posts about this, and each one has turned into a remake of Episode V: Piss on the Poor Webbed Site Strikes Back. I acknowledge that I am partly at fault for failing to fully articulate my points, but fourth time's the charm? Here fucking goes...