Even if you argue that a conflict against an armed group qualifies as a “war”, you still get stuck with the other qualifier that a war is meant to neutralize the other parties military force not destroy its population. Because then it’s genocide.
It’s like calling the Holocaust “Hiter’s war against Poland”. Or the Armenian genocide “The war on Armenians”.
Of course Hitler invading and occupying Poland was an act of war, which enabled the genocide there. He couldn’t have committed genocide in Poland without first conquering it. I’m not saying there is no genocide in Gaza, I’m saying: It can be a war and a genocide at the same time. While not always, genocide is often enabled by war. What’s lost by calling it a war, independently of calling it a genocide?
I don’t think the Armenian genocide would’ve occurred without the Balkan wars and WW1; in this terrifying scale, anyway. However, quite like the genocide of Jews, Sinti, Roma, and other minorities in Germany at the hand of the Nazis, the Ottoman forces didn’t need to invade anywhere to commit these atrocities within their own empire. Steep argument: Doesn’t it deny Palestinian statehood to say that Israel were not leading a war on Gaza?
Of course not. My head is spinning because I don’t want to accuse anyone here of not acknowledging Gaza at least as a Palestinian quasi-state. Hitler systematically killing Jews in the pre-1939 borders -> genocide NOT war. Hitler systematically killing Jews in Poland, France, Romania, etc., etc., etc., -> genocide AND war. That doesn’t change anything about genocide being terrible in both cases. Allied troops marching onto Berlin: War but definitely not genocide. I repeat: Are y’all saying that Israel is not violating a territorial border when marching troops into Gaza? Because it does feel like that’s what y’all’re saying.
I don’t really know what we are discussing here. All I’m saying is: There can be war and genocide without taking away from the other somehow. What is the point of saying that there were no war in Gaza? If one accepts for a second that there were no war in Gaza - just genocide: Who benefits from mis labeling it as a war, independent of calling it a genocide?
As for your point about resistance in Nazi Germany: I acknowledge that the distinction between local resistance and a civil war is a threshold argument, which are infamously hard to resolve. Resistance in Nazi Germany certainly didn’t have enough broad public support to call it a civil war. However, even if your argument is that Palestinian resistance against Israel were inconsequential, not calling it a war feels dangerously close to not recognizing Gaza at least as a quasi-state. If not war then how is invasion? Returning to my point above.
Even if you argue that a conflict against an armed group qualifies as a “war”, you still get stuck with the other qualifier that a war is meant to neutralize the other parties military force not destroy its population. Because then it’s genocide.
It’s like calling the Holocaust “Hiter’s war against Poland”. Or the Armenian genocide “The war on Armenians”.
Of course Hitler invading and occupying Poland was an act of war, which enabled the genocide there. He couldn’t have committed genocide in Poland without first conquering it. I’m not saying there is no genocide in Gaza, I’m saying: It can be a war and a genocide at the same time. While not always, genocide is often enabled by war. What’s lost by calling it a war, independently of calling it a genocide?
I don’t think the Armenian genocide would’ve occurred without the Balkan wars and WW1; in this terrifying scale, anyway. However, quite like the genocide of Jews, Sinti, Roma, and other minorities in Germany at the hand of the Nazis, the Ottoman forces didn’t need to invade anywhere to commit these atrocities within their own empire. Steep argument: Doesn’t it deny Palestinian statehood to say that Israel were not leading a war on Gaza?
Maybe you missed it, but the Palestinians were already in a concentration camp at the start of the genocide.
Was Hitler at war with Jews? Cause they had resistance groups too.
Of course not. My head is spinning because I don’t want to accuse anyone here of not acknowledging Gaza at least as a Palestinian quasi-state. Hitler systematically killing Jews in the pre-1939 borders -> genocide NOT war. Hitler systematically killing Jews in Poland, France, Romania, etc., etc., etc., -> genocide AND war. That doesn’t change anything about genocide being terrible in both cases. Allied troops marching onto Berlin: War but definitely not genocide. I repeat: Are y’all saying that Israel is not violating a territorial border when marching troops into Gaza? Because it does feel like that’s what y’all’re saying. I don’t really know what we are discussing here. All I’m saying is: There can be war and genocide without taking away from the other somehow. What is the point of saying that there were no war in Gaza? If one accepts for a second that there were no war in Gaza - just genocide: Who benefits from mis labeling it as a war, independent of calling it a genocide?
As for your point about resistance in Nazi Germany: I acknowledge that the distinction between local resistance and a civil war is a threshold argument, which are infamously hard to resolve. Resistance in Nazi Germany certainly didn’t have enough broad public support to call it a civil war. However, even if your argument is that Palestinian resistance against Israel were inconsequential, not calling it a war feels dangerously close to not recognizing Gaza at least as a quasi-state. If not war then how is invasion? Returning to my point above.