I already posted an X link where Trump admits he’s Jewish.
It depends, first on what you accept actually happened, and second on intent and scope. A lot of people now deny or downplay the killings altogether, which obviously changes how they frame it.
If you accept that unarmed teens and young adults were slaughtered at a music festival, that fighters went door-to-door in civilian homes and putting babies in the oven for no military purpose, and that hostages were taken, raped and killed, then you’re clearly looking at mass murder and terrorism, regardless.
Whether you stretch that to the word genocide depends on whether you believe there was explicit intent to destroy a people as such, that’s the legal threshold. I believe that was their intent but they clearly didn’t have the means to carry it through.
That’s also why Israel rightly treated it as a declaration of war.
So you’re denying it happend?
Got it. October 7 was genocide in your opinion.
If you’re going to use the word genocide at all, then October 7 fits the intent side of the definition far more cleanly than Israel’s defensive response does. Deliberately targeting civilians, massacring people at a music festival, going door-to-door in civilian homes, and taking hostages isn’t incidental damage, it’s the objective. That’s exactly the kind of conduct people point to when they talk about inferred intent.
Israel’s actions, whatever criticisms you want to make of them, are simply a reasonable military response to an armed group after a cross-border attack. You can argue excessive force, war crimes, or catastrophic civilian harm, all serious claims… But that’s not the same thing as an intent to destroy a people as such. (Especially where “Palestinian” Israelis are also fairly represented in the government ordering those strikes.)
We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we will act accordingly.
– Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, Oct. 9, 2023
It’s worth noting that most of their food, fuel, power and water (BEFORE THE WAR) actually came from Israel.
If I was feeding you every day and supplying your basic needs, and you turned around and punched me in the face, would you seriously expect me to keep handing you food like nothing happened? Of course not. That’s not genocide for me to simply say “no more” that’s the basic reality of what happens when you attack the party you depend on.
Besides… Egypt could’ve very easily stepped in and supplied food from their border.
You can argue about humanitarian consequences, but pretending there’s some obligation to keep supplying an enemy immediately after a mass-casualty attack just ignores how the real world works
Israel wasn’t feeding the Palestinians trapped in the Gaza ghetto. International humanitarian organizations were. Your knowledge of basic facts is woefully inadequate.
Understatement of the century.
In addition to a couple of decades of the IDF destroying electricity, food, and water infrastructure.
Israel was providing food and the means for food to be transported in as it would pass through their infrastructure and not through Egypt.
In 2021, total food imports reached $2 billion. Most of the food products were imported from Israel, Turkey, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
After Israel’s withdrawal in 2005, substantial civilian infrastructure was left behind, including greenhouses, irrigated farmland, and systems capable of supporting export-grade agriculture. Rather than being expanded into a sustainable food base, much of it was looted, dismantled, or abandoned.
The same pattern applies to power and water. Gaza had its own power plant and water infrastructure, but both depended on fuel, maintenance, and reinvestment that were repeatedly deprioritised with the money going into producing rockets to terrorise Israel. Power shortages weren’t caused by the absence of infrastructure, but by chronic failure to maintain and fuel it. Water systems degraded not because they didn’t exist, but because desalination, treatment, and repair were not sustained despite years of funding and material availability.
And despite years of receiving rocket fire, being forced to spend billions on it’s defences rather than simply cleansing the area with its nukes to build peace in the region… Israel still acted like the overly patient neighbour (the Ned Flanders of the region) continuing to supply electricity, water, fuel, food access, and technical support long after most countries would have slammed the door. Meanwhile Egypt, a supposed ally, largely kept its border shut and didn’t step in to replace even supplement those supplies.
I can’t imagine that Israel blowing it up twice helped with keeping the power plant running either.
Ditto with Israel destroying wells, farmland, greenhouses, agricultural exports like flowers, etc.
Will leave you to keep up with your pro-genocide stuff though:
Before it was even hit, the plant was generating very limited power, nowhere near enough to sustain civilian life in Gaza and never really did. Whatever electricity it did produce wasn’t stabilising hospitals, homes, or water systems… those were already running on generators, aid fuel, or intermittent imports.
The little power it was providing was only supporting the Hamas military. So essentially it wasn’t even “dual use” which would’ve still made it a valid military target regardless.
Besides… Israel paid for the plant anyway.
Think of it as taking away a toy from a naughty toddler who couldn’t manage it properly anyway.
That’s not “pro-genocide” at all. It was obvious sarcasm to make a simple point: if Israel’s intent were genocide, the outcome would look entirely different. The fact that it doesn’t is precisely evidence of restraint.
Bullshit.
Not at all.
Before the war, the majority of commercial goods and food entering Gaza did so via Israeli-controlled crossings, using Israeli ports, roads, and inspection systems. Aid agencies handled distribution, not border access or upstream logistics. Egypt’s Rafah crossing was sporadic and limited by comparison.
Not sure how I feel about arming private (is it? The NSW premier is in charge of arming them but it’s a “Jewish security group”? Confusing… ) security groups, but police should definitely be better trained and armed there. Just increase police presence and give them something to fight the bad guys with beyond batons and tasers.
It is probably more about providing them permission or licencing to be armed… than actually arming them. It is volunteer Jewish organisation, not a security guard business. I’d say the organisation falls outside the current regulatory regime, and self defence is not a reason for a gun licence in Australian states.
but police should definitely be better trained and armed there. Just increase police presence and give them something to fight the bad guys with beyond batons and tasers.
All police are armed in Australia… it isn’t the UK. But they failed to provide adequate security for that event.
Then my follow up would be to get the equivalent of SWAT guys there, not just regular beat cops.
Exactly, there was another event a vigil at Bondi, and the police placed snipers on the rooftops. But can the police do that outside Jewish schools, synagogues and events long term, probably not.