There are literally hundreds of videos and witness testimony evidencing war crimes perpetrated by Israel. There are even mass graves being uncovered which is reported by mainstream media. Humanitarianaid is being held back or bombed by IDF. What on Earth are you talking about? How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid?
All the same and more also re: Hamas. Who are the elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
This fight is the same as trying to intervene in the drunk, abusive couple down the street’s fight of the day. As is 90% of anything in the Middle East.
No one is ‘clean’, but some are more palatable than others in some contexts. And if G or others won’t do business with the ‘officially more palatable’ option (in this case Israel, per the US gov’t), then it hurts their bottom line - which is also Google Employees bottom line.
And Google can’t ignore the US gov’t, due to both revenue and regulatory involvement, especially now.
If you’re looking for sainthood, non-profits are an option.
> There are literally hundreds of videos and witness testimony evidencing war crimes perpetrated by Israel
What counts as a war crime depends (among other factors) on the knowledge and intentions of the military commanders ordering the attack, and I don’t see how any of these videos or testimony can answer that.
> How can one dispute that Israel is a genocidal apartheid?
Let me talk specifically about the "genocidal" aspect, because Apartheid is a separate topic.
If you're coming from a place of "of course Israel is committing genocide", I don't think it very likely that I'm going to convince you otherwise. That is the "default" narrative in many circles (just like the opposite narrative also exists in many circles). That said, I'll do my best to explain why I think that claims of genocide are very wrong.
> There are literally hundreds of videos and witness testimony evidencing war crimes perpetrated by Israel.
First, there are for sure war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers. Every war crime should be condemned, investigated and prosecuted. Though I don't think there are hundreds of war crimes documented, at least not serious war crimes (serious as in causing bodily harm or death to someone).
That said, war crimes, while horrible, are an unfortunate reality that happens in almost every war. War crimes and genocide are separate things.
Genocide requires Israel intentionally trying to kill Gazans, or at least part of Gaza. That's a big accusation, and it isn't backed up, at all, by the actual actions of Israel. Israel maybe kills "too many" civilians for the amount of militants it kills (though even that is debateable), but it is targeting militants. It isn't going in there and purposefully killing civilians, for the most part, though horrible mistakes do happen all the time.
If you compare the amount of dead in Gaza to almost any modern war, there are far less dead in Gaza. And considering that Israel could do what other countries have done, which is intentionally kill civilians - the fact that there aren't more dead isn't a question of ability, but of will. Israel doesn't want to kill innocent civilians.
Most of the videos you cite are either the kinds of terrible things that happen in every war, or genuine war crimes (which do happen), or, as is often the case, an incident which looks different without having context. This is a war in an urban environment, in which Hamas is doing everything in its power to cause more Palestinian casualties, not less.
> Humanitarianaid is being held back or bombed by IDF.
This is partially true, and I'm very angry at Israel for not allowing even more aid in. But aid isn't being bombed (except for mistakes, which do unfortunately happen). And it's not accurate to blanket say "aid is being held back" - Israel lets in hundreds of aid trucks every day.
I think Israel should do a lot more, don't get me wrong, but if your impression is that literally no aid is getting in, that's very very far from reality.
> There are even mass graves being uncovered which is reported by mainstream media.
This is a story that's only a few days old. I don't think it's fair to draw conclusions on it just yet. The media has a terrible track record of taking claims against Israel at face value, only a few days later backing up the Israeli version, which often vindicates Israel. E.g. the infamous "hospital bombing" in which Israel killed 500 people, which after the fact turned out to be not even an Israel bomb, and only a few dozen died there anyway.
This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families.
Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party. If you also add that most important humanitarian organizations are ringing alarms, they are not allowing investigations from independent parties, and the domestic discourse is definitely not dovish.
You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless.
> This kinda talking points get muddy when said militants (more like suspected militants) were target specifically when they arrived home with their families.
You're right. And absent further context, I'd consider that to be a war crime. However, there's very little evidence that that is happening - afaik it was one article, which quoted a couple of people in the intelligence units without a clear understanding of their exact position. For all we know, they are junior analysts who don't have the full context.
> Besides that, all the talking about Israel not targeting civilians, being interested in protecting civilians, and not deliberately holding back help all of these are Israel talking points; so conceding authority is crazy, not because we are talking about any specific country, but because we are taking at face value statements of an interested party.
This is kind of true. However, worth noting a few things:
1. Many of these points are backed up by the US. Not all - the US also criticizes some of Israel's actions (as do I). But this only gives it more credibility in the cases where it backs up Israel. Other countries do so as well, and as I pointed out elsewhere, IIRC multiple democracies denounced the ICJ case of genocide against Israel (with multiple autocracies backing it - I certainly know which conclusion I draw from this).
2. Israel is a democracy with a free press. Hence articles like the one about targeting militant's families. There are some very leftist organizations in Israel, and multiple leftist newspapers/journalists. Investigating in real time in a war zone is hard, but most information is eventually discovered and revealed, often by Israeli journalists themselves.
That's paradoxically why democracies sometimes "look worse" compared to autocracies, but also why I trust that many abuses/crimes do eventually get discovered.
3. Everything negative we know is also something we take at face value from an interested party - Hamas itself. This includes the total number of casualties, and some semblance of what is the split between civilians vs militants (though they don't actually provide the number of militants killed).
These numbers are far harder to verify, because Hamas can just make things up and no one really holds them accountable. Again, paradox of autocracies vs democracies.
(That's not to say I think everything is made up or anything - there are obviously tragedies as evidenced by many individual accounts of terrible deaths, including of many civilians!)
> You might be right, there might not be any ill intent from Israel, yet you cannot argue that the conclusion that a genocide is happening is baseless.
Even taking the Hamas death toll numbers totally at face value, and likewise taking Israel's estimates of militants killed also at face value, we can compare the rate of civilian deaths in Gaza vs. in other similar wars fought by the West. And the rates in Gaza are fairly in line with e.g. US war against ISIS in Urban combat. And the situation in Gaza is far harder, as attested by most military experts, because Hamas has had 20 years of rule to entrench themselves in the civilian population.
I think any honest look at the numbers shows that there isn't anything to actually justify calls of genocide, unless you also call the US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan, or the fight against ISIS, also genocide. If you do - ok, that's at least consistent, but I think that's actively misusing that word.
If we just look at the number of dead in most conflicts - they're orders of magnitude more than killed in Gaza. (Obvious tragic exmaple being the Syrian civil war, in which iirc 600k civilians were killed, but also again, Iraq/Afghanistan war in which 150k civilians were killed.)
(And let me caveat this - all human lives lost are tragedies. Even Hamas militants and IDF soldiers are tragic losses, mostly young people thrown into this situation by circumstance.
I only talk about this in terms of broad numbers because that's necessary for understanding this war compared to similar wars, which is the only valid yardstick for what is happening.)
Maybe it's the fact that I just saw the nth video of a WH spokesman dodging a direct question about an independent investigation with the phrase "we are requesting more information from the Israel government" that makes this point ring really hollow to me.
>Everything negative we know is also something we take at face value from an interested party - Hamas itself
Negatives come from several parties. Including as mentioned independent investigation from the most important human rights organizations, investigation that have in the past, corroborated Gaza Health Ministry past figures.
Which is the actual point, independent investigations are needed. I mean I would have hesitance to trust an independent investigation by the US or by "other democracies" (sic), but I would concede if that were a thing. But we get responses in the vein of "Israel is our ally so we choose to believe them".
>That's paradoxically why democracies sometimes "look worse" compared to autocracies
>US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan
Yeah, I don't think those actions were a genocide, but there are some parallels between those conflicts and the current one, the propaganda and lies, the way that the opposing voices are completely ignored, and the veneer that "we are a democracy" so war crimes are either non existent or will be revealed. After all these years, what do we know about the mass murder weapons that caused the destruction of Iraq? Did the checks and balances worked or was the whistleblower arrested and tortured? Didn't we saw Bush have a lapsus just a few years ago about an authoritarian man deciding to invade a country for no reason and the audience just laughed it off?
>I only talk about this in terms of broad numbers because that's necessary for understanding this war compared to similar wars, which is the only valid yardstick for what is happening.
And this is completely false. Genocide scholars have said time and time again that genocide is not about numbers. If you cannot get this basic fact, please avoid stating that a word is being misused.
Because the topic under discussion is about Google firing workers for protesting Google doing business with Israel. The subtitle is: "Some employees protested the tech giant’s contract with the Israeli government. They’ve been let go."
> it is should not be within the purview of a company to make such moral judgements.
Who should, if not the company who makes the product? Nobody? Courts after harm has occurred?
We have these exact controls in place for military hardware. If your company builds missiles, you better believe it's your responsibility not to sell to enemies of the state.
(Edit: I'd like to avoid the parent's particular example, as it's still an extremely polarizing issue. I hope we can still discuss cooperate responsibility in general.)
If you build missiles, you are not responsible for deciding who to sell to. The government is responsible for deciding who you get to sell. You are just responsible for selling only to approved buyers.
> Correct. AI (or other technology) are tools. They can be used for good, they can be used for evil, it is should not be within the purview of a company to make such moral judgements.
So basically when IBM was selling business machines that were being used in the concentration camps to the Nazi government it was ok. And when other US companies were selling all kinds of things including technology to the Nazis, which were used in the war, including for killing actual American soldiers.
And if the Nazis won and were able to implement all they wanted at a global scale, these companies wouldn't be responsible for aiding the Nazi war effort and its eventual triumph.
> people to mask-off with antisemitism trying
Children are being murdered on live video. That's crazy talk at this point. If murdering children is semitism, then you are on the wrong side. If it isn't, then you are just talking nonsense because what they are doing is unjustifiable.
The murder wont go away and the discussion wont stop if you scream 'anti-semitism'. Stop murdering children first.
Of course, Israelis and their supporters will say the same thing.
There is no one party to this state of affairs still alive that threw the first stone. There was October 7, before that there were settlements and annexations, before that there were intifadas, before that there were mandates, civil wars etc, all the while punctuated by stray killings, bombings and rocket attacks, on and on reaching back millennia.
I think plenty of people are tired of the simplistic, reductive, one-side treatment protesters give the issue, as you’re showing here. They think they can dictate to everyone how it should be solved. Condescension like that just never plays well.
Comparing the Israel-Palestine conflict to Nazi Germany is both a qualitative and quantitative error. The degree to which Israel has killed Palestinians is dwarfed by the numbers the Nazis put up. The Nazis invaded many countries, occupying a total area over ten times the size of modern Germany. All that in the span of a decade or two, depending on when you count the start; compared to a conflict that in modern times alone is measured in a hundred years, with a small fraction of the impact. With multiple countries committed to their destruction.
It’s a disappointing comparison and I can’t help but think it’s made deliberately to provoke an emotional reaction.
Wait. What? A company shouldn’t review if the technology it’s selling is used for mass murder? That’s the most batshit point of view I’ve heard in a long time.
Oh please. This sort of blind “Israel is not POSSIBLY incapable of committing the same atrocities every other State is capable of committing” is a uniquely American brand of anti-anti-Semitism. Considering the actual merits and factors of a situation instead of simplifying everything to “yeah, but Jewish people have had a hard time” is exactly the sort of easily consumable useless drivel that doesn’t belong here.
I don’t get the genocide argument. Israel has complete air superiority, if genocide was the goal they could have leveled Gaza in the first day. Casualties would have been at least over 1 million not 30k. And they wouldn’t go door-to-door, drop flyers and knock-bombs (again why bother if genocide is the intent). The fact that the causality count is as low as it is considering they are fighting a genocidal terrorist organization that’s honeycombed itself in heavily populated civilian centers is already an achievement.
I'm not saying they aren't capable of committing war crimes or genocide or whatever other terms you want to use. Clearly Israel is eminently capable of simply flattening Gaza (and Judaea/Samaria if they wanted) and they are restrained enough to not do so.
I'm saying I don't think they are by any objective measure and the constant fixation with accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide, combined with the disgusting amount of antisemitism I've seen after 10/7 has led me to the conclusion that accusing them of imagined crimes is deeply rooted in antisemitism.
Honestly tiresome to see accusations of antisemitism and reference to the Palestinian West Bank as "Judea and Samaria". How does the Palestinian West Bank become Judea and Samaria? Through forced displacement, ethnic cleansing, and/or genocide.
"Greater Israel" can only come about through mass crimes against humanity and expansionist/pseudo-revanchist military adventurism.
Those are but two of the many names those places have had over the years. Was your usage idiomatic, or expressive of an policy desire for Israel to rule over those lands?
Sarcasm, irony and euphemism are modes indirectness, like gallows humour, to help us talk about the horrific without the equivalent of burning our eyes out staring at the sun. It's a coping mechanism.
Sincere and explicit statements of horror have paradoxical outcomes because such words wear thin. They are overused by the disengenuous to wound others. The sincere are forced onto a semantic treadmill seeking different ways to express themselves.
Sigh. When someone shames powerful people on the internet they are generally not expecting the people in question to see it. (Well, except it's about Elon Musk :) The intention is rather to raise awareness among the general public.
