• Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the death toll to be much higher.

    Would I? I don’t know if I would. It’s a big percentage to accomplish in a single campaign, and if you think about the compounding effect of the war on the lives of the remaining 98% it’s still a pretty strong result. For example the UN reported that Gaza now has the biggest cohort of child amputees in modern history. Crippling a generation economically with sanctions and literally with shrapnel is a very powerful genocide tool, and so is claiming land - expanding the largest West Bank land grab in 30 years.

    you would expect the pace of civilian death to remain constant and not diminish over time.

    Again, I don’t think I would. Maybe we have different visions of what an effective genocide strategy looks like in the XXI century.

    • DarthJon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      A single campaign? It’s a war in a small, densely populated urban environment. If any other country executed this war, the death toll would be 10x higher. All the things you mentioned are horrible effects of war. That doesn’t make it a genocide. It isn’t even close to a genocide. The best way to avoid those terrible effects of war is to not start war in the first place by, for example, invading a sovereign nation and undertaking an orgiastic barbaric murder spree.