You seem unaware of the actual meaning of the word genocide, and I would suggest not using it in that case.
What the US did to the native Americans was a genocide. Siding with a foreign country in a conflict with a terrorist force is not a genocide, and throwing verbal atom bombs into an already maximally heated discussion isn’t helpful.
Eh. Pretty much everyone called what happened in Gaza an attempt at genocide, including many Israeli scholar. The wiki page [1] list some source from the U.N, various NGO, ... Amos Goldberg ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Goldberg ) called it a genocide, and the ICC launched an investigation (ofc, blocked by Israel).
Is Hamas a terrorist group ? Yeah, by many definitions. But if you accept this, you also cannot not see how what Israel did in Gaza, and has been doing for years with Palestinian, is not genocide: Force displacement of vast amount of population, regularly blockading humanitarian aid, mass destruction of civilian infrastructure, mass imprisonment, often with little to no representation, mass killing of civilian (it is estimated, by many source, that roughly 45000 Palestinian died, of which at least ~80% where civilian) ...
This is the textbook definition of genocide. If you accept the Shoah, the Armenian genocide, the genocide of the tutsis, ... You cannot logically not see this as a Palestinian genocide.
As for the U.S involvement, that's honestly not for me to say. I am not a us citizen.
> you also cannot not see how what Israel did in Gaza, and has been doing for years with Palestinian, is not genocide
In what way is "what Israel has done for years" genocide, if we're not including the response to October 7th?
> mass killing of civilian (it is estimated, by many source, that roughly 45000 Palestinian died, of which at least ~80% where civilian) ...
Every civilian death is tragic. But if civilians aren't targeted, but are killed as part of other military actions, then it is the unfortunate and terrible reality of war. Unless you consider every war genocide, this doesn't show that it was a genocide. (I'm not sure your 80% number if anywhere near accurate, btw.)
> If you accept the Shoah, the Armenian genocide, the genocide of the tutsis, ... You cannot logically not see this as a Palestinian genocide.
Let's make clear the difference. In the Shoah (Holocaust), Jews were rounded up, sent to concentration camps, then killed by various means. They were not a hostile armed group, not in a territory that was controlled by militants, or anything like that. They were literally civilians that were rounded up and killed.
None of that applies in Gaza. Civilians are not rounded up and killed. They are killed as terrible, horrible collateral damage while attempting to kill militants. If the militants, who are their current government, were to put down their arms - the war would be over immediately.
Also - since the Holocaust, the Jewish population still hasn't recovered its numbers. The Gazan population has only increased. This isn't proof of anything (it can be an attempted genocide even with a low count of dead), but you're comparing ~30k civilian deaths to 6 million Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.
> Eh. Pretty much everyone called what happened in Gaza an attempt at genocide, including many Israeli scholar.
Many people have called it a genocide. Many people called it a genocide two days into the war, and some have been saying Israel is committing genocide for years, which makes you think it's something they think without Israel's actual actions since October 7th having any relevance to it.
But by no means "pretty much everyone" calls it a Genocide. What determines whether something is a genocide is not a show of hands of a select group of organizations.
> The Arabs of the Western half of the Palestinian mandate refused to accept a state in 1948
A state that was imposed on them. And which state are you even talking about ? If it is the U.N proposition for the partition of Palestine, Israel also never accepted it and disregarded it entirely.
> That is not genocide.
Mass displacement of a population, destroying their civil infrastructure, kill civilian on mass is the definition of genocide.
> Hamas’s constitution explicitly calls for the killing of all Jews in Israel.
And that is why Hamas is a terrorist organization.
> Congratulations on siding with the genocidal maniacs, Jew haters, and murderers. Hamas thanks you.
I never sided with Hamas.
You are just spouting hatred. A sad continuation of this conflict.
The state was not as a fact imposed on the Palestinians. After centuries living under empires, they were offered a state for the first time ever by the UN in 1947 but turned it down. Instead they decided to go to war to destroy Israel and have been trying to do so ever since. That was their choice. It has worked out very badly for them because they keep making the same stupid mistakes driven by Jew hatred.
The current war was started by Hamas and they knew exactly what the outcome would be - thousands of deaths of their own people. They sacrificed their own people to use it as a political tool by which they aim to get the political support of useful idiots like you against Israel. It is a sick policy carried out by sick people. This is not genocide; it is a war, started by Hamas who wanted the results we see.
And what Native American tribes sometimes did to each other was genocide. There were lots of actors in the fight for the American land mass - the US , the British Empire, the French Empire, Mexico, the Japanese were even having a look. So I don’t think it is as simple as saying the US committed genocide of the Native Americans, who were actually many different tribes often warring with each other. Their way of life was bound to largely die out once the modern world arrived.
The stated objective of the Final Solution was to murder literally every Jew in Europe, thus the “Final”.
The stated objective of Hamas, voted into power by the Arabs of Gaza, is to murder literally every Jew in Israel.
I don’t think that anywhere in the Likud manifesto for the democratic elections of the democratic state of Israel it states that genocide of the Gazans is a policy.
Do you see the difference between a democratic state with the rule of law and a gang of self-declared genocidal terrorists? Obviously not.
The current Hamas charter states that they fight Zionism, not for them being jews but for their own stated goal of stealing their land, which they have and are continuing to do. Why are you trying to pretend that Israel have not had far right forces within it for a very long time, they're currently in power. I'm not saying that Hamas is good by saying that Israel is also bad, both are bad, but only one of them came there with the goal to steal the land of the people living there.
Part of Likuds founding charter is this phrase: Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. Sounds familiar?
Almost all Israeli land was granted by the UN or won in wars started by the Arabs, not stolen. You can criticize Israel for building settlements on the West Bank in contravention of international law. And because Israel is a democratic state with the rule of law, and free speech, many Israelis do express opposition to the building of illegal settlements on the West Bank.
Meanwhile, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza have chosen people to govern them whose only goal is to destroy Israel and murder all Jews there. These people are possessed by an extreme Islamist ideology which has driven them insane.
The Arabs and Jews of Palestine were in essentially the same position in 1947. Look at them now. The Jews have built a successful modern state, while the Arabs are using all their resources to build tunnels to try to get in to Israel and murder Jews randomly. Clearly, the Arabs of Palestine have made stupid mistakes and should have just accepted the state in 1947.
> I'm not saying that Hamas is good by saying that Israel is also bad, both are bad, but only one of them came there with the goal to steal the land of the people living there.
If you mean Hamas was founded with the goal of stealing the land (by destroying Israel), then yes.
But it's not correct historically to talk about Jews coming to Israel to "steal" the land - the majority before the founding of Israel came as refugees looking for a place they wouldn't be oppressed, and came mostly legally as immigrants, legally buying the land, not "stealing" anything.
The majority immediately after Israel's founding were either a) the remaining European Jews that had been rounded up in concentration camps but hadn't been killed by the Holocaust, and that spent a few years in displaced persons camps with nowhere to go, until the UN collectively voted to give them a tiny patch of land in Israel, or b) Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world.
Apparently, it is true that the Likud manifesto of 1977 called for only Israeli sovereignty “from the river to the sea”, but this is already de facto the case as Israel are occupying the West Bank. And they don’t appear to have killed all the Arabs of the West Bank in fact.
Hamas changed their charter in 2017 from a struggle against Jews to a struggle against Zionists for cosmetic reasons, by which they are presumably referring to all Jews in Israel at least, as I stated; and they have not repudiated their old charter which targets Jews not Zionists. And as a matter of fact, Hamas spent several years and used all their resources to carry out the October 7 attach in which they brutally massacred all the Jews, sorry Zionists, they could get their hands on; including deliberately targeting babies, pregnant women and families. This shows what Hamas would do if they had the wherewithal - they would murder all Jews in Israel to the last one. They have shown themselves to be literally genocidal.
Israel is responding to an attack on its people according to, above the standards of even, international law. I don’t see you calling the Ukrainians bad for fighting back against Russia. This stance is pure anti-semitism, though you may not realize or intend it.
What the US did to the native Americans was a genocide. Siding with a foreign country in a conflict with a terrorist force is not a genocide, and throwing verbal atom bombs into an already maximally heated discussion isn’t helpful.