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.
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.