Murdered vs died.

This.

That doesn’t mean that the IDF as such is murderous or that its actions generally can be called murder, because it’s not the case.

Colloquially, unjustified killing of civilians could be called murder, although I agree that technically the crime of murder is more of an interpersonal crime that is defined and governed by individual nation state criminal codes. Militaries and warfare are under different national and international criminal codes.

I really hope that one day in the not so distant future the Israeli government, the US government and members of the IDF are tried for war crimes. Hopefully then we will be able to call it what it clearly is. I'm sick of seeing disgusting videos of the IDF treating Palestinians in a way which would have mumsnetters foaming at the mouth if it were dogs being treated that way and it being excused. International law needs to be upheld and the crimes being commited by Israel need to be written about, something that we will all learn from and that sets the standards for future 'conflicts'.

People keep talking about world war 2 like it wasn't almost a century ago, like technology hasn't completely changed, standards can be and should be higher than those 80 years ago. 1% of a population wiped out in 2 and a bit months is an incredible killing spree and we need to make sure that it never happens again.

And if the enemy combatants you were fighting hid themselves in civilian clothes and hid behind civilians as human shields, then yes, your killing of those civilians would not be murder.

Wrong. It would still be murder unless you can prove that the civilians’ deaths were completely unavoidable and that you (the armed soldiers) were under active threat of lethal force from the group of civilians + enemy combatants at the time you opened fire on them or bombed them or tank shelled them etc.

I’m not saying actually eradicated- the Tutsis weren’t eradicated either. It’s the intention to eradicate. The Nazis didn’t succeed in eradicating the Jews, didn’t make what they attempted not genocide.

Intent is a key feature, but it doesn’t have to be publicly stated as an intent for it to be ruled by ICC that actions constitute a clear intent. In this case, there has been more than enough intent stated publicly by Israeli leaders that according to experts, genocidal intent is clearly present.

No, you're wrong there. I mean the Bosniaks weren't eradicated and that was genocide. I've attached it below.

Enough Israeli leaders have publicly stated that an intention is to target civilians that I cannot agree that the military targets do not include both Hamas and civilians.

The conditions in Gaza, with 70% of homes damaged or destroyed, with hospitals, churches, mosques, UN schools, UN humanitarian supply warehouses, Red Cross/Red Crescent/MSF buildings, journalist offices, water pumps, sanitation plants, power plants, solar panels, telecommunications, destroyed. Plus blocking of water, food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid from getting into Gaza. This are all military actions that target civilians, not Hamas.

I believe the intention to eradicate is the key feature of genocide, at least as per article II of the convention on Genocide.

If you are responding to an act of aggression then yes, that would fall within the context of just war. And if the enemy combatants you were fighting hid themselves in civilian clothes and hid behind civilians as human shields, then yes, your killing of those civilians would not be murder. That is how we distinguish between killing (which is terrible in its own right) and murder (which is uniquely terrible for what it specifically is).

The reality is there probably are some members of the IDF who are brutal and murderous, which is part of the problem of warfare generally. One of my professors at university wrote a book about the rage of war, and what it does to otherwise ordinary people- records of American soldiers committing horrible brutalities during the pacific war. Yes, I think that there probably are murderers in the ranks of the IDF, as there generally appear to be in the ranks of virtually all militaries in the world. That doesn’t mean that the IDF as such is murderous or that its actions generally can be called murder, because it’s not the case.

I'd really love if those saying that this isn't genocide would bother to even look up the definition. Nothing you said there is relevant to genocide.

Oh I imagine that it makes no difference to how they feel, but it should certainly make a difference to our approbation and the view on what the resolution is.

As this thread is about- language matters. It doesn’t seem to rise to the definition of genocide either: the intention of Israel doesn’t appear to be to eradicate the Palestinians- it appears to be the total degradation of Hamas capability as well as the killing of its leadership.

If the suspicion is that Israel is actually bent on the eradication of the Palestinian people’s, then the methodology would appear different. The attempted extermination of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda resulted in the deaths of nearly 1 million Tutsis in around 3 months. Even accounting for per capita population differences, the death rate of civilians is colossally different, and given the relative military strength you would expect it to be vastly the reverse if it was actually genocide.

@Hiddenmnetter The Israeli government doesn't really believe that Palestinian civilians are being killed as a result of "secondary consequence". You know that right? It's just the cover they're using to ethnically cleanse Gaza. They're not even doing a good job of keeping their true intentions under wraps.

Yes, if someone attacked you and you punched them and they died that would be excusable.
Thats not what’s happening in Gaza.

@Toothyfruity
Yes, I’m sure the families of those orphaned and murdered children in their THOUSANDS would say oh yes, killed not murdered, sorry, go on then.

So I can go out and murder innocent children but it’ll be ok if I declare that I’m “at war”?

"Gazans aren’t (in the main) being murdered. They are being killed." @Hiddenmnetter

Maybe if someone explained to them that they're just being killed, not murdered, they'd feel better about the whole thing?

I think it's it's genocide anyway. Hopefully there'll be prosecutions.

And yet, we distinguish both morally and legally between actions taken with direct intent and with secondary consequence.

If I get attacked in the street and I defend myself, and in the course of doing so I punch someone and they fall down, crack their head on the pavement and have a stroke and die, it would be seriously unjust to suggest I had murdered them.

Yet if I started a fight with murderous intent, and made the same punch, and that person fell and died, it would be just to suggest I had murdered them (even though the pavement being irregularly shaped was what caused their actual death)

I don’t think most people seriously think that it is unjust that Israel responds to the events of October 7. Which was also, very obviously, murder. Now if Israel have the right to defend themselves and strike back in consequence, and are aiming at legitimate military targets, then no, collateral damage is not murder.

I don’t know what the specific circumstances of those events referred to above are- I don’t know why the snipers did what they did- but part of what is making this conflict so awful is the blurring of lines by the use of human shields. If the IDF are targeting legitimate Hamas targets (even if they don’t present an immediate threat) and human shields die in consequence, it’s not murder. Not legally, not morally.

Unless in your view all war is murder as such (which again I think diffuses the meaning of the word), in which case I’m not sure what retaliation you think would have been a reasonable course after October 7, but I guess that would be a separate discussion.

Gazans aren’t (in the main) being murdered. They are being killed. The Israeli’s on October 7 were legitimately murdered- well with the possibly exception of those members of the IDF who it could be argued were killed as enemy combatants- but then at the time Hamas and Israel weren’t at war, so at the very least it’s an act of aggression.

A Rwandan doctor has just been charged in France for being part of the Rwandan genocide so has the former Serbian president Milosevic for his war crimes committed in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo where he died in prison. This genocide isn't and never was targeted towards Hamas only. Israeli officials have commented many times including Netanyahu that they will wipe out Gaza and anyone in it until no Gazan is left because if they leave anyone they will breed future Hamas. So are you telling me those that are still defending Netanyahu's war crimes that it is ok to wipe out every Russian on this planet and they are just collateral damage or war casualties?

Are you implying Palestinian civilians aren't being deliberately targeted and murdered?

Since then the IDF have committed murder

@Eyesopenwideawake on October 8th Israel declared they were at war. Deaths during war due to military operations are specifically excluded.

I don’t understand why you want to contort the meaning of murder to include acts of war. Both are horrific tragedies. But they mean different things.

Not a great example I admit..

but sprung to mind as I had a conversation about RB literally a week before 10/7 with someone whose exact words, in regards
to RB were:
"anyone who uses the phrase 'mainstream media is a complete tool'"
and low and behold that same person is now using the phrase 'mainstream media'

Just an interesting observation and have observed similar scenarios playing out amongst many peers

Russell Brand, serial sex offender (allegedly)?