Sure, Hamas can still be considered to pursue genocidal aims. I'm glad we could at least agree on something.

I also agree we have a semantic mismatch. If you wish to continue, then I would need to ask what I did in a previous comment, which is for you to offer your personal definition of genocide and explain what the basis for it is.

The point of my argument here was that I believe there is enough grounds to state there is moral equivalency between the actions of the governments of Israel and China. You had explicitly denied this so I felt obliged to point out what I consider to be selective morality.

Ultimately, if you reject the legitimacy of my sources and definitions, then I can't argue my point any further. No debate works when we can't agree on a truth. If you don't wish to continue, then I'm fine with leaving it here and letting people judge your stance as they wish. I made my statements in good faith and I'm confident our arguments speak for themselves.

If you're really going to stick to that definition of genocide, then the UK was genocidal retaliating against Hitler's Germany, which means we fundamentally aren't talking about the same thing.

Hamas is clearly still a genocidal entity. On October 7 2023, they fired 4,000 rockets into Israel targeting specifically civilian infrastructure, parachuted into Israel killing exclusively civilians, taking hundreds hostage. It has been since it's conception and it is to this day. Hamas is only having to "resist" because it's outmatched, because it turns out not a lot of people want to help terrorist rogue states.

@Sm:(e
According to the correlation of their pre-2017 charter with their previous actions against Israeli civilians, yes, Hamas can be considered to have had genocidal intent which also goes beyond the scope of their stated mission of simply resisting imperialism.

@Sm:(e
Egypt's blockade is of a different nature. It's not as strict, opening for humanitarian reasons, and doesn't bar the airspace over Gaza. It also allows food and medicine to make it through. To my knowledge, their governing ideology is also less tied to ethnic supremacy than Israel's, so they have more grounds to have their actions held in good faith.

I stand by those definitions of genocide and if they delegitimise all wars then so be it. It doesn't contradict the argument itself. If you think the definition being too broad makes it an unrealistic ideal, I would just defer to other comments about how this entire curator group is also founded on an unrealistic ideal.

@Sm:(e
Sure, reposting:

It's often associated with a population decrease but there doesn't have to be a decrease yet for it to be considered one. The line starts earlier , this is what I mean by "not tied". In many common definitions, which I agree with, there is an emphasis on intent to destroy and attempting to destroy a group at least "in part".

The Gaza Blockade is an example of this. There is an intentional attempt to deny food and medical help to a specific ethnic population in order to, yes, ultimately reduce their population. I believe it goes beyond the scope of just being an effect of strategic supply denial to an opposing force.

There's also the issue of whether or not Hamas is a genocidal entity. Their goal is the eradication of the Jewish people and state as stated on their own charter. And they certainly have made attempts at doing that. Is Hamas engaged in genocide?