Dear Paul

Yes, I know that your gas chamber comment was not meant to be taken literally, but that was my point. Israel is not using gas chambers. Or mass sterilisations. Or any of the other means of committing genocide you described. Nor does the death toll in this conflict – horrific though it is – come anywhere close to the loss of human life in actual episodes of genocide, or even most convention wars in comparable conditions. And to suggest that Israel is using gas chambers, even if only for by analogy for rhetorical effect and not intended to be taken literally, is in rather poor taste given the millions of Jewish people who died in actual, non-metaphorical gas chambers.

If Israel really wanted to commit genocide, it could very easily kill far more people than it has.

It could perhaps do better at facilitating food convoys into Gaza. It could perhaps take more measures to minimize civilian casualties as it tries to incapacitate Hamas. It may even have committed war crimes if it didn’t try hard enough to do these things. But Spencer – who as you say, perhaps knows a thing or two about war – said, no other combatant has done more.

I don’t think Israel had a plan to kill 42,000 people. But after October 7, it had a plan to incapacitate Hamas. Given the high population density in Gaza and Hamas’s habit of using civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields, a high death toll was inevitable.

If you disagree with Spencer’s point, can you name a combatant in any comparable recent war that did better?

Hi Rhian,

I don't believe there is a benchmark for genocide, asking for comparisons is of little value. We often resort to the, "lesser of two evils" argument to justify a certain action we condone. There are those in power in Israel, that given the opportunity would instigate a "total genocide" policy against the Palestinian people in an act of a final solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem. World opinion is putting a restraint on such a policy at the moment, but it may well come about. At best the Israelis have scant regard for the collateral damage their military action is inflicting on the innocent.

A question; What do you believe is the Israeli policy for the future of the Palestinian people? Obviously they want to neuter them militarily and politically, that's not in question. There is about 5 or 6 million Palestinians in the region, they require space. How in the future will Israel provide that space.

BTW; The Palestinian people are already the most displaced people in the world.

Spencer may well be knowledgeable on the subject, but he may also be biased.

Hi Paul

According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part”. So while there is no numeric threshold defining genocide, the number of people killed, and why, are vital pointers to the question of whether the crime of genocide is being committed. You yourself have argued that the number of casualties in Gaza is evidence of genocide.

These are the reasons I do not think it applies in Israel’s case.

If Israel wanted to destroy the people of Gaza, “in whole or in part”, it could do so.

It has often taken measures to protect civilians, for example warning them to leave areas it was about to strike, and establishing a “humanitarian corridor” for civilians to escape Northern Gaza (Hamas tried to stop them leaving).

It has taken other measures to protect civilians, for example agreeing to a ceasefire to roll out polio vaccinations for children.

Hundreds of trucks enter Gaza from Israel each month carrying food aid. The UN and relief agencies say it is not enough. But if Israel’s intent was genocide, it would be zero.

When it has attacked civilian infrastructure and population concentrations it has argued, and usually provided evidence, that they were being used by Hamas to shield military equipment and personnel.

As the conflict has progressed and Israel has taken control of large swathes of Gaza, the weekly death toll has slowed dramatically, and the proportion of women and children killed has dropped. That is consistent with Israel’s claim to be targeting Hamas, but the opposite of what you would expect if its intent were to commit genocide.

I ask again, can you name a war in which any side has done more to protect its enemies’ civilians?

Hi Rhian,

According to your UN quote, the actions of the Zionists in Gaza fits the definition of genocide. "(genocide) a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part”. The murder of 42,000 innocent people, the systematic destruction of homes, the destruction of infrastructure, the withholding of aid, attests to that being the case.

"If Israel wanted to destroy the people of Gaza, “in whole or in part (in part have achieved that)”, it could do so." Agree, the only thing holding them back is world opinion, particularly the humanitarian criticism from their big ally the US. The aid you mentioned is nothing more than a sop, the Nazi's actually fed people in Auschwitz, so does that indicate their intention was not genocidal, me thinks not. BTW all your argument is off the Israeli song sheet, just like the way the Nazi's showed a Swedish Delegation during WWII how well the Jews were being looked after in Auschwitz, they even made a film of it.

Your question; "can you name a combatant in any comparable recent war that did better (in regards to genocide?" That is a subjective question, which can only be answered subjectively as there is no means to quantify genocide. I could say the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but it would be meaningless.

You have not answered my questions;

What do you believe is the Israeli policy for the future of the Palestinian people? Obviously they want to neuter them militarily and politically, that's not in question. There is about 5 or 6 million Palestinians in the region, they require space. How in the future will Israel provide that space?

'The questionable merit of Australia's official support for a two-state solution to the Palestine conflict'

- The questionable part about it is it's merely lip service.

Hi Paul

During WW2:

The German Blitz deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure in the UK, killing about 40,000 civilians and destroying 2 million homes.

In the siege of Leningrad, the Nazis blockaded, systematically starved and bombarded the city, resulting in “the greatest destruction and the largest loss of life ever known in a modern city”. About 1.5 million died.

In 1941 Stalin instituted a “scorched earth” policy, destroying schools and homes and killing thousands of civilians in Latvia.

The Allies bombed Dresden in 1945, destroying the city centre and killing up to 25,000 people in just two days. It is widely considered the city had no military significance to justify this attack.

And of course in 1945 the USA dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – neither of which was considered a significant military target – pretty much destroying both cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Some of these may be deemed war crimes. But none is considered genocide, even though all entailed deliberate targeting of civilians resulting in many deaths, because the deaths were instrumental – a means to an end, not an end it itself.

On your specific points:

If my argument is off the Israeli song sheet – or yours is off the Hamas song sheet – that of itself doesn’t make us right or wrong.

The Nazis fed people in Auschwitz – yes, but that’s because they wanted some of them to work before they died. Those who went straight to the gas chambers weren’t fed. At Leningrad, starvation was deliberate.

I didn’t ask you to quantify genocide, I asked if there were any cases in a comparable conflict you could think of in which a major combatant did more than Israel has done to protect is enemies’ civilian population.

Actually, the Franco-Prussian war – specifically the siege of Paris - was in some ways analogous to Gaza. The city was surrounded and bombarded and starved into submission. Unlike Israel, the Prussians refused to allow any food into the city until the defenders surrendered. Many people starved.