Israel committing genocide in Gaza, scholars group says

The resolution is an outcome of a process descibed in this organization's bylaws. Quoting:

ARTICLE 6. Resolutions A. Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot. For a proposed resolution to pass, voting must have been undertaken by a quorum of more than 20% (20% plus 1) of paid up IAGS members at the time of the vote.

B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.

C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President and the Executive Board for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Boardwhether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.

D. After consulting with the Advisory Board, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote within two weeks of submission by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least thirty days before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of thirty days of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS.

Crazy how vehemently people seek to suppress this information.

Can't have anyone talking about anything important on HN, someone's feelings might get hurt!

Hope people will vouch for it to stay up

Yep, flagged now. Edit: Not by me

Flagged less than 20min after posting. Seemingly coordinated.

No matter how civilised the discourse, for some it's too much. Is there a way to take away the veto of any 10 people who don't like what they see?

One aspect of this whole thing that doesn't get discussed enough is how Israel specifically arguing that genocide is okay when acting in situation of perceived danger puts into question the moral consensus we have regarding the Holocaust. As in, if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany?

Well, my personal opinion is obviously that both situations are abhorrent, but what I'm trying to point out the PR damage that Israel is doing to itself. I see two reasons why Israel might be okay with that:

1. They focus on short-term gains and they're acting irrationally

2. They know they'll always have US support because US needs them to do shady stuff in Middle East while at the same time they know that Arabs will always hate them anyway, so there's not much point trying to be the good guys. They don't care what Europe thinks because Europe won't be politically influential in foreseeable future anyway. By committing the genocide they confirm they're ready to do real dirty jobs, which is the core reason behind the US support in the first place.

I have a feeling that the part of Israel's wrath is that this whole war pretty much voided painstaking process of normalizing relations with Arabs. Therefore they thought "you know what, fuck this shit, if we can't have you like us we'll have you fear us". And that's how we ended up with a democratic country committing genocide.

The saddest thing is that the whole idea "it's 21st century, we won't do comically evil shit anymore" turned out to be a mirage, and as a species collectively we're not that far from ancient rulers massacring entire cities just for shits and giggles.

Terrorism like Israel killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians or the US killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Or do you just mean the violence committed by brown people against their oppressors?

here is the guardian reporting on it:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/israel-committ...

Or the financial times, if you prefer:

https://www.ft.com/content/470b61ff-aa1c-487f-a9ae-477b5c142...

Here you go, Israel groups saying Israel is committing genocide in a leading Israel paper:

> In first, two major Israeli human rights groups accuse Israel of ‘genocide’ in Gaza

https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-two-major-israeli-hum...

That doesn't seem to be the case. The UN has a legal definition of genocide, and the assertion is that the criteria are met. So what's the change in definition?

I don't think it's really about applying a definition A to a definition B incorrectly, but rather about expanding or restricting the meaning of a given definition.

Is the Gaza genocide on the same level as what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto, certainly not. However, it is already surpassing Kosovo/Bosnian War genocide by a huge margin.