Thread

Updated Google Maps shows destruction of the city of Rafah

943 points · 947 comments · slowin

bognition · 1790616426 · focus · HN ↗
Its really telling to see the destruction limited to where the structures used to be rather than to all of the surrounding green spaces. If the destruction of civilian dwellings was purely an accident you'd expect to see the destruction spread evenly over the area. Instead it looks much more like a prolonged set of surgical strikes to destroy the buildings while preserving as much of the surrounding areas as possible.
For a great example of this, look at this pin <a href="https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZcMbdFcx87PrqoYNA" rel="nofollow">https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZcMbdFcx87PrqoYNA
And here's a pin of where the farms were spared <a href="https://maps.app.goo.gl/iZbbTH4iH27FCz4s9" rel="nofollow">https://maps.app.goo.gl/iZbbTH4iH27FCz4s9
1. YZF · 1790663982 · focus · HN ↗
  The buildings were levelled with bulldozers for the most part after the civilians left during combat operations against the tunnel infrastructure and any remaining combatants. Not sure what the "surgical strikes" comment is about. Are you asking why weren't open spaces destroyed or attacked?
  1. a_paddy · 1790665596 · focus · HN ↗
    How does bulldozing a family home have any affect on a tunnel?
    vkou · 1790666102 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    fesoliveira · 1790666664 · focus · HN ↗
    That is a definition of a genocide[1].
    [1] <a href="https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition" rel="nofollow">https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
    mb2100 · 1790667986 · focus · HN ↗
    Not quite. Perhaps you were thinking of "ethnic cleansing" ?
    latexr · 1790670709 · focus · HN ↗
    It seems bonkers to me that we’re nitpicking what to call a given mass extermination of human lives, like some kind of deranged Clippy. Talk about loss of perspective.
    The link provided in your parent post explicitly says there is no precise definition of “ethnic cleansing”, so I don’t even understand why you’d think the distinction matters.
    JumpCrisscross · 1790672642 · focus · HN ↗
    > seems bonkers to me that we’re nitpicking what to call a given mass extermination of human lives
    The OG genocides involved deaths in the millions [1]. That requires killing with industrial efficiency, something that made it categorically unique from the "wipe out the village" warfare that goes back to, probably, before civilisation. (Chimpanzees do it. To my knowledge, they're the only other species that annihilates versus merely fighting off enemies.)
    At lower kill volumes, even in the tens and possibly even hundreds of thousands, the line between conventional warfare done conservatively, conventional warfare done brutally and a process that, if left unhindered, will reach a million-man death toll.
    (Then you have the ambiguity, one which does not apply in Gaza, introduced by displacement also being included in genocide and it starts to intersect pretty much perfectly with war.)
    If we want these words to keep having meaning, we have to nitpick around their use. Otherwise, overinclusivity will consume them.
    [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides
    dudefeliciano · 1790673944 · focus · HN ↗
    > The OG genocides involved deaths in the millions
    So if less than a million people are killed it's not a genocide? Seems like a very obtuse understanding of the word, which is also defined in the wiki you linked.
    JumpCrisscross · 1790674435 · focus · HN ↗
    > if less than a million people are killed it's not a genocide?
    Nobody said that. OP asked why this is being debated. That's why. It's not clear what generally constitutes a genocide in a way that is separate from warfare in general. (Gaza and Ukraine are simpler, to me, because Russia and Israel explicitly message genocidal intent in a way New Delhi, Beijing and Washington do not.)
    hiddencost · 1790675649 · focus · HN ↗
    There is a technical definition of genocide. There's no ambiguity as to what Israel is doing, only people like you who are probably concern trolling.
    [deleted] · 1790677147 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    JumpCrisscross · 1790677217 · focus · HN ↗
    > There is a technical definition of genocide
    It's incredibly ambiguous. There are very few sets of people who agree on the list of ongoing genocides, much less historic ones. The only places where there is even a semblance of agreement is in Europe and urban America, and that's largely due to deferral to our institutions.
    > There's no ambiguity as to what Israel is doing
    I agree. That doesn't mean it's beyond discussion or debate. I think it's a genocide. I also think that term has been mangled, particularly online, to the point that it's virtually meaningless. (One of the problems with the term is it's grammatically odd. A homicide is a completed murder. Attempted murder is different. A genocide, completed, is an extermination or annihilation. But we give the ongoing project the same grammar as, in other cases, an act.)
    well_ackshually · 1790688215 · focus · HN ↗
    >A genocide, completed, is an extermination or annihilation.
    Which is why zero armenians remain after the armenian genocide
    oh wait no nevermind, your definition is just bullshit. Only one set of people define what is or isn't a genocide: historians. The ICC only covers crimes against humanity. Historians are also in wide agreement (except for the Israel aligned ones) that it is a genocide in Gaza.
    campers · 1790683800 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/GuidanceNote-When%20to%20refer%20to%20a%20situation%20as%20genocide.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/Guid...
    The legal definition of genocide is precise and includes an element that is often hard to prove: "intent." Determining whether a situation constitutes genocide is factually and legally complex. It should only be made following a careful and detailed examination of the facts against relevant legislation. This examination is carried out to establish State responsibility or individual criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide. It must be done by a competent international or national court with jurisdiction to try such cases, after an investigation that meets appropriate due process standards.
    Correct. If no such court case has delivered a verdict, then by definition no one can rightly claim genocide has occurred.
    As for whats happening, the over represented proportion of male combatant age deaths, the well below average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in complex urban warfare, the war being in response to an atrocious attack on civilians etc put a big question on the "Only Reasonable Inference" standard.
    well_ackshually · 1790688921 · focus · HN ↗
    You know what, it's been a while since I took the piss out of the hasbara, let's have fun.
    > the well below average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in complex urban warfare
    Ah, yes, the very urban warfare art of bombing hospitals and refugee camps. Very urban. Much warfare. And you also get to claim that the civilians didn't die from the fighting, merely from the starvation!
    >the war being in response to an atrocious attack on civilians
    Yep. Nothing happened before October 7. 1947 ? Doesn't exist. Nakba? Probably some arab term that means nothing. Close to a century of warfare, torture, humiliation and putting Gazawis into concentration camps ? Naaaah. Hamas is responsible. Bad Hamas.
    > population numbers remaining stable
    There has been no accurate population counts for three years. But thank you for being so generous and letting palestinians reproduce while you park them in camps. Very kosher <3
    >Hamas's initial charter
    No shit, the armed resistance group that was formed to resist with arms against an attacker wants the attacker gone ? Silly Hamas. They should have done like Bibi and kept the actual plan quiet in cabinet meetings.
    Hint: armed resistance against an occupier is legal and encouraged under international law.
    >the rockets fired over the years
    Yep. Israel did nothing. Didn't shoot children in the head, didn't regularly murder palestinians in prisons, didn't conduct raids on Palestinian territories or encourage settlers to colonize more. Poor little Israel.
    >the IRCG commanders statements about a co-ordinated attack from Gaza, southern Lebanon and the West Bank
    You regularly bomb another country, and you think that the other country is in the wrong for finding literally any way to make you eat shit ?
    > the abhorrent attack of October 7th
    A regrettable event and a needless loss of life. I'm not fully sure it justifies a retaliation that causes fifty times more death, destruction and horror, nor will the tribunal that will judge you for your crimes against humanity.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.