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.)
    latexr · 1790675748 · focus · HN ↗
    > OP asked why this is being debated.
    I did not. I lamented (it was not a question) that we’re nitpicking (it’s not a debate) the definition, especially when the person in question suggested an alternative which is not defined.
    I do wonder if you’d care about this conversation if you and your family were the ones being killed. If one of those people were in front of you crying for their home and life and asked for your compassion and help in fleeing the genocide, would you turn to them and say “ackchyually, someone on Hacker News said this is merely an ethnic cleansing, you’re on your own”?
    JumpCrisscross · 1790677098 · focus · HN ↗
    > do wonder if you’d care about this conversation if you and your family were the ones being killed
    No. At that point, whether it's a genocide or not is kind of irrelevant. They're being killed. War doesn't need extra bits attached to it to be horrible.
    > would you turn to them and say “ackchyually
    What is this.
    WarmWash · 1790689666 · focus · HN ↗
    At what point does Israel go
    "Ya know what, everybody already has us marked as commiting genocide, so why don't we just actually do it?"
    The civilian population of Palestinians has shrunk ~1% since the war started, despite Israel have the weapons to actually just kill everyone.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.