Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Terrorism vs Genocide

Entry 2413, on 2025-10-03 at 17:02:25 (Rating 4, News)

English is an imprecise language, just like every other natural language, I guess, so debates on whether we are seeing terrorism and/or genocide in the Israel-Palestine conflict very much depend on your definitions of the terms.

I think there is no doubt that we have seen, and are seeing, terrorism. The definition is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." That clearly describes what Hamas is doing, but it is not totally wrong to say it might describe some of Israel's actions as well.

So what about genocide? Here's the definition: "the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group". I think Hamas would like to engage in genocide if they could. Their aim is to eliminate the Israeli nation, after all. But what about Israel? Well, they say they want to eliminate just Hamas, but there have been a lot of civilian deaths as well. However, they are making clear efforts to minimise those. Are those efforts enough? You might say they aren't, but the fact they do them at all seems to show that there is no genocide involved.

Note that I am using the dictionary definitions here, not those used by organisations like the UN of ICJ, because they are political organisations and they are open to criticisms of bias.

New Zealand recently refused to follow the lead of many other nations and recognise Palestine as a state. Predictably, many people were horrified by this and came out with the same old rhetoric, like "we are on the wrong side of history" or are "supporting genocide", but many others (including me) are very supportive of the decision.

How do I know? Well, as per usual, the mainstream media are primarily reporting only one side, but in the "real world" (that is social media, specifically X, and yes, I know there is an element of irony in that comment) the majority seem to support the decision. In one thread I participated in, there was about an 80% support for the government's actions. Now, it is possible that I had a biased sample, but I do try to follow a variety of people on X, so at least this might show there is more support than we might first think.

Here are the first few comments and the number of positive and negative reactions...

I am glad that the coalition could agree on this cause of action. It's intelligent, thoughtful and common sense. We all want peace for the whole world. Unfortunately there are some ideologies that have other objectives. (This had 184 likes and 16 against)

A brilliant speech from the minister of common sense. (246 likes and 39 against)

This one action has lifted many kiwis spirits. We don't feel like followers now, we can feel like leaders. (125 pro, 25 anti)

Common sense should always prevail. (149 likes, 0 against)

While on the subject of the media, here are a couple of interesting phenomena I noticed recently. First, when media outlet "Stuff" started receiving far more comments agreeing with the lack of support for a Palestinian state than they (presumably) thought would happen, they stopped comments and deleted the existing ones. I have never seen that happen when the comments are "on their side". Second, in a report this morning on RNZ, about the Islamic terrorist attack in the UK against a synagogue they spent the majority of the report talking about why someone might be antisemitic, rather than discussing the real problem: Islamic extremism.

I know many people refuse to engage with the mainstream media any more, but if you still do, please be aware they are constantly gaslighting you with selective commentary and simple bias. They really are a disgrace.

So what about the "Two State Solution"? Well I heard an interesting response to that a few days back. It was "They tried a two state solution in 2005 and rocket attacks and the October 7 attack were the result".

Note that 2005 was when Israel left Gaza to be run by Hamas and effectively gave them control of their own state. They removed every Israeli civilian and military installation. Clearly a two state solution is not viable while Hamas still have power, and it is debatable whether it is under any circumstances.

So, despite the hysteria you might see in the media (particularly RNZ, TVNZ, and Stuff) please don't feel like you need to be ashamed of New Zealand's response to this. The government did the right thing, and despite the pressure of most other countries taking the opposite view, they did what they thought was correct. It was a brave move, not the cowardly one often portrayed in the media. Be aware that there are far more people who agree with the decision than you might think, and please, be skeptical of anything you see on TVNZ and their friends!

Comment 1 (8279) by EK on 2025-10-05 at 14:40:25:

It is good that the Gaza conflict has stirred wide attention and interest in New Zealand.

Leaving aside uninformed expressions of opinion formed by ignorance and misinformation – views that only see the evil of Hamas’ terrorism and the barbarism in the 7th October attack, there are two reasonably justified perspectives even though they are opposites. One is a narrow angle that ignores historical depth and uses the intellectual crutches of partisan political legality to justify every of Israel’s actions, culminating in the declamation: Israel has the right to defend itself by whatever means. This is the “civilised”, West-centred legal angle focussed on the immediate cause of the current war, supported by an eclectic array of “useful” international laws and conventions, and by its abstract nature totally ignoring the wider socio-political context. Minister Peters is an adept of that perspective, as are some legal experts. They are probably not wrong.

And then there is a second legitimate perspective. It is infused with a sense of ethical propriety and knowledge of history and takes into account other factors like proportionality, motivation, and intent – things that are so badly missing in the other perspective. Using this prism allows the beholder to comprehend the current conflict as just the latest expression of liberation attempts (in principle similar to the anti-Apartheid phenomena, the Kenyan MauMau insurrection, the anti-French Indochina uprising, and in a very mild sense the Mau independence movement in Samoa) to throw off the ever-tightening noose of oppression, occupation, displacement, economic strangulation, and (lately) starvation that has gone on for decades. Whether it is called ethnic cleansing or genocide depends on definitional finesse, but the actual phenomena of festering injustice are there plainly to see for everybody.

The first perspective leads to the decision that legal preconditions and parameters for the recognition of a Palestinian state are not met (as yet). The second, more broadly based, aims at using political mechanisms to rectify the course of history. It comes down to overly cautious legal steps versus the courage “to be on the right side of history”. I’d have preferred New Zealand politics to be more influenced by the second perspective.

Comment 2 (8280) by OJB on 2025-10-05 at 15:13:21:

Yes, I am very aware of the two perspectives, and of the "historical argument" which you prefer. I know there is merit in this perspective, but I believe the other has far more credibility. There are problems with putting too much emphasis on history, such as how far back do we go, and is territory captured during conflict legitimate, etc. I don't think your examples are comparable, and I don't think a two state solution can ever work, for the reasons I gave above, so giving a Palestinian state credibility is a bad idea. That's why I support the government's decision.

Comment 3 (8281) by EK on 2025-10-05 at 18:05:54:

Your argument is built on a contradiction. The whole existence and raison d'etre of Israel is built on an historical viewpoint - a case of a claim largely mythical in nature and a few thousand years old.

Comment 4 (8282) by OJB on 2025-10-05 at 18:23:04:

Yes, I was saying I don't usually use an argument based on history, because of the constant conflict in the area and its extensive history of change. I'm looking at the situation now. So, no, there is no contradiction.

Comment 5 (8285) by EK on 2025-10-05 at 20:48:49:

Your argument is premised on Israel being a legal, properly constituted entity with certain rights (which have been violated by Palestinian extremists), when historically seen it is close to a mythical fiction. So if in your view Israel is justifiably existing, that to me is tantamount to acknowledging the importance of history (even though one can argue if in this case it is justified). Yet you declare history as irrelevant. That to me is not quite logical.
Anyway, the bottom line is you are entitled to hold any view to like. I have no argument with that.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.