First, genocide isn’t defined by whether all members of an ethnic group are being killed everywhere they live—it’s about intent and actions toward any part of the group “as such.” The fact that Palestinians exist elsewhere doesn’t negate what’s happening in Gaza. The UN and multiple human rights organizations have documented mass civilian casualties, deliberate targeting of infrastructure, starvation as a weapon, and systematic displacement. That pattern aligns far more with collective punishment than a surgical military operation against Hamas.
Second, invoking WW2 to justify killing civilians today is morally bankrupt. The world learned from WW2—that’s why the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law exist: to prevent states from repeating those same atrocities. “We did it in WW2” is not a defense—it’s an indictment.
Third, claiming Hamas could “end it all by surrendering” is naive at best, dishonest at worst. Hamas doesn’t control every decision civilians make—babies didn’t vote for October 7. Collective punishment violates international law, period. And 60% of Gazans allegedly supporting October 7? Even if that number were accurate (which is debatable given wartime polling), collective punishment is still illegal and immoral. Civilian rights don’t evaporate because of public opinion.
Lastly, the idea that a population “actively trying to kill you” justifies cutting off food, water, and medicine reveals a complete erosion of moral clarity. If that logic held, any state could commit war crimes and simply blame the victims for “supporting the wrong group.”
You can condemn Hamas and demand restraint from Israel. These are not mutually exclusive positions—they’re what civilized societies are supposed to uphold
>. so to out it in simpler terms, if a guy tries to kill me, i can defend myself, but NOT TOO MUCH - if the person wont stop fighting and I or someone else, say the police, has to use deadly force to stop him, then you claim this is “morally bankrupt”.
You can defend yourself, even killing your attacker. It would be morally bankrupt to then kill your attacker's entire family, or the neighborhood where he lived.
That is what is happening here.
It IS a tragedy, same as german kids being killed by french, english, american and russian forces in WW2 was a tragedy. But no-one was calling for a ceasefire, or that those forces had a responsibility to feed the losing side while simultaneously fighting them? And japanese babies being incinerated by the Americans during WW2 is a tragedy - but the allied forces didn't stop until the enemy forces surrendered…and then the killing immediately ended.
Hamas could end this war today by surrendering - if they choose not to, and maintain their goal of destroying Israel, is it really surprising to anyone that the Israeli’s don’t want to give them that opportunity? Is there some moral imperative that humans should provide assistance to a population that is actively trying to kill them?
Note that even now, more than 60% of Gaza residents believe that Hamas was correct to carry out the October 7 attacks.
https://pcpsr.org/en/node/997