OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

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 8 (8290) by OJB on 2025-10-06 at 10:41:50: (view earlier comments)

Ah, OK, I see your point. Do you think Russia has the right to invade Ukraine because parts of Ukraine were in Russian control at some points in history?

Comment 9 (8291) by EK on 2025-10-06 at 15:41:09:

Don’t tempt me. With the same “historical” right Austria could invade because the western part of the Ukraine, called Galicia, was once part of the Austrian Empire (or rather geographically what is now part of Hungary and Poland) and the official language was German. (Hungary for that reason to this day has border issues with the Ukraine which feeds into Orban’s reluctance to be friends with Ukraine, etc. etc.) There would be a whole book right there to discuss this. All European borders, or most, could be contested on historical grounds and that is one of the reasons why the EU sticks to the international law that existing national borders (after world war 2) must not be challenged and changed by force. Besides, my point (in a neutral sense) was that knowledge of history is important in any consideration of such issues, no matter whether you are pro or contra.We could endlessly debate this, but let’s not.

Comment 10 (8292) by OJB on 2025-10-06 at 18:04:36:

Well, this is exactly my point: you can make a historical case for ownership of any land based on which part of the region's history you want to pay attention to. If you are going with the historical argument, I think Israel has a better claim, because there are maps (based on history, nor religion) showing it existing there 2500 years ago, but I'm sure if you go earlier or later you could make a case for someone else.

Comment 11 (8294) by EK on 2025-10-07 at 10:10:07:

To avoid going down further into this rabbit hole, let me refer you to my original comment. I said that awareness of history is an important ingredient in the mix of gaining a good understanding of a particular issue, but it is not the only one.

Comment 12 (8295) by OJB on 2025-10-07 at 10:29:43:

OK, I can accept that. If we pay attention to history I think there is a good case to say either side might have fair claim to the area, depending on which part of history you prefer. So let's consider history, but not too much. Is that a fair compromise?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then 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.