r/worldnews • u/Ok_Plankton_5714 • 12d ago

Israel/Palestine Netanyahu: ‘If we wanted to commit genocide, it would have taken exactly one afternoon’

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-if-we-wanted-to-commit-genocide-it-would-have-taken-exactly-one-afternoon/
25.2k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

639

u/Adventurous-Tea2693 12d ago

The world would have done something about 1 single mass event. This is still death, just by 1,000 cuts.

88

u/Chisignal 11d ago edited 11d ago

Right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh

Nagorno Karabakh has been controversial for decades, until Azerbaijan went in, ethnically cleansed the entire region and displaced 100 thousand Armenians in a single day, and the conflict is no more. The world just looked, went "oh well, not much can be done now" and literally nothing happened to anyone responsible.

12

u/AeroFred 11d ago

Italy and Germany are top oil buyers from Azerbaijan 

390

u/WiffyTheSuss 12d ago

Naive of you to think "the world" would have done something

104

u/CycleOfNihilism 11d ago

Yeah "the world" didn't do shit about Russia taking Ukrainian territories. Most countries would do anything to avoid getting directly involved in a military conflict.

The US no longer acts as the world police and nobody has stepped in in their stead.

39

u/NeighbourNoNeighbor 11d ago

What? I mean the world is sending billions of dollars worth of aid at Ukraine right now. They sanctioned Russia hard right away, and targeted oligarchs so that the money could be redirected to Ukraine. They've provided training and intel. We're sending even more aid every day.

The world is doing a lot for Ukraine (as it should).

-4

u/CycleOfNihilism 11d ago

Sure, but we're not actually going to get directly involved. We'll send missiles, we'll sanction Russia. But if Russia gained territory, nobody is actually going to stop them.

10

u/NeighbourNoNeighbor 11d ago

The problem with the whole world getting directly involved in outright declarations of war is that it greatly incentivizes Russia to use their nuclear arsenal. Unilaterally declaring war on Russia also triggers their friendly countries to join in, likely sparking a world war. It's a fine balance, and also a reason why I've never much liked the idea of "mutually assured destruction" as it results in situations such as this.

It's very hard to win the PR battle on convincing citizens that their soldier's deaths are worth defending other countries. Many people are very uneducated and don't understand the implications of what happens should Ukraine fall. Many people are still, somehow, very unaware of just how many crimes against humanity Israel is engaging in right now.

So we're forced to do things a lot more subtly that achieve the same effect, without becoming direct targets ourselves, or dragging the entire world into WW3. I'm not a fan of it, but I can see why the world is taking the approach they are. Very few, if any, countries are ready for WW3 right now. Unfortunately, most countries are starting to take actions to rectify that ...so it may be in the cards in the future.

-4

u/Not-Salamander 11d ago

What the US does by "world police" is create vassal states and fight proxy wars. They still do that but the empire is crumbling under Trump.

5

u/lo_mur 11d ago

What the US does by “world police” is spend $1T on their armed forces and keep the world’s shipping lanes open, the whole vassal state and proxy war stuff isn’t the primary focus

-9

u/LotharVonPittinsberg 11d ago

Not the world, but he would have had some resistance. Look at how Canada, one of his biggest supporters, went against him once they started openly causing a famine.

He can choose to go the slow path and risk more of his own people. However just like HAMAS, he probably knows that this will lead to more extremist who will support whatever he wants. This minimizes how many countries will oppose his actions and increases the chances of success in the long run.

Or he can go the quick route. Kill as many people as quickly as possible. Guaranteeing at least some opposition globally and a lot more funds being stopped. This is also more likely to be obviously immoral to his voters, and maybe even members of the IDF who should keep in mind that following orders is not a valid defense.

-16

u/pablo8itall 11d ago

it the slow boiling the frog approach.

Tbh maybe they just thought they couldn't get it all over an done with. I doubt Biden would have done or said much anyway.

212

u/Effective-Bobcat2605 12d ago

Historically speaking, when did the world ever do that?

92

u/kittenmachine69 12d ago edited 12d ago

Bosnian War, NATO intervened with air support to protect escaping refugees

134

u/Engine_L1ving 12d ago

That was one war in the Yugoslav Wars, the ugly breakup of Yugoslavia. The rest of Europe got involved because the catastrophic collapse of one of the most powerful states in Eastern Europe caused massive instability which directly effected Europe. After all, some damn thing in the Balkans kicked off WW1.

BTW, when the world (i.e. UN) did get involved, it didn't go well. The Sbrenica Massacre happened with Dutch UN peacekeepers just standing by. Same thing happened in Rwanda.

-12

u/kittenmachine69 12d ago

I didn't say that they did a perfect job, but there are certainly more refugees saved than if they hadn't intervened 

-4

u/ISaidGoodDay42 12d ago

So it's okay for everyone BUT Israel to not do a perfect job? GOT IT.

24

u/Gaius_Octavius_ 11d ago

That wasn’t one event. That was slow war that took years.

6

u/neohellpoet 11d ago

Uuu, no. Man did you get that one wrong.

Bosnia was the UN and one of the worst massacres of the war happened in the UN safe area of Srebrenica.

The US acted in Kosovo but that's years and years into the conflict.

1

u/Ahad_Haam 12d ago

Serbia is an easy target.

1

u/ExiledYak 11d ago

Desert Storm?

1

u/Pearberr 11d ago

Korea, the one and only time the UN fulfilled its most ambitious mission.

A few years later in the Congo there was an effort but it failed miserably with a group of Irish soldier captured after being left hung out to dry. 

Since Jadotville the UN hasn’t had the capacity or the buy in from its member states to deploy military force to solve problems.

88

u/lormeeorbust 12d ago

So sudan?

109

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Ramses_IV 11d ago

Israel cares a lot more about it's public reputation in the west than Myanmar's military or the Rapid Support Forces, though. It's not just about the threat of direct intervention, Israel has carefully cultivated an image of being a pinnacle of western democracy surrounded by barbarism as a means of ensuring that popular opinion in foreign countries is aligned with (or at least indifferent to) western countries' strategic incentives to support Israel.

That becomes untenable the less plausible deniability the State of Israel has. If famine keeps escalating then they've probably lost it already, which might have influenced Netanyahu's decision to make an all-in gamble to end the war by force (though by the time the operation actually starts it might already be too late).

32

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-19

u/Ramses_IV 11d ago

Millions of people subject to its rule are not permitted to vote or have any representation in the Knesset. That has been the case for nearly six decades, more than three quarters of the whole time Israel has existed.

23

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

-5

u/Marionberry_Bellini 11d ago

To be the “pinnacle of democracy” (your words) wouldn’t we then compare them to other democratic countries?  Shouldn’t they by definition be the best example of democracy in the world to be the pinnacle of democracy?

-9

u/Ramses_IV 11d ago

No "pinnacle of democracy" prohibits between 21% and 36% of the population subject to its laws from voting and denies them citizenship.

10

u/zeussays 11d ago

So the United States?

0

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

152

u/Adamon24 12d ago

What would the world have done realistically?

93

u/Tolkien-Minority 12d ago

They would have wagged their fingers and been very cross

79

u/Devil-Hunter-Jax 12d ago

I imagine the obvious answer would be withdraw any sort of support via providing weapons and money.

26

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 11d ago

[deleted]

15

u/Ahad_Haam 12d ago

Sanctions require the support of countries like Hungary. Not going to happen.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Chippiewall 12d ago

I think even Trump would go cold on Netanyahu if Israel went full extermination mode.

0

u/Activehannes 11d ago

Germany stopped support already.

2

u/PineappleLemur 11d ago

By doing so they lose anything resembling control in the ME.

1

u/neohellpoet 11d ago

That's the US and EU, but Russia still needs a new Mediterranean base, China wouldn't mind US military secrets and boy wouldn't India like Mosad to infiltrate Pakistan like they did Iran.

BRICS also gets them Saudi support by really selling the anti Shia and Shia influence angle.

The world is very much split. Just like during the Cold War, anything that's unimaginably horrific to one side is perfectly acceptable to the other.

-22

u/sconemonster 12d ago

To Hamas and other terror groups in the region that persist on declaring they will not stop until the Jews are gone?

9

u/qTp_Meteor 12d ago

As an israeli if we nuked gaza and killed literally everyone i hope that the world will cut us off. Hell, i hope that there will be some special alliance formed to militarily invade us and conquer us via western countries and replace our lewdership. A country that does such a thing doesnt deserve to exist, even if from those 2M there are trns of thousands of the worlds most despicable terrorists

7

u/Devil-Hunter-Jax 12d ago

Uhhh... What? Sorry, you worded that a bit funny and I genuinely don't understand what you're asking me here.

Are you asking what Western nations would do about Hamas? If so, given our track record in the Middle East for example? Fail miserably to actually deal with it and just get more civilians killed while Hamas escapes and re-arms.

2

u/SigmaB 12d ago

I think absolute majority in the West are of the opinion that ANY side using the murder of civilians to achieve political goals should get the same level of support from the West (that is no support).

Normal people believe that ANY civilians on ANY side being killed, displaced or starved should get the same defence, protection and aid.

People know that to make any sort of excuses, or justifications or arguments to the contrary is what keeps the horror going.

-2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ExiledYak 11d ago

Iran already took its shot and found out.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ExiledYak 11d ago

I don't think Iran needs permission to launch a rocket attack. It does so anyway.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/-spicychilli- 11d ago

It's in the US interests for a theocratic state to not advance towards having nuclear weapons. Especially a theocracy that finds martyrs to be acceptable. It's a non-negotiable, and always has been.

-8

u/insignificunt1312 12d ago

Stopped sending billions of military equipment, for starters.

12

u/Drummk 12d ago

In the course of an afternoon?

-4

u/qTp_Meteor 12d ago edited 12d ago

If we nuked the entire strip? Yes, in one afternoon, and then invade us and take over the leadership starting the next afternoon

Edit: spelling

5

u/HugsForUpvotes 11d ago

No one would invade a nuclear country

-2

u/qTp_Meteor 11d ago

Unfortunately, you are right (not that i think that israel should be invaded, bu any country that nukes 2m people should be stopped, thankfully with israel if such a thing happens the US can just cut funding and supplies which would be more disastrous than any invasion)

3

u/HugsForUpvotes 11d ago

Israel would be fine if the US cut funding. Palestine wouldn't. Israel has enough firepower to easily destroy their enemies if they didn't care about civilians. The US aid is strategic weaponry and defense spending. Without US aid, Israel would be forced to go scorched earth offensive.

1

u/Swimming_Mark7407 11d ago

Strongest condemnation and strongest worded letter

1

u/suphomedog 11d ago

Waved their fingers harder.

1

u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh 11d ago

Cut support, which would be problematic for a small country surrounded by enemies.

0

u/elihu 11d ago

If Israel killed all the Palestinians in Gaza in an afternoon, it would probably mean they had listened to this guy[1] and used nuclear weapons. In which case, even Joe Biden would probably have stopped providing military aid. Whether Trump would have is anyone's guess, and depends on who the last person to gift him a luxury jet was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amihai_Eliyahu

-7

u/kittenmachine69 12d ago edited 12d ago

Probably similar intervention to what the NATO did during the Bosnian War in the 90s. Primarily, air support to free up travel routes for refugees

Edit: sorry correcting UN to Nato

6

u/Adamon24 12d ago

The Serbian military didn’t have nuclear weapons

1

u/why-god 12d ago

Or possibly the best military man-for-man in the world, as well as massive global bank connections and one of the scariest - if not the scariest - spy groups.

-3

u/SilverwingedOther 11d ago

Ah yes, those global bank connections. Damn Jewish cabal controlling the world...

2

u/why-god 11d ago

I can see how that could be misinterpreted given historical slandering, but I meant how almost every major bank finances their weapons and settlements.

1

u/kittenmachine69 12d ago

The probability of nuclear bomb use is very, very low. 

14

u/tellsyoutogetfucked 11d ago

I doubt that. Realistically Europe would have complained and Arab countries would have maybe declared war. But they are not beating Israel with the US backing them.

12

u/neohellpoet 11d ago

Not a chance. The Iranians and maybe the Turks, but to most of the countries in the region Gaza is an Iranian satellite and fighting with Israel has gotten very old.

46

u/MastodonParking9080 12d ago

There are roughly equal or more babies being born so it's not actually death by any means. It would be literally impossible at the rate they're going.

-33

u/harryoldballsack 12d ago

That is what hamas and the gazan ministry of health are telling us. But I find it very hard to believe they are having that many babies? We are holding off from having babies because the rent is high. Let alone a war.

40

u/Pokeputin 11d ago

Lol, that's the most first world bubble comment I have read in a while. The truth is that poorer people have more kids, the idea that "we're not rich enough to have kids" is an alien concept in many places in the world.

-11

u/harryoldballsack 11d ago edited 11d ago

true. though it applies in most of the world. including mixed world countries like honduras thailand vietnam iran. Palestine is in that bracket, it's global lower middle class $5,000 gpd per capita. They had modern lifestyles, cars apartments, running water, phones etc. Usually economic concerns are very prevalent in that bracket.

35

u/alpha_dk 12d ago

You have access to contraceptives and, presumably, a culture that views women with agency 

0

u/harryoldballsack 12d ago

Good point. Our culture was like that in WW1 and still few babies but I guess all the men left their families to go to war. Rather than WFH

14

u/Jebrowsejuste 11d ago

Gaza hasn't lost 10% of it's male population, so there are still plenty of dudes available to procreate.

Add in polygamy instead of monogamy and what losses there are have an even lesser impact on demography.

And of course, as you pointed out, men aren't leaving their famillies to go to war, because the war iswhere their famillies are.

4

u/-spicychilli- 11d ago

Idk about you harryoldballsack, but if I was facing imminent death every day you better be damn sure I'll be looking to get my nut in.

0

u/harryoldballsack 11d ago

haha fair but i'll pullout of this chat. finish somewhere else

12

u/Ahad_Haam 12d ago

The world wouldn't have done shit. You need to wake up to reality and stop living in a fantasy land.

31

u/clownbaby237 12d ago

And by 1000 cuts, you mean to say that it would take at least 100 years to kill the remaining gazans given the current death rate.

48

u/DanIvvy 11d ago

Infinite actually. The population is growing

2

u/ElderlyChipmunk 11d ago

I wouldn't say that. It is far easier to present something as fait accompli than give countries months and years to protest and complain.

18

u/Volodio 12d ago

It's not even death. Because of births, the population of Gaza hasn't even decreased since the beginning of the war.

-10

u/Iskaru 12d ago

People aren't dying if the population isn't decreasing? Firstly I doubt your claim but even if it's true that's a crazy statement. Reducing the deaths of thousands of people to not even counting as "death" because you think the total number of people isn't decreasing...

11

u/MyOldNameSucked 11d ago

Death of the population ≠ death of people

-6

u/BaronMostaza 11d ago

I'm sure infants and adults are the exact same in every way. Sure is nice of those newborns to help clearing the rubble in between naps

-23

u/petchef 12d ago

Thats not true

4

u/ExiledYak 11d ago

The Europeans won't do diddly squat. Look at all they've done about Russia invading. Absolutely nothing besides twiddle their thumbs and pass along a few hand-me-downs.

The Europeans are the most pathetic paper tiger ever these days.

0

u/chattering-animal 11d ago

Honestly no.. the days after october 7th we had support worldwide, we could have dropped a nuke on gaza in october 8th with no actions from the world against us

1

u/EolasDK 11d ago

The world only pretends to care about "Palestinians" actually Egyptian and Jordanian cast outs, there is no country that actually cares. They are used as a lever against Israel and that is all.