This is a very illuminating table. It will of course have no effect whatever, since belief in "Israeli genocide" is now a matter of theology rather than rationality. It is not susceptible to argument or evidence. But I present the evidence anyway. There is not now and never has been an "Israeli genocide." When Israel took possession of Gaza in 1967, it had a population of 350,000. Today it has about 2 million. This would have to be the most ineffectual genocide in history.
(In the interests of accuracy, I would dispute calling what happened in Cambodia a genocide. The Cambodian communists were not trying to exterminate the Cambodian people (to which they belonged). They were killing people they saw as class enemies. It was a democide but not a genocide.)
I don't see this chart as illuminating.
On the contrary, it muddies the water with unspecified sourcing, sloppy definitions, and data which is provably wrong.
This is the kind of unsourced, unsupported, authorless social media slop which is most damaging to our ability to understand our world through facts - and I implore others to please think critically before sharing such things.
To be clear, there has never been a genocide against Arabs in the Levant by Israeli forces, but making that case with sloppy arguments and bad data doesn't help.
Specifics on what's wrong with this:
Some of its data are just wrong, other data are suspicious because they are too precise - and never are any sources or methodology shared.
About 2/3rds of European Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but the precision of claiming "63%" should immediately make us suspicious.
No honest source (and I'm including Yad Vashem here) is that precise because we don't have the data to be that precise. Where'd the data for this claim come from?
We don't know because it doesn't say- and that in itself should drive us to ignore it.
The Tutsi population had been 1.1 to 1.3 million (that's as precisely as we can know the baseline) and it is believed that between 700,000 and one million Tutsis were killed.
That means 64-90% of Tutsis were killed. I can't find any source for this 81% claim. Again, the precision of the claim is suspicious.
In 1915, there were about 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and at least 664,000 and possibly as many as 1.2 million died. [source] That means the percentage of Armenians killed was somewhere between 44% and 80% - and that's a huge range of possibilities. It's a genocide either way, but the precision of claiming 78% is (again) sus.
The population of Cambodia had been 7.5 to 8 million, and it is believed 1.5-2.2 million were killed. That gives us 19-29%. Where does the 25% claim come from? The chart gives no sources or methodologies, so we can't possibly know. It's almost like whoever made the chart had no fucks to give about accuracy or sourcing, they just wanted to make something viral for social media to be shared by those who already agree with its conclusions.
Even the percentage growth in Palestinian population is wrong. Starting from about 750,000 in 1948 and reaching about 5.5 million in mid-2023, that's an increase of 633%, not 450%.
In addition to the lack of sources/methodology, let's note that there's no indication of who made this chart. I looked for an author and couldn't find one. This chart just seems to be floating around social media.
The definition of genocide is ignored:
This chart attempts to use "percentage of population killed" as a proxy for "severity of genocide." Setting aside that those aren't the same thing, genocide is not defined by the percentage of a population killed.
Under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, genocide is defined by intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, through acts such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.
Population growth or decline over time is not part of the legal definition and is not used by genocide scholars as a diagnostic metric.
All available metrics suggest the IDF showed unprecedented restraint and precision in its war against Hamas in Gaza.
That doesn't diminish the suffering of and death of Palestinian civilians. War is fucking horrible, that suffering is real and tragic.
To claim that there has been a genocide in Gaza at any time between 1948 and today requires profound ignorance, naked dishonesty, or both. The IDF is imperfect - it has made mistakes and there's no doubt at all that war crimes have been committed in IDF uniform - but at no time has the IDF done anything which fits the legal definition of genocide. The claim of genocide cannot be supported by facts and is a libel.
But we can demonstrate that with verifiable facts.
We weaken our own case when we attempt to make that case with slop like this.
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
turnnoffyourmind
izzy806
2087
germansingergirl
