> invade a country

Arab colonizers invaded Israel on Oct 7th (and many times before that too) and kidnapped 100s of civilians. Israel is now trying to retrieve them.

> commit a genocide

Arab/Muslim colonizers have been attempting genocide since before the 1600s, their most recent attempt was on Oct 7th. Again Israel is simply trying to reclaim their own people and prevent any future genocide attempts.

> It turns out when you invade a country and commit a genocide, you become less popular.

Well, Israel's been committing a genocide for, conservatively, nearly 60 years, so, yeah, its probably a suprise to them that after that long of not having an adverse effect on US public support, that has changed.

Ah yes, the genocide where the people being genocided continue to outpace the population growth of the nation doing the genocide. The ethnic cleansing where the only time it happens is to remove Jews from an area. The apartheid where the “subjugated” sit on the Supreme Court, have 10+ seats in parliament (which matches voting demographics), were recently part of the majority, and share all the same rights as their supposed oppressors.

The same state which is right now defending another people from an actual genocide being carried out by self proclaimed jehadis in Syria, and the Druze are now begging to be annexed by Israel.

Literally anyone who makes any claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing or most hysterically, “apartheid” outs themselves as a complete ignoramus of the region, history and reality and is openly declaring their bigotry.

The jews have now recovered their population numbers to where thy were prior to the holocaust. Therefore the holocaust was not a genocide. Thoughts?

The (arguably) relevant metric is population change during a purported genocide, not afterward.

If a definition of genocide is sensitive to where we mark the start and end of the genocide, then it isn't a very good definition of genocide. We can do the same thing with area: suppose some ethnic group was being genocided in a particular region, but overall population growth of that group was positive. Does that make it no longer a genocide? Clearly not.

I don't quite see where the miscommunication is. Serious claims about genocide normally come with (at least rough) temporal and geographic scopes. If we use too broad a scope, like "the Holocaust occurred from 1933-2025", then the claim becomes false. Right?

I think most people claiming a genocide is occurring are using a broad scope, like the conflict in Gaza since Oct 7 (if not something even broader), so it seems appropriate to look at the population change within that time period.

OTOH noone is claiming a genocide of Jews occurred from 1933-2025, so it wouldn't make sense to look at population change for that entire period.

The term genocide was coined specifically to refer to what happened to the Jews during WWII. Your nonsense logic doesn’t apply.

The definition of the term genocide doesn't mention net population decrease - or in fact any population decrease at all. I think I've demonstrated why it can't possibly include such a requirement. The way I did so involves, exactly as you imply, assuming that the holocaust was a genocide. Then I show how such a requirement would contradict that assumption.

This is both categorically false and completely irrelevant.

The first claim is that genocide has been happening since 1948, the second claim is that it has increased in intensity in the last two years, both claims can be completely dismissed as fabrications by simply looking at the population growth of the nation that is supposedly being killed.

I honestly don’t know why you would bring up the fact that the Jewish population is climbing after the eponymous genocide was attempted.

The point is that genocide has to do with deliberately killing people with the goal of destroying their people or culture. Hitler failed at destroying the jewish culture, does that mean he wasn't a genocidist? Whether an attempted genocide is successful does not alter that it is a genocide, population growth numbers are irrelevant.

The term Genocide was specifically coined to refer to what happened to the Jews in WWII, its meaning doesn’t change to fit your own hateful ideology.

Population numbers are very relevant as are the intentions, actions, and policies. The only people talking about and actually attempting to commit genocide are the Arab/Muslim colonists who have been attempting to colonize and genocide the native people for over 500 years. Most recently last week in southern Syria, before that was 2 months ago in western Syria, but before that obviously Oct 7th. Due in no small part to the IDF all these attempts have failed, but until the colonists either go back to the Arabian peninsula, where they came from or at the very least stop trying to kill their neighbors there will no peace.

In his book Ma'na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster), Constantin Zureiq described the Arab defeat not just as a military loss, but as a civilizational setback. He believed the Arab states had been unprepared, disorganized, and overconfident, and that their failure to prevent the establishment of Israel revealed deeper problems in Arab society—like a lack of modern institutions, unity, and strategic thinking.

i.e the failure to prevent Israel existing.

From the River to the sea Palestine will be Arab indeed

Answer: a war of genocide and extermination attempted by 6+ Arab/muslim majority states against the nascent nation of Israel, fortunately for all involved they completely failed and in fact ended up losing land. While they did succeed in ethnically cleansing the Jews from any land that did end up under Jordan and Egyptian occupation, and they did expel (ie ethnically cleanse) Jews from most Muslim majority countries, they failed in their overarching goal of finishing Hitler’s work of exterminating all Jews.

Certain morally degenerate groups see this failure (of killing all Jews) as an absolute catastrophe and thus name it the Nakhba.

It’s hard to believe anyone can manage the mental gymnastics required to genuinely believe what you’ve just written, yet there it is.

The irony is that the only ones taking notes from Hitler’s playbook are Netanyahu and the leaders who came before him. Justifying their actions has become the modern-day equivalent of “just following orders.”

“Modern-day Israel caused the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands who had lived there for centuries, all so a group exiled 400 years earlier could barge in, kill the occupants, and drive out the survivors.”

“Oh, you always just blame the joos!”

Sure, buddy lmao

So you’re for colonization then? Fascinating.

You're living in a colony.

You don't exist in a tabula rasa