The timing of the leak is interesting. It might point to the fact that situation on ground in Gaza is dire enough that big companies want some plausible deniability. This is just a speculation though.
Because it's a genocide. And it's correct to call it as it is, and it's a service to the Palestinians. Calling things for what they are is correct and good. Here is an incomplete list of all the crimes Israel perpetuates at the very moment, and this list is 1/1 with the definition of genocide.
- Denying aid and attacking medics: yes (war crime)
- Hitting hospitals: yes (war crime)
- Resettling the population: yes (war crime)
- Indiscriminate killing of civilians: yes (war crime)
- Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure: yes (war crime)
- Destruction of culture and religious sites: yes (war crime)
For the record no international court has ruled that the Cambodian genocide was a genocide either. The perpetrators were arrested years or decades after the genocide and charged under a special UN endorsed tribunal for various crimes against humanity, but not genocide... That doesn’t mean there was no genocide in Cambodia, obviously.
Even in cases where international courts did rule a genocide, such as in Rwanda, it usually happens months, years, or even decades after the fact. In Rwanda it wasn’t until the genocide was officially over where the UN entertained making charges for genocide, with a special court established 4 months later (nov. 1994), initial indictments a year after that (nov. 1995) and it wasn’t until 1996 when the first perpetrators were found guilty of genocide. The Bosnian Genocide tribunal took even longer.
In no cases has anybody ever been found guilty of a genocide by an international court during an ongoing genocide.
You are right about one thing though. The term genocide is used politically, but not in the way you are arguing. During the Rwandan Gencocide countries—particularly the USA, but also many European countries—avoided the term, and fought hard against using it to describe the horrors in Rwanda, because under the genocide convention they were obligated to take active role in preventing it, which they had no interest in doing. Usually avoiding the term is what politicians do to avoid their responsibilities.
This is 100% meeting the definition of genocide, so we are not using this word because we "love it", we are using it because it's the correct word to use. That's what words are for.
Also, the world's biggest international court issued an arrest for the war crimes of Netanyahu: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu. And not every war is genocide, but this one is, because it fits the definition of genocide. That's how words work. Oh, and it also has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide. Also, OJ did it.
Google worried it cant control how [insert name of any foreign country] could use their cloud infrastructure.
I mean I understand the concerns but they are the same of us giving any other country cloud infrastructure tooling, which doesn't just magically happen to just any country to be fair.
If its not Google then it will be any defense contractors and cloud provider that just wants to print dollar bills.
The OP account has had 72 of their last 90 submissions flagged/killed. How is a situation like this not an automatic, algorithmic, shadow-ban? Why allow someone like this to continue "contributing"?
Journalism is a cornerstone of democracy. Recommending censorship would only strengthen the fascists among us. You should do like me and confront lies or injustices when you encounter one.
The timing of the leak is interesting. It might point to the fact that situation on ground in Gaza is dire enough that big companies want some plausible deniability. This is just a speculation though.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Because it is one?
Because it's a genocide. And it's correct to call it as it is, and it's a service to the Palestinians. Calling things for what they are is correct and good. Here is an incomplete list of all the crimes Israel perpetuates at the very moment, and this list is 1/1 with the definition of genocide.
- Denying aid and attacking medics: yes (war crime)
- Hitting hospitals: yes (war crime)
- Resettling the population: yes (war crime)
- Indiscriminate killing of civilians: yes (war crime)
- Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure: yes (war crime)
- Destruction of culture and religious sites: yes (war crime)
Doesn't help that the Israeli are calling Palestinians "animals": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestin... similarly to what Nazis did to Jews during the Holocaust (another genocide).
[flagged]
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/zeven-gerenommeerde-wet...
It is one. Literally the experts in this field agree that it is one.
At this point, not using that term by the average person is genocide denial.
You may have an opinion that it’s not genocide. However you should be ready to take on the people who have made studying genocide their life work.
The facts are, well, different: As of now:
No international court has ruled that genocide has been committed by either side.
The term "genocide" is used politically and emotionally by many, but legally it carries a very high burden of proof.
The ICJ case and other investigations (e.g., by the International Criminal Court) are ongoing and may shape future judgments.
For the record no international court has ruled that the Cambodian genocide was a genocide either. The perpetrators were arrested years or decades after the genocide and charged under a special UN endorsed tribunal for various crimes against humanity, but not genocide... That doesn’t mean there was no genocide in Cambodia, obviously.
Even in cases where international courts did rule a genocide, such as in Rwanda, it usually happens months, years, or even decades after the fact. In Rwanda it wasn’t until the genocide was officially over where the UN entertained making charges for genocide, with a special court established 4 months later (nov. 1994), initial indictments a year after that (nov. 1995) and it wasn’t until 1996 when the first perpetrators were found guilty of genocide. The Bosnian Genocide tribunal took even longer.
In no cases has anybody ever been found guilty of a genocide by an international court during an ongoing genocide.
You are right about one thing though. The term genocide is used politically, but not in the way you are arguing. During the Rwandan Gencocide countries—particularly the USA, but also many European countries—avoided the term, and fought hard against using it to describe the horrors in Rwanda, because under the genocide convention they were obligated to take active role in preventing it, which they had no interest in doing. Usually avoiding the term is what politicians do to avoid their responsibilities.
[flagged]
Especially one where they're trying to exterminate a race
[flagged]
Only, in the case of Israel vs Palestine, you have a real genocide, because it meets all the points that define what a genocide is:
- hitting hospitals (https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250518-more-than-1...)
- hitting civilian infrastructure (https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-bombs-civilian-sit...)
- hitting civilians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_St...)
- displacement (https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1163306)
- dehumanizing the enemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestin...)
- stopping aid (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q4w99je78o)
- starvation (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/13/world/middleeast/gaza-fam...)
This is 100% meeting the definition of genocide, so we are not using this word because we "love it", we are using it because it's the correct word to use. That's what words are for.
Also, the world's biggest international court issued an arrest for the war crimes of Netanyahu: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu. And not every war is genocide, but this one is, because it fits the definition of genocide. That's how words work. Oh, and it also has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide. Also, OJ did it.
Google worried it cant control how [insert name of any foreign country] could use their cloud infrastructure.
I mean I understand the concerns but they are the same of us giving any other country cloud infrastructure tooling, which doesn't just magically happen to just any country to be fair.
If its not Google then it will be any defense contractors and cloud provider that just wants to print dollar bills.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Because of two things:
Money
They think they're working for the winning side. Or side that's going to win.
As long as they win nobody will care.
Don't be evil ( unless you can make boat loads of money )
'Ethics never made anyone rich'?
Makes money. Also they support it.
[flagged]
Wtf? You can't post like that here and we've banned the account.
Obvious bullshit is obvious. The project did exactly what it was intended to do.
The OP account has had 72 of their last 90 submissions flagged/killed. How is a situation like this not an automatic, algorithmic, shadow-ban? Why allow someone like this to continue "contributing"?
Don’t play dumb a number of the submissions involve Israel . Why negative submission involving Israel are down voted continues to be a mystery
What about the OP's submission strikes you as violating HN's TOS or Code of Conduct?
TheIntercept is legit journalism, no need to put "contributing" in quotes.
Journalism is a cornerstone of democracy. Recommending censorship would only strengthen the fascists among us. You should do like me and confront lies or injustices when you encounter one.