Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 441

On June 23 2025 03:41 Mohdoo wrote:


I understand the various ways the terms are used, but I do think its important to recognize language evolves and certain words can have entirely different meanings in many different contexts. I am sure moderate Muslims in Austria would disagree with a lot of things Khameini says. But I don't think it makes sense to deprive Khameini and his followers of their own words. They use those words to mean those things, so I use their words when describing their behaviors. It would be very complicated and difficult to communicate if we replaced terminology of certain people due to deciding only one interpretation of a word is valid. But your point is well taken and I do understand and appreciate the extremely diverse opinions that exist within Muslims as a whole across the world.

On June 24 2025 02:37 pmp10 wrote:
Iranian response is in and it's ineffective missile strikes on US bases in Qatar and Iraq.
On one hand it was symbolic as they knew too few missiles were used to punch through the defenses.
On the other it's a direct attack on US and punches a hold in the 'not at war' narrative of Trump.

Now it's time to see if Trump is willing to climb that escalation ladder.

On June 24 2025 05:32 PremoBeats wrote:


I never gave appeals to authority much credit. Logic and evidence work best for me.




My burden of proof is in line with international law. The UN's special committee and Amnesty International's interpretation appears to prioritize humanitarian outcome over legal thresholds, particularly with respect to intent.
If you disagree with me, can you explain the difference between a war crime and genocide?

Can you further explain why your report or the genocide report of Amnesty did not once write about the facts that significantly weaken the case for INTENTIONAL mass extermination - genocide - as opposed to collateral harm within complex military context?
- The CTS rate
- The massive, unprecedented warning towards civilians via pamplehts, TV and radio-broadcasts, SMS, speaker announcement etc.
- That Israel delayed the ground offensive to give the civilians time to prepare, which endangered their own troops as Hamas could prepare as well
- Delivering electricity and water to this hostile neighbour

Or are you able to come up with an explanation how genocide is concluded without any proof of intent to kill the Gazans in whole or in part? How that is the most important thing to define the world's most extreme crime and how it was present in all genocide-classified situations in the past?

Do you accept that the Gazan Ministry of Health, which your article and the AI one, used numbers by the Gazan MoH which were inflated by 3.5k deaths ( https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministry-quietly-removes-thousands-from-gaza-death-toll-researchers-find )? That many of the deaths that are still listed, have been documented via the same procedure?

The article claims that "over 90 per cent of the Gaza population was estimated to face high levels of acute food insecurity by the end of 2023, with 40 per cent at emergency levels and over 15 per cent at catastrophe levels". At level 4, the mortality risk begins to rise, yet even though the article says that "no further crossings were opened until March" no widespread deaths of starvation occured, even until now. Meaning that despite level 4-5 famine risk classifications by IPC, actual deaths from starvation did not materialize at the expected scale, which raises legitimate questions about the calibration and credibility of the assessments.

Now how could all of these things come togehter?
Do you know which countries composed the special committee that produced the article? How these countries voted in the past on Israel-related resolutions? How - if any - diplomatic relations of these countries tend to be in the middle eastern conflict?

As I said in my longer response: None of this is simple. Genocide is not people getting killed at pretty good CTS-rates for such a complicated war zone, only because a couple of politiians said bad things. We need die-hard proof: Leaked military memos, tape recordings of direct orders or executions (kill all male Gazans), military logistics, internal governmental protocols ("Final solution for the Jewish question"), executive orders, industrial complexes for extermination, mass testimonies to eliminate, forced sterilisation, enforced birth controls... we have none of that for the Gazan conflict, but several facts that weaken the genocide claim, as mentioned above.
Genocide is a uniquely heinous crime that demands burden of proof we reserve for only the most extreme, systematically documented cases. In Gaza this standard has not been met. Not in evidence, not in planning and - as far as I'm concerned up until now - not in intent.

So if you're making a legal claim, you need to prove genocidal intent through concrete evidence, not inferred outcomes. If it is a moral claim, then say so. But don't conflate this tragedy with genocide unless you can show - like it has been the case in any other recognized genocide unter international law - deliberate intent to exterminate.

On June 24 2025 13:47 PremoBeats wrote:


I simply refer to my answer addressed at Gorsameth, bruh (and yes, you are making an appeal to authority, instead of addressing my arguments)
TLDR:
The committee isn't neutral, it didn't analyze facts speaking against genocode and most importantly made no legal case for genocide in the sense of proving intent, which is the defining characteristic.

The Dutch paper reviewed 25 recent academic articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research, the field’s leading journal, and found that “all eight academics from the field of genocide studies see genocide or at least genocidal violence in Gaza”.

“Contrary to public opinion, leading genocide researchers are surprisingly unanimous: the Netanyahu government, they say, is in that process - according to the majority, even in its final stages,” the investigation concluded. “That is why most (*!) researchers no longer speak only of 'genocidal violence', but of 'genocide'.”

The World Health Organisation reported this week that 57 children have died of malnutrition since Israel's total ban on humanitarian aid, in effect since 2 March.

The report noted that even researchers who had previously hesitated to use the term have since changed their position, such as Shmuel Lederman of the Open University of Israel.

It also referred to the opinion of Canadian international law scholar William Schabas that Israel is committing genocide, although he is considered otherwise conservative with respect to genocide labelling.

In an interview with Middle East Eye last month, Schabas said Israel's campaign in Gaza was "absolutely" a genocide.

Israel’s inaction following the January 2024 interim ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was a decisive factor in leading many scholars to conclude that its conduct in Gaza amounts to genocide, NRC reported.

Lederman initially opposed the use of the genocide label. However, following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of the ICJ’s ruling, the continued closure of land crossings to Gaza and a letter by 99 US health workers stating that the death toll in Gaza exceeded 100,000, he was convinced that Israel’s actions do in fact constitute genocide.

In an open letter published in October 2023, scholars wrote that Israeli officials' statements since 7 October indicate intent to commit genocide.[253] On 11 June 2024, the official Israeli X account tweeted that "Gazan civilians participated in the horrific events of October 7", later citing a statement that "there are no innocent civilians there".

In the video accompanying the statement, former captive Mia Shem is heard saying, "There are no innocent civilians there" - a quote that is repeated in bold font in the video's captions.