EPTThat being said, the 3% above would be way higher if the military prowess was reversed. I'm not saying there are any good guys in this conflict.
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 528
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands4023 Posts
That being said, the 3% above would be way higher if the military prowess was reversed. I'm not saying there are any good guys in this conflict. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44397 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2601 Posts
Us humans are great at complaining about shit, and really bad about doing anything about it if it somehow impacts our life negatively even in the slightest. In large part because it feels hopeless , that our actions make no difference and that being almost certainly true makes it even harder. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
On August 31 2026 00:25 KwarK wrote: While it would be scientifically rigorous to only declare a genocide after the last victim was killed the people taking stances here aren’t good scientists. They have an interest in changing the result of the event. Instead of remaining silent until the genocide is complete and then going “just as I hypothesized, they were doing a genocide” they prefer to speak up. That’s probably for the best. Obviously intent can be inferred from conduct while events are ongoing, and academics, journalists and governments can reasonably warn about a potential genocide before a court reaches a final determination. But that's different from saying that the evidence currently establishes the specific intent required for the legal classification of genocide. You can quite reasonably say “I believe this is developing into genocide” or “there is a serious risk of genocide” without having established that proposition to the legal standard. And that's really the distinction I've been making throughout this discussion. I'm not asking people to remain silent until Gaza is destroyed and then retrospectively declare that they were right. I'm asking what evidence, right now, establishes genocidal intent rather than merely providing evidence of atrocities, collective punishment, unlawful conduct, or extreme disregard for civilian life. And even if the actions do not amount to genocide in the end... people will have been killed. So stopping this conflict should be the goal no matter the legal definition. Do you seriously believe that - as of this moment - the Israeli government and military intend to physically destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, rather than defeat Hamas regardless of the civilian cost? And if so, what evidence establishes that distinction? I mean frankly... if we're talking about a deliberate project to physically destroy the Palestinian population, the current demographic trajectory of birth versus death rates would make that a rather implausible way of accomplishing it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44397 Posts
| ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2601 Posts
Is what Israel doing wrong? Is it even good from a strategic point of view if you remove morality from the equation? If not why are the people in charge doing it? I think most people are in agreement with the first 2 and the third would be interesting, but instead it’s stuck on whether or not we should categorize this as “genocide” or not and some sort of purity testing if you discuss anything different. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10016 Posts
Bloodlust. | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 31 2026 01:42 PremoBeats wrote: Are you under the impression that a single one of this group are going to stop calling it genocide?If it's a silly distinction, then why not simply call it war crimes, crimes against humanity, collective punishment, or horrendous atrocities? Those are already extremely serious accusations. If distinguishing those crimes from genocide is “silly,” then isn't it equally silly to insist on calling something genocide without demonstrating the additional element that makes it genocide? You're quite the joker. | ||
|
PremoBeats
661 Posts
On August 31 2026 02:01 Billyboy wrote: These discussions are dumb and pointless and seem to be only about semantics. Is what Israel doing wrong? Is it even good from a strategic point of view if you remove morality from the equation? If not why are the people in charge doing it? I think most people are in agreement with the first 2 and the third would be interesting, but instead it’s stuck on whether or not we should categorize this as “genocide” or not and some sort of purity testing if you discuss anything different. Sorry, but that's simply the question I'm interested in discussing. I'm not particularly interested in another page of people agreeing that the situation is horrible. I've already acknowledged repeatedly that Israel has committed war crimes and that many of its actions are egregious. And it's not like I haven't tried to broaden the discussion. I've brought up counter-evidence, civilian-to-combatant ratios, comparisons with other conflicts, possible strategic explanations for what Israel is doing and even religious fundamentalism as the major hindrance to solutions. The responses have mostly been variations of “Israel bad” rather than actually engaging with those questions. And if you want to discuss why the people in charge are doing this, isn't that directly related to your second question? There are several possible explanations: security considerations, domestic political incentives, destroying Hamas's military infrastructure, eliminating its leadership, hell it could be because of reasons we don't understand as we don't have access to the same intel... and yes, one potential among many can be genocide. And I want to know what evidence distinguishes it from the others. I mean, if you want to discuss why the people in charge are doing it, isn't that directly linked to your 2nd point? It could be because of security reasons, it could be because of trying to avoid inner political turmoil, hell, it could be because of reasons we don't understand as we don't have the same intel. Perhaps they are still checking tunnels; and yes, one potential answer is genocide. One among many. And as I said to KwarK... I'd want to know how one wants to destroy a group of people when they are down several ten thousand per year, when comparing birth to death rates. It simply isn't a viable strategy if that is actually the goal since October 7th 2023. It doesn't make sense. So far, Israel has destroyed a huge amount of Hamas's military infrastructure, killed a substantial part of its senior leadership, recovered the hostages, and killed Sinwar, Deif and Issa. Hamas nevertheless remains operational. None of that proves that Israel's conduct is lawful or that genocide is impossible, but it is relevant evidence when we're trying to infer what the actual objective of the campaign is. I'm happy to discuss all of that. What I'm not interested in is repeatedly having the same argument where every piece of counter-evidence is dismissed as irrelevant because Israel has also committed atrocities. It is simply boring to me. On August 31 2026 05:06 Jockmcplop wrote: I see Ben-Gvir is building gallows with public viewing so the Israeli public get to watch Palestinians die. Bloodlust. This is a prime example of how this thread runs. Take some truth into your statement, but leave out, add or twist the essential part to make it look worse / more dehumanizing than it is. And then attack people who correct the untruthful part and calling it nitpicking or a defense of Israel ("How could you??")... sorry... fucking boring. On August 31 2026 05:54 dyhb wrote: Are you under the impression that a single one of this group are going to stop calling it genocide? You're quite the joker. Nah. But if one could actually substantiate their position in the way I tried to address this issue since forever... that'd be nice. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10016 Posts
On August 31 2026 14:36 PremoBeats wrote: This is a prime example of how this thread runs. Take some truth into your statement, but leave out, add or twist the essential part to make it look worse / more dehumanizing than it is. And then attack people who correct the untruthful part and calling it nitpicking or a defense of Israel ("How could you??")... sorry... fucking boring. I'm sorry who did I attack here? What's 'the essential part' that I left out? And I have to laugh that you call this boring while insisting that every page of this thread contains about 20 essays going as deeply as possible into something that was 100% resolved years ago in this very thread, and was barely worthy of discussion in the first place. You and I have very different definitions of boring. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2907 Posts
On August 31 2026 14:36 PremoBeats wrote: Sorry, but that's simply the question I'm interested in discussing. I'm not particularly interested in another page of people agreeing that the situation is horrible. I've already acknowledged repeatedly that Israel has committed war crimes and that many of its actions are egregious. And it's not like I haven't tried to broaden the discussion. I've brought up counter-evidence, civilian-to-combatant ratios, comparisons with other conflicts, possible strategic explanations for what Israel is doing and even religious fundamentalism as the major hindrance to solutions. The responses have mostly been variations of “Israel bad” rather than actually engaging with those questions. And if you want to discuss why the people in charge are doing this, isn't that directly related to your second question? There are several possible explanations: security considerations, domestic political incentives, destroying Hamas's military infrastructure, eliminating its leadership, hell it could be because of reasons we don't understand as we don't have access to the same intel... and yes, one potential among many can be genocide. And I want to know what evidence distinguishes it from the others. I mean, if you want to discuss why the people in charge are doing it, isn't that directly linked to your 2nd point? It could be because of security reasons, it could be because of trying to avoid inner political turmoil, hell, it could be because of reasons we don't understand as we don't have the same intel. Perhaps they are still checking tunnels; and yes, one potential answer is genocide. One among many. And as I said to KwarK... I'd want to know how one wants to destroy a group of people when they are down several ten thousand per year, when comparing birth to death rates. It simply isn't a viable strategy if that is actually the goal since October 7th 2023. It doesn't make sense. So far, Israel has destroyed a huge amount of Hamas's military infrastructure, killed a substantial part of its senior leadership, recovered the hostages, and killed Sinwar, Deif and Issa. Hamas nevertheless remains operational. None of that proves that Israel's conduct is lawful or that genocide is impossible, but it is relevant evidence when we're trying to infer what the actual objective of the campaign is. I'm happy to discuss all of that. What I'm not interested in is repeatedly having the same argument where every piece of counter-evidence is dismissed as irrelevant because Israel has also committed atrocities. It is simply boring to me. This is a prime example of how this thread runs. Take some truth into your statement, but leave out, add or twist the essential part to make it look worse / more dehumanizing than it is. And then attack people who correct the untruthful part and calling it nitpicking or a defense of Israel ("How could you??")... sorry... fucking boring. Nah. But if one could actually substantiate their position in the way I tried to address this issue since forever... that'd be nice. While I personally disagree with calling it genocide it's not that far fetched and it's arguably not an unsuitable term depending on the definition you use. I would argue that what is currently happening is coerced destabilisation with the end goal of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian/Arab territory and it's eventual annexation. This is the original modus operandi of far right (terrorist) sionist groups since before Israel was founded. Using attacks to justify displacement and annexation. Inciting those attacks if necessary. The ethnic cleansing part is self evident by the attempts to displace the entire Gaza population as refuges several times during the conflict and statement from far right politicians. "Genocide is an international crime defined as specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Legal Definition and Acts Established by the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide encompasses not only mass killing but also causing serious harm, inflicting destructive life conditions, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children" Arguably Israel is trying to destroy Palestinians as a national group (not letting them exist or develop as a country) by inflicting destructive life conditions and serious harm. With an end goal of annexation of all or parts of Palestinian territory, establishment of Israeli hegemony and making it impossible to form a Palestinian nation. It's not that far fetched even if the Palestinian people and would be state mostly exist as a reaction to the formation of Israel. | ||
|
dyhb
United States826 Posts
On August 31 2026 14:36 PremoBeats wrote: The most devastating claim you can make is that all the death and destruction was undertaken with the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people as a people. And since this was a brutal and destructive war, the most devastating claim feels appropriate from a standpoint of cosmic justice or moral balance. Pointing to the patterns of indifference (either the rules of war or the suffering of the Palestinian people) just isn't satisfying enough on a psychological level. It doesn't do enough to highlight war crimes and the lack of transparency from/lack of punishment to the units involved and their higher-ups. It has to all be in service of a planned genocide.Nah. But if one could actually substantiate their position in the way I tried to address this issue since forever... that'd be nice. For the cheap seats, this goes off of what we know now. There's the bad habit of claiming the equivalence of "we don't know enough to say this" and "this person is saying we have conclusive evidence that the claim is untrue." | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10016 Posts
I think I've argued in favour of calling it genocide in the past (I haven't joined this discussion for about year I think). At this point I've changed my mind tbh. 1: I don't think the discussion is worth having compared to actually looking at what Israel is doing right now and I find this kind of conversation to be a total distraction from the actual relevant issues. 2: I DO think there was some genocidal intent coming loudly from certain parts of the Israeli government, including Netenyahu. I don't have the energy to go researching quotes but I'm 100% sure we've all seen them already. 3: When you look at the actual death rates, they are too low to call it a genocide. I would argue that its basically 'everything but genocide', and the discussion as to how morally different that is to committing genocide is more interesting to me. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
The reason why the discussion goes nowhere is because Premo and dyhb are not honest actors in the debate, not because we're getting lost. If we didn't get lost on this, we'd get lost on something else. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10016 Posts
On August 31 2026 16:16 Nebuchad wrote: We've been calling genocide events that had a much lower death rate than this btw. The Rohyngia genocide had 25000 deaths. The reason why the discussion goes nowhere is because Premo and dyhb are not honest actors in the debate, not because we're getting lost. If we didn't get lost on this, we'd get lost on something else. The Rohingya issue isn't quite resolved yet, but I would abide by the ICJ's judgement on it probably which is due out very soon within the next month or so. Whether or not to call things this word or that word based on numbers that are disputed and inaccurate (the true death count in Gaza is probably way, way higher than the numbers we have right now, I doubt all the bodies have been found) is just a kind of moot discussion in my opinion, especially when there are current issues such as why Israel is insisting on continuing to flog the dead horse in Gaza and Lebanon and the war crimes committed there, not to mention the uptick in aggression against Palestinians AND foreign supporters in the West Bank. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12590 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2601 Posts
On August 31 2026 16:13 Jockmcplop wrote: Right well if its all people want to discuss I will join in I suppose. I think I've argued in favour of calling it genocide in the past (I haven't joined this discussion for about year I think). At this point I've changed my mind tbh. 1: I don't think the discussion is worth having compared to actually looking at what Israel is doing right now and I find this kind of conversation to be a total distraction from the actual relevant issues. 2: I DO think there was some genocidal intent coming loudly from certain parts of the Israeli government, including Netenyahu. I don't have the energy to go researching quotes but I'm 100% sure we've all seen them already. 3: When you look at the actual death rates, they are too low to call it a genocide. I would argue that its basically 'everything but genocide', and the discussion as to how morally different that is to committing genocide is more interesting to me. I agree, for number 2 the easiest person to quote mine is Ben Givr, he is a sicko who has called for cutting food and water, and consistent calls for violence. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States568 Posts
The equivalent of this discussion would be something like watching a bully beat up a kid, like kicking him in the head and chest repeatedly while they’re bleeding and not responding, and then reporting to the teacher “they’re trying to kill him!” while the bully responds “nuh uh I’m just kicking him, plus he hit me first”. If you’re the kid reporting the bully, you probably don’t care about the semantics, and might not even care that much about getting the bully in trouble, you just want the bully to stop. And to get the teacher to care enough to do something about it. If you’re the bully, you obviously know what you’re doing is wrong at this point because the kid you’re kicking isn’t responsive. You’re not trying to prove you’re somehow moral in your actions. You just want to avoid getting into too much trouble from the teacher while continuing to fuck this kid up and maybe kill him. If you’re the teacher, you just want the damn kids to shut up so you can keep doomscrolling Reddit while you’re on recess duty. And if you’re the kid getting kicked, you don’t give a shit about any of this because you’re unconscious and dying. | ||
| ||
