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
Netherlands4016 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
598 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44260 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2225 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
598 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 States44260 Posts
| ||
|
PremoBeats
598 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
2225 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. | ||
| ||
