Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 529

On August 31 2026 23:43 Jankisa wrote:
I think the major issue is that the people who are vehemently arguing how it's not a genocide would, if we all collectively conceded that it's not genocide and decide to call it a campaign of ethnic clensing just move on to deny that.

If we choose something else, like calling the state of Palestine an Apartheid, that would also be argued to death.

Even if we go down to individual cases, such as blowing up 8 and 11 year olds, at least one of these guys would deny wrong doing there as well.

On September 01 2026 00:20 Billyboy wrote:
Less charitable is an extremely charitable description of your outlook. And makes sense why discussion has been near impossible in this thread.

On September 01 2026 00:41 Jankisa wrote:


Yeah, that is my read as well, I've had a lot of these discussions and these folks going into semantics over what constitutes a "famine" vs "sever food insecurity" while looking at pictures of kids with their bones sticking out sickened me.

Then when you point that out you get called out for "ragebaiting".

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.

On September 01 2026 00:53 oBlade wrote:

Many people saw news in 2024 and fixed their views from there and stopped watching. I also don't get much news about it.

What is Israel doing right now then? What has been happening in 2026?

On August 31 2026 23:58 Nebuchad wrote:
My less charitable guess is that people who think that killing muslims is a good idea

On September 01 2026 00:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You can't really be confident about the future when fascists have so much power in the world, but provided that we have a future, we're winning it.

On September 01 2026 01:08 Jockmcplop wrote:


Right now there's going to be a general election in Israel in October, so Netenyahu is enacting a 'bombs=votes' policy in both Lebanon and Syria.
There has been huge escalation in West Bank including a few specific instances that I have posted about on here, and as I posted about yesterday they are preparing their policy of public executions of Palestinians.

On September 01 2026 02:02 oBlade wrote:

West Bank is trending the opposite direction of Gaza okay that's interesting I didn't know that.

Okay public executions of Palestinians, that sounds pretty bad. Then I look it up and it's not public like mandatory to watch, like public executions in North Korea. And it's not even normal public because you have to be an admitted visitor. Which I think if you're using the death penalty, that way is better than the secret executions of say China. So then the second part. I check the "Palestinians" point like is this just for random wanton executions of Palestinians, and it says it's for people convicted of lethal terrorism. From the logistics standpoint of a purported goal of ethnic cleansing, or even a lack of care about committing ethnic cleansing incidentally with no explicit goal, it doesn't seem to make sense to stop a war that kills... 40,000~ per year? and go this route.

On September 01 2026 01:57 dyhb wrote:
My less charitable guess is that many people are convinced they're fighting against people who think killing Muslims is a good idea and are in league with fascists. That explains the leap to the worst accusations, the dumbing down of discussions, and the inability to conceive of genuine disagreement.

The more charitable explanation is that you all think the full facts of a genocide will come out one day, and you all spotted the dehumanizing rhetoric and quotes buried in speeches that were the tip of a very real and very huge iceberg. The shock and drama about people that disagree stems from trouble comprehending a different response to photos and videos. That is the predicate to assume dissenters are unempathetic to Palestinian suffering, and move the burden of proof onto them to demonstrate empathy, compassion, and heartache before they can legitimately disagree.

On September 01 2026 02:51 Nebuchad wrote:


Genuine disagreement usually comes with genuine positions. I can't even get you to admit that Gaza being a genocide is the prominent position among genocide scholars, which is literally a one click Google demand. People who have genuine disagreements do not scare away from obvious statements of fact about the world.

On September 01 2026 02:02 oBlade wrote:

West Bank is trending the opposite direction of Gaza okay that's interesting I didn't know that.

Okay public executions of Palestinians, that sounds pretty bad. Then I look it up and it's not public like mandatory to watch, like public executions in North Korea. And it's not even normal public because you have to be an admitted visitor. Which I think if you're using the death penalty, that way is better than the secret executions of say China. So then the second part. I check the "Palestinians" point like is this just for random wanton executions of Palestinians, and it says it's for people convicted of lethal terrorism. From the logistics standpoint of a purported goal of ethnic cleansing, or even a lack of care about committing ethnic cleansing incidentally with no explicit goal, it doesn't seem to make sense to stop a war that kills... 40,000~ per year? and go this route.

On September 01 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:
First, yes, I already spoke to the inability to conceive of genuine disagreement. You can't follow the chain from poor response rates and poor state of research among academics, so I moved onto the less charitable and more charitable reasons for your (and others') inability. PremoBeats laid out the obvious points in more detail if you ever want to elaborate why you're refusing discussion without comment.

Second, when you choose to ignore counterarguments instead of arguing them, I'm not going to repeat said counterarguments every time you ignore them afresh. You know about the flaws and refuse to address them, or you don't know about the flaws because you refuse to read them, or you're just some troll that posts links without understanding what they say. It isn't exactly rare for people arguing on the internet to post links instead of arguments and get bored and drop it when somebody bothers to examine them.

Anyways, I see the beginnings of the goalpost shift whose current status is from "the vast majority of genocide scholars" to "the prominent position." Maybe you're subtly shifting towards a better position and I ought to wait until you arrive at one. I don't think you'll end on selection bias/non-response bias/misunderstanding of studies generates headlines, and headlines yield media prominence, so let's all talk about the media prominence and not the causes of it. I'm sorry that your response to That's relevant because this still isn't a representative survey of genocide scholars worldwide was "I am sorry that I was unable to convince you" and not "The reason I'm citing poor response rates for studies is..." or "The reason I cite unrepresentative samples is..." or "I thought I had evidence for my claim, but I still have a strong personal belief that I'm right and future studies will vindicate my position."

On September 01 2026 05:17 Nebuchad wrote:


You're incorrectly characterizing my demonstrating (with an example) that you don't present a genuine position as me being unable to conceive of genuine disagreement. I want to stress that this didn't happen because you're bad at logic or bad at presenting your thoughts; you knew that the argument didn't work when you wrote this, you just thought it was a cool attack to write that, and you do not care that it doesn't make sense.

I want to apologize for getting you confused, when I wrote "the prominent position", in my mind it meant the exact same thing as "the vast majority of scholars". As you remember, I provided a lot of evidence for my claim, which I got from searching the answer to that question on Google, and you claimed the opposite based on absolutely nothing at all. I am truly sorry that my wording caused you to misunderstand this and I hope I can make myself clearer in the future.

On September 01 2026 06:32 dyhb wrote:
You know that the one study had a poor participation rate, but you say nothing. You know that a different study did not have a representative sample, but you say nothing. I can’t force you to reexamine your opinion, but I will call it uninformed and stubborn. If you ever wish to examine and post an evidence-based opinion, perhaps when you know more about it and are not making guesses, I’ll be sure to pay attention to your posts in the thread.

To the rest, I hope you google the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. Your lack of good studies is not evidence that good studies would align, and the same with lack of contrary studies. I hope you find future intellectual strength by allowing for genuine disagreement, instead of your childlike inability to comprehend it. It is completely natural to think that intense disagreement is born from hypocrites that actually agree with you, but it would profit you to check your own bias in assigning these motives.

On August 29 2026 17:36 Nebuchad wrote:
But we do not have an absence of evidence, actually. We have a bunch of evidence, all pointing in one specific direction. And then we have you on the other side, coming to a different conclusion on where the genocide scholars lean based on, seemingly, nothing at all.

On September 01 2026 07:11 Nebuchad wrote:


This was already answered:



What you're portraying as an absence of evidence is not an absence of evidence, it is a bunch of evidence. You then attack some of the evidence (far from all of it, for example you left out the fact that some among the most well known researchers are quoted in the dutch study saying they don't know of *any* respected researcher who thinks it isn't genocide) and say that it's not enough for you. That's your prerogative, but that's not the same thing as an absence of evidence. You know that, right?

What we have an absence of evidence for, and this time it's a true one not a made up one, is a large group of genocide scholars who do not think that it's genocide. Researchers typically do not want their name associated with ideas or practices that they think are wrong, that's kind of a big thing for research. When they disagree with things, they're not shy to tell you. When a nazi gets fired from a university you can get 300 university ghouls to sign petitions that say they want the nazi to keep teaching, in like a week. We don't even need to go to another example, we can even go to this example. In one of the links that I already provided to you at the start of this, we find some other scholars who think it isn't genocide, for example Simon Schama, an art historian, or Maarten Boudry, a philosopher. We know that they don't think it's genocide because they expressed that opinion, as people do. The most likely explanation is not that there's this big group of genocide scholars out there who is silently agreeing with you and too afraid to speak up because the evil communists are so scary, the most likely explanation is that this is not really a thing, which is why Google isn't really finding it.