|
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. |
On September 01 2026 09:32 dyhb wrote:
Yes, I literally just said that. You don't have representative studies to back up the opinion "the vast majority of academics," so you're busy guessing in the void.
So can we move on now, or would you like a few more rounds of reaffirming that you believe your unfounded claim even though all of the internet resources available to you point against it?
|
On September 01 2026 09:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 09:32 dyhb wrote:
Yes, I literally just said that. You don't have representative studies to back up the opinion "the vast majority of academics," so you're busy guessing in the void. So can we move on now, or would you like a few more rounds of reaffirming that you believe your unfounded claim even though all of the internet resources available to you point against it? You made a positive claim about the vast majority of academics. I said:
On August 29 2026 08:49 dyhb wrote:I won’t take the nature of what Google displays to you as a good structure for debate. If you refer to something like the results specifying the IAGS study, then count me sympathetic to the ~70% that didn’t vote. I was reading the nature of the claims when this news story surfaced and resurfaced in 2023-2025. Amnesty International altered its definition to pursue the assignment. Scholarly surveys had a lack of original research. The activist anti-Israel groups leveled claims that were simply cited and repeated. Reliance on poor sources results in poor value. Those are what popped up to me when I examined the why and how of various surveys (as well as aforementioned poor participation.) I don’t think the research is sufficiently developed either to the claim, or to the reason behind the poor state of academic treatment of the subject. Maybe in 5-10 years I’ll know more beyond the obvious bias and activism and rush to judgment. On August 29 2026 09:26 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2026 09:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 29 2026 08:49 dyhb wrote:On August 29 2026 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:On August 29 2026 06:22 dyhb wrote:On August 29 2026 05:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 29 2026 03:44 dyhb wrote:On August 29 2026 03:18 WombaT wrote:
Nah it’s just totally grand to kill tens of thousands of civilians, nothing to see here… Because people can’t say “it’s not grand” without the compulsion to say “it’s genocide,” apparently. I hate to break it to you about war, but they are generally not “totally grand.” Glad we were able to confirm in this post that you're denying the idea that it's genocide in general, and not specifically to criticize Jankisa's ukrainian analogy. So, with that in mind, any opinion on why the vast majority of genocide scholars and a bunch of human rights organizations and United Nations representatives agree with WombaT and not you? What survey or analysis are you referring to? I’ve seen specific cases that appear to be motivated by bias and activism. For instance, the divorce in Amnesty International’s Israel chapter, and altering the definition of genocide among some groups. There’s longer articles of criticism if you’re interested. I'm refering to a site called google.com where I prompt searches like "opinion of genocide scholars on Gaza" and I get a pretty clear picture of where those opinions lean in return. Here are some examples: https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63ohttps://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-findshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocideWhat are you refering to? I won’t take the nature of what Google displays to you as a good structure for debate. If you refer to something like the results specifying the IAGS study, then count me sympathetic to the ~70% that didn’t vote. I was reading the nature of the claims when this news story surfaced and resurfaced in 2023-2025. Amnesty International altered its definition to pursue the assignment. Scholarly surveys had a lack of original research. The activist anti-Israel groups leveled claims that were simply cited and repeated. Reliance on poor sources results in poor value. Those are what popped up to me when I examined the why and how of various surveys (as well as aforementioned poor participation.) I don’t think the research is sufficiently developed either to the claim, or to the reason behind the poor state of academic treatment of the subject. Maybe in 5-10 years I’ll know more beyond the obvious bias and activism and rush to judgment. Is there something somewhere that leads you to believe that most genocide scholars do not think it's genocide? And if yes, why is that thing in your mind a stronger agregate, and a better structure for debate on the specific question of which way the genocide scholars lean, than Google (and the links you get from Google) is? Let’s back up a bit. Have you read and understood my criticism of low response rate, missing original research, and over-reliance on claims made by activist organizations? I think the more important aspect is to look at the claims evidence and reasoning, rather than reduce it to some dumb aggregate poll. I've bolded some important parts that you've repeatedly ignored, so maybe you should take this opportunity to actually give argument or comment before you move on in ignorance and refusal to answer.
|
The dyhb schtick is he argued your position with never taking one himself. It is not like he even believes what he is writing , he just thinks he can “win” this point. If you want to make it less painful for self in the future, just ask him his position before arguing yours. He will just stop and you won’t have to go through the disingenuous one way conversation. Or if your bored by all means, but al least you will know the “rules”.
|
Nebuchad can obviously give comment to the response. He's refused to do so up till now, but he always can.
Separately, I would suggest you don't ask open-ended questions on "What's your opinion on X" if you're only accepting the most extreme positions as valid answers.
|
On August 31 2026 15:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2026 14:36 PremoBeats wrote: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. 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.
The former was targeted at your reply, the latter at the usual conduct in this thread, not specifically you. Sorry - I didn't make that clear in my previous post.
Well, the essential part could be that it isn't about mere Palestinians dying, but rather a very special case of Palestinians.
It also isn't about the whole public watching. So you frame this piece in its most extreme way… you sensationalize. And this happens so often around here. Exaggerations, omitting… isn’t it bad enough that these things are being brought into existence? Do you need to leave out that it is only for death row terrorists and that only the families of the victims are able to watch?
Resolved? You think the genocide question has been resolved? And of all places in this cess pool of a thread? Now that is hubris of the highest order 
On August 31 2026 15:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2026 14:36 PremoBeats wrote: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:On August 31 2026 01:42 PremoBeats wrote:
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?
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. 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.
Israel has offered a two-state-solution several times. But they are obviously not keen to let a state develop that denies their right to exist and is bent on their destruction, which is kind of understandable, especially after 3 years ago.
I think your reply is a much more serious argument than simply pointing at death tolls or atrocities. But you're changing the meaning of "destroy" halfway through the argument. If by destroy you mean prevent Palestinian statehood, permanently displace Palestinians, annex territory, or make Palestinian national self-determination impossible, then you're describing potentially very serious policies that could constitute other international crimes. If you mean "destroy" in the Genocide Convention sense, however, you still have to establish an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a national group, in whole or in substantial part. The fact that Israel might want to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state does not logically establish that it wants to physically destroy the Palestinians themselves, although the question would be, what to do with the Palestinians if said state is established.
On August 31 2026 16:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
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.
I remember someone throwing a page at me with about 50 - 100 quotes. After having looked through the first 10 I stopped, as literally all of them were taken out of context and / or directly about Hamas.
On August 31 2026 16:16 Nebuchad wrote:
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.
You calling others dishonest actors. Some jokes truly write themselves…
Remind me: Did you contribute anything despite unfounded accusations or the assertion that a 72% attendance poll and articles written bei 7 or 8 authors represent the “vast majority of genocide scholars” (btw, how much overlap is there between the two... I am too lazy to check)?
Inability or willful deceit… it truly doesn’t matter in the end.
Just a last rant: I seriously don’t understand how THE central legal question of this conflict is uninteresting to some of you… we have the most observed conflict of all time with the accusation of the gravest legal offense a state or person can commit.
But don’t mind me; I’ll leave you all to what you did before. A back and forth which started because of a questionable comparison of Gaza and Ukraine and the accusation “genocide-defender” because the nature of the questionable comparison was highlighted.
Wow, so much fun.
|
On September 01 2026 11:01 Billyboy wrote:
The dyhb schtick is he argued your position with never taking one himself. It is not like he even believes what he is writing , he just thinks he can “win” this point. If you want to make it less painful for self in the future, just ask him his position before arguing yours. He will just stop and you won’t have to go through the disingenuous one way conversation. Or if your bored by all means, but al least you will know the “rules”.
Yeah there's no real way of winning against people like this because they don't really care about what they're saying. I suppose GH has a point that not engaging makes sense, but I don't know, there's a part of me that feels like when we don't engage it looks like we can't engage, so I like to make it absolutely clear that they don't have a point even though the value of doing that is small
|
At last, we have something in common!
|
On September 01 2026 03:54 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 02:02 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2026 01:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 01 2026 00:53 oBlade wrote: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.
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? 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. 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. What exactly is your point here? Even if things are somehow better for Palestinians in 2026 than they were in 2024 (source?), I don’t think anyone you’re arguing with cares as long as Palestinians are overall suffering from systemic, preventable oppression and dehumanization leading to loss of life and home. You’d need to either somehow argue that the dehumanization of Palestinians by the state of Israel is justified (it’s not), or that those running the state of Israel are now enacting meaningful policy changes to humanize them by ensuring Palestinian men/women/children have basic needs taken care of and their rights respected (they’re not).
The source is there is a ceasefire and only 2,000 people have been killed in that time, and that's far less than 2024. Whether those are terrorists or combatants or what, how can that not be "better" when being against war. It's also interesting how you just write their basic needs aren't being taken care of and don't write "(source?)" in your own post under that. I don't think whatever oppression is there is preventable in the sense of "Israel just ups and leaves." You need someone to operationally secure the area and reconstruction. Who is going in? Most aid comes from the UAE now by percent. Is the UAE going to take over? Who is going to force Palestinians to vote for someone other than Hamas so the person can actually accept a two-state solution which has been offered before?
All I have to argue is that by not even knowing the status quo, people have no way to know how anything can improve. People don't even theorycraft policy as to what the international community and rules based order is supposed to do. (Which they did nothing while Hamas took over everything to start this war either.)
On September 01 2026 02:29 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 02:02 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2026 01:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 01 2026 00:53 oBlade wrote: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.
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? 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. 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. The way the law will work is that it only applies to people convicted in military courts. In Israel, Israelis are pretty much NEVER tried through military court in any circumstances, only Palestinians are, which is why I specified Palestinians. If you want to believe that the Israeli military court system is going to be fair and reasonable with Palestinians then that is your prerogative, but I've been paying attention and I wouldn't trust them to fairly divide a cake for my birthday. I object to it, but then it is worth seeing how it plays out because i could be wrong, I don't have a crystal ball, but having more room for summary random executions of Palestinian prisoners at the behest of the Israeli military is a bad thing imho.
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal.
|
To add: Despite having the legal authority to impose death sentences since 1967, they had not actually carried out an execution.
But the aftermath of October 7th can still be felt with this new legislation and it was specifically introduced as a policy of deterrence and punishment for terrorists....
|
On September 01 2026 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 11:01 Billyboy wrote:
The dyhb schtick is he argued your position with never taking one himself. It is not like he even believes what he is writing , he just thinks he can “win” this point. If you want to make it less painful for self in the future, just ask him his position before arguing yours. He will just stop and you won’t have to go through the disingenuous one way conversation. Or if your bored by all means, but al least you will know the “rules”. Yeah there's no real way of winning against people like this because they don't really care about what they're saying. I suppose GH has a point that not engaging makes sense, but I don't know, there's a part of me that feels like when we don't engage it looks like we can't engage, so I like to make it absolutely clear that they don't have a point even though the value of doing that is small
There are a few types of people I avoid engaging with, for various reasons.
You have guys like oBlade who thinks he is a clever troll but is just a cultist, he came to this thread because people started ignoring him even more then usual in the others.
You have dyhb, who was nicely diagnosed by billy, just a guy who thinks he is the "master debater" and will repeat himself by trying to bastardize your arguments while actively avoiding actually having an argument about anything other then his chosen definitions. Plus, just a dude who would find himself happy in any totalitarian regime, 100 % support for whatever dominant group decided is law and order no matter the consequences for the oppressed. You toss one rocket at us, we throw a 2000 lb bomb at your apartment building, fair and square.
Then you have guys like PremoBeats who loves to feign neutrality while only activating around here to deny any claims of Genocide because he decided that he is an expert, personally these kind of people annoy me even more then the other two, even tho both oBlade and dyhb love to write as they were experts on things when they are clearly not, this guy went so far to "email genocide scholars", that is a level of smugness that is just too much for me, so I generally steer clear.
Of course, with the exception of oBlade who I don't want to engage anymore on the principle of him being so dishonest and culty that he can't acknowledge the simple facts of 2020 election, I'll still occasionally engage with anyone, mostly to just call out their worse excesses.
|
Is it that you don't believe that I actually have an academic interest in this matter? Or that you think I wrote this simply to impress guys on TL forums without actually doing it?
But thanks for this explanation! So far I was under the impression that you tried to argue back as long as you thought you had something to say and then retreated once I pointed out that you simply assert the very position that needs to be demonstrated.
|
United Kingdom10016 Posts
On September 01 2026 21:07 oBlade wrote:
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal.
Personally the way I see it is that we have been constantly lied to about 'They were terrorists' by the IDF since the very beginning of this war. Only when some evidence comes out that someone they blasted wasn't a terrorist at all do they then backtrack.
Its not a good basis for running a court that decides who to kill on the basis of being a terrorist.
Again though, if you trust them that's your choice.
https://news.sky.com/story/al-jazeera-says-israels-claim-that-six-of-its-journalists-are-terrorists-is-a-baseless-fabrication-13240578
These people would be convicted in Israeli military court of being terrorists.
That's just one example of many.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On September 01 2026 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 21:07 oBlade wrote:
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal. Personally the way I see it is that we have been constantly lied to about 'They were terrorists' by the IDF since the very beginning of this war. Only when some evidence comes out that someone they blasted wasn't a terrorist at all do they then backtrack. Its not a good basis for running a court that decides who to kill on the basis of being a terrorist. Again though, if you trust them that's your choice. https://news.sky.com/story/al-jazeera-says-israels-claim-that-six-of-its-journalists-are-terrorists-is-a-baseless-fabrication-13240578These people would be convicted in Israeli military court of being terrorists. That's just one example of many.
I particularly recall a bunch of aid workers being killed and then buried, with the story being that they approached a checkpoint/patrol at night with lights off and so the IDF forces couldn’t take the risk
Well someone dug them up and quelle surprise a mobile phone recording showed this absolutely wasn’t the case.
I’m not a source monkey, and it’s been a relatively long conflict with so many such instances that I couldn’t be arsed to Google it and I’m going off memory. If that’s a particular issue I can go digging
It’s definitely something that separates the IDF from the likes of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in Afghanistan and Iraq for me.
It’s cold comfort to the folks who lost loved ones when a wedding was bombed or whatever obviously in the latter cases.
But user error and collateral damage is at least, for me plausible most of the time in those conflicts. Mistakes were generally admitted, not always though, although there probably not enough consequences for the perpetrators of such fuckups, absolutely.
The IDF on the other hand has been caught lying about various incidents that many times that anyone trusting them as an overall institution is a lunatic and I’ve some magic beans to sell them.
|
United Kingdom10016 Posts
On September 01 2026 22:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 01 2026 21:07 oBlade wrote:
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal. Personally the way I see it is that we have been constantly lied to about 'They were terrorists' by the IDF since the very beginning of this war. Only when some evidence comes out that someone they blasted wasn't a terrorist at all do they then backtrack. Its not a good basis for running a court that decides who to kill on the basis of being a terrorist. Again though, if you trust them that's your choice. https://news.sky.com/story/al-jazeera-says-israels-claim-that-six-of-its-journalists-are-terrorists-is-a-baseless-fabrication-13240578These people would be convicted in Israeli military court of being terrorists. That's just one example of many. The IDF on the other hand has been caught lying about various incidents that many times that anyone trusting them as an overall institution is a lunatic and I’ve some magic beans to sell them.
You mean the 'spent the last 10 years trying to logically and academically justify Donald Trump's random statements' kind of lunatic?
(ps only joking oblade)
|
On September 01 2026 22:13 PremoBeats wrote:
Is it that you don't believe that I actually have an academic interest in this matter? Or that you think I wrote this simply to impress guys on TL forums without actually doing it?
But thanks for this explanation! So far I was under the impression that you tried to argue back as long as you thought you had something to say and then retreated once I pointed out that you simply assert the very position that needs to be demonstrated.
Unless you are a human rights lawyer by profession or a journalist with a similar background, going around and emailing actual scholars who do this for a living is pretty unhinged.
Not a lot of space between you and folks who email people from NASA to ask them why they are covering up that Earth is flat.
|
On September 01 2026 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 21:07 oBlade wrote:
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal. Personally the way I see it is that we have been constantly lied to about 'They were terrorists' by the IDF since the very beginning of this war. Only when some evidence comes out that someone they blasted wasn't a terrorist at all do they then backtrack. Its not a good basis for running a court that decides who to kill on the basis of being a terrorist. Again though, if you trust them that's your choice. https://news.sky.com/story/al-jazeera-says-israels-claim-that-six-of-its-journalists-are-terrorists-is-a-baseless-fabrication-13240578These people would be convicted in Israeli military court of being terrorists. That's just one example of many.
Probably not? They'd have to have proof of them intentionally killing Israelis which is the charge that's now subject to hanging. You don't need the same evidence to accidentally bomb someone or accidentally or even criminally shoot someone. You don't need any evidence to criminally shoot someone for no reason, because that's what makes it a crime.
"Al Jazeera said" is also not proof of innocence for every case. Ismael Abu Omar was journalisming from inside Israel on October 7th saying how great it was, no? Seems unusual at best. There are confirmed UNRWA members who were not only in Hamas but aided October 7th. I'm sure every profession has such double agents, including some journalists. That out-of-play respect for medics or journalists is mostly an invention of Western rules of war and it has to go both ways. When journalists play both sides of the field it's perfidy. Or hospitals hiding weapons caches.
Some of the people in Gaza are terrorists. It's a war, making civilian courts the wrong venue. Perhaps you support a coalition of Western nations entering Gaza and providing an objective international military tribunal like the one in Nuremberg. Perhaps you think Saudi Arabia and UAE and Egypt and Turkey should do it. Perhaps you want UN oversight of the courts or the UN to run things. That'd be great but again those bodies and the ICC which is angling for Netanyahu let this sit for two decades until Israel was invaded. There could be many steps before the ideal outcome but those require realism. I'm not sure if Israel just left Gaza now there'd be collapse or not I bet but the fastest way out would be for those nice international entities to come force Hamas to disarm and get out of power.
|
United Kingdom10016 Posts
On September 01 2026 23:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 01 2026 21:07 oBlade wrote:
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal. Personally the way I see it is that we have been constantly lied to about 'They were terrorists' by the IDF since the very beginning of this war. Only when some evidence comes out that someone they blasted wasn't a terrorist at all do they then backtrack. Its not a good basis for running a court that decides who to kill on the basis of being a terrorist. Again though, if you trust them that's your choice. https://news.sky.com/story/al-jazeera-says-israels-claim-that-six-of-its-journalists-are-terrorists-is-a-baseless-fabrication-13240578These people would be convicted in Israeli military court of being terrorists. That's just one example of many. "Al Jazeera said" is also not proof of innocence for every case. Ismael Abu Omar was journalisming from inside Israel on October 7th saying how great it was, no? Seems unusual at best. There are confirmed UNRWA members who were not only in Hamas but aided October 7th. I'm sure every profession has such double agents, including some journalists. That out-of-play respect for medics or journalists is mostly an invention of Western rules of war and it has to go both ways. When journalists play both sides of the field it's perfidy. Or hospitals hiding weapons caches.
The point is that the IDF obviously fabricated this evidence. As if Hamas keeps lists of journalists with things like '[Journo's name] - Sniper' written on them lol. Absolutely ridiculous.
On September 01 2026 23:24 oBlade wrote:
Some of the people in Gaza are terrorists. It's a war, making civilian courts the wrong venue. Perhaps you support a coalition of Western nations entering Gaza and providing an objective international military tribunal like the one in Nuremberg. Perhaps you think Saudi Arabia and UAE and Egypt and Turkey should do it. Perhaps you want UN oversight of the courts or the UN to run things.
I'm not offering a solution, other than simply imprisoning these people and holding trials to determine whether they stay imprisoned.
I'm simply saying I don't trust the IDF to determine whether any Palestinian gets to live, because they constantly lie about people being terrorists as an excuse to kill Palestinian people. They aren't going to suddenly stop doing that now.
|
On September 01 2026 19:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 11:01 Billyboy wrote:
The dyhb schtick is he argued your position with never taking one himself. It is not like he even believes what he is writing , he just thinks he can “win” this point. If you want to make it less painful for self in the future, just ask him his position before arguing yours. He will just stop and you won’t have to go through the disingenuous one way conversation. Or if your bored by all means, but al least you will know the “rules”. Yeah there's no real way of winning against people like this because they don't really care about what they're saying. I suppose GH has a point that not engaging makes sense, but I don't know, there's a part of me that feels like when we don't engage it looks like we can't engage, so I like to make it absolutely clear that they don't have a point even though the value of doing that is small
Your call, GH is basically the same though. All his conversations end badly when people start asking him instead. The big difference is GH has a world view (capitalism bad, socialism good). This guy is the second coming of danglers and doesn’t care other than is there something I can argue.
|
On September 01 2026 23:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2026 23:24 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2026 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 01 2026 21:07 oBlade wrote:
I don't find military courts to be that out of place in a war. I also support hanging people who are lawfully convicted of murdering a bunch of Jews. The West has something of a tradition of it starting since 1946. You say "summary" but there's no need to go through the charade of passing a law to have military courts in that case. It's too roundabout. You could just shoot random people if that was the goal. Personally the way I see it is that we have been constantly lied to about 'They were terrorists' by the IDF since the very beginning of this war. Only when some evidence comes out that someone they blasted wasn't a terrorist at all do they then backtrack. Its not a good basis for running a court that decides who to kill on the basis of being a terrorist. Again though, if you trust them that's your choice. https://news.sky.com/story/al-jazeera-says-israels-claim-that-six-of-its-journalists-are-terrorists-is-a-baseless-fabrication-13240578These people would be convicted in Israeli military court of being terrorists. That's just one example of many. "Al Jazeera said" is also not proof of innocence for every case. Ismael Abu Omar was journalisming from inside Israel on October 7th saying how great it was, no? Seems unusual at best. There are confirmed UNRWA members who were not only in Hamas but aided October 7th. I'm sure every profession has such double agents, including some journalists. That out-of-play respect for medics or journalists is mostly an invention of Western rules of war and it has to go both ways. When journalists play both sides of the field it's perfidy. Or hospitals hiding weapons caches. The point is that the IDF obviously fabricated this evidence. As if Hamas keeps lists of journalists with things like '[Journo's name] - Sniper' written on them lol. Absolutely ridiculous. They keep lists of people they're paying and which units they are in. These have been captured throughout the war. The real question is if Israel/IDF have been doctoring these seized documents in order to justify killing journalists that aren't employed by Hamas. They don't allow independent journalist confirmation aka interviews with the soldiers that discovered the documents and inspections of the documents themselves.
|
Israel has offered a two-state-solution several times. But they are obviously not keen to let a state develop that denies their right to exist and is bent on their destruction, which is kind of understandable, especially after 3 years ago.
I think your reply is a much more serious argument than simply pointing at death tolls or atrocities. But you're changing the meaning of "destroy" halfway through the argument. If by destroy you mean prevent Palestinian statehood, permanently displace Palestinians, annex territory, or make Palestinian national self-determination impossible, then you're describing potentially very serious policies that could constitute other international crimes. If you mean "destroy" in the Genocide Convention sense, however, you still have to establish an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a national group, in whole or in substantial part. The fact that Israel might want to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state does not logically establish that it wants to physically destroy the Palestinians themselves, although the question would be, what to do with the Palestinians if said state is established.
The theoretical question was if what Israel is currently doing is genocide.
To answer that it's important to focus on now. What Israel has done before (such as offering a 2 state solution) has no bearing on if they are genociding Palestinians today (it might be a reason for why but that's not the question).
What Palestinians might do if they had a state is also unimportant to the if part (but maybe not the why).
Going back to the definition I had.
"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."
Obviously you don't need to destroy the entire group (or even the holocaust wouldn't count).
Palestinians are not an ethnic group, not a racial group and not a religious group.
Quite clearly they are a national group as their identity is tied to territory (even if it's not a nation).
The question is, how many would need to kill to make it a genocide (or do you need to kill at all?)
China was brought up as an example also on the line. There you have an ethnic/religious/cultural group that China is effectively trying to destroy. But the death toll is not that large and the people are not driven from their land. They are "just" trying to make them more Han Chinese.
Is that genocide?
The question is. If you have a national group, drive them from their territory and prevent any way of forming a state, effectively making them into a stateless diaspora, is that a genocide since it's that groups identity?
If it is:
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"
Then the actions Israel has conducted would qualify if there is intent (or at least knowing that the actions would lead to it and still doing it).
Since we know Israel has tried several times to get other countries to take all the people in Gaza, are displacing them and have people on the record about the aim of them never getting a functional state intent is easy.
I personally do not think it's genocide (maybe attempts at ethnic cleansing and various war crimes) but I don't think it's impossible to argue that it could be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
