Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide(doctorswithoutborders.org)
doctorswithoutborders.org
Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/gaza-death-trap-msf-report-exposes-israels-campaign-total-destruction
303 comments
> the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.
It is pretty clear that the death counts from Gaza are widely inaccurate and incomplete. They are only counting dead if they are brought to the hospitals and then buried. But Israel is bringing down building after building with people in them that are never recovered. And then secondary deaths caused by lack of health facilities are not being counted as dead directly as a result of the conflict, but are definitely caused by it.
It is pretty clear that the death counts from Gaza are widely inaccurate and incomplete. They are only counting dead if they are brought to the hospitals and then buried. But Israel is bringing down building after building with people in them that are never recovered. And then secondary deaths caused by lack of health facilities are not being counted as dead directly as a result of the conflict, but are definitely caused by it.
This was true early in the war, but Gaza's health ministry has long since shifted to collecting reports of deaths from "reliable media sources". One source of data is a Google form which they set up in March. There are also reports claiming that GHM has counted natural deaths in their figures, which I don't think GHM has really denied (their releases don't say much about methodology). And of course they include militant deaths.
Are you trying to run damage control here or something? I’m not sure why the GHM is being centered in this thread rather than the people who have been killed.
I agree with what bhouston said. With so much destruction and death happening (even right now), I suspect it will take very long to get an accurate count.
The original comment’s implication that infrastructure damage is somehow more damaging than the human death toll is abhorrent.
I agree with what bhouston said. With so much destruction and death happening (even right now), I suspect it will take very long to get an accurate count.
The original comment’s implication that infrastructure damage is somehow more damaging than the human death toll is abhorrent.
> The original comment’s implication that infrastructure damage is somehow more damaging than the human death toll is abhorrent.
If you're referring to my comment, you misunderstood. It's not "more damaging" -- it's that the two are highly correlated, and that damage to infrastructure and shelter is indicative of the "war on noncombatants" nature of this conflict. We don't know how many deaths there are, but we can see with our own eyes how the entire territory is being rendered unfit for habitation.
If you're referring to my comment, you misunderstood. It's not "more damaging" -- it's that the two are highly correlated, and that damage to infrastructure and shelter is indicative of the "war on noncombatants" nature of this conflict. We don't know how many deaths there are, but we can see with our own eyes how the entire territory is being rendered unfit for habitation.
Gotcha, sorry about that. Thanks for putting it in context. Some of the images of the landscape in Gaza are truly haunting
You agree with which part? Hopefully not the part about only counting hospital deaths, which was inaccurate (I'm sure it was an honest mistake). Not trying to minimize the suffering that's happening, but it's important to have our facts straight when genocide accusations are being tossed around.
There are indeed lots of bodies buried under the rubble, and lots of bodies that are unrecognisable. Not sure about the hospital part, but I recall the process for identifying a dead body to be fairly involved
How does this compare to other wars?
> Key findings
> By almost every metric, the harm to civilians from the first month of the Israeli campaign in Gaza is incomparable with any 21st century air campaign. It is by far the most intense, destructive, and fatal conflict for civilians that Airwars has ever documented. Key findings include:
> At least 5,139 civilians were killed in Gaza in 25 days in October 2023. This is nearly four times more civilians reported killed in a single month than in any conflict Airwars has documented since it was established in 2014. In October 2023 alone, Airwars documented at least 65 incidents in which a minimum of 20 civilians were killed in a particular incident. This is nearly triple the number of such high-fatality incidents that Airwars has documented within any comparable timeframe.
> Over the course of 25 days, Airwars recorded a minimum of 1,900 children killed by Israeli military action in Gaza. This is nearly seven times higher than even the most deadly month for children previously recorded by Airwars.
> Families were killed together in unprecedented numbers, and in their homes. More than nine out of ten women and children were killed in residential buildings. In more than 95 percent of all cases where a woman was killed, at least one child was also killed.
> On average, when civilians were killed alongside family members, at least 15 family members were killed. This is higher than any other conflict documented by Airwars.
Seems like a neutral source that documents all conflicts focusing on the casualties.
> By almost every metric, the harm to civilians from the first month of the Israeli campaign in Gaza is incomparable with any 21st century air campaign. It is by far the most intense, destructive, and fatal conflict for civilians that Airwars has ever documented. Key findings include:
> At least 5,139 civilians were killed in Gaza in 25 days in October 2023. This is nearly four times more civilians reported killed in a single month than in any conflict Airwars has documented since it was established in 2014. In October 2023 alone, Airwars documented at least 65 incidents in which a minimum of 20 civilians were killed in a particular incident. This is nearly triple the number of such high-fatality incidents that Airwars has documented within any comparable timeframe.
> Over the course of 25 days, Airwars recorded a minimum of 1,900 children killed by Israeli military action in Gaza. This is nearly seven times higher than even the most deadly month for children previously recorded by Airwars.
> Families were killed together in unprecedented numbers, and in their homes. More than nine out of ten women and children were killed in residential buildings. In more than 95 percent of all cases where a woman was killed, at least one child was also killed.
> On average, when civilians were killed alongside family members, at least 15 family members were killed. This is higher than any other conflict documented by Airwars.
Seems like a neutral source that documents all conflicts focusing on the casualties.
We are pretty early in the 21st century. Would probably be rather different results if the 20th century was included.
One one hand, indeed, we're approximately at "one quarterth" of the century.
On the other a high-tech well-funded professional combined-arms military with total air supremacy in complete control of the perimeter is ought to be capable of being more careful. And maybe it is, just wasn't feelin' it.
On the other a high-tech well-funded professional combined-arms military with total air supremacy in complete control of the perimeter is ought to be capable of being more careful. And maybe it is, just wasn't feelin' it.
Well that. But also geurilla warfare against non-uniformed combatants that use public infrastructure for military purposes has inherently higher civilian casualties. It's not going to be all one thing or another.
Wikipedia says this about WWII:
"Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:tex....
We should expect similar numbers for Gaza in terms of additional indirect deaths. But the current numbers for Gaza still are an undercount of direct deaths.
"Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:tex....
We should expect similar numbers for Gaza in terms of additional indirect deaths. But the current numbers for Gaza still are an undercount of direct deaths.
WW2 was often at equilibrium. The bombing of Gaza is pretty one sided. A comparison might be better with other one sided conflicts.
A good comparable is Russia’s attack on Grozny.
5000-8000 dead in a city with a population of about 200,000.
5000-8000 dead in a city with a population of about 200,000.
The population of Gaza is about two million so the proportional death toll would be in the 50K-80K range.
In other words, not out of the norm for this type of warfare.
In other words, not out of the norm for this type of warfare.
Gaza was already starving before the war (Israel counted calories to deter stockpiling) and there is nowhere that is away from the "front".
Together with the deduction of almost every hospital I would expect indirect deaths to be significantly more than half of direct deaths
Together with the deduction of almost every hospital I would expect indirect deaths to be significantly more than half of direct deaths
A better (and more recent) conflict would be US war on terror, with a death count around 400 thousands to 6 millions. The numbers varies extremely. The US military claims that only a total of 20 civilians has died to drone strikes. At the other extreme, others has estimated that 10 civilians has died per killed military which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1.
In iraq, the Iraq Body Count project estimate a civilian casualty rate of 77%, which is quite similar to the 68% and 83% estimated given by B'Tselem and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
It should be mentioned that genocide is not defined by number of deaths or civilian casualty rate, but instead about the intention. US killing people with drones, even if the wast majority is civilians and committed for poor reasons, are not considered genocide. If that is fair or not is up to debate.
In iraq, the Iraq Body Count project estimate a civilian casualty rate of 77%, which is quite similar to the 68% and 83% estimated given by B'Tselem and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
It should be mentioned that genocide is not defined by number of deaths or civilian casualty rate, but instead about the intention. US killing people with drones, even if the wast majority is civilians and committed for poor reasons, are not considered genocide. If that is fair or not is up to debate.
The population of Gaza is (was?) around the two million mark.
It looks pretty similar in magnitude to the siege of Grozny by the Russians.
It is for sure much more lopsided than other wars, as the Israeli deaths have been minimal.
Which strengthens the argument for a genocide, not a war.
Which strengthens the argument for a genocide, not a war.
>Which strengthens the argument for a genocide, not a war.
Should Israel sacrifice more of its own people for the war to appear more fair? It's not like their adversaries aren't/weren't trying..
Should Israel sacrifice more of its own people for the war to appear more fair? It's not like their adversaries aren't/weren't trying..
throw310822(3)
it actually ranks quite reasonably for civilian casualties even if we believe the Hamas figures (which we shouldn't), it's clear Israel are doing their best to minimize civvy losses.
Is that a sick joke?
hintymad(4)
Well, I'm pretty certain by any reasonable (UN, AI, HRN, etc.) standard, it became genocide quite some time ago when Israel:
1. Used precision guided weapons in unguided-mode to take out entire buildings including schools and hospitals
2. Used precision guided weapons in guided-mode to take out cars and food supply trucks of the World Central Kitchen workers when the cars were clearly demarcated as UN
3. Blocked I18n (not just UN) food & water aid
4. Precisely demolished water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure
5. Denied PoWs fundamental rights under the UN charter
1. Used precision guided weapons in unguided-mode to take out entire buildings including schools and hospitals
2. Used precision guided weapons in guided-mode to take out cars and food supply trucks of the World Central Kitchen workers when the cars were clearly demarcated as UN
3. Blocked I18n (not just UN) food & water aid
4. Precisely demolished water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure
5. Denied PoWs fundamental rights under the UN charter
I'm not so sure - a standard definition is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.
And then you'd wonder if things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden count as genocide. And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.
I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.
I guess you can call civilian casualties fighting terrorists and restricting food that but it detracts from the use of the term for real round them up and kill them all type genocides.
And then you'd wonder if things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden count as genocide. And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.
I note the title of this HN story is basically a lie. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. The article says what they have seen could be consistent with genocide, not "declares the war in Gaza as genocide." It specifically says they are not declaring it a genocide as they feel they don't have the legal expertise.
Genocide as defined in international law is very broad, it also includes cases where 0 people are killed:
- displacing a group in a wider region to try and dilute the ethnicity/culture is genocide
- trying to increase infertility in a group can be genocide
- forcing children from a group to attend schooling of another culture can be genocide
Any action or set of actions that causes going from condition "this cultural/ethnic/national group exists in some state" to condition "the same group is has suffered irreparable damage" can be genocide if done with that objective.
For example when Canada was sending Native American children to boarding school it was clearly a genocidal act, the only uncertainty would be around the intentions:
1) if the Canadian government was trying to improve the standard of education and literacy then it wasn't a genocide
2) if they were trying to bring some good old Christianity to new continent pagans then it was genocide.
In general forced boarding school of a minority definitely would sound like genocide.
You can guess how starving a country while bombing it to scraps scores on this scale
- displacing a group in a wider region to try and dilute the ethnicity/culture is genocide
- trying to increase infertility in a group can be genocide
- forcing children from a group to attend schooling of another culture can be genocide
Any action or set of actions that causes going from condition "this cultural/ethnic/national group exists in some state" to condition "the same group is has suffered irreparable damage" can be genocide if done with that objective.
For example when Canada was sending Native American children to boarding school it was clearly a genocidal act, the only uncertainty would be around the intentions:
1) if the Canadian government was trying to improve the standard of education and literacy then it wasn't a genocide
2) if they were trying to bring some good old Christianity to new continent pagans then it was genocide.
In general forced boarding school of a minority definitely would sound like genocide.
You can guess how starving a country while bombing it to scraps scores on this scale
[deleted]
So we watered down the term, gotcha, now we know declaring things a genocide doesn't mean anything any longer. The boy who cried wolf and all that.
We correctly expected future governments to occasionally want to get rid of undesirable ethic groups and created a definition that would leave them a few loopholes as possible.
If genocide was "kill more than half of a population" or "kill more than 100k people" it would be easy to erase minorities simply by forced sterilization.
The Genocide convention was not created to stop people from dying it was created to stop entire populations from dying out.
If genocide was "kill more than half of a population" or "kill more than 100k people" it would be easy to erase minorities simply by forced sterilization.
The Genocide convention was not created to stop people from dying it was created to stop entire populations from dying out.
Raphael Lemkin, the person who invented the term Genocide, also helped craft its definition in international law. The Rome Convention was based on his proposals, so the idea that his own definition of the term that he created "waters it down" is simply ignorant.
> round them up and kill them all type genocides.
You’re implying that this doesn’t happen already in Gaza.
https://news.sky.com/story/footage-shows-palestinians-blindf...
I’m sure you can search this up yourself, but I think your goal with this thread is deflection.
You’re implying that this doesn’t happen already in Gaza.
https://news.sky.com/story/footage-shows-palestinians-blindf...
I’m sure you can search this up yourself, but I think your goal with this thread is deflection.
1. I'm going to state outright that I don't think rounding up Palestinian civilians and shooting them is happening. Israel does a lot of things I disagree with and there are, I'm sure, many war crimes being committed, but rounding people up and shooting them is far, far away from anything anyone has any proof for (or any reason to think is happening).
2. While you seem to imply that your article proves the opposite, it doesn't - it just shows Palestinians being "rounded up", or as the IDF says, arrested. There is no reason to think (that I saw) that this is anything other than a mass arrest of Palestinians, possibly terrorists, possibly civilians that are sometimes arrested and later released.
If you think literally any picture of the IDF arresting many people is proof that those people are killed, then I understand why you're sure that the IDF is going around killing Palestinian civilians.
2. While you seem to imply that your article proves the opposite, it doesn't - it just shows Palestinians being "rounded up", or as the IDF says, arrested. There is no reason to think (that I saw) that this is anything other than a mass arrest of Palestinians, possibly terrorists, possibly civilians that are sometimes arrested and later released.
If you think literally any picture of the IDF arresting many people is proof that those people are killed, then I understand why you're sure that the IDF is going around killing Palestinian civilians.
Huh. The bar of proof for the IDF to be rounding up and killing people is so high, but you’re quick to suggest that the people they round up are likely terrorists.
In any case, here you go https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876
In any case, here you go https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876
> Huh. The bar of proof for the IDF to be rounding up and killing people is so high, but you’re quick to suggest that the people they round up are likely terrorists.
Yes. This exactly captures my thoughts. The bar for proving that the IDF is committing this kind of crime is pretty high. And yes, I think the IDF is generally trying to arrest terrorists, hence my thinking that if they detained a bunch of people, they are possibly terrorists. I think what is likely happening is that a bunch of people were arrested because they were in a zone where the IDF can't know if they are militants or not, they will be investigated, and most will be released. That's what almost always happens.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that if the IDF is detaining a bunch of people, it's in order to mass execute them, despite there being no actual evidence of this ever happening. There are a lot of problems people have with that the IDF is doing, and there's a lot of credible reasons to think war crimes are being committed, but as far as I know, mass detaining and execution of random civilians is not something anybody says is actually happening.
> In any case, here you go https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876
Once again, a lot of insinuation with very little actual proof. The IDF alleged, and there are credible reasons to think it's true, afaik, that those are just Palestinian graves, not people killed by the IDF.
Look, I understand we have different prior beliefs about what is likely here. For an Israeli, I am relatively far left and relatively distrustful of both the IDF and the Israeli government. I think that much of the conduct of Israel is deeply immoral, very possibly war crimes, and I'm fairly certain that multiple cases of war crimes have been committed by some soldiers, though not as a matter of policy.
That all said, the things you (and many people) are saying are very implausible. Israel is so often portrayed as evil with absolutely no merit, that Israelis barely pay attention to it anymore, which is not good for anyone.
Yes. This exactly captures my thoughts. The bar for proving that the IDF is committing this kind of crime is pretty high. And yes, I think the IDF is generally trying to arrest terrorists, hence my thinking that if they detained a bunch of people, they are possibly terrorists. I think what is likely happening is that a bunch of people were arrested because they were in a zone where the IDF can't know if they are militants or not, they will be investigated, and most will be released. That's what almost always happens.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that if the IDF is detaining a bunch of people, it's in order to mass execute them, despite there being no actual evidence of this ever happening. There are a lot of problems people have with that the IDF is doing, and there's a lot of credible reasons to think war crimes are being committed, but as far as I know, mass detaining and execution of random civilians is not something anybody says is actually happening.
> In any case, here you go https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876
Once again, a lot of insinuation with very little actual proof. The IDF alleged, and there are credible reasons to think it's true, afaik, that those are just Palestinian graves, not people killed by the IDF.
Look, I understand we have different prior beliefs about what is likely here. For an Israeli, I am relatively far left and relatively distrustful of both the IDF and the Israeli government. I think that much of the conduct of Israel is deeply immoral, very possibly war crimes, and I'm fairly certain that multiple cases of war crimes have been committed by some soldiers, though not as a matter of policy.
That all said, the things you (and many people) are saying are very implausible. Israel is so often portrayed as evil with absolutely no merit, that Israelis barely pay attention to it anymore, which is not good for anyone.
Israel rounding up and shooting people is absolutely real. The whole of Gaza is basically a open air concentration camp where the Israelis control water and electricity and which part gets bombed on which day basically depends on the mood of the IDF.
They are purposely sniping children and operating rape camps you sick fuck.
You are depicting yourself as on the "progressive" side of the Israeli society. If your view is representative, it's evident your country is irreversibly running down the slippery Nazi road and it does not bode well for Israel.
Just to be clear, you think this, not because we disagree about values, but because we disagree on facts. You think one thing is true, I think another - and therefore, I am proof that Israel is "running down the slippery Nazi road".
I could be wrong about things. I believe I am more informed, and better informed, than most people I interact with online, both in terms of the amount of attention I pay to this topic, and because I'm literally closer to everything that is happening, can talk with IDF soldiers regularly, etc. Nevertheless, me being (in my mind) more informed doesn't mean I can't be wrong.
But neither you, nor anyone else, has ever actually shown me real reasons to think I am wrong. Others in this thread have shown pictures of the IDF detaining hundreds of people, and just assume that it's proof that the IDF is rounding up and shooting people, despite this being a claim that no one is actually making, not even the people who are literally accusing Israel of genocide in court.
So yes, I think I am more correct about the facts. And apparently, disagreeing about factual statements is proof that I am somehow evil?
I could be wrong about things. I believe I am more informed, and better informed, than most people I interact with online, both in terms of the amount of attention I pay to this topic, and because I'm literally closer to everything that is happening, can talk with IDF soldiers regularly, etc. Nevertheless, me being (in my mind) more informed doesn't mean I can't be wrong.
But neither you, nor anyone else, has ever actually shown me real reasons to think I am wrong. Others in this thread have shown pictures of the IDF detaining hundreds of people, and just assume that it's proof that the IDF is rounding up and shooting people, despite this being a claim that no one is actually making, not even the people who are literally accusing Israel of genocide in court.
So yes, I think I am more correct about the facts. And apparently, disagreeing about factual statements is proof that I am somehow evil?
And then you'd wonder if things like the bombing of Dresden count as genocide.
Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if we count all the other terror bombings conducted by the Allies - Dresden was but one of many) the size of the vastly larger genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. But there's little point in arguing that that's what the deliberate targetting of civilian populations in Germany (both during and after the war, considering the mass expulsions that followed) did not effectively amount to a "mini" genocide, nonetheless.
And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.
No, pointing out this fairly obvious fact does not, by any stretch, imply that "all war" is genocide.
Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.
That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content.
That's a valid point, and indeed the article should probably be flagged on that basis.
Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if we count all the other terror bombings conducted by the Allies - Dresden was but one of many) the size of the vastly larger genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. But there's little point in arguing that that's what the deliberate targetting of civilian populations in Germany (both during and after the war, considering the mass expulsions that followed) did not effectively amount to a "mini" genocide, nonetheless.
And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide.
No, pointing out this fairly obvious fact does not, by any stretch, imply that "all war" is genocide.
Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.
That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content.
That's a valid point, and indeed the article should probably be flagged on that basis.
> Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above.
So given you so much care about "mini" details, surely you would admit that the latest Hamas attack where so many anihilated villages close to the Gaza strip, killing Israeli Jews and Arabs alike as well as several foreigners, killing babies, women and the elderly indiscriminately, burning buildings and taking hostages is, by your own definition, very much to be considered to be a genocide?
So given you so much care about "mini" details, surely you would admit that the latest Hamas attack where so many anihilated villages close to the Gaza strip, killing Israeli Jews and Arabs alike as well as several foreigners, killing babies, women and the elderly indiscriminately, burning buildings and taking hostages is, by your own definition, very much to be considered to be a genocide?
Dude, hamas beheading your babies is a lie and that has long been debunked. The IDF bombing schools and hospitals, on the other hand, was live streamed. You guys are the real baby killers, what else do you expect us to admit?
Waving that antisemitism flag won't change the facts, just makes people sick of that very word.
You're arguing from extremes and insinuation.
I never said anything about beheaded babies, so don't paint me as someone spreading fake news.
If you want a taste of Hamas live streams and videos, feel free to peruse this website: https://www.thisishamas.com/
Proceed at your own risk, graphic details.
If you want to learn how Hamas uses civilians as human shields every step of the way, how ingrained blanket hate for Jews and genocide of Israel is ingrained in Gazan life and culture and what they do to people in the streets who are considered to be cooperating with Israel, I challenge you to watch this mini-documentary of a Gaza-born Muslim who became an Israeli citizen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqzAsFIIrL0) or literally any interview with released hostages.
> You guys...
Wonderful blanket term. Do you have an issue with Jews in general?
I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, but someone who sees things as they are.
There were no deaths in Gaza prior to October 7th, there is only one side publicly hell bent on anihilating the other and that has spent billions of dollars on weapons and bunkers instead of their own people.
> Waving that antisemitism flag won't change the facts
I agree, just makes it clear to everyone who reads this who is one and who isn't.
I never said anything about beheaded babies, so don't paint me as someone spreading fake news.
If you want a taste of Hamas live streams and videos, feel free to peruse this website: https://www.thisishamas.com/
Proceed at your own risk, graphic details.
If you want to learn how Hamas uses civilians as human shields every step of the way, how ingrained blanket hate for Jews and genocide of Israel is ingrained in Gazan life and culture and what they do to people in the streets who are considered to be cooperating with Israel, I challenge you to watch this mini-documentary of a Gaza-born Muslim who became an Israeli citizen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqzAsFIIrL0) or literally any interview with released hostages.
> You guys...
Wonderful blanket term. Do you have an issue with Jews in general?
I am neither Jewish nor Israeli, but someone who sees things as they are.
There were no deaths in Gaza prior to October 7th, there is only one side publicly hell bent on anihilating the other and that has spent billions of dollars on weapons and bunkers instead of their own people.
> Waving that antisemitism flag won't change the facts
I agree, just makes it clear to everyone who reads this who is one and who isn't.
Wonderful blanket term.
Which (as used by the commenter) was very clearly meant to apply to those who support Israel's military operation.
Not to Jews in general.
I agree, [waving the antisemitism flag] just makes it clear to everyone who reads this who is one and who isn't.
Except when it's unsubstantiated.
In which case it's just a cheap, ugly smear.
Which (as used by the commenter) was very clearly meant to apply to those who support Israel's military operation.
Not to Jews in general.
I agree, [waving the antisemitism flag] just makes it clear to everyone who reads this who is one and who isn't.
Except when it's unsubstantiated.
In which case it's just a cheap, ugly smear.
Surely you would admit ...
You know, you could have asked your question in a normal, straightforward manner -- e.g. "Would you say the Oct 7th attack was also genocidal in nature, per these criteria?" -- and you would have gotten a straightforward answer.
But as it is, you've chosen a weird, pretentious way of formulating your question.
So I'll have to pass, and let you think whatever you want to think.
You know, you could have asked your question in a normal, straightforward manner -- e.g. "Would you say the Oct 7th attack was also genocidal in nature, per these criteria?" -- and you would have gotten a straightforward answer.
But as it is, you've chosen a weird, pretentious way of formulating your question.
So I'll have to pass, and let you think whatever you want to think.
We’re on a public discussion forum.
Always telling to see people bring these elaborate details to the forefront instead of simply stating where they stand if it’s about Jewish life.
Always telling to see people bring these elaborate details to the forefront instead of simply stating where they stand if it’s about Jewish life.
Your framing was disingenuous, straight up -- it was a baiting question in the classic mold -- and that's why it was necessary to shut it down.
When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing (as if you think there's grounds to believe they would be reluctant to give a normal, sensible answer to that question). You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day.
No one needs to answer questions like this.
Always telling to see ...
I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.
When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing (as if you think there's grounds to believe they would be reluctant to give a normal, sensible answer to that question). You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day.
No one needs to answer questions like this.
Always telling to see ...
I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.
You can deseminate my words all you want.
> When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing
No, it does not.
You were fervent in your argumentation, so it is fair to equally fervently ask for a reply?
> You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day.
I literally do not know anything about you or your level of subject matter expertise.
> I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.
I'm not insinuating anything.
Again, I don't know much about you other than you were very vocal about the definition of genocide as it pertains to the Israeli defensive response to the worst mass murder of Jewish life since the Holocaust and your abject silence and avoidance of answering a simple question, when asked about the other direction.
> When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing
No, it does not.
You were fervent in your argumentation, so it is fair to equally fervently ask for a reply?
> You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day.
I literally do not know anything about you or your level of subject matter expertise.
> I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.
I'm not insinuating anything.
Again, I don't know much about you other than you were very vocal about the definition of genocide as it pertains to the Israeli defensive response to the worst mass murder of Jewish life since the Holocaust and your abject silence and avoidance of answering a simple question, when asked about the other direction.
I'm not insinuating anything.
You damn sure were.
Again, I don't know much about you other than you were very vocal about the definition of genocide as it pertains to the Israeli response
You're hallucinating. In this particular thread, I haven't touched on the genocide definition in the Oct 7th context at all. Someone switched the focus to Dresden, and I started chiming in on that.
and your abject silence and avoidance of answering a simple question.
Because it was a leading question, as already explained.
And the fact that you immediately whipped out the antisemitism accusation after I refused to take the bait proves that this was the stick you were carrying all along.
You're just a bully. Go away.
You damn sure were.
Again, I don't know much about you other than you were very vocal about the definition of genocide as it pertains to the Israeli response
You're hallucinating. In this particular thread, I haven't touched on the genocide definition in the Oct 7th context at all. Someone switched the focus to Dresden, and I started chiming in on that.
and your abject silence and avoidance of answering a simple question.
Because it was a leading question, as already explained.
And the fact that you immediately whipped out the antisemitism accusation after I refused to take the bait proves that this was the stick you were carrying all along.
You're just a bully. Go away.
[deleted]
I get what you are saying and it's about definitions of words but if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter.
Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
This is seeing the morality of the situation upside down:
Committing genocide is bad, whether it's by your enemy, ally, or you own does not change that.
If you allow I would like to rephrase your conclusion differently
> The Nazis committed genocide but so did the USA, the USSR, the CCCP so they should not act all high and mighty as a paragon of morality.
If you allow I would like to rephrase your conclusion differently
> The Nazis committed genocide but so did the USA, the USSR, the CCCP so they should not act all high and mighty as a paragon of morality.
Incorrect -- the "genocide" in Dresden killed only 20,000 germans but helped the war effort for the allies -- preventing our causalities and mitigating further nazi atrocities (auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw). Of course the efficacy of the raid is another matter.
It was a "good genocide"
It was a "good genocide"
>Dresden killed only 20,000
>It was a "good genocide"
How good could it get?
I worked with a German machinist from there who had experienced it at the time.
He didn't think it was so good, and it was a very long time afterwards. Me neither the more I knew.
Just doing his job back when he was a teenager, like I was when we were doing our project.
Not really sure even then if we were contributing to a military device or not.
But it's a high-tech factory, so.
And he was one of the lucky survivors.
Think how everybody else felt.
As they were dying.
They were his friends and co-workers.
Who shared their last words with him. They hated America worse than ever. Not easy to forget.
But he was still able to forgive the average American, including me, and build real friendship.
I even played in his polka band a little.
Would still have the sheet music if it wasn't for a damn hurricane.
>It was a "good genocide"
How good could it get?
I worked with a German machinist from there who had experienced it at the time.
He didn't think it was so good, and it was a very long time afterwards. Me neither the more I knew.
Just doing his job back when he was a teenager, like I was when we were doing our project.
Not really sure even then if we were contributing to a military device or not.
But it's a high-tech factory, so.
And he was one of the lucky survivors.
Think how everybody else felt.
As they were dying.
They were his friends and co-workers.
Who shared their last words with him. They hated America worse than ever. Not easy to forget.
But he was still able to forgive the average American, including me, and build real friendship.
I even played in his polka band a little.
Would still have the sheet music if it wasn't for a damn hurricane.
(auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw)
Perhaps in its record week. But "each week", no. In fact its average was 4-5k per week.
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the Dresden bombing (occuring as it did just 3 months before the end of the war, after Auschwitz and nearly all the other camps in the East had been liberated) did much of anything to hasten the end of the war, let alone to mitigate any further atrocities.
That's why it gets so much attention. From just the sheer senselessness of it.
Perhaps in its record week. But "each week", no. In fact its average was 4-5k per week.
Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the Dresden bombing (occuring as it did just 3 months before the end of the war, after Auschwitz and nearly all the other camps in the East had been liberated) did much of anything to hasten the end of the war, let alone to mitigate any further atrocities.
That's why it gets so much attention. From just the sheer senselessness of it.
These post-hoc determinations of senselessness are retarded.
You are at war with Nazi Germany and you're doing everything in your power to bring the war to a close and in war sometimes your attacks aren't as effective as you'd like.
You are at war with Nazi Germany and you're doing everything in your power to bring the war to a close and in war sometimes your attacks aren't as effective as you'd like.
There's more to it than that. Many responsible historians have looked into the question of why the Allies found it necessary to make a point of deliberately targeting civilians during the strategic campaign (while not even attempting to target the actual killing machinery of the Final Solution itself). The bombings were really quite horrific, too. Dresden was by no means an outlier, in this regard.
But if you want just say that this investigation is just all retarded, then that's your right I guess.
But if you want just say that this investigation is just all retarded, then that's your right I guess.
But if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter.
I don't think that follows. In terms of implying the "so they're all basically the same, and the distinction doesn't really matter" part. On its own terms, the definition just doesn't do that.
Granted, some (many) people might think that way, but I think that's a subset of the broader problem of people being hopelessly caught up in muddled thinking patterns generally, these days.
Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
"Partial genocide," "smaller-scale", "mini" etc would seem to do the trick. But unfortunately boring language of that sort doesn't trigger people's dopamine levels, and so content discussing recent events in these more measured tones doesn't get promoted and shared as often.
(BTW, the genocide definition under discussion refers not just to "excessive" killings of civilians, but the specific targeting of civilians of a particular group. If the Allies had only targeted military facilities, even with the greatly more imprecise munitions in use at the time, then it would be much more difficult to say that these bombings were "genocidal". It's the fact that the Allies deliberately targeted residential areas, at a massive scale and with the specific intent of spreading terror in the civilian population, which made these bombings arguably genocidal).
I don't think that follows. In terms of implying the "so they're all basically the same, and the distinction doesn't really matter" part. On its own terms, the definition just doesn't do that.
Granted, some (many) people might think that way, but I think that's a subset of the broader problem of people being hopelessly caught up in muddled thinking patterns generally, these days.
Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
"Partial genocide," "smaller-scale", "mini" etc would seem to do the trick. But unfortunately boring language of that sort doesn't trigger people's dopamine levels, and so content discussing recent events in these more measured tones doesn't get promoted and shared as often.
(BTW, the genocide definition under discussion refers not just to "excessive" killings of civilians, but the specific targeting of civilians of a particular group. If the Allies had only targeted military facilities, even with the greatly more imprecise munitions in use at the time, then it would be much more difficult to say that these bombings were "genocidal". It's the fact that the Allies deliberately targeted residential areas, at a massive scale and with the specific intent of spreading terror in the civilian population, which made these bombings arguably genocidal).
addicted(3)
I know this is a controversial issue. But honest question: what is a ceasefire going to do?
Hamas refuses to surrender, so it’s only a few years until another Oct 7, and then it starts again. What other option does Israel have? They’ve been fighting these wars for years and they’ve now decided to continue this one vs waiting for a new one in three years
Hamas refuses to surrender, so it’s only a few years until another Oct 7, and then it starts again. What other option does Israel have? They’ve been fighting these wars for years and they’ve now decided to continue this one vs waiting for a new one in three years
They could stop persecuting and murdering Palestinians, stop occupying Palestine, and agree to either a one state or two state solution that recognizes Palestinians as human beings with a right to live.
While all of these should be done (well not the one-state solution, but nobody really considering it anyway), how do you think it will stop the terrorist attacks?
I'm assuming that the average Palestinian feels persecuted, and is willing to support Hamas as the only group they see actively trying to do something about that, even if they don't love Hamas's methods. This support would evaporate quickly if they felt they were being treated like human beings.
If I were Palestinian and terrified for my family, I could see actively donating to and supporting Hamas, while also absolutely hating them and their methods, and longing for some other option.
If I were Palestinian and terrified for my family, I could see actively donating to and supporting Hamas, while also absolutely hating them and their methods, and longing for some other option.
Exactly! Remember when Hamas was elected? In 2006, a year after Israel disengaged, removed all Israeli settlements, gave up control of Gaza-Egypt border.
Gaza elects Hamas, whose charter (at least then, 2017 version is toned down) is openly antisemitic, talks about jihad, killing Jews, protocols of elder Zion and Palestine from the river to the sea.
Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane, however bad you feel for Palestinians. That's why the first step is the removal of Hamas, whatever the next steps are.
Gaza elects Hamas, whose charter (at least then, 2017 version is toned down) is openly antisemitic, talks about jihad, killing Jews, protocols of elder Zion and Palestine from the river to the sea.
Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane, however bad you feel for Palestinians. That's why the first step is the removal of Hamas, whatever the next steps are.
Israel gave up nothing and to say Hamas was "elected" is a hilarious twist of facts.
> Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane
Funny, because that's exactly what Israelis are doing.
> Giving terrorists more power as they actively talking about killing civilians is insane
Funny, because that's exactly what Israelis are doing.
How can they hate their methods if far worse methods are being used against them?
Besides, do you think someone in a war zone has the capability to support, or better yet, donate to a militant group when they’re on the brink of starving?
Besides, do you think someone in a war zone has the capability to support, or better yet, donate to a militant group when they’re on the brink of starving?
At some point IRA stopped bombing the UK, was it because the UK destroyed Ireland or was it through compromise?
(With also the bonus analogy of: would it have helped if the RAF had bombed Dublin during talks?)
(With also the bonus analogy of: would it have helped if the RAF had bombed Dublin during talks?)
They did [1], didn't they? Though they didn't claim that whole UK belongs to them...
[1] https://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/new-ira-plot...
[1] https://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/new-ira-plot...
How, exactly? Israel was in negotiations with the official representative of the Palestinians, the PA, and they refused all offers and walked away from the negotiations.
The opposite approach happened in Gaza - Israel just unilaterally walked away. They then elected Hamas, who is bent on Israel's destruction, and who proceeded to wage war on Israel for twenty years, culminating in the October 7th attacks.
What now?
Edit: I'm not saying I agree with your framing of the question.
The opposite approach happened in Gaza - Israel just unilaterally walked away. They then elected Hamas, who is bent on Israel's destruction, and who proceeded to wage war on Israel for twenty years, culminating in the October 7th attacks.
What now?
Edit: I'm not saying I agree with your framing of the question.
There is problematic framing all around this issue.
eg: As I recall 20 odd years ago perhaps 40% of the eligable voters cast in favour of a Hamas who explicitly ran on a platform of seeking peace with Israel and were considered at the time to be more moderate than the alternatives.
Today almost no one who voted for that Hamas of long long ago is still alive which undermines all arguments of the form "well, they voted for them".
eg: As I recall 20 odd years ago perhaps 40% of the eligable voters cast in favour of a Hamas who explicitly ran on a platform of seeking peace with Israel and were considered at the time to be more moderate than the alternatives.
Today almost no one who voted for that Hamas of long long ago is still alive which undermines all arguments of the form "well, they voted for them".
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/hamas.asp
The Hamas founding charter calls for the eradication of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish race, worldwide.
The Hamas founding charter calls for the eradication of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish race, worldwide.
That's an english translation of the charter position in 1988. Sure.
A disputed translation.
What were the concessions in the 2006 election that Hamas made to form a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas (ie. the declaration by Hamas prior to the election that saw them gain a majority number of seats)?
As I said above, this issue is fraught with problematic framings.
A disputed translation.
What were the concessions in the 2006 election that Hamas made to form a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas (ie. the declaration by Hamas prior to the election that saw them gain a majority number of seats)?
As I said above, this issue is fraught with problematic framings.
Except it doesn't.
People like to say it does, but this stance is largely based on a single line (up at the very top) which is frequently mistranslated, as in the version you are unfortunately citing.
In particular it mistranslates a key verb as "obliterate". When you yourself can verify, right now, that that verb pretty much only translates as "nullify" or "abolish". It is also clear that this refers to the State of Israel, not the Jewish people.
This far more correct interpretation being much more consistent with Hamas's ideology, which holds that Zionism simply lacks legitimacy, and will eventually be seen as irrelevant.
There's also that line about the Gharqad tree. Say what you want about it, but it unambiguously refers to Islamic eschatology, and Islamic scholars at least say it should be interpreted allegorically (as in a conflict will come between right and wrong, those who defend the truth and those who oppose it and all that).
In any case it doesn't refer to the State of Israel, or present a literal call for extermination.
People like to say it does, but this stance is largely based on a single line (up at the very top) which is frequently mistranslated, as in the version you are unfortunately citing.
In particular it mistranslates a key verb as "obliterate". When you yourself can verify, right now, that that verb pretty much only translates as "nullify" or "abolish". It is also clear that this refers to the State of Israel, not the Jewish people.
This far more correct interpretation being much more consistent with Hamas's ideology, which holds that Zionism simply lacks legitimacy, and will eventually be seen as irrelevant.
There's also that line about the Gharqad tree. Say what you want about it, but it unambiguously refers to Islamic eschatology, and Islamic scholars at least say it should be interpreted allegorically (as in a conflict will come between right and wrong, those who defend the truth and those who oppose it and all that).
In any case it doesn't refer to the State of Israel, or present a literal call for extermination.
First of all, the way "well, they voted for them" is sometimes used is morally repugnant. It's true that Hamas is the current elected government and military of Gaza, with all that implies, but that says nothing morally about the duty to not target civilians (and the duty to protect them).
That all said I think you're wrong about the history here. Hamas was always very anti Israel, they specifically stem from an islamist tradition which consideres all of Israel to be occupied territory and that all Jews must be removed. They are one of the big factors in destroying the Peace process by launching many terror attacks to destroy it.
That all said I think you're wrong about the history here. Hamas was always very anti Israel, they specifically stem from an islamist tradition which consideres all of Israel to be occupied territory and that all Jews must be removed. They are one of the big factors in destroying the Peace process by launching many terror attacks to destroy it.
AnimalMuppet(1)
What are any of the options available going to do? They don't have any fundamental fixes for the situation available.
Fundamental to Isreal's problems is that all security issues seem to only have temporary fixes available.
Fundamental to Isreal's problems is that all security issues seem to only have temporary fixes available.
Fundamental to Israel's problem is that they want "security" while they keep oppressing Palestinians and grabbing more land. They do not want peace- quite the opposite, peace means establishing fixed borders, possibly evacuating illegal settlements, not having an excuse for further expansion, etc. They want a permanent state of attrition that allows them to keep doing what is convenient to them while being safe from all reprisals.
This was said clearly by one of Sharon's advisors explaining the motives for Israel removing settlements from Gaza:
"The significance of the disengagement plan [from Gaza] is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem."
This was said clearly by one of Sharon's advisors explaining the motives for Israel removing settlements from Gaza:
"The significance of the disengagement plan [from Gaza] is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem."
And not to mention Hamas got so big because of Israel actually funding them.
Why fund them? Because for whatever reasons, in his later years, Arafat and the PLO were becoming tired of endless conflict and far more diplomatic and open to negotiation. This lead to increasing criticism of Israel because now they were being seen as the stubborn party, refusing to compromise, and increased sympathies for the plight of Palestine.
Israel's hard-right plan for responding to that? Fund Hamas to "beat" the PLO and provide a better target/focus of attention for disdain.
Why fund them? Because for whatever reasons, in his later years, Arafat and the PLO were becoming tired of endless conflict and far more diplomatic and open to negotiation. This lead to increasing criticism of Israel because now they were being seen as the stubborn party, refusing to compromise, and increased sympathies for the plight of Palestine.
Israel's hard-right plan for responding to that? Fund Hamas to "beat" the PLO and provide a better target/focus of attention for disdain.
> Why fund them? Because for whatever reasons, in his later years, Arafat and the PLO were becoming tired of endless conflict and far more diplomatic and open to negotiation.
Whatever else you think, let's be clear-eyed about the history of Arafat here. Arafat walked away from his negotiations with Israel, despite what many think were fairly good offers for peace and a two-state solution. (It's common nowadays to think the offers weren't very good, but I disagree, and in any case walking away from negotiations is the opposite of pursuing peace.)
There is very little reason to think that the Palestinians wouldn't have a state today, if Arafat was willing to compromise more with Israel (even after potentially more negotiation).
Whatever else you think, let's be clear-eyed about the history of Arafat here. Arafat walked away from his negotiations with Israel, despite what many think were fairly good offers for peace and a two-state solution. (It's common nowadays to think the offers weren't very good, but I disagree, and in any case walking away from negotiations is the opposite of pursuing peace.)
There is very little reason to think that the Palestinians wouldn't have a state today, if Arafat was willing to compromise more with Israel (even after potentially more negotiation).
> Whatever else you think, let's be clear-eyed about the history of Arafat here.
I definitely don't intend to make Arafat out to be some peace-loving martyr. Maybe not emphasized enough, but my intent in describing him as I did was to say that it was only after decades of violent resistance (regardless of the merit) that he "softened" near the end. And certainly around then there were some decent offers and proposals.)
I definitely don't intend to make Arafat out to be some peace-loving martyr. Maybe not emphasized enough, but my intent in describing him as I did was to say that it was only after decades of violent resistance (regardless of the merit) that he "softened" near the end. And certainly around then there were some decent offers and proposals.)
All they seem to offer the world has been revenge since the 1980s.
> What other option does Israel have?
seriously? yeah, so lets just reduce Gaza to rubble, ruin the lives of 1.5M people and kill 45,000 men, women and children in order to root out remaining fighters who refuse to lay down their arms. In fact why don't we just go ahead and nuke the whole place -- that should get rid of Hamas once and for all.
-- except that it won't actually get rid of Hamas--or whatever comes out of the ashes of Hamas. When a population has been oppressed as long as the Palestinians in Gaza have, it gives rise to people who don't care anymore, people who have seen their families and loved ones killed. Even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter today, how many 10 year old boys do you think there are today who are going to take up weapons to avenge their fathers and older brothers as soon as they are able? Just like today's fighters want to avenge their fathers from the last intifada? So yeah, Israel will be fighting this again in 5 year's time (unless of course they just kill most everyone or make Gaza unlivable, which seems to be the case now that this has gone on for over a year, thus ... genocide). The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with, but that it is unwilling to do. So the cycle will continue.
seriously? yeah, so lets just reduce Gaza to rubble, ruin the lives of 1.5M people and kill 45,000 men, women and children in order to root out remaining fighters who refuse to lay down their arms. In fact why don't we just go ahead and nuke the whole place -- that should get rid of Hamas once and for all.
-- except that it won't actually get rid of Hamas--or whatever comes out of the ashes of Hamas. When a population has been oppressed as long as the Palestinians in Gaza have, it gives rise to people who don't care anymore, people who have seen their families and loved ones killed. Even if Israel kills every Hamas fighter today, how many 10 year old boys do you think there are today who are going to take up weapons to avenge their fathers and older brothers as soon as they are able? Just like today's fighters want to avenge their fathers from the last intifada? So yeah, Israel will be fighting this again in 5 year's time (unless of course they just kill most everyone or make Gaza unlivable, which seems to be the case now that this has gone on for over a year, thus ... genocide). The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with, but that it is unwilling to do. So the cycle will continue.
They appear to be trying to end the cycle once and for all. And they have bullied/co-opted the rest of the world into silence or indifference.
Silence, indifference?
I’m not hearing any silence or indifference.
There are people as far away as the antipodes harassing Jews who, presumably, have nothing to do with what’s going on over there.
A synagogue was recently burnt down in Melbourne
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-09/melbourne-synagogue-f...
I’m not hearing any silence or indifference.
There are people as far away as the antipodes harassing Jews who, presumably, have nothing to do with what’s going on over there.
A synagogue was recently burnt down in Melbourne
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-09/melbourne-synagogue-f...
> I’m not hearing any silence or indifference.
not really listening, then
not really listening, then
More like filtering for only what they want to hear, and telling us the rest doesn't exist
Look, I can’t turn on the news here without hearing something about it, there’s been protests here in support of Palestine, the public broadcaster is all over it with interviews in Palastine, and people seem only as indifferent to this far away issue as any of the other handful of purported genocides I can recall in living memory.
Meanwhile I can't even find this reported in any major newspaper. If MSF was making this statement about Syria or something I would think it would be newsworthy. So a fringe is protesting (in some places at high personal cost) while most of society shrugs their collective shoulder even though this is not Darfur or Rwanda and involves one of the US's biggest allies.
>The only way to stop it is for Israel to stop oppressing Gaza to begin with,
That would be good. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's a little too late since IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists. And with hesitation from Israel, only after terrorists proved repeatedly to have too much freedom of movement outside of Gaza.
Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression, and what now looks like for the first time (or maybe finally?) an equally hateful genocidal response from Israel.
But "equal" is now more lopsided than ever since Israel had to bolster its defenses so much for so long that it's now incredibly destructive when deployed as an offensive force.
We shouldn't lose sight of what could have been, even though so much has been lost already.
If they want to stop the killing as seriously as possible, every day since Oct 7 Hamas continues to have the opportunity to surrender the hostages and lay down their arms.
Hamas clearly started this present war whether it was intended to get out of hand or not. What kind of conclusion is supposed to be possible other than complete vanquishment unless they surrender beforehand and agree to more effective security demands going forward?
As a neutral observer you just have to accept that initiating a war like this directly establishes Hamas in at least a slight moral deficit compared to whom they viciously attacked.
All other things being equal, it does point the finger of responsibility at Hamas for all subsequent destruction until the war is completely over.
Even if things are not equal at all, Hamas could always end it any time they wanted.
It would have saved a lot of lives, but not as many as if Hamas refrained from slaughtering civilians to begin with.
The situation will eventually settle and judgment will coalesce whether it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to trigger a response-in-kind from the IDF the way they did.
That would be good. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's a little too late since IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists. And with hesitation from Israel, only after terrorists proved repeatedly to have too much freedom of movement outside of Gaza.
Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression, and what now looks like for the first time (or maybe finally?) an equally hateful genocidal response from Israel.
But "equal" is now more lopsided than ever since Israel had to bolster its defenses so much for so long that it's now incredibly destructive when deployed as an offensive force.
We shouldn't lose sight of what could have been, even though so much has been lost already.
If they want to stop the killing as seriously as possible, every day since Oct 7 Hamas continues to have the opportunity to surrender the hostages and lay down their arms.
Hamas clearly started this present war whether it was intended to get out of hand or not. What kind of conclusion is supposed to be possible other than complete vanquishment unless they surrender beforehand and agree to more effective security demands going forward?
As a neutral observer you just have to accept that initiating a war like this directly establishes Hamas in at least a slight moral deficit compared to whom they viciously attacked.
All other things being equal, it does point the finger of responsibility at Hamas for all subsequent destruction until the war is completely over.
Even if things are not equal at all, Hamas could always end it any time they wanted.
It would have saved a lot of lives, but not as many as if Hamas refrained from slaughtering civilians to begin with.
The situation will eventually settle and judgment will coalesce whether it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to trigger a response-in-kind from the IDF the way they did.
> as a neutral observer
your post certainly doesn't sound like it
> the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists
you need to update your history; the oppression started in 1948 (late 1947, really)
your post certainly doesn't sound like it
> the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists
you need to update your history; the oppression started in 1948 (late 1947, really)
If only someone wrote about what happened before 1947!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ott...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ott...
for a neutral observer, these are some pretty demeaning statements which don't seem to question the Israeli narrative whatsoever. the underlying assumption to your comments also seems to be that Palestinians have brought this upon themselves, which is an interesting argument - "if they stopped resisting and just let the Israelis subjugate them, there would be peace."
> IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists
you're recalling incorrectly.
> Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression
we're talking about civilians, not combatants, not "evildoers" - normal human beings living their lives and being oppressed and murdered by an occupying force.
separating humans into "evil" and "good" is how we get into nation-states targeting children with precision weapons. unfortunately it's not that clear-cut.
> IIRC the oppression started decades ago as a security measure to regain a stalemate after excessive bombings from proudly hateful genocidal jihadists
you're recalling incorrectly.
> Exactly as you say, the sons & grandsons of those evildoers have followed in the footsteps and drawn greater oppression
we're talking about civilians, not combatants, not "evildoers" - normal human beings living their lives and being oppressed and murdered by an occupying force.
separating humans into "evil" and "good" is how we get into nation-states targeting children with precision weapons. unfortunately it's not that clear-cut.
>for a neutral observer, these are some pretty demeaning statements
I knew that in advance but not as bad as someone who is not sympathetic to both sides as much as possible, while being equally disappointed in their behavior.
>you're recalling incorrectly.
OK it wasn't a complete stalemate, once the suicide bombings were better prevented, jihadists continued to terrorize by shooting rockets at Israel.
Try and point out any decade of the 70's, 80's, 90's and on when there have been no hate crimes committed by jihadists. And the response from Israel has amounted to gradually tightening the screws to protect their citizens, ending up with a more deplorable situation for Palestinians overall every time. Not without fatalities either. In a cruel tit-for-tat that has been easily followed over these last 6 decades for me.
That's all Israel's fault, and the need for tightening their security is due to the fault of Hamas these days.
Now there's war crimes on both sides.
I don't mean peace-loving civilians at all, it's the bloodthirsty killers on both sides who are the evildoers.
That's a clear enough line for me, I'm not willing to paint those who are "less evil" with the same broad brush as the real killers.
And everybody can recognize that the number of killers in the IDF has skyrocketed over the last year, but can anybody be sure when this matches or exceeds the number of Palestinians who are fully dedicated to killing Israelis?
One thing's for sure, the number of Palestinian casualties is the biggest tragedy and they should have stopped shooting way before it got this far.
That's what this article is all about and I believe these doctors and their first-hand accounts.
I knew that in advance but not as bad as someone who is not sympathetic to both sides as much as possible, while being equally disappointed in their behavior.
>you're recalling incorrectly.
OK it wasn't a complete stalemate, once the suicide bombings were better prevented, jihadists continued to terrorize by shooting rockets at Israel.
Try and point out any decade of the 70's, 80's, 90's and on when there have been no hate crimes committed by jihadists. And the response from Israel has amounted to gradually tightening the screws to protect their citizens, ending up with a more deplorable situation for Palestinians overall every time. Not without fatalities either. In a cruel tit-for-tat that has been easily followed over these last 6 decades for me.
That's all Israel's fault, and the need for tightening their security is due to the fault of Hamas these days.
Now there's war crimes on both sides.
I don't mean peace-loving civilians at all, it's the bloodthirsty killers on both sides who are the evildoers.
That's a clear enough line for me, I'm not willing to paint those who are "less evil" with the same broad brush as the real killers.
And everybody can recognize that the number of killers in the IDF has skyrocketed over the last year, but can anybody be sure when this matches or exceeds the number of Palestinians who are fully dedicated to killing Israelis?
One thing's for sure, the number of Palestinian casualties is the biggest tragedy and they should have stopped shooting way before it got this far.
That's what this article is all about and I believe these doctors and their first-hand accounts.
again, you're only looking far back enough in history to solidify your own point. look back further - where did these "proud jihadists" and "evildoers" come from? the implication here is that there is no precipitating historical events for the current day situation - the hate came from nowhere and they have so much of it that it's ingrained in their DNA. if you believe that, i suppose it's simple to justify extermination of children.
> One thing's for sure, the number of Palestinian casualties is the biggest tragedy and they should have stopped shooting way before it got this far.
again - "if only the victims would stop resisting, then we could have peace."
> And everybody can recognize that the number of killers in the IDF has skyrocketed over the last year, but can anybody be sure when this matches or exceeds the number of Palestinians who are fully dedicated to killing Israelis?
how does someone engage with this question? here's my attempt: "everyone can recognize that there's a lot of violence on both sides, but how can we be sure that the IDF isn't actually doing this because they're super duper evil?"
> One thing's for sure, the number of Palestinian casualties is the biggest tragedy and they should have stopped shooting way before it got this far.
again - "if only the victims would stop resisting, then we could have peace."
> And everybody can recognize that the number of killers in the IDF has skyrocketed over the last year, but can anybody be sure when this matches or exceeds the number of Palestinians who are fully dedicated to killing Israelis?
how does someone engage with this question? here's my attempt: "everyone can recognize that there's a lot of violence on both sides, but how can we be sure that the IDF isn't actually doing this because they're super duper evil?"
Upvoted you again.
You have a number of good points.
Not me, people don't expect it, but I admit I actually don't have a point.
Except maybe world peace, but people aren't trying for that any more.
Still just observing, not truly involved. For decades.
Since there are abundant haters on both sides, I can't expect to go unhated ;) Perhaps worse than if I favored one or the other :\
That doesn't mean it's "pointless" to consider what the current destruction is about and what led up to it.
Whether it's a political initiative or the actions of certain military members only, the outcome looks the same.
Good terminology does help. Super-duper evil may be the most accurate description of the IDF if it is carrying out genocide as a political policy. Which would be expected to be handed down from politicians of some type. Which could be happening. OTOH policy may be to avoid casualties as completely as possible, but if too many members of IDF defy that the outcome could trend in the same direction anyway. Still genocide, or bent on genocide, when they try to completely destroy an opposing population either way, whether they are innocent civilians or not. Sounds like something for war crime investigators which may happen someday.
I'm the first to admit it looks like genocide to me before the doctors report adds its own information.
That's why I comment on this article to begin with.
In response, Hamas I would say is not committing genocide. Nope. Not at all from what I see.
It's no secret that Hamas wishes they could, and prays for it, but they are not actually committing genocide at this point.
Certainly there are more than zero Israelis who pray for compete elimination of their adversaries in kind too.
Whenever any of these type prayers come true, that's when it's certainly been the worst, whether in prehistoric times or right now.
There's a lot of vengeance on both sides that goes back stupidly too far into the past any way you look at it.
There's bound to be Arabs & Jews who have never even been to the Mideast who hate each other religiously just for traditional reasons or spite.
Lots of people call it "human nature". I'm no George Carlin but to me it looks like inhuman nature.
There is not supposed to be a subtle difference but one passes for the other all the time, there's got to be some kind of disconnect here.
Or wherever.
After all this I haven't really answered your points very much, mostly adding more of my observations which may be appreciated.
Edit: well added another big comment "below" which will be a different post if it's too long to fit.
There's no need to rebuff anything because you make sense, but here's what I've got.
I may go back too far into the past in an additional comment coming soon, look for it, while also trying to focus most on this exact generation and what is happening now.
Proud jihadists is an accurate description of religious fanatics who relish doing damage to Israel, is it not? Nobody denies that Israel has its own equivalent on every level of hate in the opposite direction. Perhaps embodied in today's IDF. So it's theoretically like a two-way street between Israel & Palestine. Too bad for Israel that there's always been jihadists on all sides in addition to Palestine within. This has never been handled well once modern destructivity fell into the hands of those retaining prehistoric low-humanity religious motivation.
I better explain this.
By prehistoric I mean anything before almost all things started to get written down, almost anywhere, any time. Like when accurate records had already existed for a millennium or more, but the vast majority of a community was still illiterate, and/or everything about their past beyond a certain point, or even sometimes during a certain period in the distant enough past, has been completely lost.
I think it can be accepted that the further you go back with prehistoric cultures, the more likely their activities would be dominated by superstition. You know, where they don't need an earthly reason to hate anybody who does not share the same superstition. So that's what they do, they hate for no "earthly" reason. These were not cavemen, this is modern man, no different than us with the same level of intellect, whenever they would act uncivilized it was usually because they actually were not civilized. They may or may not have had widely different respect for humanity than we would recognize today. Yes there are some records that exist from such early times in different areas but they are almost completely incomplete. People are going to work with what they got anyway.
I would say the evildoers are the ones who actually carry out the destruction, that's not very nuanced but it is a judgment that people know when they see it even if they've never seen it before. Could be anybody doing the damage, not one side or the other, although IIRC this is the exact terminology used by these same two parties in previous decades.
So evildoers involved in this conflict come from either side, whenever destructive action is actually taken.
With everything I've seen over the decades, it's my own fault when I don't have enough awareness that for a while I've been looking back much further than the period of many younger peoples' lifetimes, so they haven't seen what I have in real time. I guess it's too easy to get the idea that people already know all the precipitating events that have been recorded. There's a lot of smart people around. And I must apologize for giving the impression that I don't think the history is important when the opposite has been true for most of my life. Which makes me put different weights on different epochs, but I can't help it.
When you get a wrong idea like that, this is a valid response:
>the hate came from nowhere and they have so much of it that it's ingrained in their DNA.
Good call, which is absurd as it should be so it can't be real. But wait a minute, if something like that is ingrained in some other way could the same type present situation be arrived at? Remember, I'm not talking about one-sided hate here, there's more than enough to go around for thousands of miles. From any of the sources, whichever you may prefer. It doesn't have to be DNA to be passed down from previous decades or millennia, sometimes with mutation, sometimes not. When the root goes back to when nobody living was ever born, it could be hard to tell the difference.
You got me thinking, uh oh, what if there was an unfortunate mutation in the distant past which introduced an evil component?
With DNA they're getting better all the time at locating the most probable time or place for it to have occurred, even in the prehistoric past. With history, technology won't help much, plus the further back you go the more blurry. And of course disinformation can arise for many reasons, usually more over time, and is a factor not shared by DNA.
So I think we've come to a little bit of common terms here, almost nobody has ever justified extermination, but "almost" is not zero so it can occur, and that really is super-duper evil. That's why I don't think it's human nature at all, even though it has surely occurred more times than records exist for. You can't paper over this, too much inhumanity has taken place. People need to emphasize how much of a complete non-killing culture there needs to be for this to be avoided forever. Perhaps because extermination has surely occurred some time or another without any of the perpetrators thinking about any kind of justification one way or the other. Not exactly accidentally but if it can occur without extreme intention, everybody needs to really watch it more than they think.
Imagine how bad it could it get when a single perpetrator escalates to super-duper? You don't want to start the ball rolling, but it could happen and I think it depends on a hierarchy and the position that individual plays in that hierarchy.
I suppose you assumed I was imploring Hamas to stop returning fire at Israeli aggression. Not an accurate assumption when I think everyone should stop shooting (never start actually) and whoever is shooting most should stop the most. But that's just me.
This is so bad there are victims all over the place, thousands of miles away on occasion.
But the genocide risk is right there in Gaza, could be getting worse, and distorted information is proliferating.
When you say this:
"everyone can recognize that there's a lot of violence on both sides, but how can we be sure that the IDF isn't actually doing this because they're super duper evil?"
Right now I would say I 100% agree :)
You have a number of good points.
Not me, people don't expect it, but I admit I actually don't have a point.
Except maybe world peace, but people aren't trying for that any more.
Still just observing, not truly involved. For decades.
Since there are abundant haters on both sides, I can't expect to go unhated ;) Perhaps worse than if I favored one or the other :\
That doesn't mean it's "pointless" to consider what the current destruction is about and what led up to it.
Whether it's a political initiative or the actions of certain military members only, the outcome looks the same.
Good terminology does help. Super-duper evil may be the most accurate description of the IDF if it is carrying out genocide as a political policy. Which would be expected to be handed down from politicians of some type. Which could be happening. OTOH policy may be to avoid casualties as completely as possible, but if too many members of IDF defy that the outcome could trend in the same direction anyway. Still genocide, or bent on genocide, when they try to completely destroy an opposing population either way, whether they are innocent civilians or not. Sounds like something for war crime investigators which may happen someday.
I'm the first to admit it looks like genocide to me before the doctors report adds its own information.
That's why I comment on this article to begin with.
In response, Hamas I would say is not committing genocide. Nope. Not at all from what I see.
It's no secret that Hamas wishes they could, and prays for it, but they are not actually committing genocide at this point.
Certainly there are more than zero Israelis who pray for compete elimination of their adversaries in kind too.
Whenever any of these type prayers come true, that's when it's certainly been the worst, whether in prehistoric times or right now.
There's a lot of vengeance on both sides that goes back stupidly too far into the past any way you look at it.
There's bound to be Arabs & Jews who have never even been to the Mideast who hate each other religiously just for traditional reasons or spite.
Lots of people call it "human nature". I'm no George Carlin but to me it looks like inhuman nature.
There is not supposed to be a subtle difference but one passes for the other all the time, there's got to be some kind of disconnect here.
Or wherever.
After all this I haven't really answered your points very much, mostly adding more of my observations which may be appreciated.
Edit: well added another big comment "below" which will be a different post if it's too long to fit.
There's no need to rebuff anything because you make sense, but here's what I've got.
I may go back too far into the past in an additional comment coming soon, look for it, while also trying to focus most on this exact generation and what is happening now.
Proud jihadists is an accurate description of religious fanatics who relish doing damage to Israel, is it not? Nobody denies that Israel has its own equivalent on every level of hate in the opposite direction. Perhaps embodied in today's IDF. So it's theoretically like a two-way street between Israel & Palestine. Too bad for Israel that there's always been jihadists on all sides in addition to Palestine within. This has never been handled well once modern destructivity fell into the hands of those retaining prehistoric low-humanity religious motivation.
I better explain this.
By prehistoric I mean anything before almost all things started to get written down, almost anywhere, any time. Like when accurate records had already existed for a millennium or more, but the vast majority of a community was still illiterate, and/or everything about their past beyond a certain point, or even sometimes during a certain period in the distant enough past, has been completely lost.
I think it can be accepted that the further you go back with prehistoric cultures, the more likely their activities would be dominated by superstition. You know, where they don't need an earthly reason to hate anybody who does not share the same superstition. So that's what they do, they hate for no "earthly" reason. These were not cavemen, this is modern man, no different than us with the same level of intellect, whenever they would act uncivilized it was usually because they actually were not civilized. They may or may not have had widely different respect for humanity than we would recognize today. Yes there are some records that exist from such early times in different areas but they are almost completely incomplete. People are going to work with what they got anyway.
I would say the evildoers are the ones who actually carry out the destruction, that's not very nuanced but it is a judgment that people know when they see it even if they've never seen it before. Could be anybody doing the damage, not one side or the other, although IIRC this is the exact terminology used by these same two parties in previous decades.
So evildoers involved in this conflict come from either side, whenever destructive action is actually taken.
With everything I've seen over the decades, it's my own fault when I don't have enough awareness that for a while I've been looking back much further than the period of many younger peoples' lifetimes, so they haven't seen what I have in real time. I guess it's too easy to get the idea that people already know all the precipitating events that have been recorded. There's a lot of smart people around. And I must apologize for giving the impression that I don't think the history is important when the opposite has been true for most of my life. Which makes me put different weights on different epochs, but I can't help it.
When you get a wrong idea like that, this is a valid response:
>the hate came from nowhere and they have so much of it that it's ingrained in their DNA.
Good call, which is absurd as it should be so it can't be real. But wait a minute, if something like that is ingrained in some other way could the same type present situation be arrived at? Remember, I'm not talking about one-sided hate here, there's more than enough to go around for thousands of miles. From any of the sources, whichever you may prefer. It doesn't have to be DNA to be passed down from previous decades or millennia, sometimes with mutation, sometimes not. When the root goes back to when nobody living was ever born, it could be hard to tell the difference.
You got me thinking, uh oh, what if there was an unfortunate mutation in the distant past which introduced an evil component?
With DNA they're getting better all the time at locating the most probable time or place for it to have occurred, even in the prehistoric past. With history, technology won't help much, plus the further back you go the more blurry. And of course disinformation can arise for many reasons, usually more over time, and is a factor not shared by DNA.
So I think we've come to a little bit of common terms here, almost nobody has ever justified extermination, but "almost" is not zero so it can occur, and that really is super-duper evil. That's why I don't think it's human nature at all, even though it has surely occurred more times than records exist for. You can't paper over this, too much inhumanity has taken place. People need to emphasize how much of a complete non-killing culture there needs to be for this to be avoided forever. Perhaps because extermination has surely occurred some time or another without any of the perpetrators thinking about any kind of justification one way or the other. Not exactly accidentally but if it can occur without extreme intention, everybody needs to really watch it more than they think.
Imagine how bad it could it get when a single perpetrator escalates to super-duper? You don't want to start the ball rolling, but it could happen and I think it depends on a hierarchy and the position that individual plays in that hierarchy.
I suppose you assumed I was imploring Hamas to stop returning fire at Israeli aggression. Not an accurate assumption when I think everyone should stop shooting (never start actually) and whoever is shooting most should stop the most. But that's just me.
This is so bad there are victims all over the place, thousands of miles away on occasion.
But the genocide risk is right there in Gaza, could be getting worse, and distorted information is proliferating.
When you say this:
"everyone can recognize that there's a lot of violence on both sides, but how can we be sure that the IDF isn't actually doing this because they're super duper evil?"
Right now I would say I 100% agree :)
I'm almost sure that every year since 1948 Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestine has killed Israelis. Even if you compare only Israeli air strikes and all Israeli casualties from Palestine.
So I'm not sure who was terrorising who
So I'm not sure who was terrorising who
You could be right, maybe in total or every year. Somebody may be able to do the math, you can't do scorekeeping on things like this though.
Isn't this the bloodiest year since Hamas took over Palestine?
There are definitely different epochs.
I think over the centuries they occasionally take turns terrorizing, but most of the time they don't bug each other even if they are not the least bit fond of such a dissimilar culture.
We just happen to be 3/4 of the way into a century that started when the world halted (but failed to reverse) the direct expressway to total destruction. The first time the human race ever had that happen and the lessons are supposed to be a gift only obtainable from a generation who grew up before that level of total human extermination was possible.
It quit mattering who the enemy was any more.
No more enemies were supposed to be allowed.
And nobody will ever grow up like that any more either.
Who wants to squander that gift which can never be replaced?
And why?
What are the odds of a second chance?
Isn't this the bloodiest year since Hamas took over Palestine?
There are definitely different epochs.
I think over the centuries they occasionally take turns terrorizing, but most of the time they don't bug each other even if they are not the least bit fond of such a dissimilar culture.
We just happen to be 3/4 of the way into a century that started when the world halted (but failed to reverse) the direct expressway to total destruction. The first time the human race ever had that happen and the lessons are supposed to be a gift only obtainable from a generation who grew up before that level of total human extermination was possible.
It quit mattering who the enemy was any more.
No more enemies were supposed to be allowed.
And nobody will ever grow up like that any more either.
Who wants to squander that gift which can never be replaced?
And why?
What are the odds of a second chance?
The main difference between Gaza and other conflicts (such as Ukraine or Iraq) is that Hamas has and uses the willing (even if coerced) cooperation of the civilian population as part of its military strategy. Using humans as meat shields and using teenagers and young men in offensive combat roles is exactly what Hamas does. In comparison, in Iraq or Ukraine, the Iraqi and Ukrainian militaries made/make a clear distinction between military and civilian personnel (which their adversaries didn't respect). Even the Taliban makes sure to not use civilians as part of their military strategy (if we're going by the comparison with resistance fighter groups).
The Gaza situation is more akin to Vietnam, where also the civilian population was actively integrated with the military and helped them in more ways direct than indirect. The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US, while Hamas were the ones who stirred up the hornet's nest in Israel.
The Gaza situation is more akin to Vietnam, where also the civilian population was actively integrated with the military and helped them in more ways direct than indirect. The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US, while Hamas were the ones who stirred up the hornet's nest in Israel.
> The main difference between Gaza and other conflicts (such as Ukraine or Iraq) is that Hamas has and uses the willing (even if coerced) cooperation of the civilian population as part of its military strategy.
I find this IoW report of the situation a compelling expansion of that line of thinking[1], for anyone interested; excerpt:
> Hamas’ long-term effort to embed itself in Palestinian society and politics makes defeating and replacing it very difficult, but not impossible. Hamas’ combination of social services and outreach with coercive measures have ensured that Hamas retains significant support in Gaza relative to the very limited number of other entities that could replace it, despite the extremely destructive war that Hamas initiated. Hamas’ coercive apparatus makes it extremely difficult for possible Hamas alternatives in the Gaza Strip to begin to build their own governance system because to do so while Hamas remains militarily active risks near-certain death. It is not impossible to destroy Hamas’ political and military system, but doing so will require Hamas’ military defeat and a long transition to a new Palestinian-led government in the Gaza Strip.
[1]: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/hamas%E2%80%99...
I find this IoW report of the situation a compelling expansion of that line of thinking[1], for anyone interested; excerpt:
> Hamas’ long-term effort to embed itself in Palestinian society and politics makes defeating and replacing it very difficult, but not impossible. Hamas’ combination of social services and outreach with coercive measures have ensured that Hamas retains significant support in Gaza relative to the very limited number of other entities that could replace it, despite the extremely destructive war that Hamas initiated. Hamas’ coercive apparatus makes it extremely difficult for possible Hamas alternatives in the Gaza Strip to begin to build their own governance system because to do so while Hamas remains militarily active risks near-certain death. It is not impossible to destroy Hamas’ political and military system, but doing so will require Hamas’ military defeat and a long transition to a new Palestinian-led government in the Gaza Strip.
[1]: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/hamas%E2%80%99...
> The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US, while Hamas were the ones who stirred up the hornet's nest in Israel.
Doesn’t this depend on when you define the conflict as starting? When do you think it started?
Doesn’t this depend on when you define the conflict as starting? When do you think it started?
Tbf this isn't Hamas' first rodeo. They've been firing rockets into Israel since their conception. Then there was that ceasefire and the pullout by Israel from the Strip, but Hamas never really believed in a ceasefire. 15 years later, we ended up here.
Hamas was created after decades of Israel firing rockets and missiles at Gaza (with significantly higher casualties that anything hamas did)
Thats exactly it. And this didn’t start 15 years ago.
There is not much point in arguing about what kicked it off either - that won’t fix it.
There is not much point in arguing about what kicked it off either - that won’t fix it.
To me you're making sense a lot, and that's hard to do in a case like this, where the choices are worse or far worse.
What's tops on the list of things "you can't fix" anyway?
You've got to draw the line somewhere, recent past or way back, you've got to declare peace, give & accept forgiveness, starting some number of years back and going forward from there. You could even start right now. Forget everything bad that came before. That's got to be the most meaningful blessing any faithful or spiritual person could have. All blessing and no cursing makes Jack a real holy man. When he grows up.
Look at how the relationship between Vietnam and the rest of the world is now, compared to how it was at its worst. There was a time when it was under consideration for annihilation. "The dogs of war won't negotiate."
The only thing left in the toolbox is to visualize world peace and quit running the other way.
Almost the whole world tried this after World War II, under the worst of conditions, and it really worked. Almost everywhere for a very long time.
Tragic operators in leadership positions do so much damage because they can't visualize anything that could lead them anywhere good, but people follow them anyway. This seems hard to fix too.
After thousands of years, and everything in the 20th century, why are there still kings being unceremoniously overthrown at the same time armies massing in the desert, building "bravery" in the face of potential extermination themselves, in the same old "holy land", in biblical proportions relative to the known world today?
Is that too much of a coincidence? Why can't people get over it?
Doesn't that make it the longest running conflict zone anywhere, coincidentally one that is more likely to exterminate a population within their "known world" when much less of it was known the further you go back? Since it was more cutthroat when civilization was not very advanced -- ancient times it looks like? Surely over that much period of time and that far back.
Is that the holiest land this planet is ever going to have, or what? That's as embarrassing as can be, surely we could have done better. Hell, it's been done before, same shit different century. How does that represent us in the universe anyway?
We know there were times people failed to try hard enough to prevent extermination, not nearly as far back as biblical times so I guess it's always been a lurking possibility, for how many centuries nobody knows.
What? Since the dawn of time?
There was no humanity whatsoever back then . . .
OTOH I remember a significant leap in humanity when Vietnam ended, and for the country as a whole, since then saw no equivalent step downward, just a gradual grinding away. With occasional off-ramps on the road to prosperity, but nothing to refuel on or any way to continue meaningfully toward a receding destination that has never been completed yet, and not open for full occupancy at all. This is what people feel and I can't put it into words very well.
Nothing like my father had after World War II ended, he said it was great afterwards like nobody had ever seen. Not for everybody everywhere I know, but almost everywhere people were so much better off not having such a military burden. It was like a roll of the dice though, which hadn't really ended right when the major powers quit shooting. You had to make the best of what you got and go from there. Nobody who had been through WWII, soldier or not, was going to roll those dice again. The stakes were too high, and unfortunately have gotten higher since then.
Who wants to take the chance of it coming up snake eyes and you lose everything because you started WWIII. Shouldn't give anybody ideas I guess :\
Of course the US had confiscated gold from Americans not that many years before the war, and all but the very few high-rollers had recovered financially that quickly. Then there was war and people were really ready for it to be over, so they could utilize the same level of effort, on something that's not destructive and it would be great.
Anything has got to be great after you've faced Kamikazes too, so there is that.
Also looks like to stop the madness some people will use enough force to make the power of suicide missions seem insignificant by comparison, if there is no other way.
And stop the madness instantly. In "biblical proportion" to the known world today. Not much differrent than god was widely reported to do. This should not be necessary.
Too bad almost no fighters in the whole Middle East any more even have grandfathers who went through WWII, much less fought in it as teenagers. For some it's not even in their great-grandfather's generation.
The history of ancient times is now more vivid in some cultures than what remains of the lessons of a truly planet scale war, where there are just now almost no veterans remaining anywhere. Not only in the Middle East, or related to this conflict, but scattered all around and none of the total hesitation was supposed to be allowed to fade. People on a group basis are not as wary as they used to be. Even some of the same people who once were more cautious.
Go back a thousand years or two, and there were bound to be a couple adversaries who exterminated each other "as much as they could" while still being there centuries later. Otherwise at least one of them wouldn't be there centuries later. What about focusing on exterminations that did happen, but were never recorded whether they happened in the holy land or not? That would be the "regular kind" of extermination, since very few things were recorded that far back anyway, or those records don't exist because even if they did, almost all records are always completely lost. You know it, without a record of course. You never know, from time to time there might be a tendency to cover up something like this. History is more of a mystery than anything else after you go back different amounts in different places.
The more powerful the force, the more rapidly extermination could take place. Sounds pretty final to me.
Who would want that?
Wait, it's the 21st century, probably somebody by now?
Have you seen what some people do to get attention on Twitter? And that was when it was Twitter :\
But could it even happen unintentionally, or completely accidentally, which are two different things themselves?
What if there was just a little bit of intention?
What's tops on the list of things "you can't fix" anyway?
You've got to draw the line somewhere, recent past or way back, you've got to declare peace, give & accept forgiveness, starting some number of years back and going forward from there. You could even start right now. Forget everything bad that came before. That's got to be the most meaningful blessing any faithful or spiritual person could have. All blessing and no cursing makes Jack a real holy man. When he grows up.
Look at how the relationship between Vietnam and the rest of the world is now, compared to how it was at its worst. There was a time when it was under consideration for annihilation. "The dogs of war won't negotiate."
The only thing left in the toolbox is to visualize world peace and quit running the other way.
Almost the whole world tried this after World War II, under the worst of conditions, and it really worked. Almost everywhere for a very long time.
Tragic operators in leadership positions do so much damage because they can't visualize anything that could lead them anywhere good, but people follow them anyway. This seems hard to fix too.
After thousands of years, and everything in the 20th century, why are there still kings being unceremoniously overthrown at the same time armies massing in the desert, building "bravery" in the face of potential extermination themselves, in the same old "holy land", in biblical proportions relative to the known world today?
Is that too much of a coincidence? Why can't people get over it?
Doesn't that make it the longest running conflict zone anywhere, coincidentally one that is more likely to exterminate a population within their "known world" when much less of it was known the further you go back? Since it was more cutthroat when civilization was not very advanced -- ancient times it looks like? Surely over that much period of time and that far back.
Is that the holiest land this planet is ever going to have, or what? That's as embarrassing as can be, surely we could have done better. Hell, it's been done before, same shit different century. How does that represent us in the universe anyway?
We know there were times people failed to try hard enough to prevent extermination, not nearly as far back as biblical times so I guess it's always been a lurking possibility, for how many centuries nobody knows.
What? Since the dawn of time?
There was no humanity whatsoever back then . . .
OTOH I remember a significant leap in humanity when Vietnam ended, and for the country as a whole, since then saw no equivalent step downward, just a gradual grinding away. With occasional off-ramps on the road to prosperity, but nothing to refuel on or any way to continue meaningfully toward a receding destination that has never been completed yet, and not open for full occupancy at all. This is what people feel and I can't put it into words very well.
Nothing like my father had after World War II ended, he said it was great afterwards like nobody had ever seen. Not for everybody everywhere I know, but almost everywhere people were so much better off not having such a military burden. It was like a roll of the dice though, which hadn't really ended right when the major powers quit shooting. You had to make the best of what you got and go from there. Nobody who had been through WWII, soldier or not, was going to roll those dice again. The stakes were too high, and unfortunately have gotten higher since then.
Who wants to take the chance of it coming up snake eyes and you lose everything because you started WWIII. Shouldn't give anybody ideas I guess :\
Of course the US had confiscated gold from Americans not that many years before the war, and all but the very few high-rollers had recovered financially that quickly. Then there was war and people were really ready for it to be over, so they could utilize the same level of effort, on something that's not destructive and it would be great.
Anything has got to be great after you've faced Kamikazes too, so there is that.
Also looks like to stop the madness some people will use enough force to make the power of suicide missions seem insignificant by comparison, if there is no other way.
And stop the madness instantly. In "biblical proportion" to the known world today. Not much differrent than god was widely reported to do. This should not be necessary.
Too bad almost no fighters in the whole Middle East any more even have grandfathers who went through WWII, much less fought in it as teenagers. For some it's not even in their great-grandfather's generation.
The history of ancient times is now more vivid in some cultures than what remains of the lessons of a truly planet scale war, where there are just now almost no veterans remaining anywhere. Not only in the Middle East, or related to this conflict, but scattered all around and none of the total hesitation was supposed to be allowed to fade. People on a group basis are not as wary as they used to be. Even some of the same people who once were more cautious.
Go back a thousand years or two, and there were bound to be a couple adversaries who exterminated each other "as much as they could" while still being there centuries later. Otherwise at least one of them wouldn't be there centuries later. What about focusing on exterminations that did happen, but were never recorded whether they happened in the holy land or not? That would be the "regular kind" of extermination, since very few things were recorded that far back anyway, or those records don't exist because even if they did, almost all records are always completely lost. You know it, without a record of course. You never know, from time to time there might be a tendency to cover up something like this. History is more of a mystery than anything else after you go back different amounts in different places.
The more powerful the force, the more rapidly extermination could take place. Sounds pretty final to me.
Who would want that?
Wait, it's the 21st century, probably somebody by now?
Have you seen what some people do to get attention on Twitter? And that was when it was Twitter :\
But could it even happen unintentionally, or completely accidentally, which are two different things themselves?
What if there was just a little bit of intention?
[deleted]
> The key difference here being that Vietnam was invaded by France and then the US
Not quite. Indochina was a French colony which rebelled and escalated into open conflict. The rebellion was successful, the French were expelled, and Vietnam was formed.
However conflict in the area continued as a civil war between the two dominant factions in Vietnam (communist vs capitalist) for control of the new country.
The US intervention was a failed attempt at suppressing the communist faction.
Gaza is different in that it was conquered by Israel during their war with Egypt. The Israelies even started building settlements there.
Israel then got out of Gaza and removed all their settlers as part of a peace accord (if memory serves).
However Gaza never really accepted peace with Israel and kept on attacking them, culminating in the Oct 7th attack that got us in this mess.
Not quite. Indochina was a French colony which rebelled and escalated into open conflict. The rebellion was successful, the French were expelled, and Vietnam was formed.
However conflict in the area continued as a civil war between the two dominant factions in Vietnam (communist vs capitalist) for control of the new country.
The US intervention was a failed attempt at suppressing the communist faction.
Gaza is different in that it was conquered by Israel during their war with Egypt. The Israelies even started building settlements there.
Israel then got out of Gaza and removed all their settlers as part of a peace accord (if memory serves).
However Gaza never really accepted peace with Israel and kept on attacking them, culminating in the Oct 7th attack that got us in this mess.
It never fully pulled out of Gaza, only partially. It continued to maintain control of borders, maritime and airspace, to maintain control over key resources, and to bomb and invade the territory on multiple occasions. That's why the territory is considered to be "occupied" per UN statutes.
"We pulled the settlements, therefore it's all good and people don't know what they're complaining about" is just the government's spin.
"We pulled the settlements, therefore it's all good and people don't know what they're complaining about" is just the government's spin.
Your answer is unrealistic, but I didn’t provide a long enough question. I’m not justifying genocide obviously. The initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza.
Im asking why “not continuing to fight” (a ceasefire) is even a viable option for Israel’s politicians per the article’s demands. I am a realist not an optimist. Give a viable alternative. The cycle continues
Im asking why “not continuing to fight” (a ceasefire) is even a viable option for Israel’s politicians per the article’s demands. I am a realist not an optimist. Give a viable alternative. The cycle continues
> The initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza.
Technically Israel is an occupying power so under intentional law it does not have a right of retaliation against its occupied territories.
Technically Israel is an occupying power so under intentional law it does not have a right of retaliation against its occupied territories.
> initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza
agreed but it's pretty clear now that the complete destruction of Gaza was the plan all along
agreed but it's pretty clear now that the complete destruction of Gaza was the plan all along
[deleted]
Not my downvote, corrective upvote actually.
One of the saddest things is the religious hatred that underlies the ongoing animosity over the centuries.
There have been a few generations since 1945-1948 but not a significant number compared to way back when this all started.
It is difficult to be sure how the balance of actual oppression swung between the hating parties over that much time. I would imagine that during times of no oppression there was still lingering hatred which has risen and fallen, most likely in a political way. Always available to be stoked into destructive action by populists and/or mobs who favor that type of inhumanity. Actual oppressive action was probably taken more often during times when one hating faction is much more capable of destruction than the other. Whether or not violence still existed during times when there was not true oppression occurring simultaneously.
Compared to that, the 20th century was already incredibly advanced up until World War II, great progress had been made but worldwide inhumanity had of course not been overcome, and the ultimate destruction would finally be enough to end the world. Ever since. As we are not supposed to forget. But before the war the people of the Mideast seemed to be so much more advanced than they are now in the way that so many Arabs & Jews had been living in relative "complete harmony" for centuries in a lot of places, scattered throughout the Mideast, compared to how it is between Israel & Palestine recently. There was still scattered hatred too, and if that could have been addressed back then the situation would not be as bad now.
By 1948 it was already too late, WWII came and went without a complete cessation of hostilities in the Mideast. Like almost no where else. Missed it by that much.
When most of the world is fighting truly evil political parties in WWII because those parties are an existential threat to the entire world, you're going to have to build up some kind of a defense just in case the threat comes your way, regardless of whether you are completely non-aggressive and totally neutral otherwise.
Most of the world is fighting, the whole thing is threatened, practically that means the whole world is at war. This had never happened before or since, not nearly with WWI even though it was quite international too.
A HUGE dividing line for the existence of human beings which makes EVERYTHING that happened before the war far less meaningful in some ways. Or makes absolutely meaningless any hatred which existed in the pre-war world, or anything else which could possibly lead in any other direction than world peace.
No matter what anybody's ancestors thought before that, some of them almost destroyed the world and that was more widely recognized as stupid than it is now. It was more unanimous back in the 20th century that those kind of political parties would never have a chance again after such a devastating worldwide war. Because if another world war comes, there will be nothing left. Remember what it was like during the "Cold War"? If it had gotten hot none of us would even be here to oppress or be oppressed.
If you can come out on the other end after the most-evil political parties have been overcome, and the whole world is supposed to relax and quit fighting, you are supposed to quit fighting too if you had participated. And if you never did face a direct enough threat which required you to participate in the destruction, the stupidest thing you could do with your strengthened defense apparatus would be some saber-rattling or to start fighting when the "smart money" has quit for good reason. Well hard-core humanity is just not yet universal enough to fix stupid, and stupid or inhumanity may or may not have been more prevalent then than now.
Not everybody will be able to make the connection between stupidity, inhumanity, and ego, but it's there more prominently sometimes than others too.
People have pinpointed a critical dividing line of 1948 which can not be denied or ignored, and I'll add something generic that not everyone considers which doesn't apply more to the Mideast than anywhere else. It's not the number of years since WWII that allows the forgetfulness of maximized inhumanity to occur, it's the number of human generations since. And some cultures, intentionally or not, beget numerous more generations over the same number of decades than others.
Remember I wasn't born yet in 1948, but when the 6-day war took place in 1967, I first recognized the significance of that much-earlier 1948 upset, and have been exposed to all kinds of opinions and facts about it ever since. Some from people who were actually supporting either side before they were too elderly. Mostly one-sided one way or the other, which is not easy to navigate. I have always refused to take a side, and admit that my distillation has not yielded an unchanging response to either extreme yet.
Now when I say human generations that means human beings, but look at it even deeper and an almost-separate element of "humanity" has its own generations. I guess there's a certain amount of forgetfulness that accrues through time on either terms.
So really I'm worried about the oppression of the current generation more so than going back to 1948 most of the time any more.
Now the WWII generation worldwide, which picked up after the war by declaring the most prosperous peacetime in living history, has dwindled to almost non-existence, it is naturally no longer a political force.
While they were still influential might have been why civilization has lasted this long since 1948.
When I take sides I try to make it humanity over inhumanity, and brilliance over stupidity.
When all you have left is inhumanity and stupidity do you really want to be on one side or the other?
Sorry for the long messages but this is more serious than ever and it's been on my mind for a while now.
Trying to post in good faith.
One of the saddest things is the religious hatred that underlies the ongoing animosity over the centuries.
There have been a few generations since 1945-1948 but not a significant number compared to way back when this all started.
It is difficult to be sure how the balance of actual oppression swung between the hating parties over that much time. I would imagine that during times of no oppression there was still lingering hatred which has risen and fallen, most likely in a political way. Always available to be stoked into destructive action by populists and/or mobs who favor that type of inhumanity. Actual oppressive action was probably taken more often during times when one hating faction is much more capable of destruction than the other. Whether or not violence still existed during times when there was not true oppression occurring simultaneously.
Compared to that, the 20th century was already incredibly advanced up until World War II, great progress had been made but worldwide inhumanity had of course not been overcome, and the ultimate destruction would finally be enough to end the world. Ever since. As we are not supposed to forget. But before the war the people of the Mideast seemed to be so much more advanced than they are now in the way that so many Arabs & Jews had been living in relative "complete harmony" for centuries in a lot of places, scattered throughout the Mideast, compared to how it is between Israel & Palestine recently. There was still scattered hatred too, and if that could have been addressed back then the situation would not be as bad now.
By 1948 it was already too late, WWII came and went without a complete cessation of hostilities in the Mideast. Like almost no where else. Missed it by that much.
When most of the world is fighting truly evil political parties in WWII because those parties are an existential threat to the entire world, you're going to have to build up some kind of a defense just in case the threat comes your way, regardless of whether you are completely non-aggressive and totally neutral otherwise.
Most of the world is fighting, the whole thing is threatened, practically that means the whole world is at war. This had never happened before or since, not nearly with WWI even though it was quite international too.
A HUGE dividing line for the existence of human beings which makes EVERYTHING that happened before the war far less meaningful in some ways. Or makes absolutely meaningless any hatred which existed in the pre-war world, or anything else which could possibly lead in any other direction than world peace.
No matter what anybody's ancestors thought before that, some of them almost destroyed the world and that was more widely recognized as stupid than it is now. It was more unanimous back in the 20th century that those kind of political parties would never have a chance again after such a devastating worldwide war. Because if another world war comes, there will be nothing left. Remember what it was like during the "Cold War"? If it had gotten hot none of us would even be here to oppress or be oppressed.
If you can come out on the other end after the most-evil political parties have been overcome, and the whole world is supposed to relax and quit fighting, you are supposed to quit fighting too if you had participated. And if you never did face a direct enough threat which required you to participate in the destruction, the stupidest thing you could do with your strengthened defense apparatus would be some saber-rattling or to start fighting when the "smart money" has quit for good reason. Well hard-core humanity is just not yet universal enough to fix stupid, and stupid or inhumanity may or may not have been more prevalent then than now.
Not everybody will be able to make the connection between stupidity, inhumanity, and ego, but it's there more prominently sometimes than others too.
People have pinpointed a critical dividing line of 1948 which can not be denied or ignored, and I'll add something generic that not everyone considers which doesn't apply more to the Mideast than anywhere else. It's not the number of years since WWII that allows the forgetfulness of maximized inhumanity to occur, it's the number of human generations since. And some cultures, intentionally or not, beget numerous more generations over the same number of decades than others.
Remember I wasn't born yet in 1948, but when the 6-day war took place in 1967, I first recognized the significance of that much-earlier 1948 upset, and have been exposed to all kinds of opinions and facts about it ever since. Some from people who were actually supporting either side before they were too elderly. Mostly one-sided one way or the other, which is not easy to navigate. I have always refused to take a side, and admit that my distillation has not yielded an unchanging response to either extreme yet.
Now when I say human generations that means human beings, but look at it even deeper and an almost-separate element of "humanity" has its own generations. I guess there's a certain amount of forgetfulness that accrues through time on either terms.
So really I'm worried about the oppression of the current generation more so than going back to 1948 most of the time any more.
Now the WWII generation worldwide, which picked up after the war by declaring the most prosperous peacetime in living history, has dwindled to almost non-existence, it is naturally no longer a political force.
While they were still influential might have been why civilization has lasted this long since 1948.
When I take sides I try to make it humanity over inhumanity, and brilliance over stupidity.
When all you have left is inhumanity and stupidity do you really want to be on one side or the other?
Sorry for the long messages but this is more serious than ever and it's been on my mind for a while now.
Trying to post in good faith.
You’re implying that the genocide is, somehow, beneficial to carry out?
Besides, the war isn’t even against Hamas. It’s against civilians, with an intent to kill as many as they can manufacture consent for.
Besides, the war isn’t even against Hamas. It’s against civilians, with an intent to kill as many as they can manufacture consent for.
I never said that and that’s an unreasonable interpretation of what was written
The enlightened option from a felicific calculus method it seems to me would require putting the destiny of Israel democratically in the hands of the Levantine majority; scaling back its territory occupied and settled illegally. But of course, this is not an option. This risks the genocide of the Israelis by putting power in its neighbors, when they have the wealth and US support to ensure that it is their more numerous enemies that risks genocide instead
You do know Israel offered Palestinians a state and unilaterally left Gaza giving them an option to build a state... We tried that and it didn't work.
IDF tanks were still making incursions.
Offered them a state.
Let's see... one airport... runways bombed and Palestine told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to repair, rebuild, or build an airport would be met with military response.
The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
"Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Offered them a state.
Let's see... one airport... runways bombed and Palestine told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to repair, rebuild, or build an airport would be met with military response.
The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
"Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Not now. In 2000 and in 2008. You clearly don't know the history.
> The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
If that blockade didn't exist Oct 7th would have been fought with tanks on both sides. Hamas were given plenty of chances to show they don't want war, they kept building rockets and digging tunnels while firing constantly for the past 17 years at civilian population.
Let me ask you this, your neighbor keeps firing and throwing grenades at your home... Do you tare down the wall to his property? That's an insane argument.
> The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
Again. Same thing. They smuggled literal slaves through the tunnels they built into Egypt. On the eve of Oct 7th there were over 10k Palestinians from Gaza working in Israel. There was an active border pass which is how countries are separated. With borders. Especially if the neighboring country doesn't believe you have the right to exist and keeps firing at you.
> "Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
Yes. It was a very generous offer. They were offered part of Jerusalem and 94% of the territories. It was spectacularly generous and probably won't come back.
> It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Well... To carry that stupid analogy... It's the equivalent of parents whose son is a mass murderer offering him a way to prove that he's changed his ways.
I think this post is a bit extreme in its takes, but it isn't fundamentally wrong: https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-why-muslim-world-shou...
The problem is that you're ignoring the agency Palestinians had in the matter. Hamas made conscious choices every step of the way, but so did the more moderate Palestinian authority and unfortunately a lot of the populace. Right now the current terrible state of affairs is a result of two sides being terrible. The difference is that the Israeli side is far more powerful and has nothing to lose other than its soul. The Palestinian side has everything to lose and yet their leaders and populace made the wrong choices along the way.
> The Israeli Navy's blockade of Gaza's ports is in its seventeenth year.
If that blockade didn't exist Oct 7th would have been fought with tanks on both sides. Hamas were given plenty of chances to show they don't want war, they kept building rockets and digging tunnels while firing constantly for the past 17 years at civilian population.
Let me ask you this, your neighbor keeps firing and throwing grenades at your home... Do you tare down the wall to his property? That's an insane argument.
> The generally closed land borders? Hmmm.
Again. Same thing. They smuggled literal slaves through the tunnels they built into Egypt. On the eve of Oct 7th there were over 10k Palestinians from Gaza working in Israel. There was an active border pass which is how countries are separated. With borders. Especially if the neighboring country doesn't believe you have the right to exist and keeps firing at you.
> "Here's an option to build a state, a very generous offer, we must say."
Yes. It was a very generous offer. They were offered part of Jerusalem and 94% of the territories. It was spectacularly generous and probably won't come back.
> It's the state equivalent of "Yes, you can live in the basement. We're going to lock it when you're down there so you can't leave, and you can't have anybody to visit. But it's a home, so quit complaining."
Well... To carry that stupid analogy... It's the equivalent of parents whose son is a mass murderer offering him a way to prove that he's changed his ways.
I think this post is a bit extreme in its takes, but it isn't fundamentally wrong: https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-why-muslim-world-shou...
The problem is that you're ignoring the agency Palestinians had in the matter. Hamas made conscious choices every step of the way, but so did the more moderate Palestinian authority and unfortunately a lot of the populace. Right now the current terrible state of affairs is a result of two sides being terrible. The difference is that the Israeli side is far more powerful and has nothing to lose other than its soul. The Palestinian side has everything to lose and yet their leaders and populace made the wrong choices along the way.
Not only that, Hamas stole the world’s money meant to feed and help and instead oppressed and killed.
Palestine people would do well to join Egypt
No offence, yours is an effective altruist take on any problem: <If there is no final solution that can be achieved fast and with minimal effort, it is not worth doing anything.>
There is NO FINAL SOLUTION to any human problem: not hunger, not disease, not poverty, not racism. All effort counts and smart effort contributes more, but it is not a once and done deal. We must eat everyday, we must not shit plastic in our air, all children must get polio vaccine, and taxes have to be paid one way or the other.
It's ugly, it's hard, it's long, it's life!
There is NO FINAL SOLUTION to any human problem: not hunger, not disease, not poverty, not racism. All effort counts and smart effort contributes more, but it is not a once and done deal. We must eat everyday, we must not shit plastic in our air, all children must get polio vaccine, and taxes have to be paid one way or the other.
It's ugly, it's hard, it's long, it's life!
I literally cannot believe the phrase FINAL SOLUTION is being used here without any irony
I would like to believe that he/she/they knows no other context for that phrase
Words do not have magic attached to them. They do not inherit sins. 'Solution' and 'final' have definitions, use those... don't gasp in shock and insist on synonyms when someone happens to use a combination of words happened to be used somewhere else and some other time by an evil man.
[deleted]
clydethefrog(2)
hmcq6(2)
Sadly, there's a reason the "Gaza tourniquet" had to be invented. https://glia.org/pages/the-glia-tourniquet-project
The fact that you look at this banner- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/giant-anti-israe...
.. And instantly know what it's about, pretty much rests the case.
.. And instantly know what it's about, pretty much rests the case.
The fact that there is a debate as to whether the Gaza actions constitute genocide does not in itself prove that they do or don't.
hirvi74(3)
Genocide requires proving intentionality. Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. This is a serious and complex standard, and it’s central to the legal definition.
It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria.
That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed.
Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..
It's like the distinctions between murder and manslaughter in criminal law. Intent and premeditation are key factors that separate them. These kinds of distinctions matter because they preserve the legal and moral weight of crimes like genocide, which shouldn’t be diminished by rushing to label something without meeting the specific criteria.
That’s why it’s important to avoid being too quick to judge. Determining intent, especially on this scale, takes time and a thorough review of all the facts, patterns of actions, policies, statements, and more. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be decided in court, where the evidence can be fully weighed and assessed.
Thank god we don't just look at a banner and say case closed... jfc..
There's no shortage of material in print calling for the destruction of Gaza, the non personhood of
Palestinians, etc. from Israel ministers and commentators from before the October attacks by Hamas.
You can, for example, look to the Journal of Genocide Research at articles that draw parallels between Holocaust scholar Eugene's Finkel's declaration of Ukraine as a genocidal event and his point by point justification and similar parallels with Israel and Gaza.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...
You can, for example, look to the Journal of Genocide Research at articles that draw parallels between Holocaust scholar Eugene's Finkel's declaration of Ukraine as a genocidal event and his point by point justification and similar parallels with Israel and Gaza.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2024.2...
They destroy or steal art and books each time they invade. The places with the most Palestinian pre-israel books and art are Israelian archives, where only Israeli historians have access if the government authorize them (i.e if they're not critical of the current politics).
Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin. The modern usage of Palestinian didn't come into broad usage until after the six day war.
Pre-Israel Palestinians are mostly of Jewish origin.
Not the 97 percent who were non-Jewish.
Who were a diverse group of folks, including a significant minority (20 percent or more seems a good estimate) whose recent ancestors were non-indigenous migrants in the latter (but still pre-Aliyah) stages of the Ottoman Empire. Including a good chunk from Egypt and other places nearby, as well as from far-off places like Bosnia, Circassia etc.
The long-term resident (i.e. "indigeous") component in turn had also steadily mixed with other populations over time. DNA evidence does suggest that a good chunk of their ancestry pool would probably have been classed as Jewish/Israelite way back when, before converting to Christianity and other religions before the Islamic conquest. A fact which the myth-making industry in modern Israel painfully ignores.
In sum they make for a complex group with a mix of influences. To say that they were "mostly of Jewish origin" smells strongly of overstretch.
And in any case they definitely were not "Jewish" by the time the Nakba rolled around. So what this (or footnotes about the origin of the term Palestinian) has to do with the Israeli government's continuing to hoard their stolen ("abandoned") posessions is unclear.
Not the 97 percent who were non-Jewish.
Who were a diverse group of folks, including a significant minority (20 percent or more seems a good estimate) whose recent ancestors were non-indigenous migrants in the latter (but still pre-Aliyah) stages of the Ottoman Empire. Including a good chunk from Egypt and other places nearby, as well as from far-off places like Bosnia, Circassia etc.
The long-term resident (i.e. "indigeous") component in turn had also steadily mixed with other populations over time. DNA evidence does suggest that a good chunk of their ancestry pool would probably have been classed as Jewish/Israelite way back when, before converting to Christianity and other religions before the Islamic conquest. A fact which the myth-making industry in modern Israel painfully ignores.
In sum they make for a complex group with a mix of influences. To say that they were "mostly of Jewish origin" smells strongly of overstretch.
And in any case they definitely were not "Jewish" by the time the Nakba rolled around. So what this (or footnotes about the origin of the term Palestinian) has to do with the Israeli government's continuing to hoard their stolen ("abandoned") posessions is unclear.
Yes, let’s thoroughly review the facts and posit while bombs are being dropped.
Speaking of courts, didn’t the ICC have something to say about this?
Speaking of courts, didn’t the ICC have something to say about this?
We don’t need to label a conflict as genocide to recognize the urgency of ending it. Armed conflicts, regardless of labels, demand immediate efforts to stop the violence and protect civilians. The focus should be on saving lives, not semantics.
Ending this conflict should start with demanding that Hamas abandon its illegitimate and destructive aims. They must lay down their weapons, release all hostages, and dismantle their oppressive regime. Hamas’s actions and ideology stand in the way of peace for both Palestinian and Israeli civilians
Ending this conflict should start with demanding that Hamas abandon its illegitimate and destructive aims. They must lay down their weapons, release all hostages, and dismantle their oppressive regime. Hamas’s actions and ideology stand in the way of peace for both Palestinian and Israeli civilians
Ironically, I think the closest historical context is the British military in east Africa (roughly what is now Kenya) to the Kikuyu in the late 1880s.
What exactly are we being too quick to judge?
>Specifically, the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group.
Jews were not a protected group in the 30's/40's, so...?
Jews were not a protected group in the 30's/40's, so...?
And HRW says the same thing specifically with regards to Israel's targeted destruction of water resources: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-exterminat...
That adds to Amnesty International's declaration that Israel's action fit the definition of genocide a few weeks ago: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
Anyhow, there are so many companies in the US that are complicit including in particular Google - it knew its software was likely to be used for human rights violations in Israel and they valued getting money over going the right thing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-said-worried-contract-w...
EDIT: Instantly downvoted to -2 on a factual comment that links to high quality resources? Feels like bots to me.
That adds to Amnesty International's declaration that Israel's action fit the definition of genocide a few weeks ago: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
Anyhow, there are so many companies in the US that are complicit including in particular Google - it knew its software was likely to be used for human rights violations in Israel and they valued getting money over going the right thing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/google-said-worried-contract-w...
EDIT: Instantly downvoted to -2 on a factual comment that links to high quality resources? Feels like bots to me.
so was the dam-busters raid by england in ww2 against nazi germany also “genocide”? or were they both just “warfare”
as the events of Rwanda showed, it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide. So are the israelis really incompetent at genocide, to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out? or is this just the usual propaganda and hyperbole?
as the events of Rwanda showed, it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide. So are the israelis really incompetent at genocide, to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out? or is this just the usual propaganda and hyperbole?
> to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out
What about the times they tell the civilians to move to, say, Southern Gaza, because they're going to start bombing Northern Gaza more heavily, and then when they do, they increase bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%?
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
> it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide
I didn't realize you had to "complete" a genocide within a certain time limit. Besides, what's the rush? The global reaction so far is that there'll be loud words and fists thumped on tables, but that they'll let Israel do largely whatever it wants.
What about the times they tell the civilians to move to, say, Southern Gaza, because they're going to start bombing Northern Gaza more heavily, and then when they do, they increase bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%?
https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
> it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide
I didn't realize you had to "complete" a genocide within a certain time limit. Besides, what's the rush? The global reaction so far is that there'll be loud words and fists thumped on tables, but that they'll let Israel do largely whatever it wants.
I can think of many understandable reasons that might happen, so those facts without additional context don't mean much to someone that hasn't already had their mind made up, which is the problem with reporting them and expecting everyone to just see what you see as obvious.
What are the justifiable reasons to specifically kill journalists with machine guns?
Ah, because that's what was said that I was responding to?
See, this is the problem. I can't even point out that the way this is being communicated is counterproductive without you assuming I have some allegiance I'm expressing, and using a bad faith argument to try to get me to defend an assertion which is (as presented) undefensible.
I assume you feel this bad faith response is justified because you see a genocide and therefore why would you show constraint, but the other side is doing the same thing, for similar reasons, and nobody is actually trying to communicate, just yell at each other.
Congratulations on being the problem. I doubt you'll see yourself that way though, because again, why would you care how you're acting when you can tell yourself whatever you do is justified to stop a genocide?
See, this is the problem. I can't even point out that the way this is being communicated is counterproductive without you assuming I have some allegiance I'm expressing, and using a bad faith argument to try to get me to defend an assertion which is (as presented) undefensible.
I assume you feel this bad faith response is justified because you see a genocide and therefore why would you show constraint, but the other side is doing the same thing, for similar reasons, and nobody is actually trying to communicate, just yell at each other.
Congratulations on being the problem. I doubt you'll see yourself that way though, because again, why would you care how you're acting when you can tell yourself whatever you do is justified to stop a genocide?
I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43. Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft given the historical precedent on dealing with these kinds of movements.
On the surface this is just another callous comment but you are making a few dangerous implications here:
1. Gaza is not as bad as Hamburg (for which no proof was provided) 2. Gaza has to be as bad as Hamburg for it to be called a genocide 3. You want Israel to make Gaza look like Hamburg ‘43 4. The historical precedent (without even getting into land occupation) of movements justifies a genocide.
1. Gaza is not as bad as Hamburg (for which no proof was provided) 2. Gaza has to be as bad as Hamburg for it to be called a genocide 3. You want Israel to make Gaza look like Hamburg ‘43 4. The historical precedent (without even getting into land occupation) of movements justifies a genocide.
I dunno, Gaza (on per-sqkm basis) still looks nothing like Hamburg '43.
In fact the numbers of civilians killed are roughly similar (probably 30k for Gaza vs. 40k for Hamburg 43-45) against roughly equal pre-war population size (about 1.5M for each). And the pictures are of course awfully similar as well (depending on where one wishes to zoom in). And Israel's not anywhere near done with Gaza yet.
But of course you were just hand-waving, which is why you started off with "I dunno".
Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft
An incredibly crass and nasty thing to say about a largely innocent population being steadily bombed into the ground.
In fact the numbers of civilians killed are roughly similar (probably 30k for Gaza vs. 40k for Hamburg 43-45) against roughly equal pre-war population size (about 1.5M for each). And the pictures are of course awfully similar as well (depending on where one wishes to zoom in). And Israel's not anywhere near done with Gaza yet.
But of course you were just hand-waving, which is why you started off with "I dunno".
Until it looks at least like that everywhere, I'd say Israel is being too soft
An incredibly crass and nasty thing to say about a largely innocent population being steadily bombed into the ground.
If Israel commits genocide, and US actively supports Israel with weapons, do they imply US is at least supporting genocide in 21 century?
Another day, another organization redefines genocide to fit their narrative, doesn't mention hostages held in Gaza and gets manually unflagged by admins. Business as usual.
there are many definitions already. what's yours?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#List_of_d...
> almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).
> This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide
This post mentions intent once:
> While we don't have legal authority to establish intentionality
But anyway somehow
> What our medical teams have witnessed ... is consistent with the descriptions ... that genocide is taking place in Gaza
and then the title was changed from "Gaza death trap: MSF report exposes Israel’s campaign of total destruction" to "Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide"
> This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide
This post mentions intent once:
> While we don't have legal authority to establish intentionality
But anyway somehow
> What our medical teams have witnessed ... is consistent with the descriptions ... that genocide is taking place in Gaza
and then the title was changed from "Gaza death trap: MSF report exposes Israel’s campaign of total destruction" to "Doctors Without Borders declares the war in Gaza as genocide"
> This post mentions intent once
Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants.
MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.
Intent is something that will be proved if the any of the war criminals in this conflict (on either side) ever face justice. The relevant authorities have been pretty clear there is adequate evidence of intent to issue arrest warrants.
MSF care less about the label, and more about convicinging the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives. It is unsurprising that MSF doesn't discuss intent, since it is the practical actions that concern them here, not the motivation behind them.
> MSF care less about the label
Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide?
> the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives.
Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for? All the genocide talk is only about labels. Genocide is something universally acknowledged to be bad, so calling something genocide is a good trick: who would argue for genocide?
> the international community to force Isreal into a ceasefire so they can do their job and save lives.
Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
> Why would they use a very strong label that they don't even have proofs for?
There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped.
> Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would.
However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide.
To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide). MSF is not making a legal argument though, they are making a practical one. The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide. From the MSF perspective, intent is irrelevant, it is only the practical situation on the ground that matters. Intent only matters in that it informs how we should go about stopping Israel from engaging in these actions, not whether those actions need to be stopped.
> Well maybe saving hostage lives, that would also be a very strong argument for Israel to withdraw is something they should consider
I don't doubt that it is something that has been considered and if that was something that any Israel's allies could do, they would.
However, saving 65 lives doesn't justify genocide, nor does it make what Israel is doing not genocide.
To be clear, the leaders of Hamas are also genocidal, just much less effective at it. The destruction of Hamas is a reasonable goal but genocide is not an acceptable means to that end.
> There's plenty of proof of intent which has been addressed by actual international law experts
Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind?
> The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide.
What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind?
> The practical effects of Israel's action, regardless of intent, look like genocide.
What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
> Do you mind citing specific proof you have in mind?
The article I linked to has all kinds of proof, but if you want a carefully laid out argument for intent, I recommend the Amnesty International report https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/
> What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The article I linked to has all kinds of proof, but if you want a carefully laid out argument for intent, I recommend the Amnesty International report https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/
> What does it mean to "look like genocide regardless of intent" if the intent is the defining feature of the genocide?
This isn't a case where you can say "oh, they didn't mean to, it's all good." It doesn't matter where you place Israel on the spectrum from incompetent, to reckless, to genocidal (and different parts of the government and military will clearly fall in different parts of that spectrum.) The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
> I recommend the Amnesty International report
The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about:
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
> The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.
The report that says "current definition of genocide is too narrow to accuse Israel, so we need a different one"? That's exactly what I'm talking about:
> As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.
> The effects of Israel's actions are the same, no matter how you measure their intent.
The effect being lowest civilian to combatant death ratio in modern urban warfare? US in Iraq (battle of Mosul is commonly cited) had around 2:1.
Why was this flagged?
Clearly off-topic for HN.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
HN often covers major news events, and wars fall into that category. Their impact is wide-ranging and of large import. I don't see an issue with the occasional HN coverage of it.
I could see an argument that this conflict might be getting a disproportionate amount of posts, because it seems to have aroused a lot of passion among some of the HN audience. Would Doctors Without Borders condemning Russia in Ukraine warrant a HN post? Don't know, probably not.
I could see an argument that this conflict might be getting a disproportionate amount of posts, because it seems to have aroused a lot of passion among some of the HN audience. Would Doctors Without Borders condemning Russia in Ukraine warrant a HN post? Don't know, probably not.
It wasn't the moral condemnation, but their weighing in on a hotly disputed case (along with the fact that they're a highly respected organization with first-hand knowledge of what's been happening on the ground) that makes the post interesting and relevant.
Unfortunately the poster botched/distorted the article title, but that's a separate issue.
Unfortunately the poster botched/distorted the article title, but that's a separate issue.
Really? Change the conflict to a different one and it doesn't seem all that unusual or off topic by hn standards
>And they have bullied/co-opted the rest of the world into silence or indifference.
>And they have bullied/co-opted the rest of the world into silence or indifference.
Evidence of some interesting new phenomenon
Not entirely new, but certainly interesting and relevant in the sense of one of the world's most highly respected organizations weighing in on one of the most flagrant large-scale violation of human rights in our time (that many prefer to pretend to believe isn't happening at all).
Clearly on-topic for HN.
Not entirely new, but certainly interesting and relevant in the sense of one of the world's most highly respected organizations weighing in on one of the most flagrant large-scale violation of human rights in our time (that many prefer to pretend to believe isn't happening at all).
Clearly on-topic for HN.
Political content of all kinds often gets flagged on HN as lots of people don't like it and flagging is the easiest way to express that disapproval and impact front page placement.
Yes, flagging is a way for some people to express disapproval of what THEY don't like. A major organization makes a big statement about a major conflict. This is of general interest and would normally make front page headlines, even on HN.
maeil(1)
alex1138(1)
dzhiurgis(1)
486sx33(7)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE
This guy has a very accessible take on the proper United Nations definition of genocide and how it applies to the Gaza and Ukraine war.
Gemini summary:
>>>> This video discusses the definition of genocide and its application to current events. The speaker argues that many people misuse the term to describe any atrocity, while genocide specifically refers to the intent to eliminate a group of people. The speaker uses the examples of the war in Gaza and the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin to illustrate this point. They argue that while there are many civilian casualties in Gaza, it's unclear if there's an intent to eliminate the entire Palestinian people. In contrast, Putin's forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia aligns more clearly with the definition of genocide. The speaker emphasizes the importance of using the term accurately to avoid diluting its meaning and to properly address serious crimes. <<<<
This guy has a very accessible take on the proper United Nations definition of genocide and how it applies to the Gaza and Ukraine war.
Gemini summary:
>>>> This video discusses the definition of genocide and its application to current events. The speaker argues that many people misuse the term to describe any atrocity, while genocide specifically refers to the intent to eliminate a group of people. The speaker uses the examples of the war in Gaza and the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin to illustrate this point. They argue that while there are many civilian casualties in Gaza, it's unclear if there's an intent to eliminate the entire Palestinian people. In contrast, Putin's forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia aligns more clearly with the definition of genocide. The speaker emphasizes the importance of using the term accurately to avoid diluting its meaning and to properly address serious crimes. <<<<
This take is only possible if you trust anything Tel Aviv says with no fact checking
Israel is:
- blockading humanitarian aid
- targeting UN and aid workers (more that half of all deaths of UN personnel in war zones happened in Gaza in the last 14 months)
- starving the population by blocking food from entering Gaza
- bombing every hospital
- destroying almost every building in the strip.
- already selling beachfront land for planned settlements
- Holding thousands of children hostage in administrative detention without any charges
- carrying terror campaign in the West Bank
- explicitly applying a strategy of collective punishment against the entire population (matching the definition of terrorism)
This computing over the already inhuman apartheid regime in the West Bank
I would posit that counting all children Putin illegally deported you get less that half of the numbers of children killed or kidnapped by the Israeli army
Israel is:
- blockading humanitarian aid
- targeting UN and aid workers (more that half of all deaths of UN personnel in war zones happened in Gaza in the last 14 months)
- starving the population by blocking food from entering Gaza
- bombing every hospital
- destroying almost every building in the strip.
- already selling beachfront land for planned settlements
- Holding thousands of children hostage in administrative detention without any charges
- carrying terror campaign in the West Bank
- explicitly applying a strategy of collective punishment against the entire population (matching the definition of terrorism)
This computing over the already inhuman apartheid regime in the West Bank
I would posit that counting all children Putin illegally deported you get less that half of the numbers of children killed or kidnapped by the Israeli army
So Putin wouldn’t be committing a genocide if he returned the children and started bombing 90% of the buildings in Ukraine?
Got it!
Got it!
eNV25(1)
Anders Puck Nielsen is a Danish military analyst and naval captain at the Royal Danish Defence College, he is not a human rights lawyer. I will trust the organisations and experts that have studied human rights in deciding if a genocide is occuring.
That's an impossible standard, and by it you should also stop having opinions on this matter.
Isn’t this the standard in all fields? I trust the top scientists at the Large Hadron Collider to define the presence of a Higgs boson, I trust the doctors of the WHO to define if a pandemic is occurring. These strongly defined terms need experts.
> https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2024/gaza-before-after...
> https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/gaza-is-i...
The strip is bombed out and half in ruins. With the import of construction material into Gaza highly restricted, I wonder how, or if, it'll be rebuilt. It is becoming a true open-air wasteland prison, barely capable of supporting life. So it's hard to dispute the conclusion drawn by Doctors Without Borders, even if the deaths lag behind the damage to infrastructure and shelter.