Israel committing genocide in Gaza, scholars group says(aljazeera.com)
aljazeera.com
Israel committing genocide in Gaza, scholars group says
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/1/israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-scholars-group-says
247 comments
Genocide is not just about the people.
'Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, defined genocide as "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence".'
'Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, defined genocide as "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence".'
Israel repeatedly accuses Hamas of using such sites as bases for rocket attacks. They claim that Hamas does this precisely to encourage posts like yours: blaming Israel for Hamas' violations of international law.
I cannot validate Israel's accusations, nor can I refute them. I just think it's important to mention them, because if they were true, it changes the interpretation of those facts considerably.
Unfortunately, confirmation of such things is practically impossible, in a self-fulfilling way. At least one side is willing to go to great lengths to deny their own violations. It's entirely possible that it's both.
I cannot validate Israel's accusations, nor can I refute them. I just think it's important to mention them, because if they were true, it changes the interpretation of those facts considerably.
Unfortunately, confirmation of such things is practically impossible, in a self-fulfilling way. At least one side is willing to go to great lengths to deny their own violations. It's entirely possible that it's both.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I saw this yesterday which really changed my mind: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/1000000103701...
Listening to interviews of the people from the west who have been to Gaza (doctors and nurses) I think it has been pretty clear what kind of violence is being perpetrated towards the civilian population. Things I found especially disturbing was Nick Maynard accusation of using teenagers as target practice, and Anthony Aguilar's description of the absolute horror of the GHF relief sites.
But these are just a few of many. There have been more stories of children shot in the head or chest than I can count, and when the stories of snipers shooting children started to fizzle out, it was instead drones that did the shooting.
Together with the absolutely abhorrent things said by Israeli ministers and parliament members I have had no doubt that this has been a genocide for quite some time.
The hardest thing to accept has been the complicit western media. On one side they have reported about killings, but then promptly reported the Israeli spokesperson's response to the accusations despite them being caught lying over and over again. Like the massacre of the ambulance drivers that first was not communicated with cogat. When it was shown to be communicated to cogat, they did not have their emergency lights and sirens on. When films surfaced of them with their lights and sirens on it was going to be "investigated". That led nowhere, despite the soldiers actively trying to hide their tracks by burying all the victims - some with ther frikken hands tied.
This pattern has repeated itself over and over and over, yet news outlets like the BBC or CNN seem to say to themselves "ah, but this time they are telling the truth".
My own government have been more preoccupied with hiding it's own cowardice than with standing up for any kind of principles. They believe in nothing and I have nothing but contempt for them.
But these are just a few of many. There have been more stories of children shot in the head or chest than I can count, and when the stories of snipers shooting children started to fizzle out, it was instead drones that did the shooting.
Together with the absolutely abhorrent things said by Israeli ministers and parliament members I have had no doubt that this has been a genocide for quite some time.
The hardest thing to accept has been the complicit western media. On one side they have reported about killings, but then promptly reported the Israeli spokesperson's response to the accusations despite them being caught lying over and over again. Like the massacre of the ambulance drivers that first was not communicated with cogat. When it was shown to be communicated to cogat, they did not have their emergency lights and sirens on. When films surfaced of them with their lights and sirens on it was going to be "investigated". That led nowhere, despite the soldiers actively trying to hide their tracks by burying all the victims - some with ther frikken hands tied.
This pattern has repeated itself over and over and over, yet news outlets like the BBC or CNN seem to say to themselves "ah, but this time they are telling the truth".
My own government have been more preoccupied with hiding it's own cowardice than with standing up for any kind of principles. They believe in nothing and I have nothing but contempt for them.
Everything Israel says is taken at face value and parroted by the western media, but anything Palestinians say is scrutinized and cast doubt and smeared as "Hamas lies".
The only way that neither side can object is from international journalists. Guess what, they're not allowed in, lest the truth comes out.
The only way that neither side can object is from international journalists. Guess what, they're not allowed in, lest the truth comes out.
I don't know what you're reading, but on HN, almost nothing Israel says is taken at face value, everything Israel says is scrutinized and cast doubt upon. I don't see a lot of questioning of statements derived from Palestinians, Hamas, or Al Jazeera.
Almost no post on HN related to Israel remains unflagged.
Well this one isn't.
People flag articles because they disagree with them, but also because they just think the discussion may descend into uninformative yelling. My point concerned the discussions that do appear, rather than which articles make it through unflagged, but even there it appears they don't support the narrative of "only good things about Israel appear in the media."
There's a relevant discussion in this recent post from a couple weeks ago:
Ask HN: Are we allowed to discuss Israel on HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788
"We want to give the topic of Israel and Gaza fair exposure, as it's obviously an important story and it would feel wrong to pretend it's not happening. At the same time, every time we have one of these stories on the front page, it turns in to a hellish flamewar, we have to spend all day moderating it..."
People flag articles because they disagree with them, but also because they just think the discussion may descend into uninformative yelling. My point concerned the discussions that do appear, rather than which articles make it through unflagged, but even there it appears they don't support the narrative of "only good things about Israel appear in the media."
There's a relevant discussion in this recent post from a couple weeks ago:
Ask HN: Are we allowed to discuss Israel on HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788
"We want to give the topic of Israel and Gaza fair exposure, as it's obviously an important story and it would feel wrong to pretend it's not happening. At the same time, every time we have one of these stories on the front page, it turns in to a hellish flamewar, we have to spend all day moderating it..."
Correct, this one is a very rare exception. There's indeed multiple reasons that it happens. But it does happen to the huge majority of them.
They are allowed in, after which they're summarily executed by the IDF.
idiomat9000(2)
Last 5 years and especially last 3 years have been historical milestone for the developed world, and not in a good way. It spirals into something indistinguishable.
What was allowed to happen in Palestine has set a new standard for the value of human life and morals. It was not only set for the Palestinians but also for the other side and everyone else.
Perhaps this is no consolation to the victims, but the pendulum will continue to swing both ways as it always has. These monsters and their offspring will reap what they sowed. Humanity too will reap this reward.
Perhaps this is no consolation to the victims, but the pendulum will continue to swing both ways as it always has. These monsters and their offspring will reap what they sowed. Humanity too will reap this reward.
Nothing of the sort, imperialism and colonialism were hallmarks of the developed world. I think it's a good sign, actually, that this time, a significant part of the population saw through all the bullshit and propaganda we've been bombarded with in the last few years.
per a couple of articles [0][1]
- only 28% percent of members voted
- virtual discussion for resolution prior to voting was cancelled
- didn't allow dissenting opinions published on list serve
- The association has recently expanded its membership and there are little qualifications to become a member. The association had been mostly made up of scholars, but now includes figures like activists and artists,
- if somebody reads actual resolution, it reads like fine collection of tiktok videos.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-september-02-2025/#li...
- only 28% percent of members voted
- virtual discussion for resolution prior to voting was cancelled
- didn't allow dissenting opinions published on list serve
- The association has recently expanded its membership and there are little qualifications to become a member. The association had been mostly made up of scholars, but now includes figures like activists and artists,
- if somebody reads actual resolution, it reads like fine collection of tiktok videos.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3eyzdr63o
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-september-02-2025/#li...
Very interesting that you’re mixing two sources: one partially reputable and one entirely unreliable for this news.
And then you don’t make a distinction of which claim comes from where. The first claim comes from BBC, all the rest come from the second source. And best part? actual source for this is just one member saying stuff.
And then you don’t make a distinction of which claim comes from where. The first claim comes from BBC, all the rest come from the second source. And best part? actual source for this is just one member saying stuff.
Well the whole discussion is under an article by the source entirely unreliable for this news.
aljazeera is unreliable??
That "for this news" qualifier is important. I trust their reporting on most topics, but hating Israel is probably only thing that Muslim countries have in common and it will have an impact no matter how much they claim independence from Qatar government.
Still, I guess any source is better than Israel paid "There is no famine in Gaza" ads, that YouTube displays between investment scams.
Still, I guess any source is better than Israel paid "There is no famine in Gaza" ads, that YouTube displays between investment scams.
Citation required
This seems to happen a lot from what I've seen. When I saw Al Jazeera I already knew it would be biased.
Do you know any unbiased source? Any of these: BBC, NY Time, WSJ, CNN, MSN, The Guardian, NewsMax, MSDN...
There is no such thing. Everything is biased. In fact I don't know why so many people have an expectation for such things as "unbiased", "independent" anything to even exist. It is a lucky anomaly if you come across one.
anyone wondering, here's the actual resolution (which is basically a list of links)
https://genocidescholars.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/IAGS...
it doesn't seem like something that people need to vote on, there's no weighing of evidence, it's on the level of a beginner Wikipedia page
https://genocidescholars.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/IAGS...
it doesn't seem like something that people need to vote on, there's no weighing of evidence, it's on the level of a beginner Wikipedia page
You might be the only one who bothered to look at actual resolution
Related article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45097384
Leaked ‘Gaza Riviera’ plan dismissed as ‘insane’ attempt to cover ethnic cleansing
Leaked ‘Gaza Riviera’ plan dismissed as ‘insane’ attempt to cover ethnic cleansing
Aaand it's flagged/removed.
I can't understand just how is Israel able to deliver precision strikes in Iran basically landing explosives to key personnel bedrooms (which is impressive!), but w.r.t. Hamas -- allegedly a weaker adversary -- it just isn't possible! We have to end 60k people first.
Does anyone have some rational explanation?
Does anyone have some rational explanation?
If you look at the NY Times video shared above - the strikes are very precise. First they hit viewpoint/staircase favorited by journalists. Then 10min later they hit exactly the same spot with two separate strikes in a row.
There aren't many other rational explanations than that this is intended? Targeting journalists and then their rescue parties… oof
There aren't many other rational explanations than that this is intended? Targeting journalists and then their rescue parties… oof
They have access through software companies who actually provide security. Almost all western companies depend on security solutions (ex: endpoint & SOC providers, that means every electronic device including IoTs has some tracking enabled) provided by Israel founded companies. And we all know Israel seems to be not following rules, even though these security companies have some restrictions on access to customers data, there is no one stopping them from accessing these data in the name of support. Many security companies depend on Israel based employees. And often these employees are drop outs from high rank military intelligence or some family member in a high rank military positions. So if a supply chain has US companies, they have access to the companies data.
I am definitely guessing a lot. But the kind of intel they have makes me think they are illegally accessing these data somehow.
If this is true, think twice before using second hand devices. You might be mistaken for someone and unnecessarily targeted.
Note that you can’t basically avoid these companies. They codified using one of these companies in some US regulations. There are no alternatives between. Even though the companies themselves mention they are US based, most of critical technical stuff happens directly from Israel. There are basically no alternatives. They make rules, US follows.
If this is true, think twice before using second hand devices. You might be mistaken for someone and unnecessarily targeted.
Note that you can’t basically avoid these companies. They codified using one of these companies in some US regulations. There are no alternatives between. Even though the companies themselves mention they are US based, most of critical technical stuff happens directly from Israel. There are basically no alternatives. They make rules, US follows.
Could you provide a reference for the Israeli company in US regulations?
Compliance is driven by federal and state data protection laws (like HIPAA for healthcare or CCPA in California), industry standards (like NIST and CMMC). All companies are bound to follow these standards which is expected.
Like I mentioned these security companies identify themselves as US based, but all technical work is based in Israel. Like front office is US.
All I am saying is I am suspecting information leaks out of offices in Israel. Again this is suspicion. One of the theories on why Israel has all the intel it needs. Some information access illegally using some backdoor. Backdoor could be as simple as direct access through an existing employee who might be linked to Israel military intel.
Like I mentioned these security companies identify themselves as US based, but all technical work is based in Israel. Like front office is US.
All I am saying is I am suspecting information leaks out of offices in Israel. Again this is suspicion. One of the theories on why Israel has all the intel it needs. Some information access illegally using some backdoor. Backdoor could be as simple as direct access through an existing employee who might be linked to Israel military intel.
Section, man. Citation. Or give a name to search.
I already mentioned the standards that companies are supposed to follow for various reasons. Exact reason on why companies are supposed to follow these standards is immaterial. The point I am making is that these standards are not wrong, but all operations are based out of Israel and only front office and token work is being done with in US. When you have access to these critical security systems out in a country which uses questionable means for end goals, don’t you question how it gains abnormal amount of leverage against the worlds only super power.
For this reason, there is high probability that there is some level of misuse of the US data at these locations. Especially if the personal has links to Israel military in someway or other.
Starting point for your research into some US regulations for Defense contracts. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/15/2024-22...
Starting point for your research into some US regulations for Defense contracts. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/15/2024-22...
In Iran they mostly blew up stuff that's fixed in place, like the nuclear reactor.
Most stuff in Gaza that was fixed in place has been destroyed already.
Most stuff in Gaza that was fixed in place has been destroyed already.
A few thoughts,
- We don't really know the civilian casualty ratio for Gaza, but in seems somewhere in the normal range for urban wars (e.g. based on some losses Hamas admitted early in the conflict). The Iran strikes also harmed civilians, e.g. from a collapsed building in Nobonyad Square. If Israel had to repeat things 10,000x, we might have seen many collapsed buildings and it might start to resemble Gaza.
- Intelligence gathering methods that work for a few high-profile targets might not scale to a war against tens of thousands of combatants.
- Israel had the element of surprise against Iran, so the relevant targets were mostly not in bunkers/tunnels. They never did against Hamas.
- We don't really know the civilian casualty ratio for Gaza, but in seems somewhere in the normal range for urban wars (e.g. based on some losses Hamas admitted early in the conflict). The Iran strikes also harmed civilians, e.g. from a collapsed building in Nobonyad Square. If Israel had to repeat things 10,000x, we might have seen many collapsed buildings and it might start to resemble Gaza.
- Intelligence gathering methods that work for a few high-profile targets might not scale to a war against tens of thousands of combatants.
- Israel had the element of surprise against Iran, so the relevant targets were mostly not in bunkers/tunnels. They never did against Hamas.
Compare it to the 2022 Ukraine war. For more than a year almost all the fighting happened in densely populated areas, with many such shorter phases before and since.
And Soviet-stock bombs just aren't as precise and unguided rocket artillery even more so.
Yet after more than 3 years the number of civilian deaths and injured COMBINED just barely surpassed 50k recently.
And Soviet-stock bombs just aren't as precise and unguided rocket artillery even more so.
Yet after more than 3 years the number of civilian deaths and injured COMBINED just barely surpassed 50k recently.
Ukraine goes out of its way to evacuate civilians, who can flee to safer parts of their vast country, or to other countries which have collectively accepted something like 7 million Ukrainian refugees.
Gazans have none of that - they’re trapped in a tiny territory, no states are taking significant numbers of Gazan refugees, and Hamas isn’t doing anything for civilian safety.
Any differences in Israeli vs Russian military tactics are rather secondary to these fundamental differences in civilian exposure.
Gazans have none of that - they’re trapped in a tiny territory, no states are taking significant numbers of Gazan refugees, and Hamas isn’t doing anything for civilian safety.
Any differences in Israeli vs Russian military tactics are rather secondary to these fundamental differences in civilian exposure.
[flagged]
13,883 civilians died in Ukraine as a result of Russian invasion between 24 Feb. 2022 and 31 July 2025 according to United Nations. It's really easy to Google it.
The very same UN stresses that these numbers severely undercount due to lack of access to occupied territories and mostly reflect deaths in free Ukraine. The figures from the areas where most of the fighting has taken place remain unknown. Realistic estimates go far beyond the death toll in Gaza; people illegally conscripted from the occupied territories into the Russian armed forces alone add several tens of thousands more deaths.
On 11 April, Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boychenko stated that over 10,000 civilians had died in the Russian siege of Mariupol.[323] On 12 April, city officials reported that up to 20,000 civilians had been killed.[323] (this is 1 month into siege) On the same day, the Mayor of the city reported that about 21,000 civilians had been killed.[324] An updated Ukrainian death toll the following month put the number of civilians killed at at least 22,000.[325]
On August 29, President of Mariupol Television, volunteer and civil activist Mykola Osychenko said to Dnipro TV that, according to the insider information, 87,000 deaths have been currently documented in morgues in Mariupol. Besides, 26,750 bodies are buried in mass graves, and many more are buried in the yards of the apartment blocks and private houses, or still under the rubble.[326]
In early November, Ukraine stated that at least 25,000 civilians had been killed in Mariupol.[46][47] In late December, based on the discovery of 10,300 new mass graves, the Associated Press estimated that the true death toll may be up to three times that figure.[327] The Uppsala Conflict Data Program estimates of the total death toll resulting from the siege range from 27,000 to 88,000 fatalities, most of them civilians.[49]
just to put things into perspective, this siege lasted less than 3 months
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
On August 29, President of Mariupol Television, volunteer and civil activist Mykola Osychenko said to Dnipro TV that, according to the insider information, 87,000 deaths have been currently documented in morgues in Mariupol. Besides, 26,750 bodies are buried in mass graves, and many more are buried in the yards of the apartment blocks and private houses, or still under the rubble.[326]
In early November, Ukraine stated that at least 25,000 civilians had been killed in Mariupol.[46][47] In late December, based on the discovery of 10,300 new mass graves, the Associated Press estimated that the true death toll may be up to three times that figure.[327] The Uppsala Conflict Data Program estimates of the total death toll resulting from the siege range from 27,000 to 88,000 fatalities, most of them civilians.[49]
just to put things into perspective, this siege lasted less than 3 months
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
If you had quoted but one more sentence by accident, you might have included the study that counted individual graves in and around Mariupol:
"According to a 2023 study by Human Rights Watch and two other organizations, there were at least 8,034 excess deaths in Mariupol between March 2022 and February 2023."
"According to a 2023 study by Human Rights Watch and two other organizations, there were at least 8,034 excess deaths in Mariupol between March 2022 and February 2023."
[deleted]
[deleted]
cmurf(4)
Israel with the support of literally all of the West cannot cope with a bunch of poor muslims. I cannot understand it, outside of conspiracy. The same holds for any distant war between the USA and some medieval counties in the last 30 years. If I were in charge, I would obliterate the enemy with any means.
I saw paul graham tweeted "It's official. It's genocide." https://x.com/paulg/status/1962512489452618056
[deleted]
The overton window is shifting thank Jesus. We are on the brink of awakening.
AtlasBarfed(3)
No shit, Sherlock.
One aspect of this whole thing that doesn't get discussed enough is how Israel specifically arguing that genocide is okay when acting in situation of perceived danger puts into question the moral consensus we have regarding the Holocaust. As in, if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany?
Well, my personal opinion is obviously that both situations are abhorrent, but what I'm trying to point out the PR damage that Israel is doing to itself. I see two reasons why Israel might be okay with that:
1. They focus on short-term gains and they're acting irrationally
2. They know they'll always have US support because US needs them to do shady stuff in Middle East while at the same time they know that Arabs will always hate them anyway, so there's not much point trying to be the good guys. They don't care what Europe thinks because Europe won't be politically influential in foreseeable future anyway. By committing the genocide they confirm they're ready to do real dirty jobs, which is the core reason behind the US support in the first place.
I have a feeling that the part of Israel's wrath is that this whole war pretty much voided painstaking process of normalizing relations with Arabs. Therefore they thought "you know what, fuck this shit, if we can't have you like us we'll have you fear us". And that's how we ended up with a democratic country committing genocide.
The saddest thing is that the whole idea "it's 21st century, we won't do comically evil shit anymore" turned out to be a mirage, and as a species collectively we're not that far from ancient rulers massacring entire cities just for shits and giggles.
Well, my personal opinion is obviously that both situations are abhorrent, but what I'm trying to point out the PR damage that Israel is doing to itself. I see two reasons why Israel might be okay with that:
1. They focus on short-term gains and they're acting irrationally
2. They know they'll always have US support because US needs them to do shady stuff in Middle East while at the same time they know that Arabs will always hate them anyway, so there's not much point trying to be the good guys. They don't care what Europe thinks because Europe won't be politically influential in foreseeable future anyway. By committing the genocide they confirm they're ready to do real dirty jobs, which is the core reason behind the US support in the first place.
I have a feeling that the part of Israel's wrath is that this whole war pretty much voided painstaking process of normalizing relations with Arabs. Therefore they thought "you know what, fuck this shit, if we can't have you like us we'll have you fear us". And that's how we ended up with a democratic country committing genocide.
The saddest thing is that the whole idea "it's 21st century, we won't do comically evil shit anymore" turned out to be a mirage, and as a species collectively we're not that far from ancient rulers massacring entire cities just for shits and giggles.
I read Scott Aaronson's blog posts this week and he makes a seemingly similar argument, behind his tendency for heated rhetoric.
If the international community will barely lift a finger to resolve the I/P issue, then it is predictable and rational for Israel to take matters in their own hands and use violence (implemented as a "preemptive war") to "solve" their national security threat problem. It's a type of political realism argument to support this outcome. No appeal to a country being enlightened or democratic, etc., will work.
If the international community will barely lift a finger to resolve the I/P issue, then it is predictable and rational for Israel to take matters in their own hands and use violence (implemented as a "preemptive war") to "solve" their national security threat problem. It's a type of political realism argument to support this outcome. No appeal to a country being enlightened or democratic, etc., will work.
> if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany?
The jews in nazi germany were not threatening to annihilate the state and all the aryans. The palestinian leadership is threatening to do that to the zionists. The jews were not a perceived danger to the germans. Whether that makes genocide justified is certainly up for debate but it is very different from the justification for the holocaust.
The jews in nazi germany were not threatening to annihilate the state and all the aryans. The palestinian leadership is threatening to do that to the zionists. The jews were not a perceived danger to the germans. Whether that makes genocide justified is certainly up for debate but it is very different from the justification for the holocaust.
The matter is complicated by the fact that the israeli leadership is, in equal measure, threatening to annihilate the palestinian state and all the palestinians, and is, even at this moment, actively doing so.
Any genocide threatens to annihilate the state and all its people. Certainly the nazis were attempting to do this to the jews. Not sure how that complicates anything. The question is if there is any situation where genocide is justified.
> The question is if there is any situation where genocide is justified.
And the answer is: no, there is not any situation where israel's genocide of Palestinians is justified.
Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide would like you to believe that is up for debate, but it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate.
Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative.
And the answer is: no, there is not any situation where israel's genocide of Palestinians is justified.
Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide would like you to believe that is up for debate, but it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate.
Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative.
so Israel just has to live with terrorist attacks until the end of time? I dont see how else they can ensure their own safety from rockets.
At the end of the day everything is up for debate. I tend to agree with you that the answer is "yes, israel has to live terrorist attacks until the end of time", but to say that it isnt even up for debate is crazy.
At the end of the day everything is up for debate. I tend to agree with you that the answer is "yes, israel has to live terrorist attacks until the end of time", but to say that it isnt even up for debate is crazy.
Your question is flawed in that it assumes that israel deserves security from Palestine in greater measure than Palestine deserves security from israel, which it does not. They are two co-equal countries, equally deserving of existence, with both the countries and their citizens possessing equal rights equally deserving of respect and consideration. Neither can justifiably commit genocide, but only israel is doing so.
Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide (along with their supporters) would like you to believe that 'at the end of the day, anything is up for debate', including whether literal *genocide* is ok, but of course, it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate (and are thus the judge of whether it is debatable). Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative. Like, that tiny minority with a vested interest in it being up for debate *would* claim that it's up for debate, wouldn't they? But at the end of the day, the debates were already had, and the outcome is the international laws against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all of which israel is perpetrating. Thus, there is no plausible justification.
If there was, then as mentioned above, Germany would have had the same right of action in perpetrating the holocaust. Of course, that is despicable to imagine, just as it is despicable to hear israel echo nazi rhetoric: when explaining how their genocide is righteous because they are the chosen people; and their victims deserve it because they're lesser, they're not even people, they're "animals"; and certainly they must protect themselves from animals, and of course that means cleansing the land of the animals and availing themselves of their god-given right to rule over it in ethno-religious supremacy forever.
Yeah, it was gross when nazi germany asserted it and it's gross that israel asserts the exact same thing. Never again means never again.
Of course, those violating international law and committing genocide (along with their supporters) would like you to believe that 'at the end of the day, anything is up for debate', including whether literal *genocide* is ok, but of course, it isn't, according to the majority of the people who would engage in such a debate (and are thus the judge of whether it is debatable). Indeed, a tiny fraction of all countries debating a thing doesn't make it debatable, but it does tell you which 2 or 3 countries out of 190+ equal ones are particularly argumentative. Like, that tiny minority with a vested interest in it being up for debate *would* claim that it's up for debate, wouldn't they? But at the end of the day, the debates were already had, and the outcome is the international laws against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all of which israel is perpetrating. Thus, there is no plausible justification.
If there was, then as mentioned above, Germany would have had the same right of action in perpetrating the holocaust. Of course, that is despicable to imagine, just as it is despicable to hear israel echo nazi rhetoric: when explaining how their genocide is righteous because they are the chosen people; and their victims deserve it because they're lesser, they're not even people, they're "animals"; and certainly they must protect themselves from animals, and of course that means cleansing the land of the animals and availing themselves of their god-given right to rule over it in ethno-religious supremacy forever.
Yeah, it was gross when nazi germany asserted it and it's gross that israel asserts the exact same thing. Never again means never again.
> They are two co-equal countries
Palestine is not a country.
> it assumes that israel deserves security from Palestine in greater measure than Palestine deserves security from israel
I dont think anyone deserves anything. Natural rights are as real as religion. Everything we have we had to fight tirelessly for. All the rights we have we created. So questions of who deserves what are absurd. The question is, is it is moral for me to force israel to put up for terrorism. I certainly dont think its moral to force the palestinians to put up with terrorism, but Im not doing that. I have no problem with them trying to stop israel from oppressing them, the issue is they cant, and every time they try they make things worse for themselves. It is hard for me to say people arent justified in defending themselves.
The holocaust had nothing to do with the nazis defending themselves. I agree a lot of the israeli electorate is just racist but a considerable part of it just wants to feel safe and, probably correctly, thinks the only way to accomplish that is not letting the palestinians live close to them. The palestinians feel the same way for what its worth, they are just unable to act on those feelings.
Palestine is not a country.
> it assumes that israel deserves security from Palestine in greater measure than Palestine deserves security from israel
I dont think anyone deserves anything. Natural rights are as real as religion. Everything we have we had to fight tirelessly for. All the rights we have we created. So questions of who deserves what are absurd. The question is, is it is moral for me to force israel to put up for terrorism. I certainly dont think its moral to force the palestinians to put up with terrorism, but Im not doing that. I have no problem with them trying to stop israel from oppressing them, the issue is they cant, and every time they try they make things worse for themselves. It is hard for me to say people arent justified in defending themselves.
The holocaust had nothing to do with the nazis defending themselves. I agree a lot of the israeli electorate is just racist but a considerable part of it just wants to feel safe and, probably correctly, thinks the only way to accomplish that is not letting the palestinians live close to them. The palestinians feel the same way for what its worth, they are just unable to act on those feelings.
> Palestine is not a country.
Of course it is: "As of March 2025, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 76% of all UN members" [0]. Yes, the world has decided that Palestine is a country, just like it did for israel, and the few countries that don't like it can sit and stew, because their feelings on the matter have been voiced, heard, and outvoted. Indeed, any argument that Palestine is not a country applies equally to israel, and disclaiming the existence of Palestine as a country is at least as vile as disclaiming the existence of israel as a country. What does israel call people who do that?
> I dont think anyone deserves anything.
Nihilism is a valid opinion to hold, but while I'm sure you're a good person, what any 1 person in the world thinks, is a fraction of a billionth as relevant as what the majority of countries think, and the latter is clearly codified in international law. In short, the debate of "does anyone deserve anything?" was already held, the side of "no" lost, and the world doesn't currently seem interested in israel's desire to re-debate the matter.
> The question is, is it is moral for me to force israel to put up for terrorism
That is a question, sure. An equal question that must be addressed simultaneously is, is it moral for us to force Palestine to put up with israel's terrorism? They are, after all, 2 co-equal countries with equal rights.
> The holocaust had nothing to do with the nazis defending themselves.
Likewise, israel's holocaust of innocent Palestininan civilians has nothing to do with protecting itself. The unconvincing claims of self-defense israel has made, exactly mirror the unconvincing claims of self-defense that nazi germany made: In both cases, the genociders have claimed their genocide is righteous because they are the chosen people; and their victims deserve it because they're lesser, they're not even people, they're "animals" (quoting both israel and nazi germany here); and certainly the chosen people must defend themselves from animals, and of course that means cleansing the land of the animals and availing themselves of their god-given right to rule over it in ethno-religious supremacy forever.
That doesn't sound like "self-defense" to me. Never again means never again.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_P...
Of course it is: "As of March 2025, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 76% of all UN members" [0]. Yes, the world has decided that Palestine is a country, just like it did for israel, and the few countries that don't like it can sit and stew, because their feelings on the matter have been voiced, heard, and outvoted. Indeed, any argument that Palestine is not a country applies equally to israel, and disclaiming the existence of Palestine as a country is at least as vile as disclaiming the existence of israel as a country. What does israel call people who do that?
> I dont think anyone deserves anything.
Nihilism is a valid opinion to hold, but while I'm sure you're a good person, what any 1 person in the world thinks, is a fraction of a billionth as relevant as what the majority of countries think, and the latter is clearly codified in international law. In short, the debate of "does anyone deserve anything?" was already held, the side of "no" lost, and the world doesn't currently seem interested in israel's desire to re-debate the matter.
> The question is, is it is moral for me to force israel to put up for terrorism
That is a question, sure. An equal question that must be addressed simultaneously is, is it moral for us to force Palestine to put up with israel's terrorism? They are, after all, 2 co-equal countries with equal rights.
> The holocaust had nothing to do with the nazis defending themselves.
Likewise, israel's holocaust of innocent Palestininan civilians has nothing to do with protecting itself. The unconvincing claims of self-defense israel has made, exactly mirror the unconvincing claims of self-defense that nazi germany made: In both cases, the genociders have claimed their genocide is righteous because they are the chosen people; and their victims deserve it because they're lesser, they're not even people, they're "animals" (quoting both israel and nazi germany here); and certainly the chosen people must defend themselves from animals, and of course that means cleansing the land of the animals and availing themselves of their god-given right to rule over it in ethno-religious supremacy forever.
That doesn't sound like "self-defense" to me. Never again means never again.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_P...
You are not a country if you have no sovereignty over your land. Anyone calling palestine a country is not being honest, they know it is not true. At best it is a colony of israel.
> An equal question that must be addressed simultaneously is, is it moral for us to force Palestine to put up with israel's terrorism?
I agree this is a good question. I really dont think its quite as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. The claims Israel makes about their safety are very convincing imo. The palesinians were launching rockets non stop after the israelis left gaza. The nazis never faced any threat like that from the jews. I still am against the genocide but brushing off israeli concerns is a large reason for why they found a genocide to be necessary. Of course you will turn that around as more evidence from why israel is evil but maybe it would be more productive if you tried to see things in their shoes. They have all the power here so any conclusion has to be one they accept.
> An equal question that must be addressed simultaneously is, is it moral for us to force Palestine to put up with israel's terrorism?
I agree this is a good question. I really dont think its quite as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. The claims Israel makes about their safety are very convincing imo. The palesinians were launching rockets non stop after the israelis left gaza. The nazis never faced any threat like that from the jews. I still am against the genocide but brushing off israeli concerns is a large reason for why they found a genocide to be necessary. Of course you will turn that around as more evidence from why israel is evil but maybe it would be more productive if you tried to see things in their shoes. They have all the power here so any conclusion has to be one they accept.
[deleted]
anramon(1)
daft_pink(4)
Mk2000(3)
SilverElfin(1)
ciconia(2)
DataDaemon(6)
novateg(1)
genocidal(2)
strathmeyer(4)
hereme888(2)
Was there a threshold as to why it wasn't one last month, for example.
The resolution is an outcome of a process descibed in this organization's bylaws. Quoting:
ARTICLE 6. Resolutions A. Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot. For a proposed resolution to pass, voting must have been undertaken by a quorum of more than 20% (20% plus 1) of paid up IAGS members at the time of the vote.
B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.
C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President and the Executive Board for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Boardwhether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.
D. After consulting with the Advisory Board, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote within two weeks of submission by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least thirty days before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of thirty days of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS.
ARTICLE 6. Resolutions A. Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot. For a proposed resolution to pass, voting must have been undertaken by a quorum of more than 20% (20% plus 1) of paid up IAGS members at the time of the vote.
B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.
C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President and the Executive Board for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Boardwhether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.
D. After consulting with the Advisory Board, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote within two weeks of submission by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least thirty days before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of thirty days of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS.
Ah, got it. Thanks.
Why wouldn't they? Nobody is stopping them, and it benefits them to remove a traditional enemy population. The sorts of people who seek to lead nations tend to only have performative ethics: if it benefits them to appear ethical, they'll behave ethically.
- Use ChatGPT to get a list of landmarks in Gaza (historical, religious, medical, educational...)
- Find the wikipedia for a landmark (hit or miss), and copy the coordinates from the upper right hand corner
- Open "Google Earth" and paste the coordinates
- Use the "Show historical imagery" button to compare the 2023 image to the most recent
You'll see with your own eyes that the majority of all notable landmarks are just about destroyed, obviously targeted, and most of the google earth images are at least a year old.
Every single university ChatGPT lists as the top 5 in gaza are gone. And you can see from the historical images that these were very nice, well-groomed campuses. All of the greenery is gone. I had heard it beforehand, but this process of self-discovery with google earth hit a little bit different