Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But you dont debate honestly, thats an issue. You regurgitating things you read, which is fine but, in the main, it does not seem to be in support of your argument it just appears to be your 'whole' argument. And yes you do credit lots of your 'points', but you just dont give anything which seems to suggest you have thought about it. It's like original thought passes you by. I've tried to ask you questions in generic form, to establish what you consider is the scope of proportionality for you, yet you ignore this. You then respond with some barbed comment about the poster, me in this case, or you respond with some facts and figures which you think will deflect from the questions asked of you. I know you will ignore this but let's start simply. Would you kill someone you knew was about to kill someone you loved and if you didnt act then this would come to pass? If you would, to protect your loved ones life, then add another person into the question, so would you kill 2? Keep doing this until you wouldn't do this anymore and give me a that number. Then we could examine it further, this is when facts, figures and other people's opinions, theories and philosophies can be discussed. As we are talking about civilians, now ask yourself how many people would you be prepared to die to save your loved ones life. So in this instance you are not killing but its a question of collateral damage. Use the same formula and then we can debate from there. Then we have to add in context and thats were original thought really comes into play. You want to play or am I just 'spirraling' again haha, Mrs x" The first half of your post is drivel but you raise interesting questions in the second half. One problem is that you are assuming that it's possible to see into the future. In reality we make judgements based on probability not certainty about future events. If the judged probability is high enough then we arrive at conclusions that are strong enough to take decisions like killing people, but it's never clear cut because the future is always uncertain. On the distinction between someone loved and someone else. I agree that we value different people depending on their closeness, but the curve seems much steeper for people on the right than the left. I think empathy distribution is a key difference between the left and right with it being flatter for people on the left. To me someone else's three year old child has a similar value to my own son when he was three. If I was put in a hypothetical situation where I was forced to pick which one would have to die then I'd pick the other but it would be a difficult choice ethically as the other child would have as equal a right to life as my own. Such decisions are difficult value judgements. For instance in a situation where I had to choose whether a 90 year old person or a 10 year old person had to die I would choose the 90 year old because the 10 year old potentially has a much longer life in front of them, but again this is difficult because a 90 year old has the same right to life as a 10 year old. If the probability that X number of people are going to kill someone I love is so high that it's virtually certain then I would kill them to save my loved one. The value of X wouldn't really matter except in that the higher X is the more certain I would need to be that they were all evil and intent on killing an innocent and I had no other options. In practice there is never going to be a situation where I'm going to have to decide whether to kill large numbers of people. If however I had to choose to kill X number of innocents in order to save a loved one then it would be really difficult. How many other childrens's lives are worth my child's life is a question that I can't really answer. X wouldn't be an unlimited number. If faced with such a dilemma I would opt for suicide. Returning to the more practical realm, in the context of Gaza would I kill 20,000 children to potentially reduce the risk of my own child being killed in a future terrorist attack? No. I think the view of many on the pro-IDF right about civilians is that they don't really see them as civilians. They view them as on one side or another. So if a Palestinian terrorist is hiding in a building full of Palestinian civilians then the choice to bomb the building would be easier than if the building was full of Israeli civilians. Maybe you think all civilians are of equal value and you'd find both scenarios equally unacceptable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" On the distinction between someone loved and someone else. I agree that we value different people depending on their closeness, but the curve seems much steeper for people on the right than the left. I think empathy distribution is a key difference between the left and right with it being flatter for people on the left. " On what basis did you reach this ridiculous conclusion? Data in the US for example, shows that Republican voters give more money for charity than the Democrats, even after adjusting for income differences. The left talks a lot about empathy. That doesn't make them empathetic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On what basis did you reach this ridiculous conclusion? Data in the US for example, shows that Republican voters give more money for charity than the Democrats, even after adjusting for income differences. The left talks a lot about empathy. That doesn't make them empathetic." We've already discussed this. At least try to add something novel to your posts else I'm just going to skip over anything you write in future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On what basis did you reach this ridiculous conclusion? Data in the US for example, shows that Republican voters give more money for charity than the Democrats, even after adjusting for income differences. The left talks a lot about empathy. That doesn't make them empathetic. We've already discussed this. At least try to add something novel to your posts else I'm just going to skip over anything you write in future. " I gave evidence to support my case. Much better compared to the ridiculous essay you posted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But you dont debate honestly, thats an issue. You regurgitating things you read, which is fine but, in the main, it does not seem to be in support of your argument it just appears to be your 'whole' argument. And yes you do credit lots of your 'points', but you just dont give anything which seems to suggest you have thought about it. It's like original thought passes you by. I've tried to ask you questions in generic form, to establish what you consider is the scope of proportionality for you, yet you ignore this. You then respond with some barbed comment about the poster, me in this case, or you respond with some facts and figures which you think will deflect from the questions asked of you. I know you will ignore this but let's start simply. Would you kill someone you knew was about to kill someone you loved and if you didnt act then this would come to pass? If you would, to protect your loved ones life, then add another person into the question, so would you kill 2? Keep doing this until you wouldn't do this anymore and give me a that number. Then we could examine it further, this is when facts, figures and other people's opinions, theories and philosophies can be discussed. As we are talking about civilians, now ask yourself how many people would you be prepared to die to save your loved ones life. So in this instance you are not killing but its a question of collateral damage. Use the same formula and then we can debate from there. Then we have to add in context and thats were original thought really comes into play. You want to play or am I just 'spirraling' again haha, Mrs x The first half of your post is drivel but you raise interesting questions in the second half. One problem is that you are assuming that it's possible to see into the future. In reality we make judgements based on probability not certainty about future events. If the judged probability is high enough then we arrive at conclusions that are strong enough to take decisions like killing people, but it's never clear cut because the future is always uncertain. On the distinction between someone loved and someone else. I agree that we value different people depending on their closeness, but the curve seems much steeper for people on the right than the left. I think empathy distribution is a key difference between the left and right with it being flatter for people on the left. To me someone else's three year old child has a similar value to my own son when he was three. If I was put in a hypothetical situation where I was forced to pick which one would have to die then I'd pick the other but it would be a difficult choice ethically as the other child would have as equal a right to life as my own. Such decisions are difficult value judgements. For instance in a situation where I had to choose whether a 90 year old person or a 10 year old person had to die I would choose the 90 year old because the 10 year old potentially has a much longer life in front of them, but again this is difficult because a 90 year old has the same right to life as a 10 year old. If the probability that X number of people are going to kill someone I love is so high that it's virtually certain then I would kill them to save my loved one. The value of X wouldn't really matter except in that the higher X is the more certain I would need to be that they were all evil and intent on killing an innocent and I had no other options. In practice there is never going to be a situation where I'm going to have to decide whether to kill large numbers of people. If however I had to choose to kill X number of innocents in order to save a loved one then it would be really difficult. How many other childrens's lives are worth my child's life is a question that I can't really answer. X wouldn't be an unlimited number. If faced with such a dilemma I would opt for suicide. Returning to the more practical realm, in the context of Gaza would I kill 20,000 children to potentially reduce the risk of my own child being killed in a future terrorist attack? No. I think the view of many on the pro-IDF right about civilians is that they don't really see them as civilians. They view them as on one side or another. So if a Palestinian terrorist is hiding in a building full of Palestinian civilians then the choice to bomb the building would be easier than if the building was full of Israeli civilians. Maybe you think all civilians are of equal value and you'd find both scenarios equally unacceptable? " Oh well who is an unhappy chappy then haha , starting a thread just to have a chance to respond to what I've said. And your use of baiting, saying what I've written is drivel, is quite frankly pathetic, but not unexpected. I will not stoop to such levels by saying you chat shite at times, not matter how much this stinks. A man of your age should really know better but thats me, making assumptions again, in that you are a nice guy but I could be wrong. Can I ask why you are talking about probability and why accuse me of asking you to look into the future? I never asked you to do this. I asked you would you kill to save your loved one, and if you would then would you kill 2, 3 etc. I did this as the start of a discussion about proportionality. So I am puzzled as to why you talk about killing children personally because I never asked this. I asked what your thoughts were on collateral damage involving children. So not you killing children, but children dying in the course of your loved one being saved. But you, again, did not seem to want to answer this. You appeared to just want to discuss whatever further your narrative. I could be making an assumption though and maybe you've just misread my drivel. There's a third option, in that maybe you can read but cannot understand things you read but I wont say that, because its cheap and nasty, so I'll leave that to some of the elderly guys on here. Im a bit saddened to hear about your willingness to sacrifice your grandparents should the collateral damage involve a 10 year old. Would that change if you knew he'd been radicalised since birth and was holding an automatic weapon? Your poor Nan, a woman that helped meringue you up and you'd discard her so easily, just because her time was almost up. Based up your writing and obvious procrastination, most of it off topic, its clear you will never have to kill anyone because by the time you take to make your mind up they'll be a goner, by the time you ask the Internet for an answer theyll have already had their funeral service. Just watch out though, dont verbalise your thought process because that bound to cause fatalities through pure boredom. And stop going on about 20,000 civilian casualties as an example of proportionality. You once said people cannot visualise this but in fact they can. It's one stand of a major football stadium, with the other stands empty. Im not being callous but thats the size of it. Were the Brits disproportionate when they helped kill millions of German civilians in WW2? This is enough to fill, to capacity, every stadium in this country. And most people think the that war was just, that Churchill was the greatest person in the 20th century and all that for a war that didnt start with any casualties for the UK, just one country crossing a border into a country that Nritain had promised to protect. Israel loses far greater a percentage of its population than the USA did at Pearl Harbour and the USA then play their partin killing millions of Germans and Japanese. The Americans and the West as a while view this as more than justifiable but again Israel, suffering greater loss and causing far fewer casualties, are pillorised. Ask yourself why? Oh yeah, is it because the Yanks and the Brits weren't Jewish, it can't be that simple can it. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I will not stoop to such levels by saying you chat shite at times, no matter how much this stinks." You just announced a desired standard for debate — and broke it in the same sentence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I will not stoop to such levels by saying you chat shite at times, no matter how much this stinks. You just announced a desired standard for debate — and broke it in the same sentence." I said I WOULdN'T say he chats shite and I haven't. And in the previous thread you accused me of saying you used AI and I did no such thing. You jumped into the middle of a chat between myself and another were I said it appeared they used AI. When I responded to your comments I never said you were disingenuous or anything. I simply pointed out that tge use of AI is disingenuous. Do you have issues with reading whats been written or understanding what others say. If you do I apologise in advance, if not it helps everyone if you respond to the actual discourse and not what you perceive the discourse to be, it makes it less confusing and boring for everyone concerned. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I said I WOULdN'T say he chats shite and I haven't. And in the previous thread you accused me of saying you used AI and I did no such thing. You jumped into the middle of a chat between myself and another were I said it appeared they used AI. When I responded to your comments I never said you were disingenuous or anything. I simply pointed out that tge use of AI is disingenuous. Do you have issues with reading whats been written or understanding what others say. If you do I apologise in advance, if not it helps everyone if you respond to the actual discourse and not what you perceive the discourse to be, it makes it less confusing and boring for everyone concerned. Mrs x" I won’t say you chat shite” is saying it. That’s called paralipsis — a rhetorical move where someone claims not to say something while doing exactly that. And as for this: “Do you have issues with reading what’s been written or understanding what others say?” — I read your post perfectly well. I never said you accused me of using AI. I criticised your argument about AI in general. If you’re going to correct someone, it helps to quote what was actually said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I said I WOULdN'T say he chats shite and I haven't. And in the previous thread you accused me of saying you used AI and I did no such thing. You jumped into the middle of a chat between myself and another were I said it appeared they used AI. When I responded to your comments I never said you were disingenuous or anything. I simply pointed out that tge use of AI is disingenuous. Do you have issues with reading whats been written or understanding what others say. If you do I apologise in advance, if not it helps everyone if you respond to the actual discourse and not what you perceive the discourse to be, it makes it less confusing and boring for everyone concerned. Mrs x I won’t say you chat shite” is saying it. That’s called paralipsis — a rhetorical move where someone claims not to say something while doing exactly that. And as for this: “Do you have issues with reading what’s been written or understanding what others say?” — I read your post perfectly well. I never said you accused me of using AI. I criticised your argument about AI in general. If you’re going to correct someone, it helps to quote what was actually said." Yes you did... 'You keep assuming I ask AI for opinions when I’ve said from the start that I use it to refine and double-check my own. I tell it what I think first, then look at info that supports or challenges it — same as anyone using Google or a library. The way you keep misrepresenting that says more about your assumptions than about how I actually use it. But I thought we were returning to focus on the deaths' That was your last post on the previous thread. So everyone can see that YOU DID accuse me of saying that I accused you of using AI. It's literally in the first sentence of your last post, when you said '...You keep assuming I ask AI for opinions'. It's literally laughable, unless not only do you have problems reading but also problems with your memory, and if you do I'm sorry but it looks a little dishonest if you haven't. Just saying, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you’re going to correct someone, it helps to quote what was actually said." Absolutely spot on and if you could only follow this sage advice that would be great haha, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oops — you’re right, I did say you accused me of using AI. Silly chemo brain. But that’s because you did — you replied directly to me with: “But passing it off as your own opinion is disingenuous… When someone uses it, it’s available to everyone should they decide to look something up, or ask it a question and therefore it’s quite easy to spot.” That wasn’t aimed at “someone else”; it was a direct response to my post defending AI as an accessibility tool. So if I misread that as being about me, it’s because you quite literally framed it that way." No thats you misreading what I wrote. I never said it was you, I was pointing out that... 'When someone uses it, it’s available to everyone should they decide to look something up, or ask it a question and therefore it’s quite easy to spot.” That 'someone' being the person who I was suggesting appeared to use AI. This same person you decided to defend and thus I responded to you. If I had meant you I would have said... "When 'YOU' uses it...", but I didnt did I. I can't be held to account for some lack of comprehension. You could have asked for clarification if you were confused but you just chose to attack me not the post. You then double down on this with your memory issue, you couldn't write this, its comedy gold. Don't make it so easy, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You replied directly to me and quoted my post, so it’s not unreasonable that I read your words as being aimed at me. If that wasn’t your intent, then that’s a clarity issue — it’s on the writer to be clear, not the reader to guess. And that little “memory issue” jab isn’t debate, it’s condescension dressed up as humour. You can disagree without resorting to ad hominem." No its not on the writer, thats just bullshit. On all of my studies at every level I had to raise my level of comprehension to understand whats being written. This level of difficulty in understanding academic texts is just one reason we are not all experts in Quantum Mechanics. What a stupid statement to make. When they say its not Rocket Science, they mean something is easy. When it is 'actual' Rocket Science, its fucking hard. You need to raise your game rather than asking anyone to lower theirs. And I'm not attacking you personally, I'm genuinely concerned about your memory if, literally, you forgot what you said in your last post on this matter. You continue to double down on this but its not strengthening your position here, take a breath Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its not on the writer, thats just bullshit. On all of my studies at every level I had to raise my level of comprehension to understand whats being written. This level of difficulty in understanding academic texts is just one reason we are not all experts in Quantum Mechanics. What a stupid statement to make. When they say its not Rocket Science, they mean something is easy. When it is 'actual' Rocket Science, its fucking hard. You need to raise your game rather than asking anyone to lower theirs. And I'm not attacking you personally, I'm genuinely concerned about your memory if, literally, you forgot what you said in your last post on this matter. You continue to double down on this but its not strengthening your position here, take a breath Mrs x " If your point genuinely depended on precision, you’d have written it clearly in the first place instead of blaming the reader afterward. Good communication isn’t about “lowering” or “raising” anyone’s level — it’s about clarity. Despite what you may think from your uninformed assumptions, chemo brain doesn’t make me any less intelligent. It just causes occasional memory issues and makes getting complex thoughts from brain to text more difficult — hence using tools to help structure them. My mistake earlier was assuming that when you said you hadn’t been talking directly to me, that was actually true, instead of re-reading the previous posts and verifying for myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its not on the writer, thats just bullshit. On all of my studies at every level I had to raise my level of comprehension to understand whats being written. This level of difficulty in understanding academic texts is just one reason we are not all experts in Quantum Mechanics. What a stupid statement to make. When they say its not Rocket Science, they mean something is easy. When it is 'actual' Rocket Science, its fucking hard. You need to raise your game rather than asking anyone to lower theirs. And I'm not attacking you personally, I'm genuinely concerned about your memory if, literally, you forgot what you said in your last post on this matter. You continue to double down on this but its not strengthening your position here, take a breath Mrs x If your point genuinely depended on precision, you’d have written it clearly in the first place instead of blaming the reader afterward. Good communication isn’t about “lowering” or “raising” anyone’s level — it’s about clarity. Despite what you may think from your uninformed assumptions, chemo brain doesn’t make me any less intelligent. It just causes occasional memory issues and makes getting complex thoughts from brain to text more difficult — hence using tools to help structure them. My mistake earlier was assuming that when you said you hadn’t been talking directly to me, that was actually true, instead of re-reading the previous posts and verifying for myself. " I'm not sure of your academic experience. However I do know that in every subject I've studied, especially the higher up you go, students are encouraged to ask for clarification if they are unsure of the subject matter, no matter how its delivered. Students cannot ask for papers to be re-marked because their low classification was due to their lack of comprehension. You could have asked for clarification but you didnt, thats on you. I would gladly have discussed you misreading, just like I am now, but you chose to attack rather then enquire, something you are continuing to do. Even after you've had your own words quoted back to you proving my point. An apology would go a long way but this doubling down really needs to stop. It's making you look silly. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure of your academic experience. However I do know that in every subject I've studied, especially the higher up you go, students are encouraged to ask for clarification if they are unsure of the subject matter, no matter how its delivered. Students cannot ask for papers to be re-marked because their low classification was due to their lack of comprehension. You could have asked for clarification but you didnt, thats on you. I would gladly have discussed you misreading, just like I am now, but you chose to attack rather then enquire, something you are continuing to do. Even after you've had your own words quoted back to you proving my point. An apology would go a long way but this doubling down really needs to stop. It's making you look silly. Mrs x" You’re framing your lack of clarity as my failure to understand, which isn’t how communication works. Everyone — regardless of “academic experience” — has a responsibility to write clearly if they expect to be understood. And when someone explains that they have memory or fatigue issues from medical treatment, mocking or belittling them isn’t “debate.” It’s just disrespectful, and it derails the actual discussion. I’ve responded directly to your words and stayed on topic. That’s how dialogue works — point, counterpoint, clarification. If you read that as hostility, that says more about how you’re choosing to interpret disagreement than about what was written. Or is there an issue with the clarity of what I said? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh well who is an unhappy chappy then haha , starting a thread just to have a chance to respond to what I've said. And your use of baiting, saying what I've written is drivel, is quite frankly pathetic, but not unexpected. I will not stoop to such levels by saying you chat shite at times, not matter how much this stinks. A man of your age should really know better but thats me, making assumptions again, in that you are a nice guy but I could be wrong. Can I ask why you are talking about probability and why accuse me of asking you to look into the future? I never asked you to do this. I asked you would you kill to save your loved one, and if you would then would you kill 2, 3 etc. I did this as the start of a discussion about proportionality. So I am puzzled as to why you talk about killing children personally because I never asked this. I asked what your thoughts were on collateral damage involving children. So not you killing children, but children dying in the course of your loved one being saved. But you, again, did not seem to want to answer this. You appeared to just want to discuss whatever further your narrative. I could be making an assumption though and maybe you've just misread my drivel. There's a third option, in that maybe you can read but cannot understand things you read but I wont say that, because its cheap and nasty, so I'll leave that to some of the elderly guys on here. Im a bit saddened to hear about your willingness to sacrifice your grandparents should the collateral damage involve a 10 year old. Would that change if you knew he'd been radicalised since birth and was holding an automatic weapon? Your poor Nan, a woman that helped meringue you up and you'd discard her so easily, just because her time was almost up. Based up your writing and obvious procrastination, most of it off topic, its clear you will never have to kill anyone because by the time you take to make your mind up they'll be a goner, by the time you ask the Internet for an answer theyll have already had their funeral service. Just watch out though, dont verbalise your thought process because that bound to cause fatalities through pure boredom. And stop going on about 20,000 civilian casualties as an example of proportionality. You once said people cannot visualise this but in fact they can. It's one stand of a major football stadium, with the other stands empty. Im not being callous but thats the size of it. Were the Brits disproportionate when they helped kill millions of German civilians in WW2? This is enough to fill, to capacity, every stadium in this country. And most people think the that war was just, that Churchill was the greatest person in the 20th century and all that for a war that didnt start with any casualties for the UK, just one country crossing a border into a country that Nritain had promised to protect. Israel loses far greater a percentage of its population than the USA did at Pearl Harbour and the USA then play their partin killing millions of Germans and Japanese. The Americans and the West as a while view this as more than justifiable but again Israel, suffering greater loss and causing far fewer casualties, are pillorised. Ask yourself why? Oh yeah, is it because the Yanks and the Brits weren't Jewish, it can't be that simple can it. Mrs x" I take back what I said about your posts never being amusing. Your recent efforts have been very entertaining. They are also useful object lessons in how not to debate. I talked about probability because your questions were about preventing a potential event from happening. These questions only make sense in reference to the future and the future is uncertain. I spoke about killing directly as it clarifies the ethical argument, involving a third party and their potential agency just muddies the water. My point about the 90 year old and 10 year old was in the context of all other things being equal. This is the norm in debate. On procrastination, I try to think carefully about things. If you consider this to be a character flaw then I assume you prefer people to be unthinking and impulsive. I mention the 20,000 children killed by the IDF because there isn't any rational argument to support them killing 20,000 children. WWII is a large complex subject and I can make various arguments about it. We debated this some time ago with you being in favour of the mass killings of civilians and me being against if you remember. The Palestinians have suffered far greater losses than the Israelis but you don't seem to recognise this. Instead you roll out the tired old antisemitism trope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Palestinians have suffered far greater losses than the Israelis but you don't seem to recognise this. Instead you roll out the tired old antisemitism trope. " Maybe because the Israelis used the iron dome as a shield and Hamas has used civilians | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure of your academic experience. However I do know that in every subject I've studied, especially the higher up you go, students are encouraged to ask for clarification if they are unsure of the subject matter, no matter how its delivered. Students cannot ask for papers to be re-marked because their low classification was due to their lack of comprehension. You could have asked for clarification but you didnt, thats on you. I would gladly have discussed you misreading, just like I am now, but you chose to attack rather then enquire, something you are continuing to do. Even after you've had your own words quoted back to you proving my point. An apology would go a long way but this doubling down really needs to stop. It's making you look silly. Mrs x You’re framing your lack of clarity as my failure to understand, which isn’t how communication works. Everyone — regardless of “academic experience” — has a responsibility to write clearly if they expect to be understood. And when someone explains that they have memory or fatigue issues from medical treatment, mocking or belittling them isn’t “debate.” It’s just disrespectful, and it derails the actual discussion. I’ve responded directly to your words and stayed on topic. That’s how dialogue works — point, counterpoint, clarification. If you read that as hostility, that says more about how you’re choosing to interpret disagreement than about what was written. Or is there an issue with the clarity of what I said?" I did write clearly, show me were I didn't. Also show me were I've mocked you medical issues. You state you have these and that they cause you memory issues. So when I say im worried about your memory I mean it. So instead of saying you have memory issues you decide to go down the clarity route instead, yet im saying my posts were clear. Now I'm sorry you have medical issues but your bringing them up doesn't mean my arguments are true, just that you have issue, which you admit, to seeing this truth. The other issue is that anyone on here who does not declare medical issues doesn't mean they dont have them. It's irrelevant to the debate though and its not me being callous, its just a fact. If you are here to argue a point, argue it. You cannot then say to your fellow debators that its not fair because you cannot 'compete' at their level. I'm sorry for saying this but you cannot run against top level athletes if you have mobility issues. It's nobodies fault but those more able shouldn't be made to feel bad because they dont have a disability. Thats why there's the Paralympics. So please show me where I have been unclear, so I can explain that for you. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe because the Israelis used the iron dome as a shield and Hamas has used civilians" I'm looking at a time frame going back to the early 20th century. Israeli fatalities from the conflict have been about 10,000 while Palestinian fatalities have been about 100,000. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I did write clearly, show me were I didn't. Also show me were I've mocked you medical issues. You state you have these and that they cause you memory issues. So when I say im worried about your memory I mean it. So instead of saying you have memory issues you decide to go down the clarity route instead, yet im saying my posts were clear. Now I'm sorry you have medical issues but your bringing them up doesn't mean my arguments are true, just that you have issue, which you admit, to seeing this truth. The other issue is that anyone on here who does not declare medical issues doesn't mean they dont have them. It's irrelevant to the debate though and its not me being callous, its just a fact. If you are here to argue a point, argue it. You cannot then say to your fellow debators that its not fair because you cannot 'compete' at their level. I'm sorry for saying this but you cannot run against top level athletes if you have mobility issues. It's nobodies fault but those more able shouldn't be made to feel bad because they dont have a disability. Thats why there's the Paralympics. So please show me where I have been unclear, so I can explain that for you. Mrs x" Comparing cognitive or fatigue-related issues to “not being able to compete with top athletes” isn’t an argument — it’s ableist. I only mentioned my medical effects as an example of how AI can be an accessibility tool, not as an excuse. You’re the one who keeps bringing up my chemo brain as a way to challenge me rather than the argument itself. I’m happy to debate the actual topic — if you’re able to stick to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Palestinians have suffered far greater losses than the Israelis but you don't seem to recognise this. Instead you roll out the tired old antisemitism trope. " Yes, they have suffered greater losses. What are you suggesting that proves? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh well who is an unhappy chappy then haha , starting a thread just to have a chance to respond to what I've said. And your use of baiting, saying what I've written is drivel, is quite frankly pathetic, but not unexpected. I will not stoop to such levels by saying you chat shite at times, not matter how much this stinks. A man of your age should really know better but thats me, making assumptions again, in that you are a nice guy but I could be wrong. Can I ask why you are talking about probability and why accuse me of asking you to look into the future? I never asked you to do this. I asked you would you kill to save your loved one, and if you would then would you kill 2, 3 etc. I did this as the start of a discussion about proportionality. So I am puzzled as to why you talk about killing children personally because I never asked this. I asked what your thoughts were on collateral damage involving children. So not you killing children, but children dying in the course of your loved one being saved. But you, again, did not seem to want to answer this. You appeared to just want to discuss whatever further your narrative. I could be making an assumption though and maybe you've just misread my drivel. There's a third option, in that maybe you can read but cannot understand things you read but I wont say that, because its cheap and nasty, so I'll leave that to some of the elderly guys on here. Im a bit saddened to hear about your willingness to sacrifice your grandparents should the collateral damage involve a 10 year old. Would that change if you knew he'd been radicalised since birth and was holding an automatic weapon? Your poor Nan, a woman that helped meringue you up and you'd discard her so easily, just because her time was almost up. Based up your writing and obvious procrastination, most of it off topic, its clear you will never have to kill anyone because by the time you take to make your mind up they'll be a goner, by the time you ask the Internet for an answer theyll have already had their funeral service. Just watch out though, dont verbalise your thought process because that bound to cause fatalities through pure boredom. And stop going on about 20,000 civilian casualties as an example of proportionality. You once said people cannot visualise this but in fact they can. It's one stand of a major football stadium, with the other stands empty. Im not being callous but thats the size of it. Were the Brits disproportionate when they helped kill millions of German civilians in WW2? This is enough to fill, to capacity, every stadium in this country. And most people think the that war was just, that Churchill was the greatest person in the 20th century and all that for a war that didnt start with any casualties for the UK, just one country crossing a border into a country that Nritain had promised to protect. Israel loses far greater a percentage of its population than the USA did at Pearl Harbour and the USA then play their partin killing millions of Germans and Japanese. The Americans and the West as a while view this as more than justifiable but again Israel, suffering greater loss and causing far fewer casualties, are pillorised. Ask yourself why? Oh yeah, is it because the Yanks and the Brits weren't Jewish, it can't be that simple can it. Mrs x I take back what I said about your posts never being amusing. Your recent efforts have been very entertaining. They are also useful object lessons in how not to debate. I talked about probability because your questions were about preventing a potential event from happening. These questions only make sense in reference to the future and the future is uncertain. I spoke about killing directly as it clarifies the ethical argument, involving a third party and their potential agency just muddies the water. My point about the 90 year old and 10 year old was in the context of all other things being equal. This is the norm in debate. On procrastination, I try to think carefully about things. If you consider this to be a character flaw then I assume you prefer people to be unthinking and impulsive. I mention the 20,000 children killed by the IDF because there isn't any rational argument to support them killing 20,000 children. WWII is a large complex subject and I can make various arguments about it. We debated this some time ago with you being in favour of the mass killings of civilians and me being against if you remember. The Palestinians have suffered far greater losses than the Israelis but you don't seem to recognise this. Instead you roll out the tired old antisemitism trope. " You talk about probability and the future, despite me clearly pointing out your love one would die without your intervention. Thats not something that may happen, it will if you dont take action. It's the action I asked you about. You spoke about killing kids directly despite me being clear that this was not what you would do yourself. Again you chose to frame your response outside of the question posed to you. Your point about the 90 year old and 10 year old was your poor attempt at rationalisation. Old people can die apparently because you value young people more, thats obvious. After all who cares about old ficks, they are useless, not worth saving, contribute nothing. You did this despite their being no suggestion from me about age, you just used this to deflect from answering what you were asked. You simply refuse to give an opinion on the difference between WW2 and tge War today. How can you stand with so much conviction about 20,000 casualties but write of millions and millions as a complex issue. It's not complex its a fact. America joined the war after losing just under 3,000 civilians, Britain literally went to war to keep a promise to another state, these are facts which led to millions and millions of deaths of Germans and Japanese. As for me being in favour of the loss of innocent lives, that's bordering on a lie. I never once said this and if you can find one post by me saying this then I will never post in the Politics forum again. What I said was I can see why the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified but in no way did I say I was in favour of any civilian deaths. And its obvious that the Palestinians have suffered more loss than the Israelis. But the question is all about proportionality. For you its proportional for one conflict to kill millions and millions of civilians, yet its not proportional for 20,000 to be killed in another. As for antisemitism, if you look at the difference here, aside from the absolutely massive difference in the numbers, the only difference is the religious beliefs of one set of combatants. Explain why millions and millions of deaths equates to this war being seen as a brilliant period of history for both Britain and the USA, yet 20.000 deaths mean that Israel is a corrupt, evil, child killing state. So explain that... Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, they have suffered greater losses. What are you suggesting that proves?" It was a response to the other poster's comment... "Israel loses far greater a percentage of its population than the USA did at Pearl Harbour and the USA then play their partin killing millions of Germans and Japanese. The Americans and the West as a while view this as more than justifiable but again Israel, suffering greater loss and causing far fewer casualties, are pillorised. Ask yourself why? Oh yeah, is it because the Yanks and the Brits weren't Jewish, it can't be that simple can it." I took this as an attempted justification for Israel's disproportionate actions. So if Palestinian losses are ten times worse than Israel's then using this faulty reasoning they should be able to be ten times more disproportionate in their actions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe because the Israelis used the iron dome as a shield and Hamas has used civilians I'm looking at a time frame going back to the early 20th century. Israeli fatalities from the conflict have been about 10,000 while Palestinian fatalities have been about 100,000." Well if you are including the 20th Century, there are so big numbers out there from the Jewish side. War is not fair, war is not proportionate, im only stating facts. If you do t want to be attacked dont attack others, its a simple concept. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, they have suffered greater losses. What are you suggesting that proves? It was a response to the other poster's comment... "Israel loses far greater a percentage of its population than the USA did at Pearl Harbour and the USA then play their partin killing millions of Germans and Japanese. The Americans and the West as a while view this as more than justifiable but again Israel, suffering greater loss and causing far fewer casualties, are pillorised. Ask yourself why? Oh yeah, is it because the Yanks and the Brits weren't Jewish, it can't be that simple can it." I took this as an attempted justification for Israel's disproportionate actions. So if Palestinian losses are ten times worse than Israel's then using this faulty reasoning they should be able to be ten times more disproportionate in their actions." Get real, If Hamas could be they would be, dont descend into idiocy, War is not far. Name one major one that was, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, they have suffered greater losses. What are you suggesting that proves? It was a response to the other poster's comment... "Israel loses far greater a percentage of its population than the USA did at Pearl Harbour and the USA then play their partin killing millions of Germans and Japanese. The Americans and the West as a while view this as more than justifiable but again Israel, suffering greater loss and causing far fewer casualties, are pillorised. Ask yourself why? Oh yeah, is it because the Yanks and the Brits weren't Jewish, it can't be that simple can it." I took this as an attempted justification for Israel's disproportionate actions. So if Palestinian losses are ten times worse than Israel's then using this faulty reasoning they should be able to be ten times more disproportionate in their actions." I said this because I cannot see why you think its more acceptable for you to see millions and millions dead yet act so vehemently that 20,000 is worse, no were near as justified. It's a strange position to take i believe... War is never, ever, fair i cannot see why you think it may be given that you cannot give one example were it has been. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When credible international bodies or human-rights organisations start accusing a state of genocidal acts, that’s already a serious moral red flag — whatever the eventual legal finding or the number of deaths. From Nazi Germany in WWII, to Britain in the Boer War (which introduced concentration camps), to Rwanda in 1994, and now Israel facing similar accusations — the pattern is clear: by the time the word “genocide” enters the discussion, something has gone profoundly wrong. At that point it’s not about taking sides; it’s about accountability and humanity." You are talking about something thats not been proven. In fact genocide is extremely difficult to establish due to intent. You need to establish that and thats the difficulty here. Mrs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are talking about something thats not been proven. In fact genocide is extremely difficult to establish due to intent. You need to establish that and thats the difficulty here. Mrs " I didn’t say it was proven — I said that when international bodies and human-rights organisations are making those accusations, it’s already a serious red flag in itself. They don’t use the word genocide lightly; reaching that stage means multiple credible observers have seen enough to raise the alarm. For example, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention — one of the world’s leading independent authorities on the study and prevention of genocide — has explicitly stated that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. They’ve issued multiple formal statements, including: "We call the Israeli attack on Gaza genocide because it meets the criteria established in the 1948 Genocide Convention — including the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." — Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, 2024 "The genocidal process in Gaza is not hypothetical or future-oriented. It is happening now, in real time, with the full knowledge of the international community." — Lemkin Institute Statement on Gaza, 2024 "Western governments and media have continued to downplay or deny the genocide unfolding in Gaza. Silence in the face of genocide is complicity." — Lemkin Institute Media Narrative Statement, 2024 When an organisation named after Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined the very term genocide, uses it so unequivocally, that should make everyone stop and think — whatever one’s politics, and regardless of what final legal rulings may come later. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are talking about something thats not been proven. In fact genocide is extremely difficult to establish due to intent. You need to establish that and thats the difficulty here. Mrs I didn’t say it was proven — I said that when international bodies and human-rights organisations are making those accusations, it’s already a serious red flag in itself. They don’t use the word genocide lightly; reaching that stage means multiple credible observers have seen enough to raise the alarm. For example, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention — one of the world’s leading independent authorities on the study and prevention of genocide — has explicitly stated that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. They’ve issued multiple formal statements, including: "We call the Israeli attack on Gaza genocide because it meets the criteria established in the 1948 Genocide Convention — including the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group." — Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, 2024 "The genocidal process in Gaza is not hypothetical or future-oriented. It is happening now, in real time, with the full knowledge of the international community." — Lemkin Institute Statement on Gaza, 2024 "Western governments and media have continued to downplay or deny the genocide unfolding in Gaza. Silence in the face of genocide is complicity." — Lemkin Institute Media Narrative Statement, 2024 When an organisation named after Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined the very term genocide, uses it so unequivocally, that should make everyone stop and think — whatever one’s politics, and regardless of what final legal rulings may come later. " Don't know how to break this to you, think you might take it badly. The Lemkin Institute isn't exactly who they say they are and they have an anti Israel agenda, its true. This non-profit, whilst based in Pennsylvania, is not American and started out as The Iraq Project for Genocide Prevention and Accountability. It later changed its name to the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. They did this without permission from the Lemkin family, who accused the Institute of anti Israeli bias and are threatening to sue the Institute unless they remove the name Lemkin from their organisation. "The family of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-born Jewish jurist who coined the term “genocide” and helped draft the 1948 Genocide Convention, has filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania authorities demanding that a US nonprofit stop using his name. According to the complaint, the Institute “represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology,” while its “policies, positions, activities and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system." The dispute has sharpened because of the Institute’s repeated accusations against Israel. Just days after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, the group accused Israel of committing “genocide,” and more recently it welcomed a UN Commission of Inquiry report making the same allegation. Critics argue that these statements, combined with the use of Lemkin’s name, serve to advance a political agenda disconnected from his original legacy. Jewish leaders and scholars have strongly criticized the institute, saying that such claims distort the meaning of the very term Lemkin created to describe the destruction of European Jewry during the Holocaust. They argue that labeling Israel’s actions as “genocide” damages the credibility of the concept itself and desecrates Lemkin’s memory." The Jerusalem Post. So even the Lemkin family disagree with this organisation and want nothing to do with it. So when the Lemkin family disagree with the how the term genocide is used by this organisation then this does raise red flags and this should make everyone stop and think — whatever one’s politics but maybe not in the way you first thought. This anti Israeli organisation raised the term genocide only a couple of days after 7th October before any real military campaign had gotten underway. Why did they do this other than to try and promote the idea that Israel were genocidal. Yet, in direct opposition to you belief, the Lemkin family want nothing to do with this shady organisation and want all association with it to be removed, they are prepared to go to court to do so. So what do you think about that? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know how to break this to you, think you might take it badly. The Lemkin Institute isn't exactly who they say they are and they have an anti Israel agenda, its true. This non-profit, whilst based in Pennsylvania, is not American and started out as The Iraq Project for Genocide Prevention and Accountability. It later changed its name to the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. They did this without permission from the Lemkin family, who accused the Institute of anti Israeli bias and are threatening to sue the Institute unless they remove the name Lemkin from their organisation. "The family of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-born Jewish jurist who coined the term “genocide” and helped draft the 1948 Genocide Convention, has filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania authorities demanding that a US nonprofit stop using his name. According to the complaint, the Institute “represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology,” while its “policies, positions, activities and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system." The dispute has sharpened because of the Institute’s repeated accusations against Israel. Just days after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, the group accused Israel of committing “genocide,” and more recently it welcomed a UN Commission of Inquiry report making the same allegation. Critics argue that these statements, combined with the use of Lemkin’s name, serve to advance a political agenda disconnected from his original legacy. Jewish leaders and scholars have strongly criticized the institute, saying that such claims distort the meaning of the very term Lemkin created to describe the destruction of European Jewry during the Holocaust. They argue that labeling Israel’s actions as “genocide” damages the credibility of the concept itself and desecrates Lemkin’s memory." The Jerusalem Post. So even the Lemkin family disagree with this organisation and want nothing to do with it. So when the Lemkin family disagree with the how the term genocide is used by this organisation then this does raise red flags and this should make everyone stop and think — whatever one’s politics but maybe not in the way you first thought. This anti Israeli organisation raised the term genocide only a couple of days after 7th October before any real military campaign had gotten underway. Why did they do this other than to try and promote the idea that Israel were genocidal. Yet, in direct opposition to you belief, the Lemkin family want nothing to do with this shady organisation and want all association with it to be removed, they are prepared to go to court to do so. So what do you think about that? Mrs x" That’s a textbook genetic fallacy — dismissing an argument based on where it comes from instead of addressing the content itself. Even if everything you quoted is accurate, it doesn’t change the core fact: the Lemkin Institute — along with the UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and several genocide scholars — have all accused Israel of actions consistent with genocide. That’s the point. Disputes over names or internal politics don’t erase the evidence they’re citing, or the scale of concern from international experts. And for context, the Lemkin Institute’s early warnings came after senior Israeli officials publicly used language like “human animals,” “erase Gaza,” and “flatten everything.” Those statements are what triggered their alarm, not some hidden agenda. So rather than focusing on who said it, maybe the more important question is why so many respected observers are saying it at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...and now Israel facing similar accusations — the pattern is clear: by the time the word “genocide” enters the discussion, something has gone profoundly wrong." This sentiment is why people are rushing to use that word with the flimsiest of justifications. It doesn't matter if it's true, it's shit that sticks, like accusing someone of paedophilia - it might be disproven, but it's a sticky and stinky accusation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...after senior Israeli officials publicly used language like “human animals,” “erase Gaza,” and “flatten everything.” Those statements are what triggered their alarm, not some hidden agenda..." Yet nobody looks at the words and actions of those who oppose Israel... "From the rubber to the sea" and the rest. If you're looking for implied intent, you'll find it in many places. If your stay cherry picking only those that support one narrative, then you're biased, for whatever reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ...after senior Israeli officials publicly used language like “human animals,” “erase Gaza,” and “flatten everything.” Those statements are what triggered their alarm, not some hidden agenda... Yet nobody looks at the words and actions of those who oppose Israel... "From the rubber to the sea" and the rest. If you're looking for implied intent, you'll find it in many places. If your stay cherry picking only those that support one narrative, then you're biased, for whatever reason." I’ve never said what Hamas did was right — I’ve condemned their actions in these threads. But that doesn’t change the fact that Israel is now facing credible allegations of genocide from international experts and human rights bodies. Those accusations are about scale, intent, and proportionality — not about who started the violence. And for what it’s worth, Hamas hasn’t been accused of genocide by any of those same institutions, which says a lot about how serious the current concerns are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And for what it’s worth, Hamas hasn’t been accused of genocide by any of those same institutions, which says a lot about how serious the current concerns are." So... Because the explicitly genocidal Hamas (who, it should be noted, publicly executed hundreds of Palestinians over the past days with little media fanfare or Western outrage) has not been accused of genocide but Israel has, that's indicative of serious concerns? Very true! Very serious concerns indeed about those institutions! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And for what it’s worth, Hamas hasn’t been accused of genocide by any of those same institutions, which says a lot about how serious the current concerns are. So... Because the explicitly genocidal Hamas (who, it should be noted, publicly executed hundreds of Palestinians over the past days with little media fanfare or Western outrage) has not been accused of genocide but Israel has, that's indicative of serious concerns? Very true! Very serious concerns indeed about those institutions!" Hamas not being accused of genocide doesn’t mean their actions aren’t horrific or criminal atrocities — they absolutely are. But that doesn’t lessen the seriousness of the accusations facing Israel. Two things can be true at once: Hamas can commit atrocities, and Israel can still be held accountable for actions that international experts and human rights bodies say may meet the legal definition of genocide. One crime never cancels out another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't know how to break this to you, think you might take it badly. The Lemkin Institute isn't exactly who they say they are and they have an anti Israel agenda, its true. This non-profit, whilst based in Pennsylvania, is not American and started out as The Iraq Project for Genocide Prevention and Accountability. It later changed its name to the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. They did this without permission from the Lemkin family, who accused the Institute of anti Israeli bias and are threatening to sue the Institute unless they remove the name Lemkin from their organisation. "The family of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-born Jewish jurist who coined the term “genocide” and helped draft the 1948 Genocide Convention, has filed a formal complaint with Pennsylvania authorities demanding that a US nonprofit stop using his name. According to the complaint, the Institute “represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology,” while its “policies, positions, activities and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system." The dispute has sharpened because of the Institute’s repeated accusations against Israel. Just days after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, the group accused Israel of committing “genocide,” and more recently it welcomed a UN Commission of Inquiry report making the same allegation. Critics argue that these statements, combined with the use of Lemkin’s name, serve to advance a political agenda disconnected from his original legacy. Jewish leaders and scholars have strongly criticized the institute, saying that such claims distort the meaning of the very term Lemkin created to describe the destruction of European Jewry during the Holocaust. They argue that labeling Israel’s actions as “genocide” damages the credibility of the concept itself and desecrates Lemkin’s memory." The Jerusalem Post. So even the Lemkin family disagree with this organisation and want nothing to do with it. So when the Lemkin family disagree with the how the term genocide is used by this organisation then this does raise red flags and this should make everyone stop and think — whatever one’s politics but maybe not in the way you first thought. This anti Israeli organisation raised the term genocide only a couple of days after 7th October before any real military campaign had gotten underway. Why did they do this other than to try and promote the idea that Israel were genocidal. Yet, in direct opposition to you belief, the Lemkin family want nothing to do with this shady organisation and want all association with it to be removed, they are prepared to go to court to do so. So what do you think about that? Mrs x That’s a textbook genetic fallacy — dismissing an argument based on where it comes from instead of addressing the content itself. Even if everything you quoted is accurate, it doesn’t change the core fact: the Lemkin Institute — along with the UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and several genocide scholars — have all accused Israel of actions consistent with genocide. That’s the point. Disputes over names or internal politics don’t erase the evidence they’re citing, or the scale of concern from international experts. And for context, the Lemkin Institute’s early warnings came after senior Israeli officials publicly used language like “human animals,” “erase Gaza,” and “flatten everything.” Those statements are what triggered their alarm, not some hidden agenda. So rather than focusing on who said it, maybe the more important question is why so many respected observers are saying it at all." Im addressing the content, its not genuine, they have a genuine anti Israel agenda and the Lemkin family are aware of this and want the to stop using their family name. This institute have even changed the way they declare things genocidal to suit their anti Israeli narrative. This is not a fallacy. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im addressing the content, its not genuine, they have a genuine anti Israel agenda and the Lemkin family are aware of this and want the to stop using their family name. This institute have even changed the way they declare things genocidal to suit their anti Israeli narrative. This is not a fallacy. Mrs x" You’re still discrediting one source instead of engaging with the evidence. The Lemkin Institute isn’t alone — the UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and multiple genocide scholars have reached similar conclusions. Focusing on one group’s alleged bias while ignoring that wider consensus isn’t genuine analysis — it’s selective dismissal and a deflection from the topic at hand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im addressing the content, its not genuine, they have a genuine anti Israel agenda and the Lemkin family are aware of this and want the to stop using their family name. This institute have even changed the way they declare things genocidal to suit their anti Israeli narrative. This is not a fallacy. Mrs x You’re still discrediting one source instead of engaging with the evidence. The Lemkin Institute isn’t alone — the UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and multiple genocide scholars have reached similar conclusions. Focusing on one group’s alleged bias while ignoring that wider consensus isn’t genuine analysis — it’s selective dismissal and a deflection from the topic at hand." Im not, I'm also basing my belief on the fact that no nation state has ever been convicted of genocide by the ICJ, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im not, I'm also basing my belief on the fact that no nation state has ever been convicted of genocide by the ICJ, Mrs x" The ICJ’s 2007 ruling in Bosnia v. Serbia is actually a good example of why a lack of conviction doesn’t mean genocide isn’t happening. The Court found that genocide was committed at Srebrenica in 1995, when over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically executed. Serbia itself wasn’t convicted of committing genocide, but it was found guilty of failing to prevent and punish it — including for not handing over Ratko Mladic. So yes, “no state has been convicted” — but the ICJ still confirmed genocide took place. Waiting for a conviction just means waiting until after the atrocity is over. That’s why experts and human-rights groups issue warnings early: to prevent another Srebrenica. Dismissing every critique of Israel as “bias” until there’s a court verdict isn’t analysis — it’s avoidance of the uncomfortable evidence already in front of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im not, I'm also basing my belief on the fact that no nation state has ever been convicted of genocide by the ICJ, Mrs x The ICJ’s 2007 ruling in Bosnia v. Serbia is actually a good example of why a lack of conviction doesn’t mean genocide isn’t happening. The Court found that genocide was committed at Srebrenica in 1995, when over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically executed. Serbia itself wasn’t convicted of committing genocide, but it was found guilty of failing to prevent and punish it — including for not handing over Ratko Mladic. So yes, “no state has been convicted” — but the ICJ still confirmed genocide took place. Waiting for a conviction just means waiting until after the atrocity is over. That’s why experts and human-rights groups issue warnings early: to prevent another Srebrenica. Dismissing every critique of Israel as “bias” until there’s a court verdict isn’t analysis — it’s avoidance of the uncomfortable evidence already in front of us." No its note. Unless there's a conviction, everything else is just an opinion. The conviction is the only thing that matters in determining guilty, a legal principle that applies to all offences. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No its note. Unless there's a conviction, everything else is just an opinion. The conviction is the only thing that matters in determining guilty, a legal principle that applies to all offences. Mrs x" That’s not how international law or morality works. The Genocide Convention (1948) was written precisely to prevent genocide, not just to punish it after the fact. If “nothing counts until there’s a conviction,” then every warning issued during Rwanda or Bosnia would’ve been meaningless — and hundreds of thousands more people would’ve died before the world acted. Legal convictions happen years or decades after the events. The absence of one doesn’t erase the evidence, the intent, or the moral responsibility to recognise and stop mass killing when it’s happening. Saying it’s “just opinion” until a court rules is a way of looking away — not a principle of justice. And entirely in my opinion, that’s a particularly callous way to look at international affairs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im not, I'm also basing my belief on the fact that no nation state has ever been convicted of genocide by the ICJ, Mrs x The ICJ’s 2007 ruling in Bosnia v. Serbia is actually a good example of why a lack of conviction doesn’t mean genocide isn’t happening. The Court found that genocide was committed at Srebrenica in 1995, when over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically executed. Serbia itself wasn’t convicted of committing genocide, but it was found guilty of failing to prevent and punish it — including for not handing over Ratko Mladic. So yes, “no state has been convicted” — but the ICJ still confirmed genocide took place. Waiting for a conviction just means waiting until after the atrocity is over. That’s why experts and human-rights groups issue warnings early: to prevent another Srebrenica. Dismissing every critique of Israel as “bias” until there’s a court verdict isn’t analysis — it’s avoidance of the uncomfortable evidence already in front of us." Just seems incredibly myopic to ignore an actual genocide on Oct 7th for a trumped up one against those responding to it. Apparently the so called International Genocide Exports that the BBC quoted repeatedly as confirming Israel's genocide, requires no formal qualification to join other than paying a £30 annual fee. What a crock of sh1t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Im addressing the content, its not genuine, they have a genuine anti Israel agenda and the Lemkin family are aware of this and want the to stop using their family name. This institute have even changed the way they declare things genocidal to suit their anti Israeli narrative. This is not a fallacy. Mrs x You’re still discrediting one source instead of engaging with the evidence. The Lemkin Institute isn’t alone — the UN Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and multiple genocide scholars have reached similar conclusions. Focusing on one group’s alleged bias while ignoring that wider consensus isn’t genuine analysis — it’s selective dismissal and a deflection from the topic at hand." Amnesty and Human Rights watch have a long confirmed history of anti Israel bias. I've already responded about "multiple genocide scholars" in my other post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just seems incredibly myopic to ignore an actual genocide on Oct 7th for a trumped up one against those responding to it. Apparently the so called International Genocide Exports that the BBC quoted repeatedly as confirming Israel's genocide, requires no formal qualification to join other than paying a £30 annual fee. What a crock of sh1t." The BBC hasn’t “confirmed” anything — it’s reported what experts and rights groups have said, which is literally its job. And for context, independent studies from Glasgow University and the Centre for Media Monitoring show that the BBC actually amplifies Israeli official voices far more than Palestinian ones. So claims of anti-Israel bias don’t really stack up. The “£30 membership” claim about genocide experts is also misleading — it refers to the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a professional academic body, not some random club. Most research associations have open membership and annual fees; that’s normal across academia. Their Gaza statement wasn’t written by random members — it was drafted and endorsed by their executive and advisory boards, composed of established genocide and international-law scholars. Focusing on the membership fee instead of the evidence is just another way of avoiding the issue. People don’t join academic associations “for TV quotes”; they join because they already work in or study the field. The October 7th Hamas attack was a horrific war crime, but not genocide in legal terms. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part” — and that’s what many experts are identifying in Gaza, after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are accused of bias whenever they criticise Israel — yet both have also condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and others for war crimes. Calling “bias” every time evidence is uncomfortable isn’t analysis; it’s avoidance. The fact remains: multiple respected organisations — from the UN Commission of Inquiry to the Lemkin Institute and the IAGS — have warned that what’s happening in Gaza meets the legal criteria for genocide. Attacking their motives or membership lists doesn’t erase the evidence they’re pointing to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just seems incredibly myopic to ignore an actual genocide on Oct 7th for a trumped up one against those responding to it. Apparently the so called International Genocide Exports that the BBC quoted repeatedly as confirming Israel's genocide, requires no formal qualification to join other than paying a £30 annual fee. What a crock of sh1t. The BBC hasn’t “confirmed” anything — it’s reported what experts and rights groups have said, which is literally its job. And for context, independent studies from Glasgow University and the Centre for Media Monitoring show that the BBC actually amplifies Israeli official voices far more than Palestinian ones. So claims of anti-Israel bias don’t really stack up. The “£30 membership” claim about genocide experts is also misleading — it refers to the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a professional academic body, not some random club. Most research associations have open membership and annual fees; that’s normal across academia. Their Gaza statement wasn’t written by random members — it was drafted and endorsed by their executive and advisory boards, composed of established genocide and international-law scholars. Focusing on the membership fee instead of the evidence is just another way of avoiding the issue. People don’t join academic associations “for TV quotes”; they join because they already work in or study the field. The October 7th Hamas attack was a horrific war crime, but not genocide in legal terms. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part” — and that’s what many experts are identifying in Gaza, after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are accused of bias whenever they criticise Israel — yet both have also condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and others for war crimes. Calling “bias” every time evidence is uncomfortable isn’t analysis; it’s avoidance. The fact remains: multiple respected organisations — from the UN Commission of Inquiry to the Lemkin Institute and the IAGS — have warned that what’s happening in Gaza meets the legal criteria for genocide. Attacking their motives or membership lists doesn’t erase the evidence they’re pointing to." I've pointed out that the Lemkin Institure is not reputable. It's anti Israel in nature, gets funded to make false claims, has taken and used a Jewish man's name to try and hide its true nature. It's tantamount to asking Hamas what they think about Isra. And my view of the law seems pretty logical. Im standing by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that how the law is supposed to work? Or is there another reason why the Jews are just guilty of everything for you, even when, there's been NO charges, NO trail,NO due process. Saying something often enough doesn't make it true, you need to prove it. If genocide is their aim can you explain why Hazas population has actually grown recently? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just seems incredibly myopic to ignore an actual genocide on Oct 7th for a trumped up one against those responding to it. Apparently the so called International Genocide Exports that the BBC quoted repeatedly as confirming Israel's genocide, requires no formal qualification to join other than paying a £30 annual fee. What a crock of sh1t. The BBC hasn’t “confirmed” anything — it’s reported what experts and rights groups have said, which is literally its job. And for context, independent studies from Glasgow University and the Centre for Media Monitoring show that the BBC actually amplifies Israeli official voices far more than Palestinian ones. So claims of anti-Israel bias don’t really stack up. The “£30 membership” claim about genocide experts is also misleading — it refers to the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a professional academic body, not some random club. Most research associations have open membership and annual fees; that’s normal across academia. Their Gaza statement wasn’t written by random members — it was drafted and endorsed by their executive and advisory boards, composed of established genocide and international-law scholars. Focusing on the membership fee instead of the evidence is just another way of avoiding the issue. People don’t join academic associations “for TV quotes”; they join because they already work in or study the field. The October 7th Hamas attack was a horrific war crime, but not genocide in legal terms. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part” — and that’s what many experts are identifying in Gaza, after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are accused of bias whenever they criticise Israel — yet both have also condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and others for war crimes. Calling “bias” every time evidence is uncomfortable isn’t analysis; it’s avoidance. The fact remains: multiple respected organisations — from the UN Commission of Inquiry to the Lemkin Institute and the IAGS — have warned that what’s happening in Gaza meets the legal criteria for genocide. Attacking their motives or membership lists doesn’t erase the evidence they’re pointing to." This "after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” in particular, is ridiculous. The report focused on words said in total anger by Israeli officials and extrapolated from that the motivation behind an entire two year war campaign in ridiculous conditions that was clearly designed at destroying Hamas only Using ones Braon for half a second do you not concede this has to be the most ineffective genocide of all time of Israel has been relentlessly bombing Gaza for two years and killed barely 30-50k civilians. If Israel had actually wanted to genocide Gaza it would have been over in a week. I find it absurd to the extreme for this stupid report to focus on a handful of comments made by a handful of ministers and Totally Ignore the general statements made by Hamas leadership time and again now they wish to destroy the Israel. That's not genocide? You also have to consider the context that those statements of "animals" etc were made in. The full reports of the sexual and other violence committed that day do indeed indicate to anyone with a normal moral.compass that those who carried out the attacks are inhuman. (Btw, not just Hamas.solfiers but a lot of the abuse was carried out by gleeful Gazan civilians too, as can be clearly seen on the videos). Women with breasts cut out Women with nails inserted in their v..a. Women with knives inserted into their.. A family found on their knees bound behind their back, two little kids and their parents, who were missing body parts (eye and hand) who had been tortured while alive. A little boy of 7 or 8 crying aftee a grenade blew off his hand while he discovers his father is dead and the Hamas animal just saunters around in front of him in the kitchen drinking from the familys fridge Yes, war is terrible and the death toll on Gaza is in the thousands. But that is war. What occured on Oct 7th was religiously motivated barbarism that hearkens back to the stone age. Primitive barbaric evil. Very easy to see why they were called "animals" and frankly utterly ridiculous to decide that that is motivation for genocide. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and to argue against this is just blind nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've pointed out that the Lemkin Institure is not reputable. It's anti Israel in nature, gets funded to make false claims, has taken and used a Jewish man's name to try and hide its true nature. It's tantamount to asking Hamas what they think about Isra. And my view of the law seems pretty logical. Im standing by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that how the law is supposed to work? Or is there another reason why the Jews are just guilty of everything for you, even when, there's been NO charges, NO trail,NO due process. Saying something often enough doesn't make it true, you need to prove it. If genocide is their aim can you explain why Hazas population has actually grown recently? Mrs x" You’ve claimed the Lemkin Institute is biased — but claiming bias doesn’t automatically make it true, especially when that same accusation has been used against virtually every human-rights organisation that’s ever criticised Israel. It’s also worth noting that anti-Zionism isn’t the same thing as antisemitism; criticising the actions of a government or state ideology isn’t an attack on Jewish people as a whole. The fact remains that the Lemkin Institute’s analysis aligns with multiple other independent groups and genocide scholars. As for the law, both Israel and Palestine are signatories to the Genocide Convention, which explicitly gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes about prevention and punishment. That means both have accepted oversight — including the obligation to prevent genocide, not just avoid conviction after the fact. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies in criminal proceedings, but genocide prevention isn’t a criminal trial — it’s about identifying and stopping conditions that meet the legal criteria before they reach that stage. Waiting for a conviction means waiting until after the mass deaths have already happened, which defeats the purpose of the Convention itself. And population growth doesn’t disprove genocide — that’s a misunderstanding of both history and law. The Genocide Convention defines genocide by intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part,” not by whether every member dies. The Bosniak population grew after Srebrenica; the Native American population eventually recovered centuries after their mass killings and cultural erasure; the Rohingya population in exile continues to rise. None of that erased the genocides they endured. What matters isn’t headcounts — it’s deliberate targeting, dehumanising rhetoric, and policies designed to destroy a people’s existence and future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This "after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” in particular, is ridiculous. The report focused on words said in total anger by Israeli officials and extrapolated from that the motivation behind an entire two year war campaign in ridiculous conditions that was clearly designed at destroying Hamas only Using ones Braon for half a second do you not concede this has to be the most ineffective genocide of all time of Israel has been relentlessly bombing Gaza for two years and killed barely 30-50k civilians. If Israel had actually wanted to genocide Gaza it would have been over in a week. I find it absurd to the extreme for this stupid report to focus on a handful of comments made by a handful of ministers and Totally Ignore the general statements made by Hamas leadership time and again now they wish to destroy the Israel. That's not genocide? You also have to consider the context that those statements of "animals" etc were made in. The full reports of the sexual and other violence committed that day do indeed indicate to anyone with a normal moral.compass that those who carried out the attacks are inhuman. (Btw, not just Hamas.solfiers but a lot of the abuse was carried out by gleeful Gazan civilians too, as can be clearly seen on the videos). Women with breasts cut out Women with nails inserted in their v..a. Women with knives inserted into their.. A family found on their knees bound behind their back, two little kids and their parents, who were missing body parts (eye and hand) who had been tortured while alive. A little boy of 7 or 8 crying aftee a grenade blew off his hand while he discovers his father is dead and the Hamas animal just saunters around in front of him in the kitchen drinking from the familys fridge Yes, war is terrible and the death toll on Gaza is in the thousands. But that is war. What occured on Oct 7th was religiously motivated barbarism that hearkens back to the stone age. Primitive barbaric evil. Very easy to see why they were called "animals" and frankly utterly ridiculous to decide that that is motivation for genocide. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and to argue against this is just blind nonsense. " I’m not downplaying the atrocities committed by Hamas — they were horrific, and there’s no justification for them. But responding to atrocities with genocide is even worse, especially from a state that has signed the Genocide Convention — a treaty that explicitly commits its signatories to prevent and refrain from such acts. The deliberate targeting of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and statements from Israeli officials describing Palestinians as “human animals” or calling to “erase Gaza” go far beyond anger — they represent the kind of dehumanising language that international law recognises as an early warning sign of genocidal intent. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Many Jewish voices around the world, including figures like Mandy Patinkin and organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as incompatible with Jewish values. These are people speaking from within the Jewish community — hardly antisemites. The point isn’t to deny Israel’s right to self-defence or ignore Hamas’s crimes, but to recognise that self-defence doesn’t grant any state the right to commit mass, indiscriminate violence. Condemning war crimes — whoever commits them — isn’t bias. It’s a moral necessity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This "after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” in particular, is ridiculous. The report focused on words said in total anger by Israeli officials and extrapolated from that the motivation behind an entire two year war campaign in ridiculous conditions that was clearly designed at destroying Hamas only Using ones Braon for half a second do you not concede this has to be the most ineffective genocide of all time of Israel has been relentlessly bombing Gaza for two years and killed barely 30-50k civilians. If Israel had actually wanted to genocide Gaza it would have been over in a week. I find it absurd to the extreme for this stupid report to focus on a handful of comments made by a handful of ministers and Totally Ignore the general statements made by Hamas leadership time and again now they wish to destroy the Israel. That's not genocide? You also have to consider the context that those statements of "animals" etc were made in. The full reports of the sexual and other violence committed that day do indeed indicate to anyone with a normal moral.compass that those who carried out the attacks are inhuman. (Btw, not just Hamas.solfiers but a lot of the abuse was carried out by gleeful Gazan civilians too, as can be clearly seen on the videos). Women with breasts cut out Women with nails inserted in their v..a. Women with knives inserted into their.. A family found on their knees bound behind their back, two little kids and their parents, who were missing body parts (eye and hand) who had been tortured while alive. A little boy of 7 or 8 crying aftee a grenade blew off his hand while he discovers his father is dead and the Hamas animal just saunters around in front of him in the kitchen drinking from the familys fridge Yes, war is terrible and the death toll on Gaza is in the thousands. But that is war. What occured on Oct 7th was religiously motivated barbarism that hearkens back to the stone age. Primitive barbaric evil. Very easy to see why they were called "animals" and frankly utterly ridiculous to decide that that is motivation for genocide. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and to argue against this is just blind nonsense. I’m not downplaying the atrocities committed by Hamas — they were horrific, and there’s no justification for them. But responding to atrocities with genocide is even worse, especially from a state that has signed the Genocide Convention — a treaty that explicitly commits its signatories to prevent and refrain from such acts. The deliberate targeting of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and statements from Israeli officials describing Palestinians as “human animals” or calling to “erase Gaza” go far beyond anger — they represent the kind of dehumanising language that international law recognises as an early warning sign of genocidal intent. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Many Jewish voices around the world, including figures like Mandy Patinkin and organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as incompatible with Jewish values. These are people speaking from within the Jewish community — hardly antisemites. The point isn’t to deny Israel’s right to self-defence or ignore Hamas’s crimes, but to recognise that self-defence doesn’t grant any state the right to commit mass, indiscriminate violence. Condemning war crimes — whoever commits them — isn’t bias. It’s a moral necessity." The persons your debating with have no morals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a women can no longer have children, because she has been killed, or has no access to medical facilities, food, water and electricity. Then there will be less children to bare more children, who should have more children. Number 4 describing genocide. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Israel have and are still targeting women and children through bombing, starvation, lack of medical facilities and utilities the very things we all need to survive. " Palestine's population growth rate is about 2.4%, about 33% higher than Israel. If Israel is trying to do what you said, they must be really really bad at it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When 39% of American Jews say that Israel has committed genocide and 61% say it has committed war crimes then anyone claiming that it's all just down to antisemitism is standing on extremely thin ice. " I wouldn't call all of them antisemites. I wouldn't agree that it's genocide either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wouldn't call all of them antisemites. I wouldn't agree that it's genocide either." By "them" do you mean American Jews? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a women can no longer have children, because she has been killed, or has no access to medical facilities, food, water and electricity. Then there will be less children to bare more children, who should have more children. Number 4 describing genocide. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Israel have and are still targeting women and children through bombing, starvation, lack of medical facilities and utilities the very things we all need to survive. Palestine's population growth rate is about 2.4%, about 33% higher than Israel. If Israel is trying to do what you said, they must be really really bad at it" Israel has killed thousands of women and children who can no longer give birth, their children cannot give birth because they were never born. The growth rate of the Palestine people has fallen and will now continue to fall. Go to world population review you will see for Palestine growth rate has fallen from 4.5% to 1.9% and will now continue to fall. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wouldn't call all of them antisemites. I wouldn't agree that it's genocide either. By "them" do you mean American Jews?" I wouldn't broadly call all the people who are calling this genocide as antisemites. There are definitely some. Not all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a women can no longer have children, because she has been killed, or has no access to medical facilities, food, water and electricity. Then there will be less children to bare more children, who should have more children. Number 4 describing genocide. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Israel have and are still targeting women and children through bombing, starvation, lack of medical facilities and utilities the very things we all need to survive. Palestine's population growth rate is about 2.4%, about 33% higher than Israel. If Israel is trying to do what you said, they must be really really bad at it Israel has killed thousands of women and children who can no longer give birth, their children cannot give birth because they were never born. The growth rate of the Palestine people has fallen and will now continue to fall. Go to world population review you will see for Palestine growth rate has fallen from 4.5% to 1.9% and will now continue to fall." Every website seems to say, the growth rate is 2.4%. Either way, it's higher than that of Israel itself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a women can no longer have children, because she has been killed, or has no access to medical facilities, food, water and electricity. Then there will be less children to bare more children, who should have more children. Number 4 describing genocide. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Israel have and are still targeting women and children through bombing, starvation, lack of medical facilities and utilities the very things we all need to survive. Palestine's population growth rate is about 2.4%, about 33% higher than Israel. If Israel is trying to do what you said, they must be really really bad at it Israel has killed thousands of women and children who can no longer give birth, their children cannot give birth because they were never born. The growth rate of the Palestine people has fallen and will now continue to fall. Go to world population review you will see for Palestine growth rate has fallen from 4.5% to 1.9% and will now continue to fall. Every website seems to say, the growth rate is 2.4%. Either way, it's higher than that of Israel itself" Put in Palestine population 2025 and use the growth graph it will show you the growth of population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wouldn't broadly call all the people who are calling this genocide as antisemites. There are definitely some. Not all." I take that non-denial to mean you think that some American Jews are antisemites. This is called the self-hating Jew trope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wouldn't broadly call all the people who are calling this genocide as antisemites. There are definitely some. Not all. I take that non-denial to mean you think that some American Jews are antisemites. This is called the self-hating Jew trope. " Here we go again. You are back to making wrong claims about what I said. My answer is that some of the people who call this a genocide are antisemites. Some are not. Whether some American Jews who say this are antisemites, I don't know. One doesn't have to have an opinion on every thing and one doesn't have to take a side on every thing too, in case you don't know that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When a women can no longer have children, because she has been killed, or has no access to medical facilities, food, water and electricity. Then there will be less children to bare more children, who should have more children. Number 4 describing genocide. 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Israel have and are still targeting women and children through bombing, starvation, lack of medical facilities and utilities the very things we all need to survive. Palestine's population growth rate is about 2.4%, about 33% higher than Israel. If Israel is trying to do what you said, they must be really really bad at it Israel has killed thousands of women and children who can no longer give birth, their children cannot give birth because they were never born. The growth rate of the Palestine people has fallen and will now continue to fall. Go to world population review you will see for Palestine growth rate has fallen from 4.5% to 1.9% and will now continue to fall. Every website seems to say, the growth rate is 2.4%. Either way, it's higher than that of Israel itself Put in Palestine population 2025 and use the growth graph it will show you the growth of population." That's because 2025 isn't over yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here we go again. You are back to making wrong claims about what I said. My answer is that some of the people who call this a genocide are antisemites. Some are not. Whether some American Jews who say this are antisemites, I don't know. One doesn't have to have an opinion on every thing and one doesn't have to take a side on every thing too, in case you don't know that." The problem is that you seem to be unfamiliar with antisemitic tropes. The self-hating Jew being one of them. Another is the minimization of genocide by playing the numbers game. I'm not sure if you are aware but one of the arguments put forward by Holocaust deniers is that the Holocaust couldn't have been a genocide because only a minority of the Jews were killed. Raphael Lemkin was well aware of this which is why Article II of the convention explicity uses the term " in whole or in part". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The problem is that you seem to be unfamiliar with antisemitic tropes. The self-hating Jew being one of them. " Again, it has nothing to do with what I said. " Another is the minimization of genocide by playing the numbers game. I'm not sure if you are aware but one of the arguments put forward by Holocaust deniers is that the Holocaust couldn't have been a genocide because only a minority of the Jews were killed. " I was specifically answering the other poster's claim that Israel was reducing Palestine's birth rates. Hitler was vegetarian. Doesn't mean that everyone who likes vegetarianism is same as Hitler. Same applies to the holocaust deniers argument you are making here. You are claiming that Israel has intent to genocide Palestinians. And yet, there is no evidence of that intent. If what Israel does shows intent of genocide, Palestinians are genocidal too. Not mention China which all the left wingers conveniently like to ignore. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That last line about “left wingers” is misplaced — I’ve said repeatedly that my position isn’t about sides, it’s about opposing needless loss of life. I condemn genocide, war crimes, and acts of terrorism wherever they occur. China isn’t part of this discussion, but I take reports of mass persecution there just as seriously as those in Gaza. The difference here is that Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, which gives the International Court of Justice jurisdiction. South Africa brought a case under that convention, and the ICJ found that Israel is plausibly in breach of its obligations to prevent genocide. That’s not an accusation from “the left” — it’s the world’s highest court recognising the gravity of the situation. We can condemn the atrocities of Hamas and China without excusing Israel’s actions. Accountability should never depend on who commits the crime." By the definitions of genocide that have been thrown around in this thread, China has been committing genocide for a long time. Them being a signatory of genocide convention shouldn't matter. I have hardly seen protests in the streets against them. I haven't seen anyone asking for trade embargo in China. I haven't seen anyone boycotting Chinese goods. The "world's highest court" seems to be turning a blind eye towards this too. Haven't seen Greta Thunberg or any other aid campaigns trying to go there either. Is it because the Uyghurs don't have the media machinery that the Palestinians seem to have? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By the definitions of genocide that have been thrown around in this thread, China has been committing genocide for a long time. Them being a signatory of genocide convention shouldn't matter. I have hardly seen protests in the streets against them. I haven't seen anyone asking for trade embargo in China. I haven't seen anyone boycotting Chinese goods. The "world's highest court" seems to be turning a blind eye towards this too. Haven't seen Greta Thunberg or any other aid campaigns trying to go there either. Is it because the Uyghurs don't have the media machinery that the Palestinians seem to have?" If you want to start a thread about the atrocities in China, I’ll gladly join and condemn them there — and the global silence around them. I’ve said before that I oppose genocide, war crimes, and persecution wherever they occur. But bringing China into this discussion is a deflection. The fact that one atrocity receives less attention doesn’t make another any less real or urgent. Human rights aren’t a competition, and accountability shouldn’t depend on media coverage. Right now, we’re discussing Gaza — where Israel, as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, is being investigated by the International Court of Justice for plausibly breaching its obligations to prevent genocide. That’s a concrete, ongoing legal matter. Shifting the focus to another country doesn’t erase that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you want to start a thread about the atrocities in China, I’ll gladly join and condemn them there — and the global silence around them. I’ve said before that I oppose genocide, war crimes, and persecution wherever they occur. But bringing China into this discussion is a deflection. The fact that one atrocity receives less attention doesn’t make another any less real or urgent. Human rights aren’t a competition, and accountability shouldn’t depend on media coverage. Right now, we’re discussing Gaza — where Israel, as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, is being investigated by the International Court of Justice for plausibly breaching its obligations to prevent genocide. That’s a concrete, ongoing legal matter. Shifting the focus to another country doesn’t erase that." You all say intent is what shows that something is a genocide. I agree with that but disagree that there is enough evidence to show that Israel is genocidal. If the current evidence shows that Israel is genocidal, Palestinians are also genocidal and China too. I made the statement about the left wingers because it's odd that they show a lot of outrage on this issue but not even 1% of it on China. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You all say intent is what shows that something is a genocide. I agree with that but disagree that there is enough evidence to show that Israel is genocidal. If the current evidence shows that Israel is genocidal, Palestinians are also genocidal and China too. I made the statement about the left wingers because it's odd that they show a lot of outrage on this issue but not even 1% of it on China. " You’re right that intent is central to the definition of genocide, but it’s not just a matter of personal opinion — it’s something international courts assess using established legal standards. South Africa didn’t bring a random accusation; it filed a formal case at the ICJ under the Genocide Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. The Court found that Israel is plausibly breaching its obligations to prevent genocide and ordered provisional measures in response. That’s not about “left” or “right”; it’s about international law doing what it was designed to do. And while I agree that China’s abuses deserve far more attention, pointing to another crisis doesn’t erase this one. If anything, it highlights a wider pattern of inconsistency — in my view, people on the right tend to ignore both issues, while people on the left often focus only on one. But human rights shouldn’t depend on politics or media coverage. Accountability should depend on facts — and right now, the ICJ considers this situation serious enough to warrant investigation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, it has nothing to do with what I said." You said "Whether some American Jews who say this are antisemites, I don't know". This implies that you think self-hating Jews are at the very least a possibility. It's affirming an antisemitic trope. "I was specifically answering the other poster's claim that Israel was reducing Palestine's birth rates." Do you not think Palestinian birth rates will be affected by large numbers of women being killed and essential supplies like baby formula being denied entry? Whether or not various Israeli government ministers will be found guilty of genocide remains to be seen but you are playing a numbers game in order to minimize the impact of the actions of the IDF in a fashion that is disturbingly familiar. "Hitler was vegetarian. Doesn't mean that everyone who likes vegetarianism is same as Hitler. Same applies to the holocaust deniers argument you are making here." There is some dispute over whether Hitler was actually a vegetarian, but liking vegetarianism isn't the same as using the arguments of Holocaust deniers. "You are claiming that Israel has intent to genocide Palestinians. And yet, there is no evidence of that intent. If what Israel does shows intent of genocide, Palestinians are genocidal too. Not mention China which all the left wingers conveniently like to ignore." I've said in the past that it's up to scholars and legal experts to determine whether the Israeli government is guilty of genocide. However your claim that there is no evidence just doesn't stand up to the statements of intent by multiple members of the Israeli government including Netanyahu's famous reference to the Amalek combined with the actions of the IDF - not only disproportionate killing of civilians but the systematic destruction of houses, hospitals and schools along with the blockade against essential aid, the killing of medics, local journalists and the banning of foreign independent journalists in order to try to avoid international scrutiny of their actions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whataboutery fallacy too, no surprise. How many Uyghur children have been killed by the Chinese authorities? If you genuinely care about the situation of Muslims in China then start a thread on it and we can all condemn the behaviour of the Chinese government. Unlike here there won't be anyone defending the government responsible. But I suspect like the fake thread about Sudan it'll be just another exercise in trying to minimize what's going on in Gaza and the West Bank. " A forum search suggests only four threads on Sudan, ever. A long time ago, with very little interest. To which thread are you referring? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A forum search suggests only four threads on Sudan, ever. A long time ago, with very little interest. To which thread are you referring?" You aren't an idiot, you know I am referring to the one you started. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This "after statements like “erase Gaza” and “human animals,” in particular, is ridiculous. The report focused on words said in total anger by Israeli officials and extrapolated from that the motivation behind an entire two year war campaign in ridiculous conditions that was clearly designed at destroying Hamas only Using ones Braon for half a second do you not concede this has to be the most ineffective genocide of all time of Israel has been relentlessly bombing Gaza for two years and killed barely 30-50k civilians. If Israel had actually wanted to genocide Gaza it would have been over in a week. I find it absurd to the extreme for this stupid report to focus on a handful of comments made by a handful of ministers and Totally Ignore the general statements made by Hamas leadership time and again now they wish to destroy the Israel. That's not genocide? You also have to consider the context that those statements of "animals" etc were made in. The full reports of the sexual and other violence committed that day do indeed indicate to anyone with a normal moral.compass that those who carried out the attacks are inhuman. (Btw, not just Hamas.solfiers but a lot of the abuse was carried out by gleeful Gazan civilians too, as can be clearly seen on the videos). Women with breasts cut out Women with nails inserted in their v..a. Women with knives inserted into their.. A family found on their knees bound behind their back, two little kids and their parents, who were missing body parts (eye and hand) who had been tortured while alive. A little boy of 7 or 8 crying aftee a grenade blew off his hand while he discovers his father is dead and the Hamas animal just saunters around in front of him in the kitchen drinking from the familys fridge Yes, war is terrible and the death toll on Gaza is in the thousands. But that is war. What occured on Oct 7th was religiously motivated barbarism that hearkens back to the stone age. Primitive barbaric evil. Very easy to see why they were called "animals" and frankly utterly ridiculous to decide that that is motivation for genocide. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and to argue against this is just blind nonsense. I’m not downplaying the atrocities committed by Hamas — they were horrific, and there’s no justification for them. But responding to atrocities with genocide is even worse, especially from a state that has signed the Genocide Convention — a treaty that explicitly commits its signatories to prevent and refrain from such acts. The deliberate targeting of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and statements from Israeli officials describing Palestinians as “human animals” or calling to “erase Gaza” go far beyond anger — they represent the kind of dehumanising language that international law recognises as an early warning sign of genocidal intent. Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Many Jewish voices around the world, including figures like Mandy Patinkin and organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, have condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as incompatible with Jewish values. These are people speaking from within the Jewish community — hardly antisemites. The point isn’t to deny Israel’s right to self-defence or ignore Hamas’s crimes, but to recognise that self-defence doesn’t grant any state the right to commit mass, indiscriminate violence. Condemning war crimes — whoever commits them — isn’t bias. It’s a moral necessity." Ok now I'm convinced you're either AI or a Bot who just regurgitates leftish arguments without actually thinking what I've written | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, it has nothing to do with what I said. You said "Whether some American Jews who say this are antisemites, I don't know". This implies that you think self-hating Jews are at the very least a possibility. It's affirming an antisemitic trope. " Your verbal gymnastics are getting laughable at this point. "I don't know" means I don't know of any possibilities either. It's a topic I have no opinion on. I am not going to quickly do an AI/wiki search like you and pretend like I know a lot about this topic to have an opinion on. " Do you not think Palestinian birth rates will be affected by large numbers of women being killed and essential supplies like baby formula being denied entry? " Do you not think that Israeli birth rates will be affected by Hamas killing young Israelis? " Whether or not various Israeli government ministers will be found guilty of genocide remains to be seen but you are playing a numbers game in order to minimize the impact of the actions of the IDF in a fashion that is disturbingly familiar. " I am not minimising impact. At the same time, I am not going to agree with emotionally driven exaggerations without backing evidence. " There is some dispute over whether Hitler was actually a vegetarian, but liking vegetarianism isn't the same as using the arguments of Holocaust deniers. " You are essentially making a similar argument. Instead of proving Israel's intent to genocide, you are just doing meaningless comparisons with some arguments that other people made. " I've said in the past that it's up to scholars and legal experts to determine whether the Israeli government is guilty of genocide. " There are numerous scholars and legal experts around the world. I bet you will pick and choose the ones who say things you agree with. " However your claim that there is no evidence just doesn't stand up to the statements of intent by multiple members of the Israeli government including Netanyahu's famous reference to the Amalek combined with the actions of the IDF - not only disproportionate killing of civilians but the systematic destruction of houses, hospitals and schools along with the blockade against essential aid, the killing of medics, local journalists and the banning of foreign independent journalists in order to try to avoid international scrutiny of their actions. " The Amalek reference was about Hamas. Unless you believe Palestinians are same as Hamas, I don't know how you can call it a genocide. The topic of buildings and infrastructure has already been covered in this thread and previous thread by the other posters. If Hamas decides to use these buildings to develop their terrorist network, Israel was obviously going to take them down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When 39% of American Jews say that Israel has committed genocide and 61% say it has committed war crimes then anyone claiming that it's all just down to antisemitism is standing on extremely thin ice. " These stats sound extremely unlikely | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A forum search suggests only four threads on Sudan, ever. A long time ago, with very little interest. To which thread are you referring? You aren't an idiot, you know I am referring to the one you started." Did you mean the one on Yemen or Syria, perhaps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, it has nothing to do with what I said. You said "Whether some American Jews who say this are antisemites, I don't know". This implies that you think self-hating Jews are at the very least a possibility. It's affirming an antisemitic trope. I was specifically answering the other poster's claim that Israel was reducing Palestine's birth rates. Do you not think Palestinian birth rates will be affected by large numbers of women being killed and essential supplies like baby formula being denied entry? Whether or not various Israeli government ministers will be found guilty of genocide remains to be seen but you are playing a numbers game in order to minimize the impact of the actions of the IDF in a fashion that is disturbingly familiar. Hitler was vegetarian. Doesn't mean that everyone who likes vegetarianism is same as Hitler. Same applies to the holocaust deniers argument you are making here. There is some dispute over whether Hitler was actually a vegetarian, but liking vegetarianism isn't the same as using the arguments of Holocaust deniers. You are claiming that Israel has intent to genocide Palestinians. And yet, there is no evidence of that intent. If what Israel does shows intent of genocide, Palestinians are genocidal too. Not mention China which all the left wingers conveniently like to ignore. I've said in the past that it's up to scholars and legal experts to determine whether the Israeli government is guilty of genocide. However your claim that there is no evidence just doesn't stand up to the statements of intent by multiple members of the Israeli government including Netanyahu's famous reference to the Amalek combined with the actions of the IDF - not only disproportionate killing of civilians but the systematic destruction of houses, hospitals and schools along with the blockade against essential aid, the killing of medics, local journalists and the banning of foreign independent journalists in order to try to avoid international scrutiny of their actions. " "Disproportionate killing of civilians" If the aim is to destroy hamas, an enemy with the desire and capability to threatens Israeli civilians, then it no longer becomes disproportionate I haven't got the patience but it's a quixk Google | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When people equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, it silences genuine moral debate. " The obsession of the world with demonising and critisicisng Israel over and above any and all other horrible countries surely indicates something beyond mere criticism. If my community is plagued by muggers and I pursue and harass and criticise a BAME mugger in my community day and night 24/7 but barely criticise any of the other muggers in my community then it's pretty obvious that my issue with them is not muggery but something else. How is this not bleedingly obvious? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You all say intent is what shows that something is a genocide. I agree with that but disagree that there is enough evidence to show that Israel is genocidal. If the current evidence shows that Israel is genocidal, Palestinians are also genocidal and China too. I made the statement about the left wingers because it's odd that they show a lot of outrage on this issue but not even 1% of it on China. You’re right that intent is central to the definition of genocide, but it’s not just a matter of personal opinion — it’s something international courts assess using established legal standards. " Everything is a matter of personal opinion. All institutions are biased one way or another. " South Africa didn’t bring a random accusation; it filed a formal case at the ICJ under the Genocide Convention, to which Israel is a signatory. The Court found that Israel is plausibly breaching its obligations to prevent genocide and ordered provisional measures in response. That’s not about “left” or “right”; it’s about international law doing what it was designed to do. " "Plausibly". Also, the wording seems to say that they aren't doing enough to prevent genocide and not that they are committing genocide. " And while I agree that China’s abuses deserve far more attention, pointing to another crisis doesn’t erase this one. If anything, it highlights a wider pattern of inconsistency — in my view, people on the right tend to ignore both issues, while people on the left often focus only on one. But human rights shouldn’t depend on politics or media coverage. " And yet China hardly gets any attention. Have you ever wondered why? The ones on the right want non-interference because if you force Israel but you cannot control Hamas, Hamas will inevitably attack Israel again and people like you will have Israeli blood in your hands. Are you willing to take that responsibility? " Accountability should depend on facts — and right now, the ICJ considers this situation serious enough to warrant investigation. " "Facts" according to the ICJ, which is part of the UN? The organisation that famously employed people who were involved in the October 7 attack? The organisation that famously had Saudi Arabia preside over women's rights forum? With what face are you asking everyone to trust them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Amalek reference was about Hamas." I didn't realise Hamas fighters included children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whataboutery fallacy too, no surprise. How many Uyghur children have been killed by the Chinese authorities? " That's the point. You won't even know because China wouldn't let you. Ask Greta Thunberg to do her media circus with China and let me know how it goes. " If you genuinely care about the situation of Muslims in China then start a thread on it and we can all condemn the behaviour of the Chinese government. Unlike here there won't be anyone defending the government responsible. But I suspect like the fake thread about Sudan it'll be just another exercise in trying to minimize what's going on in Gaza and the West Bank. " I am not denying your right to focus only on one issue. I am just curious why left wingers seem to be so outraged about this over the other issues. The most favourable excuse I can find is that you are just driven by what the media feeds you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Amalek reference was about Hamas. I didn't realise Hamas fighters included children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys." Netanyahu referred to Hamas when he made that statement. Where did children, cattles, etc come from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Amalek reference was about Hamas. I didn't realise Hamas fighters included children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys. Netanyahu referred to Hamas when he made that statement. Where did children, cattles, etc come from?" The Bible  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These stats sound extremely unlikely" Google Washington Post : Many American Jews sharply critical of Israel on Gaza, Post poll finds | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok now I'm convinced you're either AI or a Bot who just regurgitates leftish arguments without actually thinking what I've written " I actually replied to what you wrote point by point — that’s how discussion works. It’s easier to dismiss something as “AI” than to address the arguments in it, but every line I wrote came from reading and responding to your post directly. You made emotional and moral claims; I responded with legal and factual ones. That’s not regurgitation — that’s debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did you mean the one on Yemen or Syria, perhaps?" It was about Sudan because I remember talking about the conflict between the SAF and RSF. Maybe it wasn't you who was the OP, if so I apologize. Or maybe I'm having a blonde moment and it was on another forum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“Facts" according to the ICJ, which is part of the UN? The organisation that famously employed people who were involved in the October 7 attack? The organisation that famously had Saudi Arabia preside over women's rights forum? With what face are you asking everyone to trust them?" Saying “everything is a matter of personal opinion” isn’t really how international law works. The ICJ doesn’t operate on opinion — it works on evidence, definitions, and legal standards. If everything were just opinion, there’d be no way to hold anyone accountable for war crimes or genocide. You’re right that the ICJ used the word “plausibly” — that’s the legal threshold for ordering protection measures, not a final verdict. It means there’s enough evidence of risk to civilian life that it can’t be ignored. The ruling is about prevention before confirmation. The UN and its agencies definitely have flaws, but dismissing every finding because of unrelated scandals isn’t logic — it’s deflection. The ICJ’s judges are independent and elected by both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, including countries like the UK and US. It’s not some rogue committee. And yes — China’s actions deserve far more scrutiny. But bringing them up here is a change of subject, not a counterpoint. If you want to start a thread about that, I’ll gladly join and condemn what’s happening there too. Deflecting to another country doesn’t erase the facts at hand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not denying your right to focus only on one issue. I am just curious why left wingers seem to be so outraged about this over the other issues. The most favourable excuse I can find is that you are just driven by what the media feeds you." I've explained previously why I personally have a particular interest in I/P. To recap I was an ignorant Zionist as a young man, many of my friendships have been with Jewish people, my beloved partner of 18 years was Jewish, sadly she passed away three years ago. Can we get back to the actual arguments now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Netanyahu referred to Hamas when he made that statement. Where did children, cattles, etc come from?" Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. Samuel 15:3 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Netanyahu referred to Hamas when he made that statement. Where did children, cattles, etc come from? Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. Samuel 15:3" Did Netanyahu say all that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Amalek reference was about Hamas. I didn't realise Hamas fighters included children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys. Netanyahu referred to Hamas when he made that statement. Where did children, cattles, etc come from? The Bible " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“Facts" according to the ICJ, which is part of the UN? The organisation that famously employed people who were involved in the October 7 attack? The organisation that famously had Saudi Arabia preside over women's rights forum? With what face are you asking everyone to trust them? Saying “everything is a matter of personal opinion” isn’t really how international law works. The ICJ doesn’t operate on opinion — it works on evidence, definitions, and legal standards. If everything were just opinion, there’d be no way to hold anyone accountable for war crimes or genocide. You’re right that the ICJ used the word “plausibly” — that’s the legal threshold for ordering protection measures, not a final verdict. It means there’s enough evidence of risk to civilian life that it can’t be ignored. The ruling is about prevention before confirmation. The UN and its agencies definitely have flaws, but dismissing every finding because of unrelated scandals isn’t logic — it’s deflection. The ICJ’s judges are independent and elected by both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, including countries like the UK and US. It’s not some rogue committee. " Yes, for us to have some level of objective laws, we need institutions. But unfortunately, the institution in this case has lost their trust. Why should people trust an organisation that actually had staffed terrorists who were involved in October 7? You can't brush aside such a huge thing like it's a minor flaw. " And yes — China’s actions deserve far more scrutiny. But bringing them up here is a change of subject, not a counterpoint. If you want to start a thread about that, I’ll gladly join and condemn what’s happening there too. Deflecting to another country doesn’t erase the facts at hand. " I am still on subject. There must be a reason why the left is much more outraged about this issue and not show even 1% if this outrage on China. There must be some bias driving this. I am trying to get to the bottom of this bias. If you don't know the answer, you can just avoid answering instead of telling me I shouldn't be bringing this topic here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Netanyahu say all that?" He didn't need to because everyone, apart from you, understood it was a biblical reference to genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did Netanyahu say all that? He didn't need to because everyone, apart from you, understood it was a biblical reference to genocide." Looks like only a few people like you reached that conclusion. Lot of left wingers call random folks Nazis. Does that mean, they want them to be killed/bombed the way they were during the world war? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am still on subject. There must be a reason why the left is much more outraged about this issue and not show even 1% if this outrage on China. There must be some bias driving this. I am trying to get to the bottom of this bias. If you don't know the answer, you can just avoid answering instead of telling me I shouldn't be bringing this topic here." I get the impression that you are new to debating this subject. Accusations of antisemitism whether direct or nudge nudge wink wink are rolled out routinely to attack anyone criticising the Israeli government and the IDF. I'm reasonably confident that you don't give a damn about the treatment of Muslims in China. But to prove me wrong start a thread on it and we can debate it there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like only a few people like you reached that conclusion." You are the only person I've heard of who is ignorant enough to not understand that a reference to the Amalek is a reference to what the bible says about them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"“Why should people trust an organisation that actually had staffed terrorists who were involved in October 7? You can't brush aside such a huge thing like it's a minor flaw.”" That claim refers to the UNRWA scandal earlier this year — not the ICJ or the UN as a whole. Twelve UNRWA employees (out of over 13,000 in Gaza) were accused of involvement in the October 7 attacks. The UN immediately terminated their employment and launched an independent investigation led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna. That has nothing to do with the ICJ, which operates independently, with judges elected by both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. A misconduct case in one agency doesn’t invalidate the work of an entirely separate international court. As for China — that’s simply off-topic here. If you want to analyse media reactions or double standards, that’s a valid discussion for another thread, but it’s not relevant to this one. This conversation is about Gaza, the ICJ case, and Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention — not about how the left or right responds to other crises. Like myself and PennineTop have said, if you want to start a thread on China, we’ll both be happy to discuss your views there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am still on subject. There must be a reason why the left is much more outraged about this issue and not show even 1% if this outrage on China. There must be some bias driving this. I am trying to get to the bottom of this bias. If you don't know the answer, you can just avoid answering instead of telling me I shouldn't be bringing this topic here. I get the impression that you are new to debating this subject. Accusations of antisemitism whether direct or nudge nudge wink wink are rolled out routinely to attack anyone criticising the Israeli government and the IDF. I'm reasonably confident that you don't give a damn about the treatment of Muslims in China. But to prove me wrong start a thread on it and we can debate it there." I get the impression that you don't even read before posting replies. Where did I say anything about antisemitism here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like only a few people like you reached that conclusion. You are the only person I've heard of who is ignorant enough to not understand that a reference to the Amalek is a reference to what the bible says about them. " There are a lot of biblical references about Amalek I can find. If everything applies here just because Netanyahu used the term Amalek, you have to respond to my question if the same applies even for people who call others Nazis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lot of left wingers call random folks Nazis. Does that mean, they want them to be killed/bombed the way they were during the world war?" Nobody calls "random folks" Nazis. The term is used for people promoting fascist ideology. And very few people on the left ever call for people to be killed. A large part of the left/liberal/progressive philosophy is about trying to understand why some people go astray and to try to work out ways to prevent this and to rehabilitate criminals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lot of left wingers call random folks Nazis. Does that mean, they want them to be killed/bombed the way they were during the world war? Nobody calls "random folks" Nazis. The term is used for people promoting fascist ideology. " You have to be living under a rock if you think the term hasn't been used to address anyone who doesn't agree with the view of left wingers. " And very few people on the left ever call for people to be killed. A large part of the left/liberal/progressive philosophy is about trying to understand why some people go astray and to try to work out ways to prevent this and to rehabilitate criminals. " Considering the fact that the country went on a war and killed most Nazis, if you call someone Nazi it would mean we want to go on a violent war against them right? That's what you are implying by saying that Netanyahu's use of the word Amalek means genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like only a few people like you reached that conclusion. You are the only person I've heard of who is ignorant enough to not understand that a reference to the Amalek is a reference to what the bible says about them. There are a lot of biblical references about Amalek I can find. If everything applies here just because Netanyahu used the term Amalek, you have to respond to my question if the same applies even for people who call others Nazis." Amalek, as a nation, represent many things to the Jews. Chiefly, and in summary, they might say "our antithesis, our nemesis - a people who want us eradicated. When we were weak after leaving Egypt, they attacked us mercilessly." - it's almost interchangeable with the word Nazi to Jews, and indeed most of the Israeli government equates Hamas and now broadly radical Islamism with Nazism. Most of this context is lost, and many people focus on is the genocide bit. Now, would Netanyahu like to kill every man, woman and child* (*16 year old with an IED) who are a *real* threat to Israel? Yes. Does he mean that he wants to kill all Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians/Gazans? No. But those looking for justification for how they want to feel will see it that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looks like only a few people like you reached that conclusion. You are the only person I've heard of who is ignorant enough to not understand that a reference to the Amalek is a reference to what the bible says about them. There are a lot of biblical references about Amalek I can find. If everything applies here just because Netanyahu used the term Amalek, you have to respond to my question if the same applies even for people who call others Nazis. Amalek, as a nation, represent many things to the Jews. Chiefly, and in summary, they might say "our antithesis, our nemesis - a people who want us eradicated. When we were weak after leaving Egypt, they attacked us mercilessly." - it's almost interchangeable with the word Nazi to Jews, and indeed most of the Israeli government equates Hamas and now broadly radical Islamism with Nazism. Most of this context is lost, and many people focus on is the genocide bit. Now, would Netanyahu like to kill every man, woman and child* (*16 year old with an IED) who are a *real* threat to Israel? Yes. Does he mean that he wants to kill all Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians/Gazans? No. But those looking for justification for how they want to feel will see it that way." Thanks for the context
When I looked up this term the first time it was in the news, I saw mixed views about the usage. This explains it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I get the impression that you don't even read before posting replies. Where did I say anything about antisemitism here?" That's what I meant by nudge nudge wink wink. You wrote... "There must be a reason why the left is much more outraged about this issue and not show even 1% if this outrage on China. There must be some bias driving this. I am trying to get to the bottom of this bias." I've been debating I/P for a very long time and this kind of suggestive language is routine. Oh, what could possibly be the reason why the left are outraged by the mistreatment of Palestinians, nudge nudge wink wink. As I said I think you are a newcomer to debating this subject. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I get the impression that you don't even read before posting replies. Where did I say anything about antisemitism here? That's what I meant by nudge nudge wink wink. You wrote... "There must be a reason why the left is much more outraged about this issue and not show even 1% if this outrage on China. There must be some bias driving this. I am trying to get to the bottom of this bias." I've been debating I/P for a very long time and this kind of suggestive language is routine. Oh, what could possibly be the reason why the left are outraged by the mistreatment of Palestinians, nudge nudge wink wink. As I said I think you are a newcomer to debating this subject. " This post is just one of about hundred posts that you have made where you have wrongly characterised what I am saying. This might come as a shock to you but you are not good at mind reading. In fact, you are terrible even at reading my posts, let alone my mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This post is just one of about hundred posts that you have made where you have wrongly characterised what I am saying. This might come as a shock to you but you are not good at mind reading. In fact, you are terrible even at reading my posts, let alone my mind. " If you think your point’s been misunderstood, the simplest way to fix that is to clarify your position. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Amalek, as a nation, represent many things to the Jews. Chiefly, and in summary, they might say "our antithesis, our nemesis - a people who want us eradicated. When we were weak after leaving Egypt, they attacked us mercilessly." - it's almost interchangeable with the word Nazi to Jews, and indeed most of the Israeli government equates Hamas and now broadly radical Islamism with Nazism. Most of this context is lost, and many people focus on is the genocide bit. Now, would Netanyahu like to kill every man, woman and child* (*16 year old with an IED) who are a *real* threat to Israel? Yes. Does he mean that he wants to kill all Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians/Gazans? No. But those looking for justification for how they want to feel will see it that way." There doesn't appear to be much real evidence to support the myth of Exodus but the story persists. The other main reference to the Amalek is Deuteronomy 25:17 "Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it." What do you think blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven means? The idea that Netanyahu wasn't using genocidal language is extremely naive or just disingenuous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All looking a bit shaky now Two hostage bodies released, Rafah aid access closed and today IDF confirms it has begun ‘wave of attacks’ in southern Gaza as the fragile ceasefire comes close to total collapse. The IDF said ‘massive and extensive wave of strikes’ were aimed at dozens of Hamas targets 11 more reported dead " I’m sure the IDF will cite “intelligence” from the ever-impartial U.S. as justification — the same intelligence we’ll conveniently never get to see or verify. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All looking a bit shaky now Two hostage bodies released, Rafah aid access closed and today IDF confirms it has begun ‘wave of attacks’ in southern Gaza as the fragile ceasefire comes close to total collapse. The IDF said ‘massive and extensive wave of strikes’ were aimed at dozens of Hamas targets 11 more reported dead" The key thing is the official annoucement that... "In accordance with the directive of the political echelon, the transfer of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip has been halted until further notice, following Hamas’s blatant violation of the agreement". In international humanitarian law this is a serious war crime and the Israeli government are openly declaring their illegal action, there isn't any dispute about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The key thing is the official annoucement that... "In accordance with the directive of the political echelon, the transfer of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip has been halted until further notice, following Hamas’s blatant violation of the agreement". In international humanitarian law this is a serious war crime and the Israeli government are openly declaring their illegal action, there isn't any dispute about it." Exactly — cutting off aid isn’t a military measure, it’s collective punishment. Under Article 54 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, deliberately depriving civilians of food, water, or medical supplies is a war crime, regardless of alleged breaches by the other side. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, it has nothing to do with what I said. You said "Whether some American Jews who say this are antisemites, I don't know". This implies that you think self-hating Jews are at the very least a possibility. It's affirming an antisemitic trope. I was specifically answering the other poster's claim that Israel was reducing Palestine's birth rates. Do you not think Palestinian birth rates will be affected by large numbers of women being killed and essential supplies like baby formula being denied entry? Whether or not various Israeli government ministers will be found guilty of genocide remains to be seen but you are playing a numbers game in order to minimize the impact of the actions of the IDF in a fashion that is disturbingly familiar. Hitler was vegetarian. Doesn't mean that everyone who likes vegetarianism is same as Hitler. Same applies to the holocaust deniers argument you are making here. There is some dispute over whether Hitler was actually a vegetarian, but liking vegetarianism isn't the same as using the arguments of Holocaust deniers. You are claiming that Israel has intent to genocide Palestinians. And yet, there is no evidence of that intent. If what Israel does shows intent of genocide, Palestinians are genocidal too. Not mention China which all the left wingers conveniently like to ignore. I've said in the past that it's up to scholars and legal experts to determine whether the Israeli government is guilty of genocide. However your claim that there is no evidence just doesn't stand up to the statements of intent by multiple members of the Israeli government including Netanyahu's famous reference to the Amalek combined with the actions of the IDF - not only disproportionate killing of civilians but the systematic destruction of houses, hospitals and schools along with the blockade against essential aid, the killing of medics, local journalists and the banning of foreign independent journalists in order to try to avoid international scrutiny of their actions. "Disproportionate killing of civilians" If the aim is to destroy hamas, an enemy with the desire and capability to threatens Israeli civilians, then it no longer becomes disproportionate I haven't got the patience but it's a quixk Google " What would a proportionate response be to the Hamas attack? I posed this on the previous thread as many mentioned disproportionate retaliation by Israel, but did not get any answers. I gave some options which were: They could have not retaliated at all and just tried negotiating for hostage returns. Personally I doubt any country would have not hit back after suffering such an horrific attack. They could have launched a like for like attack, deliberately killing civilians in the same numbers as hamas killed in their raid - would that be acceptable? Seems they decided to go after hamas fighter's which is reasonable but given hamas and their like are known for using innocent civilians as human shields and would use civilian casualties for propaganda, it comes at huge risk of loosing international support, which apart from America seems to have happened. Those that make the decisions also have to think of their own soldiers as well. Of course there are probably many other options but wondering what would be acceptable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What would a proportionate response be to the Hamas attack? I posed this on the previous thread as many mentioned disproportionate retaliation by Israel, but did not get any answers. I gave some options which were: They could have not retaliated at all and just tried negotiating for hostage returns. Personally I doubt any country would have not hit back after suffering such an horrific attack. They could have launched a like for like attack, deliberately killing civilians in the same numbers as hamas killed in their raid - would that be acceptable? Seems they decided to go after hamas fighter's which is reasonable but given hamas and their like are known for using innocent civilians as human shields and would use civilian casualties for propaganda, it comes at huge risk of loosing international support, which apart from America seems to have happened. Those that make the decisions also have to think of their own soldiers as well. Of course there are probably many other options but wondering what would be acceptable " That’s a false dichotomy — it frames Israel’s choices as either doing nothing or responding with massive force, when international law offers many options between those extremes. Proportionality isn’t about refusing self-defence; it’s about avoiding collective punishment and civilian targeting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What would a proportionate response be to the Hamas attack? I posed this on the previous thread as many mentioned disproportionate retaliation by Israel, but did not get any answers. I gave some options which were: They could have not retaliated at all and just tried negotiating for hostage returns. Personally I doubt any country would have not hit back after suffering such an horrific attack. They could have launched a like for like attack, deliberately killing civilians in the same numbers as hamas killed in their raid - would that be acceptable? Seems they decided to go after hamas fighter's which is reasonable but given hamas and their like are known for using innocent civilians as human shields and would use civilian casualties for propaganda, it comes at huge risk of loosing international support, which apart from America seems to have happened. Those that make the decisions also have to think of their own soldiers as well. Of course there are probably many other options but wondering what would be acceptable That’s a false dichotomy — it frames Israel’s choices as either doing nothing or responding with massive force, when international law offers many options between those extremes. Proportionality isn’t about refusing self-defence; it’s about avoiding collective punishment and civilian targeting." I'm simply asking anyone, if they were Israel PM what would be the correct response in the circumstances they faced. I'm not asking what the incorrect response would be. To be clear, for me Israel went to far but that's just my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm simply asking anyone, if they were Israel PM what would be the correct response in the circumstances they faced. I'm not asking what the incorrect response would be. To be clear, for me Israel went to far but that's just my opinion. " That’s a fair question — and it’s possible to answer it without falling into extremes. A proportionate response could have focused on targeted operations against Hamas leadership and military assets, combined with genuine efforts to secure hostages through negotiation and third-party mediation. It would also mean allowing humanitarian aid to continue and avoiding actions that punish the entire civilian population. International law doesn’t forbid Israel from defending itself — it forbids indiscriminate retaliation and collective punishment. The issue isn’t that Israel responded, but how it chose to respond. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm simply asking anyone, if they were Israel PM what would be the correct response in the circumstances they faced. I'm not asking what the incorrect response would be. To be clear, for me Israel went to far but that's just my opinion." I don't understand why you are using such convoluted reasoning. Not wanting to know what the incorrect response would be is kind of weird as the correct response would be not the incorrect response. As you think the Israeli response went too far then why don't you just say what you think the correct response would be and see if anyone agrees with you? I've already stated what I think the Israeli government should do but will go over old ground again if you like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm simply asking anyone, if they were Israel PM what would be the correct response in the circumstances they faced. I'm not asking what the incorrect response would be. To be clear, for me Israel went to far but that's just my opinion. That’s a fair question — and it’s possible to answer it without falling into extremes. A proportionate response could have focused on targeted operations against Hamas leadership and military assets, combined with genuine efforts to secure hostages through negotiation and third-party mediation. It would also mean allowing humanitarian aid to continue and avoiding actions that punish the entire civilian population. International law doesn’t forbid Israel from defending itself — it forbids indiscriminate retaliation and collective punishment. The issue isn’t that Israel responded, but how it chose to respond." Thank you for your response and understanding the question . I agree largely with your proposal. I suspect that for many of the Israeli strikes they would have claimed they were targeted against hamas leaders and military assets. The problem is the location of such targets. That said, I think such an approach could have worked out less problematic all round in the end | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All looking a bit shaky now Two hostage bodies released, Rafah aid access closed and today IDF confirms it has begun ‘wave of attacks’ in southern Gaza as the fragile ceasefire comes close to total collapse. The IDF said ‘massive and extensive wave of strikes’ were aimed at dozens of Hamas targets 11 more reported dead I’m sure the IDF will cite “intelligence” from the ever-impartial U.S. as justification — the same intelligence we’ll conveniently never get to see or verify." "You're sure"? You clearly would rather jump to conclusions that for with your world view than consider the actual facts/truth. Enjoy jumping to conclusions that condemn a country you dislike. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm simply asking anyone, if they were Israel PM what would be the correct response in the circumstances they faced. I'm not asking what the incorrect response would be. To be clear, for me Israel went to far but that's just my opinion. That’s a fair question — and it’s possible to answer it without falling into extremes. A proportionate response could have focused on targeted operations against Hamas leadership and military assets, combined with genuine efforts to secure hostages through negotiation and third-party mediation. It would also mean allowing humanitarian aid to continue and avoiding actions that punish the entire civilian population. International law doesn’t forbid Israel from defending itself — it forbids indiscriminate retaliation and collective punishment. The issue isn’t that Israel responded, but how it chose to respond." The issue is that Hamas knows this and wanted to tie Israel's hands, hence their cynical use of their population. This was the key problem. Conversely, Hamas could have ended the war themselves by disarming and returning the hostages, which they didn't do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There doesn't appear to be much real evidence to support the myth of Exodus but the story persists. The other main reference to the Amalek is Deuteronomy 25:17... ...What do you think blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven means? The idea that Netanyahu wasn't using genocidal language is extremely naive or just disingenuous. " Nobody is taking about the historical understanding of exodus. It's about what incoming Amalek means to his audience: Jews in Israel. He has effectively equated Hamas with the historical and hated event of the Jewish nation. After October 7th, that's pretty understandable. It's analogous to calling them Nazis, which he does often. And, if he were alive 80 years ago, he would also happily kill every Nazi with the wherewithal to pose Jews harm. But nobody seems to complain about that. Genocide is actually exactly what was commanded, biblically. And he would happily eradicate every member of Hamas who poses a threat. But to take this to mean genocide of Gazans is stretching to find a justification for a claim of genocide. If only because he had the means to eradicate every baby, camel and cow, but didn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All looking a bit shaky now Two hostage bodies released, Rafah aid access closed and today IDF confirms it has begun ‘wave of attacks’ in southern Gaza as the fragile ceasefire comes close to total collapse. The IDF said ‘massive and extensive wave of strikes’ were aimed at dozens of Hamas targets 11 more reported dead I’m sure the IDF will cite “intelligence” from the ever-impartial U.S. as justification — the same intelligence we’ll conveniently never get to see or verify. "You're sure"? You clearly would rather jump to conclusions that for with your world view than consider the actual facts/truth. Enjoy jumping to conclusions that condemn a country you dislike." You’re assuming motive rather than addressing the point. That’s an ad hominem — it focuses on what you think I believe instead of the claim itself. The statement I made was about process, not opinion: Israel has repeatedly justified strikes using classified U.S. intelligence that’s never released for scrutiny. Whether anyone “likes” or “dislikes” a country isn’t relevant to verifying those claims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect that Trump will be on the phone screaming at Netanyahu. " Unlikely. He warned Hamas and even the Gulf states warned Hamas. And right now, Hamas are executing hundreds of Palestinians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The issue is that Hamas knows this and wanted to tie Israel's hands, hence their cynical use of their population. This was the key problem. Conversely, Hamas could have ended the war themselves by disarming and returning the hostages, which they didn't do." That argument is a classic deflection — shifting blame to Hamas doesn’t erase Israel’s own legal obligations. Yes, Hamas’s tactics are reprehensible, but Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention and bound by international humanitarian law. Those rules exist precisely for situations where the other side acts unlawfully — to stop the cycle of atrocity, not to justify it. Saying “Hamas made us do it” isn’t a defence in international law; it’s an admission that civilian protection was abandoned when it was needed most. And in breaking the latest ceasefire and halting humanitarian aid, Israel has once again chosen to violate those same obligations — committing yet another clear breach of international law and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All looking a bit shaky now Two hostage bodies released, Rafah aid access closed and today IDF confirms it has begun ‘wave of attacks’ in southern Gaza as the fragile ceasefire comes close to total collapse. The IDF said ‘massive and extensive wave of strikes’ were aimed at dozens of Hamas targets 11 more reported dead I’m sure the IDF will cite “intelligence” from the ever-impartial U.S. as justification — the same intelligence we’ll conveniently never get to see or verify. "You're sure"? You clearly would rather jump to conclusions that for with your world view than consider the actual facts/truth. Enjoy jumping to conclusions that condemn a country you dislike. You’re assuming motive rather than addressing the point. That’s an ad hominem — it focuses on what you think I believe instead of the claim itself. The statement I made was about process, not opinion: Israel has repeatedly justified strikes using classified U.S. intelligence that’s never released for scrutiny. Whether anyone “likes” or “dislikes” a country isn’t relevant to verifying those claims." You made a negative assumption, using rhetoric ("I'm sure"), without a factual basis. And you take issue with that being called out? Enjoy forum life | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You made a negative assumption, using rhetoric ("I'm sure"), without a factual basis. And you take issue with that being called out? Enjoy forum life "Pointing out that Israel has repeatedly cited unverifiable U.S. intelligence isn’t “rhetoric”; it’s a matter of public record. I used a little sarcasm to make the point — this is a forum, not a Supreme Court hearing. The substance still stands: those intelligence claims are never made public, which makes independent verification impossible. If you have evidence that they’ve been independently verified, feel free to share it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That argument is a classic deflection — shifting blame to Hamas doesn’t erase Israel’s own legal obligations. Yes, Hamas’s tactics are reprehensible, but Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention and bound by international humanitarian law. Those rules exist precisely for situations where the other side acts unlawfully — to stop the cycle of atrocity, not to justify it. Saying “Hamas made us do it” isn’t a defence in international law; it’s an admission that civilian protection was abandoned when it was needed most. And in breaking the latest ceasefire and halting humanitarian aid, Israel has once again chosen to violate those same obligations — committing yet another clear breach of international law and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions." None of that is remotely true. If a state or entity makes it more difficult to be defeated through the use of civilian infrastructure and lives, then there will simply be more casualties. It's within Israel's legal right to bomb a hospital full of babies that houses a military target of high value. The only sticking point is how high value must that target be to justify it? If it's a lone terrorist, then no. If it's a nuke aimed at Tel Aviv, then yes. The rest is up for debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...this is a forum, not a Supreme Court hearing..." Exactly  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The issue is that Hamas knows this and wanted to tie Israel's hands, hence their cynical use of their population. This was the key problem. Conversely, Hamas could have ended the war themselves by disarming and returning the hostages, which they didn't do. That argument is a classic deflection — shifting blame to Hamas doesn’t erase Israel’s own legal obligations. Yes, Hamas’s tactics are reprehensible, but Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention and bound by international humanitarian law. Those rules exist precisely for situations where the other side acts unlawfully — to stop the cycle of atrocity, not to justify it. Saying “Hamas made us do it” isn’t a defence in international law; it’s an admission that civilian protection was abandoned when it was needed most. And in breaking the latest ceasefire and halting humanitarian aid, Israel has once again chosen to violate those same obligations — committing yet another clear breach of international law and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions." The whole idea that Hamas can do whatever they want because they are terrorists, but Israel should act like gentlemen is laughable. These things are easy to type from the safety of your home on the internet not when one's own safety is up in the air. Also, the obligatory reminder that there is no evidence of genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This post is just one of about hundred posts that you have made where you have wrongly characterised what I am saying. This might come as a shock to you but you are not good at mind reading. In fact, you are terrible even at reading my posts, let alone my mind. If you think your point’s been misunderstood, the simplest way to fix that is to clarify your position." I clarified my position numerous times. Did you even read his post? He is basically saying that "I have argued with other people who made similar arguments. You must be same as them" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"None of that is remotely true. If a state or entity makes it more difficult to be defeated through the use of civilian infrastructure and lives, then there will simply be more casualties. It's within Israel's legal right to bomb a hospital full of babies that houses a military target of high value. The only sticking point is how high value must that target be to justify it? If it's a lone terrorist, then no. If it's a nuke aimed at Tel Aviv, then yes. The rest is up for debate." You didn’t actually contest the point about cutting off humanitarian aid — probably because there’s no legal or moral defence for it. Under Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, denying food, water, and medical supplies to civilians is explicitly prohibited. That’s not a grey area; it’s one of the clearest definitions of a war crime. And your claim that it’s within Israel’s rights to bomb a hospital “full of babies” if there’s a target inside is simply wrong. International humanitarian law forbids deliberate or disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure — even when combatants are present. Article 51 of Additional Protocol I makes that explicit: the presence of a military target does not erase the duty to distinguish and minimise civilian harm. Those principles exist to stop exactly this kind of moral collapse — where the rules meant to prevent atrocities are reinterpreted to excuse them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole idea that Hamas can do whatever they want because they are terrorists, but Israel should act like gentlemen is laughable. These things are easy to type from the safety of your home on the internet not when one's own safety is up in the air. Also, the obligatory reminder that there is no evidence of genocide. " I’ve condemned Hamas’s actions several times — nothing I’ve said excuses or downplays their crimes. But holding Israel, a state and signatory to the Geneva and Genocide Conventions, to international law isn’t about “being gentlemen”; it’s about upholding the same legal and moral standards every country is bound by. And as for “no evidence of genocide” — the International Court of Justice disagrees. It ruled that there is plausible evidence Israel is breaching its obligations to prevent genocide, which is why protective measures were ordered while the full investigation continues. “Plausible” doesn’t mean “imagined”; it means there’s enough credible material to take seriously. The point isn’t that Hamas should get away with anything — it’s that one side’s crimes don’t legalise the other’s. That principle is the foundation of humanitarian law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You didn’t actually contest the point about cutting off humanitarian aid — probably because there’s no legal or moral defence for it. Under Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, denying food, water, and medical supplies to civilians is explicitly prohibited. That’s not a grey area; it’s one of the clearest definitions of a war crime. " Only where there is an absolute need. It's not a carte blanche for an open border, or an infinite supply of aid. It does not seem as if Israel intends to indefinitely starve Gaza at this point. " And your claim that it’s within Israel’s rights to bomb a hospital “full of babies” if there’s a target inside is simply wrong." Did you even read the example of when it would be okay? Do you dispute that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did you even read the example of when it would be okay? Do you dispute that?" I’ve already addressed that — Israel is bound by the conventions it signed. There’s no exception that makes cutting off food, water, or medical aid acceptable just because it’s temporary or politically convenient. The law forbids it, full stop. And yes, I read your example — but you’ve shifted the point. The Geneva Conventions are clear: you can’t deliberately attack civilian infrastructure, even if a military asset is present, unless the proportionality standard is met. That’s not opinion; that’s black-letter international law. We can keep rephrasing it, but the laws don’t change between replies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did you even read the example of when it would be okay? Do you dispute that? I’ve already addressed that — Israel is bound by the conventions it signed. There’s no exception that makes cutting off food, water, or medical aid acceptable just because it’s temporary or politically convenient. The law forbids it, full stop. And yes, I read your example — but you’ve shifted the point. The Geneva Conventions are clear: you can’t deliberately attack civilian infrastructure, even if a military asset is present, unless the proportionality standard is met. That’s not opinion; that’s black-letter international law. We can keep rephrasing it, but the laws don’t change between replies." You read the example? ...and so if a hospital full of babies housed a nuclear missile pointed at Tel Aviv, it would be wrong to destroy it if that were the only option? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole idea that Hamas can do whatever they want because they are terrorists, but Israel should act like gentlemen is laughable. These things are easy to type from the safety of your home on the internet not when one's own safety is up in the air. Also, the obligatory reminder that there is no evidence of genocide. I’ve condemned Hamas’s actions several times — nothing I’ve said excuses or downplays their crimes. But holding Israel, a state and signatory to the Geneva and Genocide Conventions, to international law isn’t about “being gentlemen”; it’s about upholding the same legal and moral standards every country is bound by. And as for “no evidence of genocide” — the International Court of Justice disagrees. It ruled that there is plausible evidence Israel is breaching its obligations to prevent genocide, which is why protective measures were ordered while the full investigation continues. “Plausible” doesn’t mean “imagined”; it means there’s enough credible material to take seriously. The point isn’t that Hamas should get away with anything — it’s that one side’s crimes don’t legalise the other’s. That principle is the foundation of humanitarian law." First of all, these conventions are just gentlemen agreements. They are not laws because there is no way you can enforce it. If we are talking about two countries who have signed up to it, then you can ask both the countries to follow it. In this case, you are giving Hamas a free hand while trying to tie down Israel. Why? Don't tell me you "condemn" Hamas. Your condemnation means nothing practically. Hamas doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. This is a case of self defense. You can't allow one person to carry a gun because he is a criminal anyway and tell the other person that he shouldn't use the knife to defend himself because it's illegal. Both won't give a damn about your legal/moral views in a life/death situation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You read the example? ...and so if a hospital full of babies housed a nuclear missile pointed at Tel Aviv, it would be wrong to destroy it if that were the only option?" That’s not what I said — I stated the law. And honestly, if I were the one assessing whether that scenario met the legal threshold, I don’t know which way I’d lean. The example you gave doesn’t include enough information to make an informed judgment under international law. The whole point of those conventions is to ensure those decisions aren’t made on emotion or hypotheticals, but on evidence and proportionality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You read the example? ...and so if a hospital full of babies housed a nuclear missile pointed at Tel Aviv, it would be wrong to destroy it if that were the only option? That’s not what I said — I stated the law. And honestly, if I were the one assessing whether that scenario met the legal threshold, I don’t know which way I’d lean. The example you gave doesn’t include enough information to make an informed judgment under international law. The whole point of those conventions is to ensure those decisions aren’t made on emotion or hypotheticals, but on evidence and proportionality." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-13?activeTab= "The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" First of all, these conventions are just gentlemen agreements. They are not laws because there is no way you can enforce it. If we are talking about two countries who have signed up to it, then you can ask both the countries to follow it. In this case, you are giving Hamas a free hand while trying to tie down Israel. Why? Don't tell me you "condemn" Hamas. Your condemnation means nothing practically. Hamas doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. This is a case of self defense. You can't allow one person to carry a gun because he is a criminal anyway and tell the other person that he shouldn't use the knife to defend himself because it's illegal. Both won't give a damn about your legal/moral views in a life/death situation." Also, just to clarify — the Geneva and Genocide Conventions aren’t “gentlemen’s agreements.” They’re binding international treaties, ratified by states and enforceable through bodies like the International Court of Justice. Enforcement isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t make them optional. If the rules of war only applied when convenient, they’d be meaningless. That self-defence argument cuts both ways. Each side has committed atrocities, and everything you just said about Hamas could equally be said about Israel — the difference is the sheer human cost on one side. My view is that the people in charge on both sides have shown complete disregard for civilian life. But, as you said yourself, neither of them care what any of us think — which makes it all the more important that the rest of the world upholds the laws meant to protect those caught in between. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-13?activeTab= "The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded." " Thank you for linking Article 13 — it actually reinforces the point I made. Even in that clause, protection only ceases after a clear warning is given, a reasonable time-limit has passed, and the warning is ignored. That’s a very high legal bar, meant to stop assumptions or emotions from becoming justification for attacks on civilian infrastructure. And that principle applies just as clearly to Israel’s recent actions. When the ceasefire collapsed, the IDF immediately resumed air-strikes and halted all humanitarian aid “until further notice.” There was no public warning, no time allowed, and no attempt to let convoys deliver essential supplies first. Under Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 70 of the Additional Protocol I, cutting off food, water and medical aid like that is an unlawful denial of relief — a war crime under the very conventions Israel has signed. These laws don’t disappear when a conflict gets messy; they exist precisely to prevent that slide into collective punishment. (Small note: direct links like the one you shared can sometimes trip the forum’s moderation system. It’s usually safer to quote or name the source — for example, “ICRC Article 13” — and let others look it up themselves.) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody is taking about the historical understanding of exodus." Wasn't Netanyahi making a direct reference to the story of Exodus? I think it's fiction historically but that doesn't alter the intent of his words. "It's about what incoming Amalek means to his audience: Jews in Israel. He has effectively equated Hamas with the historical and hated event of the Jewish nation. After October 7th, that's pretty understandable. It's analogous to calling them Nazis, which he does often. And, if he were alive 80 years ago, he would also happily kill every Nazi with the wherewithal to pose Jews harm. But nobody seems to complain about that." Personally I consider the widespread targeting of civilians in WWII to have been terrorism. I don't have any problem with Israel targeting Hamas, but I don't think that is what they've done. Instead the Israeli government and the IDF have indulged in serious war crimes against civilians and are even today openly declaring their criminality. "Genocide is actually exactly what was commanded, biblically. " Which is why he referenced it. "And he would happily eradicate every member of Hamas who poses a threat. But to take this to mean genocide of Gazans is stretching to find a justification for a claim of genocide. If only because he had the means to eradicate every baby, camel and cow, but didn't." The worldwide reaction to the Israeli government's actions so far is damning. If they go even further then what do you think the reaction will be? Israel has gone from a situation in October 2023 where there was widespread international sympathy over the atrocities commited by Hamas to becoming a pariah state accused of genocide. Just think about the idea that nearly four out of ten American Jews consider that Israel is committing genocide. And beyond what's happening in Gaza the situation in the West Bank should not be ignored. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Also, just to clarify — the Geneva and Genocide Conventions aren’t “gentlemen’s agreements.” They’re binding international treaties, ratified by states and enforceable through bodies like the International Court of Justice. " What would the international court of justice do? Send an army and go to war against the offending country? Send the police to arrest the leaders of the country? That would be a foreign coup. Even if you do, Hamas will have time to regroup and attack Israel again. Will you and the people who want to do this take responsibility for the Israeli victims if that happens? Are you willing to have some Israeli blood in your hands? " Enforcement isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t make them optional. If the rules of war only applied when convenient, they’d be meaningless. " You are right. These are meaninglessness. Geopolitics was never a about morals. It has always been about power, self interest and posturing. " That self-defence argument cuts both ways. Each side has committed atrocities, and everything you just said about Hamas could equally be said about Israel — the difference is the sheer human cost on one side. " One side has more human cost simply because the other side is more powerful. If Hamas has more time and money, they would do something even more horrible to Israel. " My view is that the people in charge on both sides have shown complete disregard for civilian life. But, as you said yourself, neither of them care what any of us think — which makes it all the more important that the rest of the world upholds the laws meant to protect those caught in between." If you want to uphold the law, the first thing you have to do is to control Hamas. If you can't do that, there is no way you are going to convince Israel. There is no reason for them to listen to you when their own lives are in danger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I clarified my position numerous times. Did you even read his post? He is basically saying that "I have argued with other people who made similar arguments. You must be same as them"" No, what I'm saying is that you are using the same arguments as Holocaust deniers. That doesn't make you a Holocaust denier but it should perhaps make you reflect a little on the validity of your arguments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you want to uphold the law, the first thing you have to do is to control Hamas. If you can't do that, there is no way you are going to convince Israel. There is no reason for them to listen to you when their own lives are in danger." If Hamas were the side committing genocide, that’s exactly where the focus would belong. But the current ICJ investigation concerns Israel’s conduct — the state that voluntarily signed treaties requiring it to prevent and refrain from such acts. Enforcing international law doesn’t mean ‘invade Israel’ — that’s a strawman. Accountability can take the form of sanctions, ending military aid, or diplomatic suspension, all of which are peaceful tools of pressure. Saying ‘you can’t hold Israel accountable until Hamas is controlled’ is like saying you can’t prosecute one criminal because another hasn’t been caught yet. Both can be condemned, but one doesn’t excuse the other — and certainly not under the conventions Israel itself agreed to uphold. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does not seem as if Israel intends to indefinitely starve Gaza at this point." The exact words used were "the transfer of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip has been halted until further notice". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I clarified my position numerous times. Did you even read his post? He is basically saying that "I have argued with other people who made similar arguments. You must be same as them" No, what I'm saying is that you are using the same arguments as Holocaust deniers. That doesn't make you a Holocaust denier but it should perhaps make you reflect a little on the validity of your arguments." I know what arguments I made. Why should I validate it again because some stranger on the internet believes he knows what I think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That’s if there were such attacks of course (it wouldn’t be the first time Israel’s version of events has been somewhat dubious)" How do you suppose the two IDF soldiers died? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've pointed out that the Lemkin Institure is not reputable. It's anti Israel in nature, gets funded to make false claims, has taken and used a Jewish man's name to try and hide its true nature. It's tantamount to asking Hamas what they think about Isra. And my view of the law seems pretty logical. Im standing by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that how the law is supposed to work? Or is there another reason why the Jews are just guilty of everything for you, even when, there's been NO charges, NO trail,NO due process. Saying something often enough doesn't make it true, you need to prove it. If genocide is their aim can you explain why Hazas population has actually grown recently? Mrs x You’ve claimed the Lemkin Institute is biased — but claiming bias doesn’t automatically make it true, especially when that same accusation has been used against virtually every human-rights organisation that’s ever criticised Israel. It’s also worth noting that anti-Zionism isn’t the same thing as antisemitism; criticising the actions of a government or state ideology isn’t an attack on Jewish people as a whole. The fact remains that the Lemkin Institute’s analysis aligns with multiple other independent groups and genocide scholars. As for the law, both Israel and Palestine are signatories to the Genocide Convention, which explicitly gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes about prevention and punishment. That means both have accepted oversight — including the obligation to prevent genocide, not just avoid conviction after the fact. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies in criminal proceedings, but genocide prevention isn’t a criminal trial — it’s about identifying and stopping conditions that meet the legal criteria before they reach that stage. Waiting for a conviction means waiting until after the mass deaths have already happened, which defeats the purpose of the Convention itself. And population growth doesn’t disprove genocide — that’s a misunderstanding of both history and law. The Genocide Convention defines genocide by intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part,” not by whether every member dies. The Bosniak population grew after Srebrenica; the Native American population eventually recovered centuries after their mass killings and cultural erasure; the Rohingya population in exile continues to rise. None of that erased the genocides they endured. What matters isn’t headcounts — it’s deliberate targeting, dehumanising rhetoric, and policies designed to destroy a people’s existence and future." Again you either havent read, or misunderstood what I've written. I have never claimed that the Lemkin Institute is biased. What I have do is highlight you to the fact that others claim tge Lemkin Institute is biased and given you their reasoning for this. If you cannot be arsed to verify what I've pointed out thats on you but it doesn't make it any less true because you havent bothered to do this. So once again here's a quick recap of the points I've made, but dont believe me look it up for yourself, after all you value clarity very highly, is this clear enough for you? 'The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is a controversial and not universally respected organization. While it has been praised by supporters, it has also faced significant backlash and criticism regarding its methods and positions, especially concerning its assessments of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Context of the organization Established: Founded in 2021, the Lemkin Institute describes its mission as connecting "the global grassroots with the tools of genocide prevention". Funding: The institute is independent and reports that it does not accept funding from governments or large foundations, relying instead on small individual donations. Although there is evidence that Islamic Armenians funded the Institure initially to make bogus claims against Azerbaijani Jews. Criticisms and controversies. Israel-Gaza Conflict: Critics have accused the institute of extreme anti-Israel activism, particularly for issuing genocide alerts related to the conflict shortly after the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas. Some see this as an abuse of the term "genocide" for political purposes. Misappropriation of the Lemkin name: The institute is facing a potential lawsuit from a relative of Raphael Lemkin, the lawyer who coined the term "genocide". This family member and the European Jewish Association claim the institute is misappropriating the name for anti-Israel advocacy, contradicting Raphael Lemkin's Zionist views. Bias accusations: The institute has also been accused of bias in other conflicts. For example, it was criticized by the Center for Eurasian Studies for a "shameful double standard" in blaming Azerbaijanis for their fate, rather than acknowledging their historical persecution. Allegations of antisemitism: Some critics have accused the institute of appropriating Jewish trauma for anti-Zionist propaganda and engaging in antisemitism disguised as human rights work... In summary, the Lemkin Institute does not command universal respect. It is a highly partisan and contentious organization whose analyses, especially related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, are viewed as politically motivated by critics and even some of Raphael Lemkin's family." Next is your ascertain that the act of genocide is not a crime which is dealt with by criminal proceedings. This you say means that the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty", and I quote your words, "...does not apply because genocide prevention isn’t a criminal trial". Now I'm not sure were you get this notion from, although I am aware that have one particular war I think it was from the Balkans War. And after this they wanted to use procedures to hasten examining any claims of genocide to help prevent it. However I dont believe that in anyway decriminalised genocide. The maxim of being innocent until proven guilty very much applies here. So lets look at it properly, is genocide a "Crime?". Yes, genocide is an actual crime under international law. ?It is considered one of the most serious international crimes, often referred to as a "crime against humanity," and is codified primarily in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (often called the Genocide Convention) adopted by the UN in 1948. ?Key Aspects of the Crime of Genocide ?1. International Status ?Genocide is recognized as a crime under customary international law, which means all states are bound by the prohibition, regardless of whether they have formally ratified the Genocide Convention. ?It is included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), allowing for the prosecution of individuals responsible for committing it. ?The prohibition of genocide is considered a peremptory norm (jus cogens), meaning it is a fundamental principle from which no derogation is permitted. ?2. Legal Definition (The Elements of the Crime) ?According to Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such... Killing members of the group: Must be done with the specific intent (known as dolus specialis) to destroy the group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The most crucial and difficult element to prove is the specific intent to destroy the protected group. ?3. Punishable Acts ?The Genocide Convention also criminalizes related acts, including: ? Conspiracy to commit genocide. ?Direct and public incitement to commit genocide. ?Attempt to commit genocide. ?Complicity in genocide. Yes for both of these issues, I used an AI app. They arent my opinions, they are those of the app but I hope you can give me credit in understanding I held the same opinions and could have just utilised Google and found the relevant articles to back up my claims. I just couldn't be arsed doing this, it was simpler and quicker to do it this way. So as you can plainly see genocide is a CRIME. Finally the issue of population growth and genocide. I mentioned this earlier to illustrate the issue with the definition of genocide as a crime. Im aware that genocide can be committed in "whole or in part" and thats what I'm getting at here. We can discard the 'whole' element because its objectively clear that Israel has not killed the whole of the Gazan population. That seems a fair proportion. So this just leaves the '...in part' element. So what does that mean? How many deaths need to be established before this element is achieved. Is it an actual number or does a percentage have to be obtained before you are potentially guilty of genocide? I dont believe it can be actual numbers. The reason Im saying that is that larger countries, in large wars, would be expected to lose more actual lives, so Im leaning more towards a percentage kind of estimate. As in all criminal trials precedent plays a part in establishing a crime and also in sentencing. This is because proceeding have to be fair and proportionate for everyone. Lawyers will use this in the defense of their clients. So if they can establish that their clients committed smaller figures or a smaller percentage than other allegations of genocide they may achieve a favourable outcome. So I'll just give some figures and let you decide what does, or does not qualify for genocide. War 1 1.5 to 3 million civilians killed. Percentage of population killed 37%. War 2 67,000 civilians killed. Percentage of population killed 3.5% War 3 1.2- 1.5 million civilians killed. Percentage of population killed 12 - 15% So which war is more likely to have committed genocide. Know I know you will not answer this and you will deflect and spin this to suit your narrative but give it a go. I feel a little bit like Cilla Black, asking which contestant you will choose 1, 2, or 3 haha Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That’s if there were such attacks of course (it wouldn’t be the first time Israel’s version of events has been somewhat dubious) How do you suppose the two IDF soldiers died?" Maybe they had been killed previously in a different incident? Who knows. Israel lie. So treat whatever their ‘truth’ is with extreme caution. That’s my main point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you want to uphold the law, the first thing you have to do is to control Hamas. If you can't do that, there is no way you are going to convince Israel. There is no reason for them to listen to you when their own lives are in danger. If Hamas were the side committing genocide, that’s exactly where the focus would belong. But the current ICJ investigation concerns Israel’s conduct — the state that voluntarily signed treaties requiring it to prevent and refrain from such acts. " As I said, these treaties are meaningless. Put in a situation similar to Israel, every country would do the same thing. Self defense comes first. "If Hamas were the side committing genocide". If we are measuring with the same scale, Hamas are genocidal too. Just because they don't have the power to do so, doesn't mean they aren't genocidal. If you give Hamas the same bombs that Israel has, they wouldn't blink twice before wiping Israel off the map and you will just be sitting here watching it maybe post a strongly worded condemnation of Hamas on the internet. " Enforcing international law doesn’t mean ‘invade Israel’ — that’s a strawman. Accountability can take the form of sanctions, ending military aid, or diplomatic suspension, all of which are peaceful tools of pressure. " Why don't we start that with China then? Also again, if you sanction Israel, make the country weak and Hamas strikes Israel after that, will you take responsibility for that? That blood is partly on your hands. " Saying ‘you can’t hold Israel accountable until Hamas is controlled’ is like saying you can’t prosecute one criminal because another hasn’t been caught yet. Both can be condemned, but one doesn’t excuse the other — and certainly not under the conventions Israel itself agreed to uphold." Let me use a better metaphor. You see person A(Hamas) and B(Israel) fighting with knives. B is stronger and he is overpowering A. But you are B's employer. You know B well and you talk to him and force him to drop his knife. On the other hand, you have zero control over A. What do you think A will do here? He will use the opportunity to stab B. And that blood is on you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That’s if there were such attacks of course (it wouldn’t be the first time Israel’s version of events has been somewhat dubious) How do you suppose the two IDF soldiers died? Maybe they had been killed previously in a different incident? Who knows. Israel lie. So treat whatever their ‘truth’ is with extreme caution. That’s my main point." Fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still no thread on the mistreatment of Muslims in China started by our Nietzschean friend. What a surprise. " Why should I? I am not the one creating threads about supposed genocide in different countries. Let me guess, you misunderstood my views again and still telling yourself that you can read my mind? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should I? I am not the one creating threads about supposed genocide in different countries. Let me guess, you misunderstood my views again and still telling yourself that you can read my mind? " I can't read your mind but I can read your posts. In the last one you said "Why don't we start that with China then?". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Holy wall of text Batman" You’ve raised several points here, so I’ll respond clearly and in order. First, on the Lemkin Institute — it isn’t the sole or even primary authority I’ve cited. It’s one of many that have reached similar conclusions, alongside genocide scholars, legal experts, and the International Court of Justice. Questioning one organisation’s reputation doesn’t erase the wider consensus. “Other people say they’re biased” isn’t evidence; it’s just hearsay until verified. Second, on genocide and the ICJ, I never claimed genocide isn’t a crime — I said genocide prevention isn’t a criminal trial. The distinction matters. The ICJ’s role is to assess whether states are breaching their obligations under the Genocide Convention; the ICC is the body that prosecutes individuals for crimes already committed. Mixing the two creates confusion about how international law actually works. You’re absolutely right that genocide is a serious crime under international law — that’s exactly why it’s codified in both the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute. But the ICJ’s purpose is preventive, not punitive. Waiting for convictions after the fact defeats the very point of the Convention, which is to stop genocidal actions before they escalate further. On population growth, the argument that rising numbers disprove genocide is legally incorrect. The Convention defines genocide by intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part. Groups can and have survived genocide while still meeting that legal definition — the Bosniaks after Srebrenica, Indigenous peoples in the Americas, and the Rohingya in Myanmar, for example. What matters is deliberate targeting, not final population statistics. As for comparing death tolls and percentages, genocide isn’t a maths problem. There’s no numerical threshold for it to “count.” International courts have made clear that the determining factor is intent and conduct — whether a state or group is deliberately trying to destroy another people’s existence, not how efficient they are at doing it. In short, I’m not disputing that genocide is a crime or that enforcement is imperfect. I’m saying that legality and morality don’t become optional when it’s inconvenient. The ICJ’s finding of plausible breach isn’t a conviction, but it is a serious warning — one Israel, as a signatory to the Convention, is obliged to heed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I said, these treaties are meaningless. Put in a situation similar to Israel, every country would do the same thing…" Fallacy: False Equivalence & Sweeping Generalisation. Saying “every country would do the same” assumes identical motives, contexts, and legal obligations — which isn’t evidence, it’s a guess. Plenty of states don’t respond with large-scale civilian targeting, even under attack. "If you give Hamas the same bombs that Israel has, they wouldn't blink twice before wiping Israel off the map…" Fallacy: Hypothetical / Appeal to Fear. Imagining what one side might do with different power doesn’t change what has been done in reality. Capability and conduct aren’t interchangeable. "Why don't we start that with China then?" Fallacy: Whataboutism. Pointing to another country’s crimes doesn’t erase the case being discussed — accountability isn’t a queue where one injustice must wait for another to be solved. "Also again, if you sanction Israel… that blood is on your hands." Fallacy: Emotional Appeal / Slippery Slope. Sanctions and diplomatic pressure aren’t acts of violence; they’re legal tools meant to prevent further harm. The hypothetical “blood on your hands” argument just tries to scare people away from accountability. Laws and treaties exist precisely so morality doesn’t depend on who’s stronger or more afraid — they’re meant to restrain both sides from turning fear into justification for atrocity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The violence continues But good for hostage remains being returned credit deserved for that but how on earth do you think Hamas would stop or hand over guns? Then what.... they go to prison for life? They get... eliminated?" How do you propose that they proceed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Too much to even quote and unpick. Those AI agents are looking increasingly tempting, right now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should I? I am not the one creating threads about supposed genocide in different countries. Let me guess, you misunderstood my views again and still telling yourself that you can read my mind? I can't read your mind but I can read your posts. In the last one you said "Why don't we start that with China then?". " If we are going to sanction a country for defending themselves just because some people are calling it genocide, I said that we have to be consistent about it and start with China first. If not, we will just look like hypocrites. How exactly does it translate to me having to create a thread about China? Maybe you should try taking a break from reading AI slop and read writings of real humans to stop reaching random conclusions like this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fallacy: False Equivalence & Sweeping Generalisation. " Fallacy: Meaningless bullshit pretending to be intellectually sound " Saying “every country would do the same” assumes identical motives, contexts, and legal obligations — which isn’t evidence, it’s a guess. Plenty of states don’t respond with large-scale civilian targeting, even under attack. " You can't say that because no other country is in a situation like this where they are locked and surrounded by countries who would suck their blood at every opportunity they get. It's easy to show your moral platitudes when your own life isn't danger from terrorists. " Fallacy: Hypothetical / Appeal to Fear. " Fallacy: Burying head in the sand and pretending like the problem doesn't exist. Hamas has openly said what they want to do to Israel. " Imagining what one side might do with different power doesn’t change what has been done in reality. Capability and conduct aren’t interchangeable. " It does factor in your decision. If you are going to restrain Israel, Hamas will use the time to regroup. That's a fact. They will launch an attack on Israel again. That's a fact too. It's easy for people like you who get a power-trip out of playing God to pretend like that won't happen. But people in Israel aren't idiots to do the same. " Fallacy: Whataboutism. " Fallacy: Hypocrisy and cowardice " Pointing to another country’s crimes doesn’t erase the case being discussed — accountability isn’t a queue where one injustice must wait for another to be solved. " If you have an ounce of moral integrity which you all pretend to have, you wouldn't brush it aside as whataboutery. It you are scared of China, at least admit your cowardice. " Fallacy: Emotional Appeal / Slippery Slope. " Fallacy: Incapability to address the outcomes of the ideas you are proposing " Sanctions and diplomatic pressure aren’t acts of violence; they’re legal tools meant to prevent further harm. The hypothetical “blood on your hands” argument just tries to scare people away from accountability. " My point is that you aren't preventing further harm. You are only changing the entity being harmed. " Laws and treaties exist precisely so morality doesn’t depend on who’s stronger or more afraid — they’re meant to restrain both sides from turning fear into justification for atrocity." And who writes these laws? Let me guess. The richest and strongest countries? And who is capable of enforcing these laws? Let me guess. The richest and the strongest countries? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fallacy: Meaningless bullshit pretending to be intellectually sound" You’ve mostly just proved my point — swapping argument for emotion isn’t a rebuttal. Pointing out fallacies isn’t about sounding clever; it’s about separating logic from noise. If morality only applies when it’s convenient, that’s not justice — that’s just power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fallacy: Meaningless bullshit pretending to be intellectually sound You’ve mostly just proved my point — swapping argument for emotion isn’t a rebuttal. Pointing out fallacies isn’t about sounding clever; it’s about separating logic from noise. " I am all in favour of pointing out fallacies where it exists. But all I saw in your post is misusing fallacies to avoid difficult questions you are facing. " If morality only applies when it’s convenient, that’s not justice — that’s just power." No country has EVER followed your moral terms when it has been inconvenient for themselves. Self defense comes first. If your own life is in danger from someone, you won't even stop for a moment to think about these moral values until that danger is neutralised. You want Israel to stop going after Hamas. Do something to neutralise Hamas threat and then talk with them. Just going and telling them to stop doing it and put themselves in danger isn't going to work. You are just being the useful idiots of Hamas by doing so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No country has EVER followed your moral terms when it has been inconvenient for themselves. Self defence comes first. If your own life is in danger from someone, you won't even stop for a moment to think about these moral values until that danger is neutralised. You want Israel to stop going after Hamas. Do something to neutralise Hamas threat and then talk with them. Just going and telling them to stop doing it and put themselves in danger isn't going to work. You are just being the useful idiots of Hamas by doing so." I take your point about fear and self-defence — nobody is arguing Israel shouldn't try to protect its citizens. But two quick counters: 1. claiming “self-defence” removes all legal and moral limits is a false dichotomy. International law doesn’t forbid defence; it sets rules about how it may be conducted (distinction, proportionality, precautions). Saying “self-defence first” without addressing those rules ignores the obligations states accepted when they ratified the treaties. 2. arguing that controlling Hamas first absolves Israel of obligations is a causal fallacy. Even if Hamas is an urgent problem, that doesn’t legally or ethically permit collective punishment, deliberately blocking lifesaving aid, or using dehumanising rhetoric. Accountability and prevention mechanisms (sanctions, diplomatic pressure, ICJ measures) exist precisely to avoid cycles of escalating harm. I condemn Hamas’s atrocities unequivocally — but condemning one crime doesn’t licence another. If you want to debate enforcement options (sanctions vs. criminal prosecutions vs. increased pressure to neutralise Hamas), I’m happy to—let’s keep that a separate, focused thread so it doesn’t derail the present discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
