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 |  |
"Can you spot the difference? Im a Catholic, so following your logic you tell me what country my ancestors came from and what nationality i a can claim. " I'm English with mostly 'Anglo-Saxon" ethnicity. My DNA testing showed my roots as Northwestern Europe, having various Germanic, Celtic and Norse origins with an odd spattering from other regions. So, when people try to say that Jews were all white European settlers, very rarely can they name a European tribe that they were supposed to have come from. Some tried to link them with the Khazars, but that was thoroughly debunked years ago. Jews are more than a religion, they are a people before their belief – had they believed in a completely different God, they would still have been from the same area – Judea. That is, every DNA study on the ethnic origin of European Jews shows that their roots were in the Middle East, but with European admixture consistent with any diaspora. For anyone who wants to look anything up: Hammer et al., 2000 – Found strong genetic continuity among Jewish men worldwide, tracing mainly to Middle Eastern origins and closer ties to regional groups like Palestinians and Druze than to Europeans. Behar et al., 2003 – Showed that even subgroups like Levites retain primarily Middle Eastern roots, with minor European input. Behar et al., 2010 – A landmark study confirming a shared Middle Eastern ancestry across 14 Jewish populations, with small regional variations. Ostrer & Skorecki, 2012 – Consolidated decades of research confirming Jews form a coherent Levantine-origin group. Haber et al., 2013 – Showed Jewish and non-Jewish Levantine groups share deep roots, with later cultural and religious divergence. Saying Jews are not from Judea (the land of Israel) as a way of denying their homeland is just another trope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the thread title is misleading. dozens of countries have joined britain and have imposed sanctions regarding the jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in palestine. " The original thread was about British sanctions; this is a continuation of that. There are no Jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in the disputed territories of Gaza or Judea and Samaria. Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The original thread was about British sanctions; this is a continuation of that. There are no Jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in the disputed territories of Gaza or Judea and Samaria. Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country. "oh dear  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the thread title is misleading. dozens of countries have joined britain and have imposed sanctions regarding the jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in palestine. The original thread was about British sanctions; this is a continuation of that. There are no Jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in the disputed territories of Gaza or Judea and Samaria. Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country. "Oh dear indeed!! Now your showing your true colours!! Say no more say no more! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the thread title is misleading. dozens of countries have joined britain and have imposed sanctions regarding the jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in palestine. The original thread was about British sanctions; this is a continuation of that. There are no Jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in the disputed territories of Gaza or Judea and Samaria. Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country. "So everything is cool with you then with what's happening  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So everything is cool with you then with what's happening "No, I'm not happy with the following: The rise of antisemitism, and people who incorrectly believe antisemitism is separate from Zionism. The repackaging of centuries-old blood libels and antisemitic tropes as a consequence. The gaslighting of Jews who are being blamed for the atrocities committed by Hamas. The gaslighting of Israel and the lunatic hate movement that has subsequently been emboldened by the strange alliance of the far left and religious Islamists. The war that could have ended had Hamas simply released their hostages – or better still, had never taken them. A war where the responsibility of every death lies at the feet of an Islamist terror group. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
oh dear
"If you think I am wrong, answer the following: Who were the historic leaders of the country of Palestine prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire – what was the currency and what was their flag? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now your showing your true colours!! Say no more say no more! " Yes, I am a Zionist – I support Israel and I support Jews living in their ethnic ancestral homeland freely, without being attacked by nutjob Islamist regimes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From the previous thread: Can you spot the difference? Im a Catholic, so following your logic you tell me what country my ancestors came from and what nationality i a can claim. I'm English with mostly 'Anglo-Saxon" ethnicity. My DNA testing showed my roots as Northwestern Europe, having various Germanic, Celtic and Norse origins with an odd spattering from other regions. So, when people try to say that Jews were all white European settlers, very rarely can they name a European tribe that they were supposed to have come from. Some tried to link them with the Khazars, but that was thoroughly debunked years ago. Jews are more than a religion, they are a people before their belief – had they believed in a completely different God, they would still have been from the same area – Judea. That is, every DNA study on the ethnic origin of European Jews shows that their roots were in the Middle East, but with European admixture consistent with any diaspora. For anyone who wants to look anything up: Hammer et al., 2000 – Found strong genetic continuity among Jewish men worldwide, tracing mainly to Middle Eastern origins and closer ties to regional groups like Palestinians and Druze than to Europeans. Behar et al., 2003 – Showed that even subgroups like Levites retain primarily Middle Eastern roots, with minor European input. Behar et al., 2010 – A landmark study confirming a shared Middle Eastern ancestry across 14 Jewish populations, with small regional variations. Ostrer & Skorecki, 2012 – Consolidated decades of research confirming Jews form a coherent Levantine-origin group. Haber et al., 2013 – Showed Jewish and non-Jewish Levantine groups share deep roots, with later cultural and religious divergence. Saying Jews are not from Judea (the land of Israel) as a way of denying their homeland is just another trope. " So if a group in Wales can demonstrate their DNA lineage back to the Brittonic tribes that inhabited our islands before the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans, Vikings etc, does it mean they have a God-given right to reclaim their ancestral lands? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So everything is cool with you then with what's happening
No, I'm not happy with the following:
The rise of antisemitism, and people who incorrectly believe antisemitism is separate from Zionism.
The repackaging of centuries-old blood libels and antisemitic tropes as a consequence.
The gaslighting of Jews who are being blamed for the atrocities committed by Hamas.
The gaslighting of Israel and the lunatic hate movement that has subsequently been emboldened by the strange alliance of the far left and religious Islamists.
The war that could have ended had Hamas simply released their hostages – or better still, had never taken them.
A war where the responsibility of every death lies at the feet of an Islamist terror group.
"Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism " Criticism of Israel is not *necessarily* antisemitism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country. "Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. "they can recognise it as that but that dosent make it so.perhaps they shouldn't pick fights with there better armed neighbours then they might has a lot less dead and some houses to live in...Just a thought | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. they can recognise it as that but that dosent make it so.perhaps they shouldn't pick fights with there better armed neighbours then they might has a lot less dead and some houses to live in...Just a thought"So by that argument any nation who is better armed than their neighbour can simply assert dominance over them? And occupy land willy nilly? Have you any idea how fucking idiotic your statement is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now your showing your true colours!! Say no more say no more! Yes, I am a Zionist – I support Israel and I support Jews living in their ethnic ancestral homeland freely, without being attacked by nutjob Islamist regimes. " Zionism is a an outdated 19th century ideology from the days when racial discrimination was acceptable and when one group of people thought themselves superior to another group. It sounds very familiar and it should have been a lesson to humanity not to go that path again. It's a repulsive ideology just like any fanatical lunacy based on religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Zionism is a an outdated 19th century ideology from the days when racial discrimination was acceptable and when one group of people thought themselves superior to another group. It sounds very familiar and it should have been a lesson to humanity not to go that path again. It's a repulsive ideology just like any fanatical lunacy based on religion. " The first political Zionists were non religious Jews, because being Jewish is primarily an ethnicity. Also, nothing in the early Zionist principles aimed for exclusivity or superiority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So if a group in Wales can demonstrate their DNA lineage back to the Brittonic tribes that inhabited our islands before the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans, Vikings etc, does it mean they have a God-given right to reclaim their ancestral lands?" If that group had been forced out by an imperial power, experienced widespread oppression in their diaspora, and still held onto the mythologies and traditions that linked them to the land, then yes, totally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So everything is cool with you then with what's happening
No, I'm not happy with the following:
The rise of antisemitism, and people who incorrectly believe antisemitism is separate from Zionism.
The repackaging of centuries-old blood libels and antisemitic tropes as a consequence.
The gaslighting of Jews who are being blamed for the atrocities committed by Hamas.
The gaslighting of Israel and the lunatic hate movement that has subsequently been emboldened by the strange alliance of the far left and religious Islamists.
The war that could have ended had Hamas simply released their hostages – or better still, had never taken them.
A war where the responsibility of every death lies at the feet of an Islamist terror group.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism "Agreed. But there's no point arguing with genocide-deniers like this one. His profile literally says "moral standards optional" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's no point arguing with genocide-deniers like this one. His profile literally says "moral standards optional" "Context and how to deny it... 🤔 Israel has been accused of genocide since 1948, and yet the population figures just keep on increasing. Based on the current population figures and death rate, to wipe out the entire population of Gaza would take more than 80 years – and that's without accounting for any projected growth. Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide." Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ " In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide?" MY definition of genocide is the same as that of the UN - the official definition of genocide. That’s how definitions work - one doesn’t have the luxury of inventing their own. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide?" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide? MY definition of genocide is the same as that of the UN - the official definition of genocide. That’s how definitions work - one doesn’t have the luxury of inventing their own. " Funny... Ireland tried to broaden the definition of genocide (filed a formal declaration of intervention) to try to catch Israel acting within that broader definition... Because they were concerned that the existing bar was too high. Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? " Yes. If the court finds that a genocide did not occur, will you accept that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide? MY definition of genocide is the same as that of the UN - the official definition of genocide. That’s how definitions work - one doesn’t have the luxury of inventing their own. Funny... Ireland tried to broaden the definition of genocide (filed a formal declaration of intervention) to try to catch Israel acting within that broader definition... Because they were concerned that the existing bar was too high. Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region?" Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes. If the court finds that a genocide did not occur, will you accept that?" Of course, but unlike some I don’t have double standards on an issue like this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. " Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis?" In my unqualified view? Potentially. Scholars with far more knowledge than I say no - but have talked about ‘incitement to genicide’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incidentally, a genocide doesn’t require direct killing. Withholding or blocking essentials with the intent to destroy a group either in whole or in part - that’s genocide. As is forced transfer of children. Isreal have done both, we know that - the key element will come down to whether there was *intent*" The bar for genocide intent is very high. What I have witnessed during the Israeli offensive in Gaza is similar to what I witnessed during covid, people became instant experts on a subject that is ultra complex, but when enough voices echo the same thing it becomes inherently true. Israel claimed Hamas interference with food and supplies to fund its operations, that bar for intent has now been raised. The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis?" Sometimes strict definitions don't cut it and we have to use our judgement based on what we see in front of us. Then it comes down to our own moral conscience - our innate sense of right and wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes. If the court finds that a genocide did not occur, will you accept that? Of course, but unlike some I don’t have double standards on an issue like this. " Fair enough, then. In light of this, then presumably you are against people using the term genocidal about Israel, given that this has not been established and that you're unwilling to call Iran more than "potentially" genocidal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis? Sometimes strict definitions don't cut it and we have to use our judgement based on what we see in front of us. Then it comes down to our own moral conscience - our innate sense of right and wrong." No, when you’re dealing with something like genocide it’s actually vitally important to have an agreed legal definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes. If the court finds that a genocide did not occur, will you accept that? Of course, but unlike some I don’t have double standards on an issue like this. Fair enough, then. In light of this, then presumably you are against people using the term genocidal about Israel, given that this has not been established and that you're unwilling to call Iran more than "potentially" genocidal?" I think it’s fairest to say that Israel have potentially committed genocide, yes - and vital that the ICJ outcome is respected. Sometimes passion and rhetoric means people get carried away, but there is a legal process that will be followed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis? Sometimes strict definitions don't cut it and we have to use our judgement based on what we see in front of us. Then it comes down to our own moral conscience - our innate sense of right and wrong. No, when you’re dealing with something like genocide it’s actually vitally important to have an agreed legal definition." Not really. Firstly at a personal level, we don't need strict definitions to know right from wrong. Secondly at the legal level, it comes down to the judgement of a panel of judges. The law is seldom black & white. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. " Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis? Sometimes strict definitions don't cut it and we have to use our judgement based on what we see in front of us. Then it comes down to our own moral conscience - our innate sense of right and wrong. No, when you’re dealing with something like genocide it’s actually vitally important to have an agreed legal definition. Not really. Firstly at a personal level, we don't need strict definitions to know right from wrong. Secondly at the legal level, it comes down to the judgement of a panel of judges. The law is seldom black & white." And those judges aren’t exactly Terry and Jim taken off the street - they’re experts in the respective laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? Once again, it’s not about my view - it’s about the definition. If nation/race/religion A tries to erase nation/race/religion B using one or more of the five categories then yes, they’re guilty of genocide. Apologies, let's rephrase: in your view, does Iran appear to meet the definition of genocide against Israelis? Sometimes strict definitions don't cut it and we have to use our judgement based on what we see in front of us. Then it comes down to our own moral conscience - our innate sense of right and wrong. No, when you’re dealing with something like genocide it’s actually vitally important to have an agreed legal definition. Not really. Firstly at a personal level, we don't need strict definitions to know right from wrong. Secondly at the legal level, it comes down to the judgement of a panel of judges. The law is seldom black & white. And those judges aren’t exactly Terry and Jim taken off the street - they’re experts in the respective laws. " Indeed, and in the case of The Hague where a panel of 15 judges sit, unanimous decisions are rare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes. If the court finds that a genocide did not occur, will you accept that? Of course, but unlike some I don’t have double standards on an issue like this. Fair enough, then. In light of this, then presumably you are against people using the term genocidal about Israel, given that this has not been established and that you're unwilling to call Iran more than "potentially" genocidal? I think it’s fairest to say that Israel have potentially committed genocide, yes - and vital that the ICJ outcome is respected. Sometimes passion and rhetoric means people get carried away, but there is a legal process that will be followed. " So we have a "real genocide", in which millions of people were killed, representing a massive percentage of that population, with a declared intent from thousands of people involved. Then we have a "potential" genocide, which might be technical in nature, where that population has not suffered a proportionately massive reduction in numbers, following an attack by them, where there are stated military goals and a path to immediate ceasefire that they ignored. You also point out that people might get carried away with rhetoric. So it's not really "fucking abhorrent" to call the former a "real genocide", is it? If it is, then you're not really being honest about waiting for the verdict. The implication is that one "genocide" is no less real than the other. But the two situations are massively different by every single metric. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes. If the court finds that a genocide did not occur, will you accept that? Of course, but unlike some I don’t have double standards on an issue like this. Fair enough, then. In light of this, then presumably you are against people using the term genocidal about Israel, given that this has not been established and that you're unwilling to call Iran more than "potentially" genocidal? I think it’s fairest to say that Israel have potentially committed genocide, yes - and vital that the ICJ outcome is respected. Sometimes passion and rhetoric means people get carried away, but there is a legal process that will be followed. So we have a "real genocide", in which millions of people were killed, representing a massive percentage of that population, with a declared intent from thousands of people involved. Then we have a "potential" genocide, which might be technical in nature, where that population has not suffered a proportionately massive reduction in numbers, following an attack by them, where there are stated military goals and a path to immediate ceasefire that they ignored. You also point out that people might get carried away with rhetoric. So it's not really "fucking abhorrent" to call the former a "real genocide", is it? If it is, then you're not really being honest about waiting for the verdict. The implication is that one "genocide" is no less real than the other. But the two situations are massively different by every single metric." And one occurred before genocide had a legal definition. Pretty important fact, that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And one occurred before genocide had a legal definition. Pretty important fact, that. " Um... Right.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. " but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And one occurred before genocide had a legal definition. Pretty important fact, that. Um... Right. "1948 convention
Just a point of note, for future reference; playing a game of ‘my genocide is worse than your genocide’ is pretty sick.
You don’t get to define what genocide is, thank heavens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there "Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all. If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? " The way I understand it, is that they would need to provide conclusive evidence of intent. If this happens then yes, and Israel's government – or other responsible groups or individuals – should then be held to account. Unless this happens it's all just just noise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? The way I understand it, is that they would need to provide conclusive evidence of intent. If this happens then yes, and Israel's government – or other responsible groups or individuals – should then be held to account. Unless this happens it's all just just noise." It’s not ‘noise’ exactly, it’s an ongoing case. But yea, evidence of intent is the determining factor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist. "Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was? I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position. You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide."Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven. And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating: “If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?” Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present). Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You don’t get to define what genocide is, thank heavens. " Sorry - explain what you mean there, please? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You don’t get to define what genocide is, thank heavens. Sorry - explain what you mean there, please?" I thought it was quite obvious. Genocide has a legal definition, based upon the convention of 1948. And whether you or anyone thinks that one genocide is more ‘real’ than another, is irrelevant, because you don’t get to decide. It either meets the specific criteria and is a genocide, or it doesn’t, and it isn’t. That’s it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
"You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.”
But how have you determined that they have met those criteria?"Because both are documented. Feel free to research | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You don’t get to define what genocide is, thank heavens. Sorry - explain what you mean there, please? I thought it was quite obvious. Genocide has a legal definition, based upon the convention of 1948. And whether you or anyone thinks that one genocide is more ‘real’ than another, is irrelevant, because you don’t get to decide. It either meets the specific criteria and is a genocide, or it doesn’t, and it isn’t. That’s it. " That is certainly the very objective and clinical viewpoint of someone born and bred in a very safe country, with little "real" exposure to suffering. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You don’t get to define what genocide is, thank heavens. Sorry - explain what you mean there, please? I thought it was quite obvious. Genocide has a legal definition, based upon the convention of 1948. And whether you or anyone thinks that one genocide is more ‘real’ than another, is irrelevant, because you don’t get to decide. It either meets the specific criteria and is a genocide, or it doesn’t, and it isn’t. That’s it. That is certainly the very objective and clinical viewpoint of someone born and bred in a very safe country, with little "real" exposure to suffering." Or mayhap someone simply looking at the issue without bias. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The original thread was about British sanctions; this is a continuation of that. There are no Jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in the disputed territories of Gaza or Judea and Samaria. Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country. "The fact you called it judea and Samaria kinda gave your game away! I’ll call it what the world recognises it as under international law after 1967… the occupied West Bank | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The original thread was about British sanctions; this is a continuation of that. There are no Jewish terrorist groups committing atrocities in the disputed territories of Gaza or Judea and Samaria. Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
The fact you called it judea and Samaria kinda gave your game away!
I’ll call it what the world recognises it as under international law after 1967… the occupied West Bank "The same poster implied that I was an antisemite, but wasn’t quite brave enough to say it directly even after I asked him to stop dancing around it. [shrugs] | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The fact you called it judea and Samaria kinda gave your game away! I’ll call it what the world recognises it as under international law after 1967… the occupied West Bank " Jordan attacked Israel in 1948 and occupied it and later annexed it for 19 years – this was recognised by only two countries. They ethnically cleansed it of Jews, burnt down synagogues and used Jewish graves from the Mount of Olives as building materials. It was Jordan who named it West Bank in order to erase its Jewish identity. Judea and Samaria is historical and correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The same poster implied that I was an antisemite, but wasn’t quite brave enough to say it directly even after I asked him to stop dancing around it. [shrugs]" If you put disproportionate energy into condemning Israel. I.E. you hold Israel to a higher standard than you would other countries, then that is antisemitism under the IHRA definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. they can recognise it as that but that dosent make it so.perhaps they shouldn't pick fights with there better armed neighbours then they might has a lot less dead and some houses to live in...Just a thought
So by that argument any nation who is better armed than their neighbour can simply assert dominance over them? And occupy land willy nilly?
Have you any idea how fucking idiotic your statement is?
"not what i said at all. I pointed out Dont pick a fight with someone who is betrer armed than you. Its like you walking up to tyson fury punching him in the face then wonderung why you have woken up three days laterwith your nose spread across your face and jaw wired together | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The same poster implied that I was an antisemite, but wasn’t quite brave enough to say it directly even after I asked him to stop dancing around it. [shrugs] If you put disproportionate energy into condemning Israel. I.E. you hold Israel to a higher standard than you would other countries, then that is antisemitism under the IHRA definition." Cool. Point out where I’ve put disproportionate energy into condemning Isreal and back up your words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. they can recognise it as that but that dosent make it so.perhaps they shouldn't pick fights with there better armed neighbours then they might has a lot less dead and some houses to live in...Just a thought
So by that argument any nation who is better armed than their neighbour can simply assert dominance over them? And occupy land willy nilly?
Have you any idea how fucking idiotic your statement is?
not what i said at all. I pointed out Dont pick a fight with someone who is betrer armed than you. Its like you walking up to tyson fury punching him in the face then wonderung why you have woken up three days laterwith your nose spread across your face and jaw wired together"What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? " That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification." I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification." Well if we want to keep it simplistic.. Israel has annexed part of Egypt, part of Jordan, part of Syria and are now doing it to Lebanon So… greater Israel project anyone???? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. Well if we want to keep it simplistic.. Israel has annexed part of Egypt, part of Jordan, part of Syria and are now doing it to Lebanon So… greater Israel project anyone????" You've kind of shot your own argument in the foot. The only annexed land is Syria, with a credible purpose (an overwhelming military advantage that could leave Israel extremely vulnerable). Egypt was given back completely, which kind of disproves the whole premise. Lebanon remains a conflict zone and is certainly not annexed. As for Jordan... That's a very interesting one. Are you claiming that the West Bank is Jordanian? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only annexed land is Syria, with a credible purpose (an overwhelming military advantage that could leave Israel extremely vulnerable)." Do you actually been that though? Wasn’t it meant to be temporary? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The only annexed land is Syria, with a credible purpose (an overwhelming military advantage that could leave Israel extremely vulnerable). Do you actually been that though? Wasn’t it meant to be temporary? " Yes. They changed their minds. But it's a credible reason and Israel's other land returns following wars, including to Syria, demonstrate that they do not have a pattern of expansion. They could have easily held significantly more, from Lebanon, Egypt and Syria following various provocations, but didn't. This isn't to judge the annexation is Syria right or wrong, but simply to address the concept of the "Greater Israel Project". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. " you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" ... Israel has annexed part of Egypt ... " Israel occupied Egypt without annexation. During that time the infrastructure was significantly developed, including the tourism industry which has since flourished. Israel handed the land back in 1982, having drastically improved it for the population. Having been to Sinai, albeit many years ago, I can honestly say that the locals did not show any animosity towards Israel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science " Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) " Are you playing "my genocide is worse than your genocide" here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) Are you playing "my genocide is worse than your genocide" here?" No I’m responding to a poster who quoted casualty numbers, for balance. I don’t think anyone has realistically claimed that Palestine have/are committing genocide in Israel unless I’m mistaken. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) " I dont think you are an anti smite i just think you jump on any old bandwagon that you thinks makes you look good | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) I dont think you are an anti smite i just think you jump on any old bandwagon that you thinks makes you look good" Well I can’t help your lack of perception I’m afraid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) I dont think you are an anti smite i just think you jump on any old bandwagon that you thinks makes you look good Well I can’t help your lack of perception I’m afraid. " belive me after seeing some of the absolute nonsense you post on here. I wouldnt ask for your help with anything | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What if Mike Tyson has moved his garden fence over and taken some of your garden? That's a selective and one sided oversimplification. I’m simply asking how a weaker, less capable neighbour would stand up to a stronger neighbour who started stealing their land. you make sure you can take out that neighbour.what you don't do is kill 1200 of there people and take hundreds more back to gaza if you don't have the hardware to protect yourselves.its not rocket science Should we compare Israeli/Palestinian death tolls back to 1948? (For clarity since I’m already accused of being an antisemite, I happen to believe that every life lost in the region is a wasteful tragedy., particularly the innocents on both sides) I dont think you are an anti smite i just think you jump on any old bandwagon that you thinks makes you look good Well I can’t help your lack of perception I’m afraid. belive me after seeing some of the absolute nonsense you post on here. I wouldnt ask for your help with anything" Feel free to point out the ‘nonsense’, we can fact check it. That’s fine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Are you playing "my genocide is worse than your genocide" here? No I’m responding to a poster who quoted casualty numbers, for balance. I don’t think anyone has realistically claimed that Palestine have/are committing genocide in Israel unless I’m mistaken. " Hamas (Palestinian government in Gaza) has documented intent and clear rhetoric against Jews. They have attempted to kill as many as they can. What they lack is the capability. There is no question that they are genocidal. We're simple discussing scale, now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Are you playing "my genocide is worse than your genocide" here? No I’m responding to a poster who quoted casualty numbers, for balance. I don’t think anyone has realistically claimed that Palestine have/are committing genocide in Israel unless I’m mistaken. Hamas (Palestinian government in Gaza) has documented intent and clear rhetoric against Jews. They have attempted to kill as many as they can. What they lack is the capability. There is no question that they are genocidal. We're simple discussing scale, now." Hamas recognise Israel’s borders, and have done so repeatedly, have they not? Most recently in 2017 Also Hamas are not in government now (since July ‘26) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Iran uses extremist rhetoric and openly states a goal of wiping Israel off the map. They do not curb extremist rhetoric. They have attempted to kill Israelis (Jews) with enough missiles to kill thousands. Is Iran guilty of genocide, in your view? The Houthis? Various other states, regimes or groups in the region? " The above is clearly opinion based . Before you start using opinion that Iran want to kill the Jews .. the Khorasani Synagogue of Tehran, was a synagogue of the Jewish community in Tehran, Iran. destroyed in an attack by the Israeli military during the 2026 Iran war. So you should do a bit of thinking before accusing the Iranians of wanting to kill Jews. It's the Zionist extremists they're at war with started by the Zionist extremists | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's the Zionist extremists they're at war with started by the Zionist extremists " No. It's the very notion of a Jewish state, even a non extreme one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Zionism is a an outdated 19th century ideology from the days when racial discrimination was acceptable and when one group of people thought themselves superior to another group. It sounds very familiar and it should have been a lesson to humanity not to go that path again. It's a repulsive ideology just like any fanatical lunacy based on religion. The first political Zionists were non religious Jews, because being Jewish is primarily an ethnicity. Also, nothing in the early Zionist principles aimed for exclusivity or superiority." Ah okay.. so the modern day Israel is based on fairness equality and a centre of ethically and morals. Funny how such atrocities are normalised and rationally explained away | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hamas recognise Israel’s borders, and have done so repeatedly, have they not? Most recently in 2017" Nope. You're referring to the "Document of General Principles and Policies". Or the revamped '80s charter that was a sticking point because it was openly genocidal. It suggested a transitional state along '67 borders (because it's better to have something than nothing) but also rejected Israel's right to exist and stormed the goal of "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hamas recognise Israel’s borders, and have done so repeatedly, have they not? Most recently in 2017 Nope. You're referring to the "Document of General Principles and Policies". Or the revamped '80s charter that was a sticking point because it was openly genocidal. It suggested a transitional state along '67 borders (because it's better to have something than nothing) but also rejected Israel's right to exist and stormed the goal of "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."" Define ‘complete liberation of Palestine’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Define ‘complete liberation of Palestine’? " From the river to the sea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Define ‘complete liberation of Palestine’? From the river to the sea." I asked you to defined liberation of Palestine. What does it mean to liberate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Define ‘complete liberation of Palestine’? From the river to the sea. I asked you to defined liberation of Palestine. What does it mean to liberate? " If you have a point to make, please make it plainly without asking for definitions. You clearly have a definition in mind and an associated point, which presumably has something to do with Hamas wanting to be friends with Israel and acknowledge their borders and existence. Please, just make the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Define ‘complete liberation of Palestine’? From the river to the sea. I asked you to defined liberation of Palestine. What does it mean to liberate? If you have a point to make, please make it plainly without asking for definitions. You clearly have a definition in mind and an associated point, which presumably has something to do with Hamas wanting to be friends with Israel and acknowledge their borders and existence. Please, just make the point." I’ve already made it. Your bias (which we’ve already established in this thread) apparently means you missed it or refuses to acknowledge it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Define ‘complete liberation of Palestine’? From the river to the sea. I asked you to defined liberation of Palestine. What does it mean to liberate? If you have a point to make, please make it plainly without asking for definitions. You clearly have a definition in mind and an associated point, which presumably has something to do with Hamas wanting to be friends with Israel and acknowledge their borders and existence. Please, just make the point. I’ve already made it. Your bias (which we’ve already established in this thread) apparently means you missed it or refuses to acknowledge it. " Genuinely not following, sorry - this is not an attempt to be deliberately obtuse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.”
But how have you determined that they have met those criteria?
Because both are documented. Feel free to research "“Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.”
But how have you determined that they have met those criteria?
Because both are documented. Feel free to research
“Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question.
I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed.
"The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. " Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? " Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes " Why does that matter? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes " If a genocide happens in a forest and there is nobody around to hear the screams... ...did it happen? (That position is simply ridiculous) If someone steals £1000 cash from you and you witness it, however a court finds them not guilty for whatever reason... Did they actually steal it from you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.”
But how have you determined that they have met those criteria?
Because both are documented. Feel free to research
“Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question.
I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed.
The five conditions are:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed.
Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive.
"I have looked this up so we are 100% in the same ballpark. The Convention doesn’t say “moving children”, it says “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Where is your evidence that this happened? Withholding aid: The conditions must be deliberately inflicted and calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, in whole or in part. Detail is really important... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.”
But how have you determined that they have met those criteria?
Because both are documented. Feel free to research
“Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question.
I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed.
The five conditions are:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed.
Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive.
I have looked this up so we are 100% in the same ballpark.
The Convention doesn’t say “moving children”, it says “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Where is your evidence that this happened?
Withholding aid: The conditions must be deliberately inflicted and calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, in whole or in part.
Detail is really important..."“International organizations and human rights groups, as detailed in The Missing Children of Gaza report by Save the Children, have documented and condemned the unlawful and forcible transfer, deportation, and detention of Palestinian children by Israeli forces” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes Why does that matter? " Because (especially in an emotional case like this), legal issues matter more than feelings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes Why does that matter? Because (especially in an emotional case like this), legal issues matter more than feelings. " So something is real only when a bunch of rich suit-wearing bureaucrats said so? You will not take them to be real otherwise? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes Why does that matter? Because (especially in an emotional case like this), legal issues matter more than feelings. So something is real only when a bunch of rich suit-wearing bureaucrats said so? You will not take them to be real otherwise?" I’m saying that neither you nor I are suitably qualified to make a definitive decision on it. And I’m right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes Why does that matter? Because (especially in an emotional case like this), legal issues matter more than feelings. So something is real only when a bunch of rich suit-wearing bureaucrats said so? You will not take them to be real otherwise? I’m saying that neither you nor I are suitably qualified to make a definitive decision on it. And I’m right. " You seem to be happy saying "Israel is/was potentially committing genocide" Based on all the points you gave in support of the statement, the Hamas are also genocidal. In fact, they have been open about their genocidal tendencies quite a few times. And yet, we can't make the same statement about Hamas, just because the ICJ aren't investigating them? We make a lot of statements about reality. Not everything needs approval from a bunch of rich bureaucrats. They aren't the arbiter of truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.” But how have you determined that they have met those criteria? Because both are documented. Feel free to research “Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question. I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed. The five conditions are: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. - Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed. Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive. Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes Why does that matter? Because (especially in an emotional case like this), legal issues matter more than feelings. So something is real only when a bunch of rich suit-wearing bureaucrats said so? You will not take them to be real otherwise? I’m saying that neither you nor I are suitably qualified to make a definitive decision on it. And I’m right. You seem to be happy saying "Israel is/was potentially committing genocide" Based on all the points you gave in support of the statement, the Hamas are also genocidal. In fact, they have been open about their genocidal tendencies quite a few times. And yet, we can't make the same statement about Hamas, just because the ICJ aren't investigating them? We make a lot of statements about reality. Not everything needs approval from a bunch of rich bureaucrats. They aren't the arbiter of truth." Yes, Israel are potentially committing genocide, a case is presently being heard. Do you disagree? And those ‘rich bureaucrats’ are literally experts in their field. I’d trust their opinion over someone online, wouldn’t you? It’s frankly alarming how people speak of those in very important positions who have spent their lives learning and practing to get there - it’s embarrassing, in fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Same can be said about Hamas. In fact, Hamas have even claimed that to be their intent multiple times. So, everyone should be comfortable saying that Hamas is/was potentially committing genocide’? Are the ICJ presently looking at a case into Hamas? If so, then yes Why does that matter? Because (especially in an emotional case like this), legal issues matter more than feelings. So something is real only when a bunch of rich suit-wearing bureaucrats said so? You will not take them to be real otherwise? I’m saying that neither you nor I are suitably qualified to make a definitive decision on it. And I’m right. You seem to be happy saying "Israel is/was potentially committing genocide" Based on all the points you gave in support of the statement, the Hamas are also genocidal. In fact, they have been open about their genocidal tendencies quite a few times. And yet, we can't make the same statement about Hamas, just because the ICJ aren't investigating them? We make a lot of statements about reality. Not everything needs approval from a bunch of rich bureaucrats. They aren't the arbiter of truth. Yes, Israel are potentially committing genocide, a case is presently being heard. Do you disagree? " If they are potentially committing a genocide, Hamas have been potentially committing a genocide too. Do you disagree? " And those ‘rich bureaucrats’ are literally experts in their field. I’d trust their opinion over someone online, wouldn’t you? " - Even if they are "experts", we don't have to wait for them to confirm the validity of every statement. We don't do it for most things. Why is this so special? - The UN is a political organisation at the end of the day. UNRWA was caught employing Hamas terrorists. There is no reason why we should blindly trust them, let alone wait for their blessings before deciding if something is true or not. " It’s frankly alarming how people speak of those in very important positions who have spent their lives learning and practing to get there - it’s embarrassing, in fact. " I could say the same about lots of right wing figures. I bet you wouldn't treat them as arbiters of truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I could say the same about lots of right wing figures. I bet you wouldn't treat them as arbiters of truth." If someone is genuinely learned and qualified on a subject then why would their politics come into it? If a right wing grifter is telling lies about a subject on which they are unqualified then it’s right they should be questioned, same as a left winger doing the same. To some of us, expertise matters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I could say the same about lots of right wing figures. I bet you wouldn't treat them as arbiters of truth. If someone is genuinely learned and qualified on a subject then why would their politics come into it? If a right wing grifter is telling lies about a subject on which they are unqualified then it’s right they should be questioned, same as a left winger doing the same. To some of us, expertise matters. " What makes them experts? Their degrees? Do you think they aren't affected by politics? I can find right wingers with same degrees in high positions. Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements?" No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias." You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women? 
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women?
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation. "I didn’t say unbiased, I said less susceptible to bias - And I stand by it. Have you compared the selection processes for the ICJ vs Supreme Court? Because your glib response suggests not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women?
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation.
I didn’t say unbiased, I said less susceptible to bias - And I stand by it.
Have you compared the selection processes for the ICJ vs Supreme Court? Because your glib response suggests not."Every process is at the mercy of people who run it. And people are biased. There is nothing about the UN that makes them special. They have had their own share of fuck ups as I mentioned before. And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women?
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation.
I didn’t say unbiased, I said less susceptible to bias - And I stand by it.
Have you compared the selection processes for the ICJ vs Supreme Court? Because your glib response suggests not.
Every process is at the mercy of people who run it. And people are biased. There is nothing about the UN that makes them special. They have had their own share of fuck ups as I mentioned before. And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either."You haven’t researched it, clearly by your final sentence. Did you know you don’t even need a law degree to be selected to the US Supreme Court? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either." It is quite noteworthy as being the only judge selection process where vote trading extends to other UN bodies, meaning that country A will vote for a judge from country B, as long as country B votes for a department head from country A. You don't see that much in national courts... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either. It is quite noteworthy as being the only judge selection process where vote trading extends to other UN bodies, meaning that country A will vote for a judge from country B, as long as country B votes for a department head from country A. You don't see that much in national courts..." What about the double absolute majority requirement? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women?
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation.
I didn’t say unbiased, I said less susceptible to bias - And I stand by it.
Have you compared the selection processes for the ICJ vs Supreme Court? Because your glib response suggests not.
Every process is at the mercy of people who run it. And people are biased. There is nothing about the UN that makes them special. They have had their own share of fuck ups as I mentioned before. And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either.
You haven’t researched it, clearly by your final sentence.
Did you know you don’t even need a law degree to be selected to the US Supreme Court? "Is there any justice in the US supreme court today who doesn't have a degree in law? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Did you know you don’t even need a law degree to be selected to the US Supreme Court? " "Unqualified judges, in some cases with no expertise on international law and in one case no legal qualifications, have been appointed to key positions because of highly politicised voting systems and a lack of transparency, the Guardian has learned." https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/sep/08/law-international-court-justice-legal The least qualified justice according to the ABA in recent memory in the US supreme court was Clarence Thomas (1991). He was rated "qualified" by all but two panel members. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either. It is quite noteworthy as being the only judge selection process where vote trading extends to other UN bodies, meaning that country A will vote for a judge from country B, as long as country B votes for a department head from country A. You don't see that much in national courts... What about the double absolute majority requirement? " You still need to get onto the list to win it. The point is that the list selection itself is rigged politically, first by politicians in the originating country, secondly by vote trading. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women?
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation.
I didn’t say unbiased, I said less susceptible to bias - And I stand by it.
Have you compared the selection processes for the ICJ vs Supreme Court? Because your glib response suggests not.
Every process is at the mercy of people who run it. And people are biased. There is nothing about the UN that makes them special. They have had their own share of fuck ups as I mentioned before. And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either.
You haven’t researched it, clearly by your final sentence.
Did you know you don’t even need a law degree to be selected to the US Supreme Court?
Is there any justice in the US supreme court today who doesn't have a degree in law?"No, but the point remains that you don’t need a law degree to become a US Supreme Court candidate. But you know that, you’ve done your research! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either. It is quite noteworthy as being the only judge selection process where vote trading extends to other UN bodies, meaning that country A will vote for a judge from country B, as long as country B votes for a department head from country A. You don't see that much in national courts..." Every election process in the UN is plagued by countries playing favouritism. Apparently we have to wait for these organisations to decide the truth value of important facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Do you put the ICJ judgements at same level as the US supreme court judgements? No, the ICJ selection process is more thorough and less susceptible to political bias. You mean a UN organisation? The same UN that literally hired Hamas terrorists? The same UN that had Saudi Arabia chairing their commission on status of women?
I am sorry to break this to you. There is no such thing as an unbiased political organisation.
I didn’t say unbiased, I said less susceptible to bias - And I stand by it.
Have you compared the selection processes for the ICJ vs Supreme Court? Because your glib response suggests not.
Every process is at the mercy of people who run it. And people are biased. There is nothing about the UN that makes them special. They have had their own share of fuck ups as I mentioned before. And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either.
You haven’t researched it, clearly by your final sentence.
Did you know you don’t even need a law degree to be selected to the US Supreme Court?
Is there any justice in the US supreme court today who doesn't have a degree in law?
No, but the point remains that you don’t need a law degree to become a US Supreme Court candidate. But you know that, you’ve done your research! "The last US justice who didn't have a degree was someone in the 1940s and he apparently learned law with a private mentor. So the US supreme court justices not having degrees isn't really a problem here. What makes the ICJ process better and less biased? They still have a voting process right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And the ICJ selection process isn't particularly noteworthy either. It is quite noteworthy as being the only judge selection process where vote trading extends to other UN bodies, meaning that country A will vote for a judge from country B, as long as country B votes for a department head from country A. You don't see that much in national courts... What about the double absolute majority requirement? You still need to get onto the list to win it. The point is that the list selection itself is rigged politically, first by politicians in the originating country, secondly by vote trading." So you don’t want to discuss the double absolute majority requirement? Like I said, it’s not unbiased, but it IS less susceptible to bias compared to the US Supreme Court. Anyone is free to argue otherwise of course, but it’s like arguing that grass is pink. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". So the US supreme court justices not having degrees isn't really a problem here. What makes the ICJ process better and less biased? They still have a voting process right?" ‘Isn’t really a problem here’ because you don’t want to see it as a problem. I think a law degree should be a basic requirement of becoming a Supreme Court candidate, right? Seems like quite a base level requirement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you don’t want to discuss the double absolute majority requirement? " Sure. What's your point? That once a shortlist of cronies get put forward, a candidate must secure an absolute majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council to win a seat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". So the US supreme court justices not having degrees isn't really a problem here. What makes the ICJ process better and less biased? They still have a voting process right? ‘Isn’t really a problem here’ because you don’t want to see it as a problem. I think a law degree should be a basic requirement of becoming a Supreme Court candidate, right? Seems like quite a base level requirement. " But they do have degrees. What's your problem then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you don’t want to discuss the double absolute majority requirement? Sure. What's your point? That once a shortlist of cronies get put forward, a candidate must secure an absolute majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council to win a seat. "Indeed. That’s my point. Independent, staggered voting from two separate international bodies. If you want to remove bias, that’s not a bad way to do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". So the US supreme court justices not having degrees isn't really a problem here. What makes the ICJ process better and less biased? They still have a voting process right? ‘Isn’t really a problem here’ because you don’t want to see it as a problem. I think a law degree should be a basic requirement of becoming a Supreme Court candidate, right? Seems like quite a base level requirement. But they do have degrees. What's your problem then? " I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". So the US supreme court justices not having degrees isn't really a problem here. What makes the ICJ process better and less biased? They still have a voting process right? ‘Isn’t really a problem here’ because you don’t want to see it as a problem. I think a law degree should be a basic requirement of becoming a Supreme Court candidate, right? Seems like quite a base level requirement. But they do have degrees. What's your problem then? I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you "That usually means you don't have an argument to makr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you "No. What you mean is "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it..." You are complaining about a nonexistent problem. If this was simply a diversion tactic to escape a previously failing argument, then it was a valiant effort. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For the record, in our view, the US Supreme court is a highly problematic institution on many levels. Starting with the whole concept of political appointments. The selectiveness with which it cherry picks cases." It is indeed. It's impossible to form a political organisation without bias and favouritism. Hence my concern over treating ICJ as the arbiter of truth on this matter. The UN hasn't particularly covered themselves in glory in recent years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you
No. What you mean is "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it..."
You are complaining about a nonexistent problem. If this was simply a diversion tactic to escape a previously failing argument, then it was a valiant effort."Just to be abundantly clear: You are complaining that the Supreme Court is "less susceptible to bias" because the ICJ has a better "selection process" and you offered the example that the Supreme Court does not require a law degree. Nevertheless, whereas no unqualified Supreme Court judge has been appointed in living memory, the Guardian reports actual unqualified judges have been politically appointed to the ICJ. By your own measure, the ICJ is failing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For the record, in our view, the US Supreme court is a highly problematic institution on many levels. Starting with the whole concept of political appointments. The selectiveness with which it cherry picks cases. It is indeed. It's impossible to form a political organisation without bias and favouritism. Hence my concern over treating ICJ as the arbiter of truth on this matter. The UN hasn't particularly covered themselves in glory in recent years." To be fair to them, the ICJ does have some excellent justices. But the UN in general is unfortunately full of rot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The point you make ref the forced transfer of children, what do you think Israel were doing with children they moved? Again intent really is important. Intent is all that matters. Like withholding essentials, we know they have and even the most ardent Israeli defender would be naive to pretend otherwise - but the intent will be the deciding factor. but you are not associating any intent, you are simply stating X genocide. My question is really rather simple, what do you believe to be intent of the Israeli government with moving children. Lets start there
Once again, since you missed the earlier posts, clearly - I’m not an expert and I trust the ICJ to come up with the correct response, which should be respected by all.
If you know better than the ICJ, please feel free to drop them a line, maybe you can assist.
Enlighten me then. If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?
I’m not asking you to know better than the ICJ. I’m asking you to explain the reasoning behind your own position.
You raised the transfer of children as evidence of genocide.
Isreal has forcibly movies children and also withheld aid and essentials. Those are two of the qualifying factors for any genocide (there are five possible) but *intent* must exist alongside them in order for genocide to be proven.
And where you’ve gone wrong is in stating:
“If you are confident to argue that Israel has committed genocide, why, when I ask you about one of the acts you’re stating, are you suddenly “not an expert” to the point that you won’t even say what you believe the intent behind that act was?”
Because at no point have I said I’m confident that Isreal are committing genocide. I’ve said they potentially are (and that’s true, which is why there is a case ongoing at present).
Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent - which you don’t know anymore than I do.
You said: “Israel have committed at least two of the 5 determining factors in genocide, now it comes down to intent.”
But how have you determined that they have met those criteria?
Because both are documented. Feel free to research
“Because both are documented” still isn't answering the question.
I’m not arguing that children haven't been moved or that aid has been withheld. I’m asking how did you get from those "are documented" events to your opinion that two of the five acts in the Genocide Convention have been committed.
The five conditions are:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Now nobody can argue that Isreal hasn’t committed multiple of those five. But the key part is that there must be intent *behind* the act for a genocide to have been committed.
Which is why I am comfortable, and frankly everyone should be comfortable using the caveated phrase ‘Israel is/was potentially committing genocide’ - Because up until we have the ICJ outcome, it’s true. And the ICJ will rule one way or the other, after which point we’ll have a definitive.
I have looked this up so we are 100% in the same ballpark.
The Convention doesn’t say “moving children”, it says “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Where is your evidence that this happened?
Withholding aid: The conditions must be deliberately inflicted and calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, in whole or in part.
Detail is really important...
“International organizations and human rights groups, as detailed in The Missing Children of Gaza report by Save the Children, have documented and condemned the unlawful and forcible transfer, deportation, and detention of Palestinian children by Israeli forces”
"Those groups have documented events they believe to be unlawful, but what you have quoted still doesn’t satisfy the Convention definition, “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” You said Israel has committed two of the five criteria for genocide. Are you basing that conclusion on those reports? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those groups have documented events they believe to be unlawful, but what you have quoted still doesn’t satisfy the Convention definition, “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” You said Israel has committed two of the five criteria for genocide. Are you basing that conclusion on those reports?" Have you read the save the children report? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those groups have documented events they believe to be unlawful, but what you have quoted still doesn’t satisfy the Convention definition, “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” You said Israel has committed two of the five criteria for genocide. Are you basing that conclusion on those reports? Have you read the save the children report? " No, I haven't, I'm taking what you quoted and applying it to the definition. Does the save the children report establish Israel met the definition? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, " Thank you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, Thank you "Well... That's one way to weasel out of your reasoning standing up to scrutiny. Much like you did above with "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you". If you cannot explain something clearly, then simply declaring that "you've already explained it" or that someone must first answer a question or read something doesn't work. It just makes it look like you're trying to convince someone that it's their failing that leads to their lack of understanding. You try to achieve a lot with implications and inference, while not seeming to want to make a clear argument, then blame others for not comprehending. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, Thank you
Well... That's one way to weasel out of your reasoning standing up to scrutiny. Much like you did above with "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you".
If you cannot explain something clearly, then simply declaring that "you've already explained it" or that someone must first answer a question or read something doesn't work. It just makes it look like you're trying to convince someone that it's their failing that leads to their lack of understanding.
You try to achieve a lot with implications and inference, while not seeming to want to make a clear argument, then blame others for not comprehending."Given that myriad documents are available for anyone to look at, I recommend that people look at it if they want to see and judge the evidence for themselves. If someone makes up their mind without reviewing evidence then I question their honesty in debating the issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Given that myriad documents are available for anyone to look at, I recommend that people look at it if they want to see and judge the evidence for themselves. If someone makes up their mind without reviewing evidence then I question their honesty in debating the issue. " The question was whether you had made up your mind based on those report and how, not the contents of the report itself. Even if someone read the full report, that would not answer the question as to whether this is your definitive source. Which you refused to answer. You imply it somewhat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, Thank you
Well... That's one way to weasel out of your reasoning standing up to scrutiny. Much like you did above with "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you".
If you cannot explain something clearly, then simply declaring that "you've already explained it" or that someone must first answer a question or read something doesn't work. It just makes it look like you're trying to convince someone that it's their failing that leads to their lack of understanding.
You try to achieve a lot with implications and inference, while not seeming to want to make a clear argument, then blame others for not comprehending.
Given that myriad documents are available for anyone to look at, I recommend that people look at it if they want to see and judge the evidence for themselves.
If someone makes up their mind without reviewing evidence then I question their honesty in debating the issue. "I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion over a very simple question.. You referenced the save the children report, I’m asking whether it actually establishes the convention definition you say Israel met, the 2 out of 5. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, Thank you
Well... That's one way to weasel out of your reasoning standing up to scrutiny. Much like you did above with "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you".
If you cannot explain something clearly, then simply declaring that "you've already explained it" or that someone must first answer a question or read something doesn't work. It just makes it look like you're trying to convince someone that it's their failing that leads to their lack of understanding.
You try to achieve a lot with implications and inference, while not seeming to want to make a clear argument, then blame others for not comprehending.
Given that myriad documents are available for anyone to look at, I recommend that people look at it if they want to see and judge the evidence for themselves.
If someone makes up their mind without reviewing evidence then I question their honesty in debating the issue.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion over a very simple question..
You referenced the save the children report, I’m asking whether it actually establishes the convention definition you say Israel met, the 2 out of 5.
"I believe it does, yes. You can read it and come to your own conclusion. I always recommend researching a subject for yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, Thank you
Well... That's one way to weasel out of your reasoning standing up to scrutiny. Much like you did above with "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you".
If you cannot explain something clearly, then simply declaring that "you've already explained it" or that someone must first answer a question or read something doesn't work. It just makes it look like you're trying to convince someone that it's their failing that leads to their lack of understanding.
You try to achieve a lot with implications and inference, while not seeming to want to make a clear argument, then blame others for not comprehending.
Given that myriad documents are available for anyone to look at, I recommend that people look at it if they want to see and judge the evidence for themselves.
If someone makes up their mind without reviewing evidence then I question their honesty in debating the issue.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion over a very simple question..
You referenced the save the children report, I’m asking whether it actually establishes the convention definition you say Israel met, the 2 out of 5.
I believe it does, yes. You can read it and come to your own conclusion. I always recommend researching a subject for yourself "Thanks for confirming you read the report. Can you confirm exactly what was written that established the Convention’s definition of “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” had been met? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Have you read the save the children report? No, I haven't, Thank you
Well... That's one way to weasel out of your reasoning standing up to scrutiny. Much like you did above with "I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you".
If you cannot explain something clearly, then simply declaring that "you've already explained it" or that someone must first answer a question or read something doesn't work. It just makes it look like you're trying to convince someone that it's their failing that leads to their lack of understanding.
You try to achieve a lot with implications and inference, while not seeming to want to make a clear argument, then blame others for not comprehending.
Given that myriad documents are available for anyone to look at, I recommend that people look at it if they want to see and judge the evidence for themselves.
If someone makes up their mind without reviewing evidence then I question their honesty in debating the issue.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion over a very simple question..
You referenced the save the children report, I’m asking whether it actually establishes the convention definition you say Israel met, the 2 out of 5.
I believe it does, yes. You can read it and come to your own conclusion. I always recommend researching a subject for yourself
Thanks for confirming you read the report. Can you confirm exactly what was written that established the Convention’s definition of “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” had been met?"Linking this thread to the AI thread, there's no need to read tiresome long reports, just ask AI the questions. It's a fantastic time-saver. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Linking this thread to the AI thread, there's no need to read tiresome long reports, just ask AI the questions. It's a fantastic time-saver." Gemini pro 3.1/extended thinking Prompt: Does this report prove forcible transfer of children as defined by the Genocide Convention in relation to genocide, had occurred? Summarise for posting onto a forum, simplify language to high school level: The Missing Children of Gaza report by Save the Children Response: No, the Save the Children report does not prove genocide, though it does point to major war crimes. ?Here is why the report's findings do not fit the specific legal definition of genocide regarding children: ?What the Genocide Convention actually says: To commit genocide by forcibly transferring children, a group must take the kids and give them to another group to erase their culture and identity (like historically forcing Indigenous children into residential boarding schools). ?What the report found: Save the Children estimates up to 21,000 children are missing in Gaza. While many are trapped under rubble or lost in the chaos, the report documents that Israeli forces have detained some children and moved them to military prisons inside Israel. ?The missing link: The report describes kids being locked up in military prisons, not being adopted or re-homed into Israeli society to erase who they are. Because of this, it does not meet the strict legal definition of genocide. ?Charities vs. Courts: Moving kids out of an occupied area into prisons is widely considered a major war crime under a different set of laws (the Geneva Convention). However, a report from a charity cannot legally "prove" any international crime. It acts as powerful evidence, but only official international courts can make a final legal ruling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Linking this thread to the AI thread, there's no need to read tiresome long reports, just ask AI the questions. It's a fantastic time-saver. Gemini pro 3.1/extended thinking Prompt: Does this report prove forcible transfer of children as defined by the Genocide Convention in relation to genocide, had occurred? Summarise for posting onto a forum, simplify language to high school level: The Missing Children of Gaza report by Save the Children Response: No, the Save the Children report does not prove genocide, though it does point to major war crimes. ?Here is why the report's findings do not fit the specific legal definition of genocide regarding children: ?What the Genocide Convention actually says: To commit genocide by forcibly transferring children, a group must take the kids and give them to another group to erase their culture and identity (like historically forcing Indigenous children into residential boarding schools). ?What the report found: Save the Children estimates up to 21,000 children are missing in Gaza. While many are trapped under rubble or lost in the chaos, the report documents that Israeli forces have detained some children and moved them to military prisons inside Israel. ?The missing link: The report describes kids being locked up in military prisons, not being adopted or re-homed into Israeli society to erase who they are. Because of this, it does not meet the strict legal definition of genocide. ?Charities vs. Courts: Moving kids out of an occupied area into prisons is widely considered a major war crime under a different set of laws (the Geneva Convention). However, a report from a charity cannot legally "prove" any international crime. It acts as powerful evidence, but only official international courts can make a final legal ruling." Well I’m sure the ICJ will run their case through Gemini before coming to a conclusion
But you’ve already said that if the ICJ say that Isreal have committed genocide, you’ll accept it, so there is that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" need to read tiresome long reports, just ask AI the questions. It's a fantastic time-saver." AI has its uses. Deciding complex cases isn’t one of them. I once asked it to decode the same legal jargon on child maintenance ending criteria, once posing as a father paying, and once as a mother receiving money. It gave me two different answers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But you’ve already said that if the ICJ say that Isreal have committed genocide, you’ll accept it, so there is that. " Correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" need to read tiresome long reports, just ask AI the questions. It's a fantastic time-saver. AI has its uses. Deciding complex cases isn’t one of them. I once asked it to decode the same legal jargon on child maintenance ending criteria, once posing as a father paying, and once as a mother receiving money. It gave me two different answers "Yes, I agree AI can give wildly different answers by changing the phrasing of the questions slightly. In that regard, AI is guilty of bias confirmation. But it's still a good way to get fast accurate(ish) answers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. "Indeed and with the British Government’s post war effort created it, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations. "Palestine is not yet a full member state of the UN because full membership requires a recommendation from the UN Security Council, where vetoes can block the bid. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria for statehood under the terms of the Montevideo Convention. Recognition is therefore political, and recognising a state on disputed territory, in the middle of a war that they started, is highly contentious at best. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Palestine isn't a country, never was a country, and never should be a country.
Well the U.K recognises Palestine as a sovereign state. As do the vast majority of UN nations.
Palestine is not yet a full member state of the UN because full membership requires a recommendation from the UN Security Council, where vetoes can block the bid.
Additionally, it does not meet the criteria for statehood under the terms of the Montevideo Convention.
Recognition is therefore political, and recognising a state on disputed territory, in the middle of a war that they started, is highly contentious at best."The UN is flawed to the point of being ridiculous. The war ? 7 October war? .. that was started long before 7 October and you know that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The UN is flawed to the point of being ridiculous. The war ? 7 October war? .. that was started long before 7 October and you know that. " Separate wars are not the same war. However, every war involving Israel was started when Arabs either attacked or provoked first. We can do 1947, 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 or any other date of your choosing – but it was always Arabs who carried out acts of war first. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide? Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? " Yes of course but you do know how many countries have been found guilty of the offence of genocide? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Linking this thread to the AI thread, there's no need to read tiresome long reports, just ask AI the questions. It's a fantastic time-saver. Gemini pro 3.1/extended thinking Prompt: Does this report prove forcible transfer of children as defined by the Genocide Convention in relation to genocide, had occurred? Summarise for posting onto a forum, simplify language to high school level: The Missing Children of Gaza report by Save the Children Response: No, the Save the Children report does not prove genocide, though it does point to major war crimes. ?Here is why the report's findings do not fit the specific legal definition of genocide regarding children: ?What the Genocide Convention actually says: To commit genocide by forcibly transferring children, a group must take the kids and give them to another group to erase their culture and identity (like historically forcing Indigenous children into residential boarding schools). ?What the report found: Save the Children estimates up to 21,000 children are missing in Gaza. While many are trapped under rubble or lost in the chaos, the report documents that Israeli forces have detained some children and moved them to military prisons inside Israel. ?The missing link: The report describes kids being locked up in military prisons, not being adopted or re-homed into Israeli society to erase who they are. Because of this, it does not meet the strict legal definition of genocide. ?Charities vs. Courts: Moving kids out of an occupied area into prisons is widely considered a major war crime under a different set of laws (the Geneva Convention). However, a report from a charity cannot legally "prove" any international crime. It acts as powerful evidence, but only official international courts can make a final legal ruling. Well I’m sure the ICJ will run their case through Gemini before coming to a conclusion
But you’ve already said that if the ICJ say that Isreal have committed genocide, you’ll accept it, so there is that. "What do you think is the likelihood that Israel will be found guilty of genocide? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide? Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes of course but you do know how many countries have been found guilty of the offence of genocide? Mrs x" How many is irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile, the Jewish population figures still haven't fully recovered from their real genocide. Genuine question if the currently ongoing ICJ case returns a verdict that Isreal have violated the 1948 genocide convention, will you accept that finding? Because at present with that case ongoing, it’s fucking abhorrent that you use the phrase ‘real genocide’ In the context of the ICJ, it's actually a fair term to use. The ICJ could find a verdict against Israel on the basis that the state "failed to curb or punish extremist rhetoric", even in the absence of any deaths at all. In that case, there would not have been a "real genocide". Without necessarily cutting and pasting the relevant articles, what is YOUR definition of genocide? Same question to you though - will you accept the ICJ findings when they are published? Yes of course but you do know how many countries have been found guilty of the offence of genocide? Mrs x How many is irrelevant." Is it really? I think the actual number is an accurate indicator of how the decision will go against Israel. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the actual number is an accurate indicator of how the decision will go against Israel. Mrs x" It will be considered, but the pivot will be about finding "specific intent" (dolus specialis) – genocide has been found against cases with much lower death rates. For example, the ICJ ruled that the slaughter of 8000 Bosnian Muslims constituted genocide because it was deliberately designed to destroy the community in that area. While I believe Israel (as a state) has gone above and beyond in trying to prevent genocide – with warnings, roof knocks, aid, vaccination campaigns and so on – there are probably individuals and groups who have committed war crimes. I think the court deciding between state responsibility and criminal liability will an important factor in reaching a verdict. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the actual number is an accurate indicator of how the decision will go against Israel. Mrs x It will be considered, but the pivot will be about finding "specific intent" (dolus specialis) – genocide has been found against cases with much lower death rates. For example, the ICJ ruled that the slaughter of 8000 Bosnian Muslims constituted genocide because it was deliberately designed to destroy the community in that area. While I believe Israel (as a state) has gone above and beyond in trying to prevent genocide – with warnings, roof knocks, aid, vaccination campaigns and so on – there are probably individuals and groups who have committed war crimes. I think the court deciding between state responsibility and criminal liability will an important factor in reaching a verdict." I don't mean that the actual number will be a determination factor, I mean that it gives a great indication of the likelihood of whether Israel has committed genocide or not. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I mean that it gives a great indication of the likelihood of whether Israel has committed genocide or not." Absolutely – Israel could wipe out the entire Gaza strip in a matter of days if it chose to. Given the current death toll, it would take over 80 years to kill everyone there – and that doesn't take a growing population into account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I mean that it gives a great indication of the likelihood of whether Israel has committed genocide or not.Absolutely – Israel could wipe out the entire Gaza strip in a matter of days if it chose to. Given the current death toll, it would take over 80 years to kill everyone there – and that doesn't take a growing population into account. " I'm not doubting Israels military capacity or your point about its lethality, which is allso true, I am just pointing out that the chances of Israel being found guilty of genocide seem extremely low as no state has ever been found guilty of genocide. The offence has such a high bar to clear, its proved exceptionally hard to establish. Given that ZERO states have been found guilty, the real question is for those that believe they are guilty will they accept the ICJ's ruling if it comes back not guilty, which historically looks like will be the outcome here? What do you think? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What do you think? Mrs x" I don't know. What concerns me is the historical anti-Israel bias of the UN, and the loud voices that drive this narrative. There is a risk of a politically motivated decision rather than a factual one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What do you think? Mrs x I don't know. What concerns me is the historical anti-Israel bias of the UN, and the loud voices that drive this narrative. There is a risk of a politically motivated decision rather than a factual one." I think they will be found not guilty, its just too hard legally to prove. Certain Israelis may still be found guilty as well as the Hamas leadership, with several outstanding warrants for a number of them for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, both of which carry similar penalties to the crime of genocide whilst not being as difficult to prove. We will just have to wait and see how it pans out but it will probably take years to come to any sort of conclusion, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I mean that it gives a great indication of the likelihood of whether Israel has committed genocide or not.Absolutely – Israel could wipe out the entire Gaza strip in a matter of days if it chose to. Given the current death toll, it would take over 80 years to kill everyone there – and that doesn't take a growing population into account. I'm not doubting Israels military capacity or your point about its lethality, which is allso true, I am just pointing out that the chances of Israel being found guilty of genocide seem extremely low as no state has ever been found guilty of genocide. The offence has such a high bar to clear, its proved exceptionally hard to establish. Given that ZERO states have been found guilty, the real question is for those that believe they are guilty will they accept the ICJ's ruling if it comes back not guilty, which historically looks like will be the outcome here? What do you think? Mrs x" Germany was never found guilty of state genocide, so on that metric I doubt Israel will either. That's the strict legal position. But in the court of public opinion, must people would probably consider Germany collectively responsible for genocide in WWII, and I think in time they will for Israel in Gaza too. We'll have to wait and see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Germany was never found guilty of state genocide, so on that metric I doubt Israel will either." The ICJ and the Genocide Convention did not exist in 1945. Such a conviction would have been impossible given the lack of framework. However, the modern German state fully accepts historical and moral responsibility and has paid billions in reparations – including to the state of Israel. Israel disputes the claims being made against it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Germany was never found guilty of state genocide, so on that metric I doubt Israel will either. That's the strict legal position. " And Adolf Hitler was never found guilty of email phishing scams, either. Because neither crime existed. Germany was never tried for the crime of Genocide. However, the bar for genocide was modelled precisely on Germany's actions during the Holocaust. So while technically correct, it's about as disingenuous as you could get. " But in the court of public opinion, must people would probably consider Germany collectively responsible for genocide in WWII, and I think in time they will for Israel in Gaza too. We'll have to wait and see." In the court of public opinion 500 years ago, genocide would arguably be seen as an appropriate punishment for being Jewish. Attitudes change, but not always for the good. The court of public opinion seems to have a fetish for judging Israel negatively, to the almost complete exclusion of far worse crimes. This equivalence between Germany and Israel is ridiculous and if you cannot immediately see why, then it's hardly worth explaining it to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Germany was never found guilty of state genocide, so on that metric I doubt Israel will either. That's the strict legal position. And Adolf Hitler was never found guilty of email phishing scams, either. Because neither crime existed. Germany was never tried for the crime of Genocide. However, the bar for genocide was modelled precisely on Germany's actions during the Holocaust. So while technically correct, it's about as disingenuous as you could get. But in the court of public opinion, must people would probably consider Germany collectively responsible for genocide in WWII, and I think in time they will for Israel in Gaza too. We'll have to wait and see. In the court of public opinion 500 years ago, genocide would arguably be seen as an appropriate punishment for being Jewish. Attitudes change, but not always for the good. The court of public opinion seems to have a fetish for judging Israel negatively, to the almost complete exclusion of far worse crimes. This equivalence between Germany and Israel is ridiculous and if you cannot immediately see why, then it's hardly worth explaining it to you." Eloquently put, as always, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This equivalence between Germany and Israel is ridiculous and if you cannot immediately see why, then it's hardly worth explaining it to you." Most people don't realise that comparing the state of Israel with the actions of Nazi Germany forms part of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. When it's pointed out, they then double down and claim that the IHRA is wrong. 🙄 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This equivalence between Germany and Israel is ridiculous and if you cannot immediately see why, then it's hardly worth explaining it to you. Most people don't realise that comparing the state of Israel with the actions of Nazi Germany forms part of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. When it's pointed out, they then double down and claim that the IHRA is wrong. 🙄 " Ah it was only a matter of time. The excuse of last resort eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most people don't realise that comparing the state of Israel with the actions of Nazi Germany forms part of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. When it's pointed out, they then double down and claim that the IHRA is wrong. 🙄 Ah it was only a matter of time. The excuse of last resort eh?" QED 🙃 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Germany was never found guilty of state genocide, so on that metric I doubt Israel will either. That's the strict legal position. And Adolf Hitler was never found guilty of email phishing scams, either. Because neither crime existed. Germany was never tried for the crime of Genocide. However, the bar for genocide was modelled precisely on Germany's actions during the Holocaust. So while technically correct, it's about as disingenuous as you could get. But in the court of public opinion, must people would probably consider Germany collectively responsible for genocide in WWII, and I think in time they will for Israel in Gaza too. We'll have to wait and see. In the court of public opinion 500 years ago, genocide would arguably be seen as an appropriate punishment for being Jewish. Attitudes change, but not always for the good. The court of public opinion seems to have a fetish for judging Israel negatively, to the almost complete exclusion of far worse crimes. This equivalence between Germany and Israel is ridiculous and if you cannot immediately see why, then it's hardly worth explaining it to you." I would have thought the comparison is obvious. Nobody said equivalence (except you). The comparison comes from accusations of genocide. In the case of Israel, you may not agree, but the accusations are there - and growing. As I say, time will tell if the state of Israel is held to account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This equivalence between Germany and Israel is ridiculous and if you cannot immediately see why, then it's hardly worth explaining it to you. Most people don't realise that comparing the state of Israel with the actions of Nazi Germany forms part of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. When it's pointed out, they then double down and claim that the IHRA is wrong. 🙄 " I suppose the best way to not be compared to Nazis is probably to not confine a group to ghettos and then attempt a genocide on them. But I’m no expert. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
