Israeli-Palestinian conflict (80 Viewers)

[Tomice]

No, they can't.

In the end numbers always win. Sure, you could 'enforce' it by killing anyone who resists. But if enough women resist, that would come down to killing your entire population. Then who's going to work for you?

I have the idea you think history began 50 years ago.

True. But it is not like they voted in a movment that hid its intentions or decived them to think there will ever be another election.
I'm also sure they still will beat the PA if any election in gaza will take place in the near future

I think we are ignoring the most important pillar of totalitarian regimes. Taking control of the education system and state media.

They want their people to live in a bubble. No control method is effective as gaining public support by indoctrination and brainwashing.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

C’mon lol

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

The amalek reference in his Saturday speech is just the cherry on top.

 

[Seven]

I think we are ignoring the most important pillar of totalitarian regimes. Taking control of the education system and state media.

They want their people to live in a bubble. No control method is effective as gaining public support by indoctrination and brainwashing.

Yes, and it works to an extent. Look at China, look at Russia.

But there are almost always comes a time when they fail and crumble. And if you have internet available, it becomes even harder to control the narrative. I'm just not sure Hamas have that kind of power.

 

[U Picciriddu]

Just to be clear, i am not endorsing any of those actions against jews or israelis. I wanted him yo stay consistent. He argued that since people voted for hamas they should bear the responsibility with them. Ergo, he should hold the same stance vis a vis israel.

Not true. I said that Hamas started the conflict, and that they are democratically elected. Not that any Palestinian should bear the consequences of their actions, go back to page 687. Not the first time you’re putting words in my mouth here. The discussion was wether your can or can’t be in war with Hamas

 

[Seven]

C’mon lol

Well, they kind of are.

At the very least there can be no debate they are clearly and intentionally violating international law. And have done so for a very long time.

 

[Tomice]

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

The amalek reference in his Saturday speech is just the cherry on top.

Most important perquisite in the genocide qualification is intent.

I don't think you can prove unequivocally an expressed intent. It needs to be a goal in of itself.

A politician pandering is not it.

 

[Post Ironic]

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

The amalek reference in his Saturday speech is just the cherry on top.

So was Vietnam a genocide? Was Afghanistan a genocide? Was Iraq a genocide?

War ≠ genocide

If this continues after the war with Hamas finishes (and yes it is very much so a war with Hamas), then you shall have an argument. But the couple hundred Palestinians killed each year outside when the conflict has turned hot does not at all equal genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is what’s going on. Which is also a war crime, but not genocide.

 

[Ronn]

Of course we are. Time matters.

That's why I said the will of the people will make or break any solution. Hamas has been in power for less than two decades. Maybe you could say their roots have been in charge for a couple of decades more. Regimes have ruled for hundreds of years though. Le Roi-Soleil happened less than a century before the fucking French Revolution.

If you present a solution that is likely to be appealing to Palestinians, Hamas will lose popular support and they will crumble. No matter what financial injections they might receive. Terrorize civilians and Hamas will grow. It has been like this just about every time in history. It will be the same now.

Here’s the problem IMO: peace solutions and diplomacy are only possible in moments of opportunity. You can’t expect a peace offer to be on the table for 40 years. This is what empowers likes of Hamas. This is, IMO, was the reason behind October 7 attack. Hamas (or any other terrorist group) will be irrelevant in a just society (this is where we agree) and that gives them every motivation to sabotage it in any way they can. Unfortunately it takes very little to do so, and time is not on peace’ side (this is where we disagree)

 

[Seven]

So was Vietnam a genocide? Was Afghanistan a genocide? Was Iraq a genocide?

War ≠ genocide

If this continues after the war with Hamas finishes (and yes it is very much so a war with Hamas), then you shall have an argument. But the couple hundred Palestinians killed each year outside when the conflict has turned hot does not at all equal genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is what’s going on. Which is also a war crime, but not genocide.

That's your argument? Really?

I agree btw that it's probably more ethnic cleansing than genocide. But you can always call a genocide a "war", if you want to.

 

[Post Ironic]

Well, they kind of are.

At the very least there can be no debate they are clearly and intentionally violating international law. And have done so for a very long time.

They are absolutely violating international law and have been pursuing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian zones, and are doing it on a very large scale right now. Which is awful enough. But does not equal genocide. At least not yet.

- - - Updated - - -

That's your argument? Really?

I agree btw that it's probably more ethnic cleansing than genocide. But you can always call a genocide a "war", if you want to.

Yes, genocide can be a war, but that doesn’t make all wars where large numbers of civilians die, genocide. Nuance.

 

[Tomice]

That's your argument? Really?

I agree btw that it's probably more ethnic cleansing than genocide. But you can always call a genocide a "war", if you want to.

Every genocide is a war but not every war is a genocide

 

[Seven]

Here’s the problem IMO: peace solutions and diplomacy are only possible in moments of opportunity. You can’t expect a peace offer to be on the table for 40 years. This is what empowers likes of Hamas. This is, IMO, was the reason behind October 7 attack. Hamas (or any other terrorist group) will be irrelevant in a just society (this is where we agree) and that gives them every motivation to sabotage it in any way they can. Unfortunately it takes very little to do so, and time is not on peace’ side (this is where we disagree)

Well, we kind of agree on the time part too.

It's true that there are only small windows of opportunity. But obviously with time come other windows. The Israeli response now could have been a very different one and there would have been a window for opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -

They are absolutely violating international law and have been pursuing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian zones, and are doing it on a very large scale right now. Which is awful enough. But does not equal genocide. At least not yet.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, genocide can be a war, but that doesn’t make all wars where large numbers of civilians die, genocide. Nuance.

Agreed. Your wording made it sound different in my head.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Most important perquisite in the genocide qualification is intent.

I don't think you can prove unequivocally an expressed intent. It needs to be a goal in of itself.

A politician pandering is not it.

Intent doesnt have to be expressed. A modus operandi established over decades with the same result can establish intent through final result on the ground. Nothing more unequivocal than end result.

 

[Tomice]

Yes, and it works to an extent. Look at China, look at Russia.

But there are almost always comes a time when they fail and crumble. And if you have internet available, it becomes even harder to control the narrative. I'm just not sure Hamas have that kind of power.

Most kids in gaza don't have smartphones, they have this


Many more clips like that online

 

[Seven]

Intent doesnt have to be expressed. A modus operandi established over decades with the same result can establish intent through final result on the ground. Nothing more unequivocal than end result.

But genocide is still a very strong definition:


Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I think you could argue Israel meets the criteria for that definition. I honestly do. But it's hardly clear cut.

- - - Updated - - -

Most kids in gaza don't have smartphones, they have this


Many more clips like that online

I am always hesitant to speak about information people in other areas may or may not have. The reality is that we do not know.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

So was Vietnam a genocide? Was Afghanistan a genocide? Was Iraq a genocide?

War ≠ genocide

If this continues after the war with Hamas finishes (and yes it is very much so a war with Hamas), then you shall have an argument. But the couple hundred Palestinians killed each year outside when the conflict has turned hot does not at all equal genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is what’s going on. Which is also a war crime, but not genocide.

The us didnt go in there to kill people to displace them permanently. Killing a 1000 civilians a day and destroying every single building is textbook definition of genocide.

 

[Tomice]

Intent doesnt have to be expressed. A modus operandi established over decades with the same result can establish intent through final result on the ground. Nothing more unequivocal than end result.

If we take the humane aspect out of it we can also then argue that the end result itself barely qualify.

 

[Ronn]

Well, we kind of agree on the time part too.

It's true that there are only small windows of opportunity. But obviously with time come other windows. The Israeli response now could have been a very different one and there would have been a window for opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -



Agreed. Your wording made it sound different in my head.

It takes a lot to get to peace a very little to sabotage it. So no we still disagree on that time part. If Iran were to basically withdraw its support from Hamas and Hezbollah then maybe. But this won’t happen.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

But genocide is still a very strong definition:


Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I think you could argue Israel meets the criteria for that definition. I honestly do. But it's hardly clear cut.

- - - Updated - - -




I am always hesitant to speak about information people in other areas may or may not have. The reality is that we do not know.

It's not hard because there's precedence. They have already done it before.

 

[Tomice]

The us didnt go in there to kill people to displace them permanently. Killing a 1000 civilians a day and destroying every single building is textbook definition of genocide.

You are assgining intent, not proving it.