This whole thread has been pretty anti Israeli government. I’m not sure what you guys are getting at. Yuv lives in Israel and hasn’t posted much/ hates Netanyahu/ hasn’t posted anything I’m aware of that supports what Israel is doing.
2 Likes
Here’s where I am at.
I lean towards not referring to what is occurring in Gaza as genocide. Because I’m going to be nitty about the definition, I am not going to argue that people who say genocide is occurring are wrong. I think rational people can disagree on that point.
The key feature of genocide is not the actions being undertaken but the “intent to destroy”. The exact same actions without the intent to destroy do not constitute genocide (even if they are war crimes).
So, is there intent to destroy? I think that certain elements of Netanyahu’s coalition are definitely genocidal. I am uncertain about Netanyahu himself, but suspect personal self-interest in prolonging the war drives him more than any ideological desire for genocide.
Israel could be more efficient in killing Palestinians in Gaza. That they haven’t been as deadly as they could suggests to me that either maximum casualties aren’t their goal or they have to pretend that maximum casualties aren’t their goal to please the opposition within Israel and allies abroad. If the latter is true, I would expect Israel to ramp up the mass killing if it loses the US as an ally.
I would say that the Biden administration believes the following:
- Israel is a legitimate state whose existence on the map should not be questioned.
- Israel has the right (and duty) to respond to October 7 with some level of political violence.
These are two points that I agree with. I have no problem with the basic idea of Israel targeting members of Hamas and killing them. I do have a problem with Israel’s apparent acceptance of a disproportionate level of collateral damage, as seen in the article about Lavender. I think Biden’s goal is to get Israel to lower its threshold for acceptable collateral damage.
Calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire will fall on deaf ears because a ceasefire doesn’t result in the killing of Hamas operatives, so it strikes me as a mostly pointless exercise. I think the only way to get Israel to accept a permanent ceasefire that doesn’t result from negotiations during a successful temporary ceasefire is to use the threat of military force against them.
There is no path to no killing. The most pragmatic path to less killing would be for regime change in Israel and someone in charge who will negotiate in good faith instead of pure self-interest. This takes time and many will still die, but I think in the long run it is the path that minimizes long-term casualties.
Oh, and the people who think that Israel is an American colonial outpost and will just do whatever the US says are untethered to reality and not worth arguing with.
3 Likes
In the relevant international law on this, which is notoriously without teeth for the precise hair-splitting reason you mention - there needs to be intent, which in these situations is almost impossible to prove, which is why of the dozens of genocides over the last 80 years, very few have been successfully prosecuted. It’s unnecessary hair splitting at the end of the day, and in my opinion the intent is pretty there and while the government isn’t outrightly saying it, many in the government and media are expressing their intent - so I don’t know what the real value is in getting semantic about the word. If it shocks people into caring, good. It’s not a productive argument to be like “well actually we don’t know intent” when we can have a pretty good idea anyway that what’s happening here is horrible and wrong on a million levels.
As to the rest of the conflict and how it will unfold, I find that now 6 months later hindsight being what it is, any horrible decision will likely be correct but only because the rest of the play was so, so bad here. It’s likely going to spark a wider conflict with iran, maybe others, and why? Utterly forseeable, all the US had to do was threaten to stop supporting them like we always do when they start getting genocidey. Would it have worked this time? who knows now, but we really didn’t even try. We certainly don’t need to be providing the military support that we are either, this only possibly risks provoking a larger conflict.
And I’m going to say again that Biden was very much involved in the circumstances that led to this clusterf***.
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/04/biden-ceasefire-gaza-netanyahu-call
Many people are calling him “ceasefire joe”
4 Likes
Eh they want to eradicate Hamas and as far as anyone can tell they don’t make any distinction between Hamas and anyone living in Palestine
The international lawyers looking at this overwhelming say Genocide.
Also, I don’t think the fact that they could have genocided harder means it isn’t genocide.
A pertenant example comparison would be the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto.
The Nazis were actually opposed by armed forces fighting back. They also didn’t kill everyone, many were sent to forced labour camps.
I doubt anyone would argue that wasn’t a genocidal act.
1 Like
Who let jalfrezi back?
Genocide_ikes back at it
3 Likes
oh for real I’m basically just looking for more Palestinian children’s blood
“lol law” people trying to treat international law like it has any meaning.
1 Like
I don’t really know how to respond to this. This is someone you presumably don’t like? So you are accusing me of this person rather than address the points I’m making? Why bother reply at all? Is this not the place for constructive discussion? Sorry if I’ve been misled and if my admittedly harsh words hurt your feelings.
Pretending like you don’t know jalfrezi just confirms that you’re jalfrezi.
1 Like
It’s cool how liberals have managed to shift “war is hell” from a warning to avoid war at all costs to a permission slip for rampant atrocities.
1 Like
There’s so much wrong with this type of bullshit SMP-style posting (or whatever the fuck this is) but to make the simplest point can you imagine applying this form of “logical reasoning” to a different side of the “conflict” or perhaps pretend that things happened before October 7th? Just try to briefly imagine blending this perfect concoction of endlessly charitable assumptions, appeals to a completely one-sided utilitarianism and a conveniently inconsequential nod to morality in favor of the Palestinian side and see how that shakes out. Is there “a path to” less hatred and attacks on Israel?
1 Like
Glad you’ve cracked the case. No, just been tired of reading unchallenged takes by shitstains like you for months. I didn’t want to name you specifically but it seems like you got the message.
Mods can go ahead and run an IP check if they like. Not sure the point of this exercise other than to deflect from your shitty opinions.
My idea is to place the Palestinians under a UN Trusteeship that is not administered by Israel. Then, if they want to do terrorism to agitate for independence, they can attack a different country and leave Israel alone.
Jal, keeed, whomever. You aren’t new here. I haven’t posted in this thread since October. You’re just here to do the I’m better than you terminally online leftist routine, and it’s been done.
There’s value in having someone around to do that routine.
1 Like
