OccamsTeapot

"Yeah but when we write stuff you desperately want to be true you click on it soooo....." - the media, probably

Please understand that I am aware of Gaza's tunnel network

You simply don’t understand the requirements of intent for genocide, dolus specialis.

Maybe. Perhaps you can explain it to me? Why is the genocide scholar whose post I linked wrong, and you right?

A music festival is not a valid military objective. You seem confused about this idea.

I note you didn't comment on the ratio. It was a rhetorical point, you said the 1:3 ratio is good and presumably that this is evidence against genocidal intent. So to continue, the military objectives were the militants killed, unfortunately there was some collateral damage. According to your logic this is a totally legit explanation. I think that is wrong in both cases.

Waking up to a public call for ethnic cleansing. This is going to be a long four years

Interesting that you offer standard hasbara explanations for all of this and yet you acknowledge lots of crimes and questionable activities. In these two comments you've said...

• Amalek comments may be incitement to genocide
• IDF has soldiers with extreme views who are more likely to commit war crimes or be "flexible" with rules of engagement.
• IDF soldiers can get away with excessive violence and it's easy to find a "military objective" to justify it.
• Netanyahu is a bad guy.
• the IDF has been much less restrained in this war compared to previous ones.
• There are numerous cases of excessive violence and war crimes.
• some soldiers were "abusing their power" to delay aid with inspections etc
• The war has caused extreme suffering
• War crimes definitely happened
• "Possibly" crimes against humanity too.

It‘s not a genocide though.

Of course you can't doubt they've committed acts of genocide. That is undeniable. And yet you can list all of this and still seem totally confident that there is no intent. It's weird.

Intent for genocide is always stated very openly and publicly in historic cases. Check out Rwanda, where the radio called people to butcher their neighbors.

Not true, according to an actual genocide scholar: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

Indeed, Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open, and unashamed. Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly, though there are exceptions.

And also this includes more of these examples of intent, including the media pushing for genocide as in your example.

It’s not only Israel’s leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 called for Israel to “turn Gaza to Dresden.” Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news station, published a report about left-leaning Israelis calling to “dance on what used to be Gaza.” Meanwhile, genocidal verbs—calls to “erase” and “flatten” Gaza—have become omnipresent on Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading “Zero Gazans” was seen hanging from a bridge.

_

Hospitals are well documented to have been used as military bases by Hamas and other groups. It’s part of the pattern how they use civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

And yet there is no evidence of this in the current conflict? Unless you mean the calendar on the wall that definitely listed terrorists and not the days of the week and the gun in the MRI room?

The biggest obstacle to aid delivery is internal distribution inside Gaza.

Funny how Israel announces a "complete siege" including no food and water allowed in, people start to starve as a result, and somehow you don't think this is Israel's fault?

Human rights watch, Oxfam, B'tselem, the EU, a UN special committee , the IPC and many others have either described this as avoidable, or in most cases, have explicitly said Israel is/was using starvation as a weapon of war. So if the aid delivery was "good compared to other war zones" why all of the alarm? You are distorting the truth.

There are a handful of incidents you might refer to here. Some of them were crowds rushing soldiers, others were known terrorist gunmen hired as security or guides by aid NGOs.

Lol yeah there were plenty of flour massacres, but somehow you think none of it is Israel's fault. You say crowds rushing soldiers, but someone opened fire AND THEN people started running, understandably. They're a fucking solider with a gun, how can you possibly get spooked by hungry people wanting food? It's a pathetic excuse. The link also details how the story was changed. Really interesting how you blame the crowds, because that what Israel decided to do too. Why is that? Do you just believe their story?

Killing innocents is legal under international humanitarian law, if a military objective is present and proportionality is respected.

Yeah the article about the lavender AI really calls proportionality into question. I don't know how to tell for sure but I fucking doubt 20 innocents:1 possibly Hamas person, possibly not, is good enough.

Hamas itself has shown plenty of video footage of both the construction and the use of tunnels for military operations and weapons storage

I know tunnels exist, I just pointed out that Israel justifies specific military objectives based on tunnels but basically never show them. One case they used an animation. One case (I think from one of the ~~blatant war crimes~~ totally legal and normal sieges of hospitals) they refused to show journalists.

You show the same way of thinking, where the judgment is already passed before seeing the evidence.

I have presented evidence. Read the definition of genocide. Look at the evidence. Look at the public comments for intent. It is not hard.

If Israel was trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, the numbers of dead would be much higher.

You mean "If Israel was trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible AND THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HOW THEY LOOKED ON THE WORLD STAGE OR CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS OF GENOCIDE, the numbers of dead would be much higher. " Yeah no shit.

If you believe both numbers that comes out as a ratio of civilians to militants of around 1:3. For warfare in a dense urban environment 1:10 is more typical.

Do you know the civilian to militant ratio on October 7th? 797 civilians, 379 militants. Around 2:1. So was that a very restrained and perfectly fine attack or all of a sudden is this argument totally fucking insane?

Amalek refers to an old enemy of the Jewish people from biblical times. The word has been reused again over time to refer to various enemies.

Yeah I know what it means!

 “‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

I bolded some for a hopefully obvious reason. Clearly the Amalekites were genocided. Worse they even killed the fucking animals.

So Netanyahu, not some random person with no importance, saying this is a sign of intent.

And it being repeated by soldiers on the ground means the message was received and embraced by the people with the weapons.

And all of this is ignoring a probably bigger point: intent is not usually stated openly. Even if they hadn't said it, the intent is clear in the nature of the attacks: choosing to kill supposed Hamas operatives in their homes along with their families rather than during military operations, destroying hospitals, holding up aid, shooting the people bringing the aid, shooting people collecting aid, damaging or destroying vital water facilities. Need I go on?

You don't need a signed affidavit to prove what is happening or to prove intent. Everyone knows what happens if you deprive people of the essentials of life on purpose.

If a soldier refers to Hamas or all Palestinians, when chanting Amalek is unclear.

Come on now.

Of course the IDF also has soldiers among their ranks ....

All of this is just a bit weird. I can tell that you trust the IDF, yes, but aren't we talking about intent to commit genocide?

The fact that you can pick a "plausible target" is not exactly proof this isn't intentional genocide is it? I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you but if you're committing a genocide it's probably a fair bet you will also lie about it. The tunnels etc are the perfect wishy washy defence for which no evidence is presented.

Read the Guardian article linked above. The choice to kill innocents is INTENTIONAL. It was done for the sake of ease.

What about the Amalek comments? Which soldiers on the ground also chanted.

“He told me he is not anti-vaccine. He is pro-vaccine safety, which strikes me as a rational position to take,” Senator John Cornyn told Politico.

This is the oldest trick in the book. "No I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm pro safe vaccines!" Then proceeds to explain how none are "safe" and we "need more research"

Yeah it's not a very practical decision to vote Green in a two party system. But honestly if you are unwilling to vote for parties enabling genocide I'm not really going to criticise too much. Voters with conscience aren't to blame, the parties are.

Another chapter in "ugh everyone is upset about current thing so I need to show how much smarter I am."

Biden providing weapons to Israel is fucking shitty and he has blood on his hands that will never wash off.

Elon Nazi saluting is also fucking shitty and a sign that there will be more blood that won't wash off over the next four years.

So how in the fuck can you understand the seriousness of one and dismiss the other as a "hand gesture"? Fucking pathetic. Like if someone says "I am going to kill all non whites" and you're all "oh why are you so bothered about sound waves in the air instead of [thing I care more about]?"

Congratulations, YouTuber. You are indeed the smartest. Well done

The author seems to think that if we're mad about the Nazi salute we aren't mad about the other stuff. Like does saying "yes it was obviously a Nazi salute you dumb fuck" stop me from standing up for people's rights or showing courage when it's needed? Of course not.

This is what happens to commentators when they have to say something that seems smart but actually have no point to make. The salute is a wake up call for the unengaged and an easy way to see what is really happening. But that doesn't make for a holier than thou think piece so the author doesn't give a shit.

Debating it is pointless though. Just show people the video and if they are still connected to reality at all there is no discussion needed.

Demon of Hatred also took me absolutely ages. Days. But it's optional so really I only have myself to blame.

For me the answer is probably Malenia from Elden Ring. Took so long learning all of her moves and still only made it through by summoning the mimic for phase 2