Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is NOT, NOT, NOT a few steps from genocide. You are saying the same as others by not totally calling it genocide but giving non expert opinions on what would eventually could become a genocide.Let me be clear: I am not calling it genocide nor HAVE I called it genocide., I am saying it is only a few more choices away from being genocide. I have said this multiple times and I do not use the term lightly (for example I’ve never said the prior conflicts constituted genocide).
How do you know it will “never” be genocide?
I was responding to your post #161..
Why did you bring it up then? I was responding to your point.
"Too close to genocide"?! What does that even mean? Genocide is not measured by body counts. It is a very specific, very horrific crime in which the INTENT is to ERADICATE a group of people based on their immutable qualities. One cannot start far away from genocide and then get closer, and closer because people are being killed in a war. It doesn't work like that. Genocide has to start with intent. Any accusation that Israel is committing genocide is so egregiously far from the truth that it boggles the mind.Which is good. However the death toll of civilians is not and it is coming too close to genocide
Please, do tell. Because we have asked and asked and asked on this forum for someone to describe what Israel SHOULD have done in response to October 7, and so far, crickets. Do you have an answer?particularly when other more effective means of attacking Hamas have been recommended by allies.
I think you mean "doesn't" ring true. But your claims above are false and do not reflect reality.The claim that they are taking care to avoid civilian casualties does ring true given the choices in bombs, the seige, and even comments from political leaders. So they are raining down leaflets. And bombing them in supposedly safe areas, preventing most humanitarian aid from getting in.
The ICJ orders do not say what you think they say. The ICJ orders simply "reminded" Israel that they are to follow the convention they are already following. And to record how they were following it.There are choices being made that is threatening to turn this into genocide, and that was made pretty clear in the ruling.
Disagree. I am very careful with the term genocide because I do think it gets used far too lightly.It is NOT, NOT, NOT a few steps from genocide. You are saying the same as others by not totally calling it genocide but giving non expert opinions on what would eventually could become a genocide.
What is genocide, compared to Israel going after only the terrorist fighters?
Because Israel has no intent to cause the destruction of a collective peoples based on their immutable qualities. Israel is responding to an atrocity committed against them. Is the response significant? Of course it is. It HAS to be. Because Hamas and Islamic Jihad do have the intent to cause the destruction of an entire people.How do you know it will “never” be genocide?
1) It will never be a genocide, given Israel’s actions to protect Muslim civilians - many or most of whom ironically support the attempted genocide of Jews.Let me be clear: I am not calling it genocide nor HAVE I called it genocide., I am saying it is only a few more choices away from being genocide. I have said this multiple times and I do not use the term lightly (for example I’ve never said the prior conflicts constituted genocide).
How do you know it will “never” be genocide?
www.standard.co.uk
The very fact that you bring up that term is proof that you are using this term too lightly. If you are not calling it a genocide, don't use the terminology.Let me be clear: I am not calling it genocide nor HAVE I called it genocide., I am saying it is only a few more choices away from being genocide. I have said this multiple times and I do not use the term lightly (for example I’ve never said the prior conflicts constituted genocide).
How do you know it will “never” be genocide?
The HAMAS savages are intent on driving up the Palestinian death toll as high as possible. These monsters would rather sacrifice their own people in order to make Israel look bad.Disagree. I am very careful with the term genocide because I do think it gets used far too lightly.
I also think Israel has shown many times it can be very effective militarily with fewer civilian casualties than is seen in many other conflicts. That has not been the case here.
I think I read somewhere that this has had the highest civilian death toll in that amount of time in the history of modern urban warfare, and it is substantially more.
Wasn't it called Gaza in the time of Samson and Delilah?Is this after ethnic cleansing?
Israel has enough to make them look bad over the past 80 years.The HAMAS savages are intent on driving up the Palestinian death toll as high as possible. These monsters would rather sacrifice their own people in order to make Israel look bad.
Ugh. The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is 1.5 to 1. Its probably 1 to 1, given the way Hamas counts "civilians". That is better by FAR than any other conflict in recent history. Best before this was 5 to 1.Disagree. I am very careful with the term genocide because I do think it gets used far too lightly.
I also think Israel has shown many times it can be very effective militarily with fewer civilian casualties than is seen in many other conflicts. That has not been the case here.
I think I read somewhere that this has had the highest civilian death toll in that amount of time in the history of modern urban warfare, and it is substantially more.
The side that wants a genocide is the Palestinians, and the only reason they haven’t succeeded is because they don’t have the capability. And yet, we have people accusing Israel of genocide, or close to genocide, thereby undermining the TRUE genocide that made the existence of Israel necessary in the first place.The very fact that you bring up that term is proof that you are using this term too lightly. If you are not calling it a genocide, don't use the terminology.
You have no facts to support your claims, except for allegations from Anti Israel people, including those in the UN.Disagree. I am very careful with the term genocide because I do think it gets used far too lightly.
I also think Israel has shown many times it can be very effective militarily with fewer civilian casualties than is seen in many other conflicts. That has not been the case here.
I think I read somewhere that this has had the highest civilian death toll in that amount of time in the history of modern urban warfare, and it is substantially more.
Ugh. The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is 1.5 to 1. Its probably 1 to 1, given the way Hamas counts "civilians". That is better by FAR than any other conflict in recent history. Best before this was 5 to 1.
It is sneaky bullshit where you paint the Jewish people with the color of genocide and everyone starts then seeing the Jewish people as genocide-colored. Then you claim you didn't "really" mean it and therefore have no responsibility over why the Jewish people look genocide-colored.The side that wants a genocide is the Palestinians, and the only reason they haven’t succeeded is because they don’t have the capability. And yet, we have people accusing Israel of genocide, or close to genocide, thereby undermining the TRUE genocide that made the existence of Israel necessary in the first place.
That people are so quick to label the Jewish country guilty of genocide, or a couple of steps away from it, and not mention that it was HAMAS that conducted as much of a genocide as possible on October 7th, are being influenced by a bias against Jews, whether or not they admit it even to themselves.
Oooh….ohhhhh…..pick me!…..pick me!……What is 'Oz in Hebrew?
