OccamsTeapot @ OccamsTeapot @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

770

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think r/InternationalNews was mainly created as a place to discuss issues free from the rampant Zionism of r/WorldNews.

Happy to have people on Lemmy but I have to say, Lemmy as a whole seems way more anti-Israel than reddit right now. Although to be fair outside of r/WorldNews and a few other places, the general mood does seem to be shifting away from Israel pretty hard.

For me this is nice to see, because fuck Israel right to hell, but you'll certainly see the same type of content here. I like that if people don't like it they can make their own community or even an instance, and also that people are generally more free to disagree here (partially due to lax moderation I guess). You should have never been banned for that comment by the sound of it, absolutely stupid.

Of course it will be. The only thing it was possible to doubt was intent and Israel's government don't seem to understand that it might be better to keep your mouths shut while you commit a major crime against humanity.

This was the plan all along. Kill people, destroy their homes and infrastructure, then be all like "oh yeah we'd love to let you live there but it really needs a lot of work doing right now. But we'll have it ready as soon as possible. Have you got somewhere to stay? I heard the Sinai is nice this time of year..."

Ah yeah didn't catch that for some reason! I thought the poll was interesting but obviously the results are more so 🤣 I will delete

Biden should stop supporting genocide

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here

I have to say if you think an American wanting to end their military support for Israel must be in favour of a genocide against Israelis then yeah maybe you are.

Surely you must understand some people oppose genocide regardless of the target?

So to you "stop giving weapons to Israel" = "genocide Israel"?

I know dude I just wanted to give him a chance to not be a piece of shit. But here we are ¯(ツ)/¯

The amount of time they take to write out their long-winded comments excusing mass murder is fucking shocking

Yeah seriously. I was trying to be concise and keep on the point and every response was an essay. That's because somewhere in there he sees the issues with what he's about to say and so has to package it with all of this bullshit so he doesn't read it back and see what a monster he has become

They (the person you are going back and forth with for example) 100% agree that Israel is taking all the actions

You would hope so but I'm not sure about that. He just blamed the famine on Hamas.

it's high because the IDF allowed for and made specific rules that targeting civilians was ok en masse, as collateral damage, using Lavender

Yeah I read about this. Disgusting. Imagine putting that low a value on human life. Makes me sick to my stomach.

at some point they're going to be forced to admit that the pain to the civilians is part of the point. And that their ACTUAL argument is that the civilians deserve it because of Hamas.

Exactly. But they're all too cowardly to admit this.

They don't seem to see that they've lost the moral high ground and they will never regain it again. I for one won't forget or stop speaking out about this bullshit until the day I die. When the court convicts them of genocide people like JustZ here will either have to re-evaluate and maybe grow as a person or stick their fingers in their ears and claim the court is just so antisemitic and Israel has been innocent all along. I think it's clear which is more likely

Starving children to death?

Yes.

Hamas started a siege war with a vastly superior force and they didn't pack enough food to feed their people. How is that not on them?

Because Israel is still responsible for it's own actions and controls the border and flow of aid to Gaza? Is this not obvious? If you're honestly making this argument I think we're done here. You have apparently lost all humanity. I thought you could have been a reasonable person but apparently I was wrong.

I understand the bullet points were brief (and a bit cheeky yeah) but I think it helps to focus if you want the conversation to be productive. Like we could argue for days about a single "full version" of one of the bullet points. I think I do understand what you're saying, though.

But in international law, genocide has a specific definition (sure you have seen it but just to be clear):

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

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

When people say Israel is committing genocide they mean "they are doing this stuff." Bearing in mind that any one is enough, the third act is clearly being done, for example. Israeli officials announced that they would purposefully be cutting off food and water to the civilians of Gaza. Having no food and water is clearly a condition that brings about destruction of life. The situation was created purposefully, announced beforehand and the consequences of this are being seen (yes people were talking about it sooner but, you know, we understand what happens if people don't have food). Oh yeah and are you sick? Bad news, no hospitals.

There is no "unless a terrorist organisation is there" caveat to this, at least from my understanding. It is an act of genocide. We could do this for the first three or four pretty convincingly.

In law it's called transferred intent. If you commit an armed bank robbery and a responding police officer shoots at you but hits and kills a family crossing the street, you are charged for their deaths since their deaths were within the range of probable consequences of committing armed robbery

I'm not sure this applies to genocide, but is "starving children to death" in the range of probable consequences of someone from the same place as you committing an atrocity? Is this an expected consequence? This is absurd, surely.

So from your explanations I'm still confused. Do you accept that Israel is committing acts of genocide, by this definition?

Then the only thing left is intent. But I feel like the amalek thing alone is pretty damning. Especially given IDF chanting it on the ground too. South Africa made a very convincing case for this overall.

Is your point that, "yes, these things would be genocide but some of the key foundations of the argument are false or misinformation"?

It seems very obvious to me that people who say Israel is commiting genocide or is an apartheid state are anti semitic or bad faith actors applying a double standard to Israel in order to sway opinion to their self interests, they are themselves anti semites, or they are basing their assessment on the aforementioned falsely colored factual circumstances, on lies and exaggeration, mixed with unfortunate truths.

I think by your estimation I would be using "falsely colored factual circumstances" etc? It seems a bit dangerous to assume bad faith when an international court has ruled that this is not an unreasonable accusation.

So these are your grounds for saying that it isn't a genocide?

• Hamas uses human shields.
• news reports from a war zone cannot be independently verified
• the IDF is credible; Hamas is not
• it is ok to kill civilians provided they were warned to move, because this is "all international law requires" before launching a strike.
• the rate of new deaths is decreasing
• 30,000 (mainly innocents, by any estimate) dead is actually quite low. So warnings work and targeting is precise
• if there was a war with Iran it would be worse
• Hamas bad

But how does this relate to the genocide convention? Are you saying there is no intent?

We can talk about specific points after but I want to understand how this all connects

On what grounds?

"I have no doubt that there are other forces which would have used the drone," adds the officer. "There is always tension between protecting our forces, which is the highest priority, and a situation in which you try to avoid unnecessary killing of civilians."

This is a comment about a "near miss" (ie where they avoided killing many innocents alongside the one possibly innocent person they intended to kill).

Their forces are the "highest priority," civilians lower down the list. This is how so many innocent people get killed. Because we can't possibly expose a soldier to a minimal amount of risk.

For any lingering defenders of Israel reading: if the scale of killing isn't because this is a genocide, what do you call it when tens of thousands of civilians are killed because the attacking army has a complete lack of respect for their lives and ultimately views them as disposable?

Aww thanks!

Thanks for the info! Didn't know about that

Do you want a thriving black market? Because that's how you get a thriving black market.

God forbid you create business opportunities and collect tax revenue, I guess?

While we can say with confidence that famine is a significant risk in the south and centre but not present, in the north, it is both a risk and quite possibly is present in at least some areas

I'm not a doctor or anything but based on the picture in the article alone isn't "quite possibly" really underselling it?

News: at least 20 people have already died from malnutrition

US: Hmm yeah could be a famine there, not sure. Hard to tell.

Since it's basically impossible for an independent to win, if you don't want Trump, your only option is Biden. That's it, whether we like it or not.

I agree.

But this post is about a thing Biden has done. Surely you can see how so many people jumping right to this "lesser of two evils" argument in response to something like this might look like an attempt to shield him from criticism?

Honestly what could Biden actually do that would change the choice on election day? Unless he transforms into literally Hitler it is kind of a given that any reasonable person needs to vote for him, surely?

I am calm. "Histrionics"? Yes of course god forbid someone takes mass murder seriously.