Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

 

[NoHolyCows]

You are making the opposite mistake--treating anything embedded in civilians as immune because no means of protecting the civilians is adequate.

That’s not what I said—and it’s not what the law says either.

Military targets don’t become immune because they’re surrounded by civilians. But civilian presence doesn’t make every strike permissible either. The law doesn’t demand perfection—it demands that all feasible precautions be taken to avoid or minimize civilian harm. If the only way to strike a target is to knowingly kill scores of civilians, the strike is not lawful.

You’re flipping the burden. The obligation isn’t on civilians to disappear. It’s on the attacker to choose methods that protect them. That’s not idealism. That’s codified law.

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

And you have never established they didn't do those things. Your entire argument comes down to the outcome isn't nice and pretty therefore Israel is bad.

No—it comes down to legal standards, not “nice and pretty.” You don’t get to reverse-engineer legality from destruction.

When hospitals, schools, shelters, and aid convoys are repeatedly struck—and starvation conditions are well-documented by international agencies—the burden is on the actor causing that harm to show they complied with international law, not on civilians or observers to prove otherwise.

And we have no credible claims they didn't. We have loads of arguments that the numbers mean they must have been wrong--but that's not how it works.

And if proportionality, precaution, and distinction are consistently violated in practice, then the pattern itself becomes the evidence. This isn’t about being anti-Israel. It’s about refusing to accept war crimes from any state, no matter the flag.

I see a pattern of them doing far better than anyone else, including us. I'm comparing them to reality, not utopia.

That is what's happening even though you deny it.

No—it’s not.

Starving Texas would mean cutting off food, fuel, and medicine to everyone because some extremists seized control. That’s collective punishment. And that’s exactly what’s happening in Gaza: 2.2 million people, most of them civilians, are being deprived of aid not because they stole it—but because someone might.

Because someone did. They don't have it because Hamas stole it. Not "might have".

That’s not targeting. That’s siege warfare. And denying it by analogy doesn’t make it any less real.

Hamas was taking most of the aid. It's their primary source of revenue.

And if that were truly the concern, the solution would be to secure the aid—not to block it altogether.

And that's exactly what Israel is doing with it's distribution centers. Making it a package at a time rather than a truckload at a time, much harder for Hamas to steal. And much harder for the water-carriers to ignore.

Humanitarian organizations have repeatedly called for monitored delivery systems, third-party distribution, and protected corridors. Israel has rejected or obstructed many of those efforts. If the goal were really to keep aid from Hamas while protecting civilians, you’d see a plan to deliver more aid safely—not less.

Pay attention to what they are actually asking for and how that compares to the situation on the ground. Because an awful lot of it is actually about maintaining Hamas control.

The thing is in a case like this the broad brush is determined. Change does not come about by proclaiming utopian solutions. Situations such as Gaza always involve major outside funding. And it's generally sufficient to create such situations. There are a few cases where the funding is from the export of something valuable (prime example, FARC/cocaine) rather than an outright gift, but it's always there. Every such situation has ended either with the victory of the evil side or the end of the funding of the evil side.

Why should Gaza be any different??

Because what makes Gaza different is that the overwhelming majority of the people suffering are not the ones wielding the power—or the weapons.

Are the ones suffering ever the ones wielding the power?! You're not establishing a difference.

You’re not talking about cutting off a cartel or dismantling a militia. You’re talking about punishing an entire population of civilians—half of them children—on the assumption that the only path to defeating “evil” is to make life unlivable for everyone under its shadow.

If every conflict were resolved by starving and bombing people until outside funding dried up, then every innocent life becomes a pawn. That’s not strategy. That’s surrendering to the logic of brutality. And once that’s your compass, the war’s already lost—morally, if not militarily.

Iran has already made them a pawn. This whole mess is about killing people in Gaza so you can pretend Israel did wrong.

Your continued assertions about punishment do not make it so.

No, but facts do.

When civilians are denied food, water, fuel, medicine, and the ability to flee a war zone—when aid is systematically blocked and infrastructure is bombed—those aren’t accidents. That’s not a tragic coincidence. That’s a pattern.

It's a pattern. That doesn't make it punishment.

It's exactly as intended by Hamas.

No. It's just I don't let Tehran dictate my perception of the situation. You're swallowing their line completely and thus arriving at the conclusions they want.

Then let’s be clear: If your view is shaped only by opposition to Tehran, not by the evidence on the ground, then you’re not evaluating the facts—you’re filtering them through an enemy lens.

That’s not independent thinking. That’s reactionary logic. And it’s how entire populations get written off—not because of what they’ve done, but because of who they’re lumped in with. That’s not resisting propaganda. That’s becoming its mirror.

It's not shaped by opposition to Tehran. I'm simply recognizing that most of the trouble in the Middle East is dancing to Tehran's tune.

For a third world country Iran actually used to be pretty good. A very noticeable step up from Pakistan and Afghanistan. But that was before the Islamists turned all those countries into NOPEs. I can't say I exactly enjoyed any of them but current me would certainly tell young me to do it.

No. I judge them based on who they are aiming at. I see IDF videos of booms that cause secondaries. I see Hamas videos of brutality. That says loads.

Then what you’ve admitted is that intent overrides outcome for you. If the IDF aims at a militant and kills a dozen civilians, that’s fine. If Hamas aims at civilians and kills them, that’s barbaric. But the law doesn’t work that way—and neither does morality.

Intent is what Geneva looks at.

look at the results. They are doing far better than anyone else. Why should I question the world's best at anything? (Admittedly, Google once said I was walking supersonic. Edge case, I reported the bug, AFIAK it was never fixed (and probably couldn't be fixed) and has become moot by now.)

So by that logic, any atrocity becomes acceptable as long as it’s relatively smaller than someone else’s? That’s not a standard. That’s moral outsourcing. “Better than average” is not a defense when the average is already indefensible.

The problem is you are working from a position of assuming atrocity without considering the evidence.

If Gaza is an atrocity then every war is an atrocity. And the only answer is to bow down to evil because the only other choice is war.

If thousands of children dead, famine conditions, and entire neighborhoods leveled is what “the best” looks like, then your metric isn’t humanity—it’s efficiency in destruction. And the fact that you reach for a GPS bug as a comparison only underscores how casually you’re treating real-world suffering.

Yes, the best is horrible. War is horrible.

I blame Tehran because they are the ones that set out to create devastation in Gaza.

Then blame Tehran all you want—but it doesn’t erase what Israel chose to do in response.

Cause doesn’t equal justification. If Tehran wanted devastation and Israel delivered it, that’s not defeating the enemy—that’s playing their script. You don’t win a moral war by mimicking the enemy’s disregard for human life. You win it by refusing to become what they want you to be.

Justice means being accountable even when provoked. Otherwise, it’s not justice. It’s vengeance with a better press team.

Their script was to get smashed. Doesn't mean the other side can prevent it. As many as a third of police shootings are likely suicide by cop, but even if the cop knows that doesn't mean he has a choice. (And a good portion of the rest are hail mary escape attempts.)

Lauren, your entire argument now rests on two crumbling pillars: intent excuses outcome, and relative atrocity is exoneration. Neither holds up under scrutiny—legal, moral, or factual.

You say Israel is “doing better than anyone else.” Better than whom? Syria? Russia? ISIS? That’s not a moral defense. That’s a race to the bottom. If the “best” still involves leveling homes, bombing refugee camps, and killing tens of thousands, then what you’re really saying is: atrocity is acceptable so long as it’s less severe than the worst imaginable. That’s not lawfulness. It’s moral drift.

You keep insisting there’s “no credible evidence” of wrongdoing. But you’ve moved the goalposts so far that no amount of evidence would ever be credible to you. Multiple UN agencies, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, the WHO, and even the U.S. State Department have reported and confirmed aid blockages, civilian targeting, and violations of humanitarian law. Your response? Dismiss it all. Not because you’ve disproven it, but because it threatens your position. That’s not skepticism. That’s motivated ignorance.

You claim Hamas steals aid, so siege is justified. But that logic collapses instantly. If the concern is Hamas theft, then the solution is more robust, monitored delivery—not strangling the population. Israel has repeatedly obstructed third-party distribution proposals and bombed areas designated for aid delivery. You don’t get to engineer a bottleneck and then blame the people you’re starving for not getting fed fast enough.

You claim this isn’t punishment, but that’s exactly what siege warfare is designed to do: inflict mass suffering to pressure political change. Cutting off electricity, water, and medicine to 2.2 million people—most of them children—because Hamas governs them isn’t fighting terror. It’s collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. If that’s not punishment, then words have no meaning.

You fall back on intent, saying IDF aims at militants, while Hamas aims at civilians. But the Geneva Conventions don’t give a free pass for predictable, repeated, and avoidable civilian deaths just because the target was military. “I was aiming at someone else” isn’t a legal shield when entire apartment blocks are collapsing on families. If you ignore consequence and judge only intent, you’ve emptied international law of all substance.

You admit “yes, the best is horrible” but treat that as a justification instead of a warning sign. War is always horrific, but the role of law is to limit—not license—that horror. You’re not defending lawful warfare. You’re rationalizing excess by saying, “Well, it could’ve been worse.” That’s not justice. It’s moral entropy.

And let’s get to the core: you keep blaming Tehran. Fine—blame Tehran. But that’s a cause, not a justification. If Tehran wanted devastation, and Israel obliges, you’re not defeating the plan—you’re fulfilling it. The test of morality isn’t how you respond when things are easy. It’s how you respond when provoked. If your entire position is “we had no choice,” then you’ve already surrendered the moral high ground. You’ve become what you claim to be resisting.

As for your “suicide by cop” analogy—it’s grotesque. A child crushed under rubble didn’t choose that fate. A starving infant didn’t provoke a missile. You’re comparing deliberate policies impacting millions to split-second law enforcement decisions. The scale and deliberation involved in Gaza’s siege obliterate that comparison.

You say “every war is an atrocity” as if that ends the discussion. No—it begins it. If war is by nature destructive, then the job of civilized nations is to constrain that destruction, not excuse it. You’re not defending peace. You’re defending predictable suffering as long as it’s wrapped in the right flag.

At this point, your argument is no longer about evidence, law, or policy. It’s about defending the indefensible through euphemism, double standards, and abstraction. But numbers don’t lie. Civilians are dying by the tens of thousands. Aid is being blocked. Infrastructure is being obliterated. And the best you can offer is: “It could be worse.”

That’s not pragmatism. That’s complicity.

And history always sees through it.

NHC

 

[DrZoidberg]

Israel vows to prevent an aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists from reaching Gaza

Israel’s government has vowed to prevent an aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists from reaching the Gaza Strip.

apnews.com

Well, duh!

Either they stop it or next time it's full of weapons.

Another one of your favorite fallacies of the excluded middle,. The IDF can check the vessel and let it through if there are no weapons.

The IDF is its own worst PR nightmare.

I'm not so sure.

I think its antisemitism. We’re just very good at misteusting Jews. It goes deep.

The speed at which we assume the worst from Jews is pretty alarming.

My ex wife is Jewish. It made me realise how extreme the effect is.

It also doesn't help that Jews are resigned to it and accept it. Which of course any persecuted group will do. Nobody would survive mentally if they’re bitter about how unfair life is.

It also doesn't help that Jews are quick to assume antisemitism. It makes resolving conflicts harder. But they have every reason to assume antisemitism. Its often the reason people hate them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a funny one

 

[DrZoidberg]

She's part of the greater Swedish left. The Swedish left have always been incredibly antisemitic. That's why Sweden didn't join the allies during WW2. The Swedish primeminister at the time was pro allies. But the Swedish people... super pro German. This antisemitic undercurrent to our culture never went away.

To put it simply... Greta Thunberg is part of the Swedish left and is acting and behaving like the Swedish left always have.

So the answer to my question is "no, you don't have any statements from Thunberg indicating she is anti-Semitic".

Nothing apart from that this is the first thing she pipes up about that isn't related to environmentalism.

And who does she support? Not the side who was first attacked and who are defending themselves.

Israel is trying to starve out Hamas by controlling who gets aid in Gaza. That's a perfectly fine military tactic.

...back in the 16th century.

No. It really isn't. An enemy force has no duty to supply their enemies.

Israel is doing their best to supply Palestinian civilians. They just won't supply Hamas fighters. Unless Palestinian civilians comply Israel has every right to assume they are Hamas fighters. Its an absurd situation. But Palestinians have been behaving like this since 1948. Its good the world sees it.

But Hamas of course is trying to prevent it. Because Hamas would rather that all Gazans die than that Hamas would lose power. Greta Thunberg was just playing into the hands of Hamas. As so many clueless morons are doing right now.

Your problem, and the problem of a lot of older people is that they lack any capacity to understand how younger people can see the Israel - Palestine dichotomy differently because they've only observed the period of the generally the siege of Gaza.

We're better informed than we've ever been. The problem isn't a lack of information, but what information we chose to read.

Sweden and Denmark is now dangerous to Jews because of the Muslim immigration. Any moron can see that connection. Swedes just seem to be fine with it. Except the Swedish Jews. They're leaving. Primarily for Israel.

You are incapable of understanding how that can have a thumb of the scale impact for their impressions. And instead of trying to communicate with those people, you just call them clueless. Which is so typical of people that have such a high pedestal impression of their own genius and understanding.

Then when you openly support military tactics that are illegal, you are surprised they think you are unethical.

If that's how you frame the situation I see your perspective.

I'd rather see it as Israel trying to survive next to an incredibly aggressive neighbour. Yes, there’s a power imbalance. But that just makes it bizarre that the Palestinians are so belligerent

I think eventually Hamas will lose the ability to prevent Israeli aid deliveries to the Palestinian civilians.

As long as Hamas gets money, Hamas will be an issue... which is why money should be the target of Israel and the West, not Gaza.

How exactly do you envisage this working out? I don't get it. Hanas is supplied by Iran. Iran is already up to their eyeballs in sanctions. What more can we do to target the money?

 

[DrZoidberg]

To all of you who think this is a genocide on Palestinians. Why are the IDF arming Palestinian groups opposed to Hamas? If they wanted to exterminate all Palestinians... that would be a counter productive tactic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And around and around we go.
When most here know this will never end until one side is completely exhausted.( extinguished)
It's matter of how long the rest of us(World) sits back and lets it continue.

I think the problem is that as long Islamofascists in the Middle-East get traction for their tactics, it's going to keep going.

If the free world comes down as hard on them as we did Hitler, they will stop.

The main problem has been that the decolonisation project got conflated with the rise of Islamofascism. It flew under the radar up until the 90'ies when we in the west suddenly started paying attention. What's incredible is that there's still people not convinced, even after 9/11. The resurgence of the Taleban in Afghanistan is another clue. Not to mention the extremely unstable regimes in the middle east. Its of course more complicated than just a shift in ideology.

But this pretty extreme shift with Islam is a big one. Islam used to be the reasonable religion. While Christianity was a bunch of savages. Now it's the other way around

 

[NoHolyCows]

of you who think this is a genocide on Palestinians. Why are the IDF arming Palestinian groups opposed to Hamas? If they wanted to exterminate all Palestinians... that would be a counter productive tactic.

The claim that arming rival Palestinian factions disproves genocide shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both international law and historical precedent.

First, the legal standard: Genocide is not defined as “killing every member of a group.” Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, it is the intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part, through killing, serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction, or measures intended to prevent births. The presence of survivors or the favoring of certain subgroups does not negate genocidal intent—it often reflects strategic selectivity, not mercy.

Now to history—because your logic has been tried before, and discredited every time.

In Rwanda (1994), over 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in 100 days. Yet some were spared temporarily, used for leverage, or caught in intra-militia conflicts. That didn’t stop the UN or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from classifying it as genocide.

In Bosnia (1995), more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were executed in Srebrenica. In other regions, some Bosniaks were armed or even used by Serb forces to fight rival groups. The ICTY still ruled it a genocide—because selective killing and manipulation are part of the machinery, not evidence against it.

Even in the Holocaust, the Nazis created Jewish councils (Judenräte), forced Jews to administer ghettos, and used some as labor or intermediaries. That didn’t mean genocide wasn’t happening—it was how it happened.

So when you ask, “Why would Israel arm anti-Hamas Palestinians if it wanted genocide?”, the answer is simple: because divide-and-rule tactics are a known feature of repressive and even genocidal campaigns. Weakening resistance, fragmenting identity, and using internal factions as leverage is a method—not a moral defense.

It’s like asking, “Why would a warden give privileges to one prison gang if he wanted control of the whole prison?” The answer isn’t compassion. It’s power management.

And here’s the bottom line: if genocide required total, indiscriminate annihilation, then none of the world’s recognized genocides—from Bosnia to Rwanda to the Holocaust—would qualify. Yet they do. Because in law and in history, genocide is judged by intent and impact on the group as a whole—not by whether a few individuals were spared, armed, or co-opted.

And in Gaza, the documented pattern—mass civilian death, deliberate destruction of infrastructure, denial of aid, and conditions of life that render survival impossible—falls squarely within the legal and historical framework of genocidal conduct. Arming rival factions changes none of that. It’s a tactic. Not a defense.

NHC

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, the “every accusation is a confession”. Maybe if you’re not sure what yo say, you should shut up.

Bullshit.

I'm absolutely certain that the Egyptian military had Intel and Clout. You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.

Really??? You don't seem to know that Egypt has been cracking down on tunnels between Egypt and Gaza for years?

Egypt has been pretending to crack down--but they were not actually doing much. Unquestionably the local officials were in on it, whether Cairo was or not remains unproven. But look at how Egypt has reacted to the Philadelphia Corridor. That actually stopped the smuggling (the tunnels come out in IDF-controlled territory) and Egypt hates it.

Prove it.

What are you asking for proof of?

That Egypt has been pretending to crack down.

Floods and bombs: This is how Egypt handled Hamas’ smuggling tunnels – www.israelhayom.com

For two weeks, Egypt has been stepping up its rhetoric with Israel, warning against an influx of Gazan refugees arriving in the Sinai Peninsula. Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram On Saturday, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi lamented what he said was a lack of...

www.israelhayom.com

As such, el-Sissi dealt a great blow to Hamas. Since his rise to power, approximately 1,900 tunnels have been destroyed.

Egypt did not hold back: the tunnels were shelled from the air, destroyed with controlled explosions on the ground, and flooded with sewage water or water pumped directly from the Mediterranean Sea. Some reports said even chemical substances were used, which, if true, turned the tunnels into death traps.

Such reports embarrassed Cairo, and an official was quick to accuse Hamas of transporting chemical weapons to terror groups in Sinai.

October 2014 saw another turn in the war on the tunnels. Thirty-three Egyptian soldiers were killed in an ISIS terror attack, and as far as the country's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was concerned, the die was cast.

Over the next three years, Egypt destroyed 3,000 residential buildings in Rafah near the border. Satellite footage showed entire neighborhoods turned to rubble.

A mere year later its goal was achieved. According to Arab sources, the Egyptian military managed to destroy 97% of the smuggling tunnels. After that, Cairo turned its focus to the terror groups in Sinai.

Egypt is strongly Islamic. And as such they can't openly support Israel. But they do. What Egypt (ie the Al Sisi regime) wants is stability. They know that they only hope for peace and stability in Israel/Palestine is if Israel is in charge. So they support Israel. Any support for Hamas (or Palestinians at this point) will just lead to perpetual war

So you disagree with Loren?

Only that's it's more complicated. I don't think Loren is necessarily wrong. I just added more context.

Egypt is functionally schizophrenic in this conflict. It does what it can to support Israel. While needs to be able to pretend it supports the Palestinians. And since Hamas is supported by Shia Iran, they also need to officially hate on Hamas. So they need to be pro-Palestine and anti-Hamas at the same time... They need to be anti-Israel, even though they don't want to. Oh, yeah, they need to hate Israel more than Hamas, but still hate Hamas, because religion. Egypt is in a politically difficult spot.

Don't forget that Al-Sisi sits in a somewhat precarious position. Egypt is strongly Muslim Brotherhood... ie Islamofascist. This is where Islamofacism was born and is where it is strongest. When Mubarak was ousted in the Arab spring (by the Cairo liberals) and Egypt got the vote, a vast majority of Egyptians voted for the Muslim Brotherhood.. ie against democracy. So the Cairo liberals did a 180 and asked nicely to get Mubarak 2, ie Al-Sisi. And things were back to normal. The difference being is that there's no way Al-Sisi can pretend he has the support of the Egyptian people. He's a dictator only kept in power through terror. With the blessing of Egypts pro democracy liberals. It's just that these pro democracy know that Egypt is not ready for democracy. So they're keeping a low profile now. The last thing Al-Sisi wants to do now is piss off the Egyptian Muslims. And that requires some expert tip toeing around the Gaza situation. The second last thing Al-Sisi wants is the Palestinians in Egypt. That would be a catastrophe for his regime. And he knows it

 

[DrZoidberg]

of you who think this is a genocide on Palestinians. Why are the IDF arming Palestinian groups opposed to Hamas? If they wanted to exterminate all Palestinians... that would be a counter productive tactic.

The claim that arming rival Palestinian factions disproves genocide shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both international law and historical precedent.

First, the legal standard: Genocide is not defined as “killing every member of a group.” Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, it is the intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part, through killing, serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction, or measures intended to prevent births. The presence of survivors or the favoring of certain subgroups does not negate genocidal intent—it often reflects strategic selectivity, not mercy.

Now to history—because your logic has been tried before, and discredited every time.

I have lost interest in discussing with you. You have no arguments. It's just a lot of babble

In Rwanda (1994), over 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in 100 days. Yet some were spared temporarily, used for leverage, or caught in intra-militia conflicts. That didn’t stop the UN or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from classifying it as genocide.

In Bosnia (1995), more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were executed in Srebrenica. In other regions, some Bosniaks were armed or even used by Serb forces to fight rival groups. The ICTY still ruled it a genocide—because selective killing and manipulation are part of the machinery, not evidence against it.

Even in the Holocaust, the Nazis created Jewish councils (Judenräte), forced Jews to administer ghettos, and used some as labor or intermediaries. That didn’t mean genocide wasn’t happening—it was how it happened.

So when you ask, “Why would Israel arm anti-Hamas Palestinians if it wanted genocide?”, the answer is simple: because divide-and-rule tactics are a known feature of repressive and even genocidal campaigns. Weakening resistance, fragmenting identity, and using internal factions as leverage is a method—not a moral defense.

aha... those dastardly conspiratorial Jews. You are onto them and their nefarious tricks.

It’s like asking, “Why would a warden give privileges to one prison gang if he wanted control of the whole prison?” The answer isn’t compassion. It’s power management.

And here’s the bottom line: if genocide required total, indiscriminate annihilation, then none of the world’s recognized genocides—from Bosnia to Rwanda to the Holocaust—would qualify. Yet they do. Because in law and in history, genocide is judged by intent and impact on the group as a whole—not by whether a few individuals were spared, armed, or co-opted.

And in Gaza, the documented pattern—mass civilian death, deliberate destruction of infrastructure, denial of aid, and conditions of life that render survival impossible—falls squarely within the legal and historical framework of genocidal conduct. Arming rival factions changes none of that. It’s a tactic. Not a defense.

NHC

Ok. If what is happening isn't genocide. Just technically genocide from a legalistic interpretation... then who cares? Let's talk reality not this nonsense. But nice that you agree that there's no genocide going on in Gaza. I was a bit worried about your sanity for a bit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She's part of the greater Swedish left. The Swedish left have always been incredibly antisemitic. That's why Sweden didn't join the allies during WW2. The Swedish primeminister at the time was pro allies. But the Swedish people... super pro German. This antisemitic undercurrent to our culture never went away.

To put it simply... Greta Thunberg is part of the Swedish left and is acting and behaving like the Swedish left always have.

So the answer to my question is "no, you don't have any statements from Thunberg indicating she is anti-Semitic".

Nothing apart from that this is the first thing she pipes up about that isn't related to environmentalism.

And who does she support? Not the side who was first attacked and who are defending themselves.

So again, you've got nothing but vile baseless name-calling.

They just won't supply Hamas fighters. Unless Palestinian civilians comply Israel has every right to assume they are Hamas fighters. Its an absurd situation. But Palestinians have been behaving like this since 1948. Its good the world sees it.

I sure the heck don't envy Israel's position here. The threat to Israeli safety is a legitimate concern. What I do know is that Israel isn't just one bomb or one tunnel away from sustainable peace or the release of the remaining hostages. The siege/military tactics to free the hostages have failed.

You are incapable of understanding how that can have a thumb of the scale impact for their impressions. And instead of trying to communicate with those people, you just call them clueless. Which is so typical of people that have such a high pedestal impression of their own genius and understanding.

Then when you openly support military tactics that are illegal, you are surprised they think you are unethical.

If that's how you frame the situation I see your perspective.

That isn't my perspective, it is my understanding that people can see it that way because that is what they have experienced over their shorter lifetime. And if you want them to have a better understanding, you need to provide more perspective, not call them clueless because they aren't as old as you.

I'd rather see it as Israel trying to survive next to an incredibly aggressive neighbour. Yes, there’s a power imbalance. But that just makes it bizarre that the Palestinians are so belligerent

Netanyahu's failure to protect Israel and his over-exaggerated response to reseize government control and attempt at ethnic cleansing by pushing the Gazans into Egypt is part of the problem. Then add in Iran's heavy influence on all of this, but all you care about is bombing Hamas, instead of suffocating Hamas.

I think eventually Hamas will lose the ability to prevent Israeli aid deliveries to the Palestinian civilians.

As long as Hamas gets money, Hamas will be an issue... which is why money should be the target of Israel and the West, not Gaza.

How exactly do you envisage this working out? I don't get it. Hanas is supplied by Iran. Iran is already up to their eyeballs in sanctions. What more can we do to target the money?

Moderating Iran as Iran overthrowing its theocractic government is the only way this gets reduced significantly. There was a shot earlier, but Netanyahu helped fan the flames that got Rabin assassinated. Then Obama got the theocracy overthrow process moving forward and then Trump/GOP fucked that all up because they are the dumbest fuckers when it comes to foreign policy and playing the long con. The Saudis didn't want the US becoming closer to Iran, so they gave some people a lot of money and Trump sided with the people that helped take down our Towers.

 

[NoHolyCows]

I have lost interest in discussing with you. You have no arguments. It's just a lot of babble

When someone responds to legal definitions, historical parallels, and documented precedent by calling it “babble,” it usually means they’ve run out of arguments, not that I have.

You made a claim: that arming rival Palestinian factions disproves genocidal intent. I responded by showing—factually, legally, and historically—that this logic has been used before and has failed every time. Rwanda, Bosnia, and even the Holocaust included selective sparing, co-opted intermediaries, and rival factions. None of that negated genocide. It clarified its method.

So if you’ve “lost interest,” that’s your choice. But it’s not because there were no arguments. It’s because the arguments were too grounded to refute—and that’s the real issue here.

Dismissal isn’t rebuttal. And if you ever regain interest, the facts will still be waiting.

aha... those dastardly conspiratorial Jews. You are onto them and their nefarious tricks.

That’s not a response—it’s a dodge, and a pretty revealing one.

I never said anything about “Jews” as a group. I was talking about governments, military strategies, and legal standards—things that apply across history, whether it’s Rwanda, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, or anywhere else. If you reduce that to “aha, the Jews,” that’s not just a bad-faith twist. It’s playing with something ugly.

Criticizing a state’s actions—any state—is not the same as attacking a people. That distinction matters. And the moment you blur that line to avoid engaging with the facts, the conversation stops being serious.

If you had a real counterpoint to the examples I gave, you would’ve made one. But sarcasm doesn’t erase legal precedent or the real-world suffering it tries to describe. It just avoids it. And honestly, I think you know that.

Ok. If what is happening isn't genocide. Just technically genocide from a legalistic interpretation... then who cares? Let's talk reality not this nonsense. But nice that you agree that there's no genocide going on in Gaza. I was a bit worried about your sanity for a bit.

That’s not what I said—and pretending it is doesn’t make it true.

The legal definition of genocide isn’t some abstract technicality. It exists because it’s the only way the international community can hold states accountable when mass violence targets a population not just by accident, but by design. When entire communities are bombed, starved, and stripped of the means to survive, that’s not just “war.” It’s the deliberate dismantling of a people’s ability to live—and yes, that’s what the Genocide Convention was written to prevent.

You dismiss this as “legalistic nonsense,” but it’s the very standard that let the world prosecute Rwanda, Bosnia, and yes, Nazi Germany—not because everyone was killed, but because the pattern of destruction and intent to destroy was clear. That’s reality. You don’t get to shrug it off because it makes you uncomfortable.

So no—I don’t “agree” there’s no genocide. I’m pointing out that by every serious legal and historical measure, what’s happening in Gaza demands investigation as potential genocide. If you’re more interested in spinning my words than addressing the facts on the ground—mass graves, famine, dead children, and destroyed infrastructure—then let’s be honest: it’s not my sanity in question.

NHC

 

[pood]

@NoHolyCows, thank you very much for your concise, accurate, factual and frankly brilliant posts in this thread. For now I’ve stopped reading posts by several people because they are nauseating and revolting. I admire your stomach in wading through their venomous tripe, and in smacking down every one of their pathetic claims.

 

[NoHolyCows]

@NoHolyCows, thank you very much for your concise, accurate, factual and frankly brilliant posts in this thread. For now I’ve stopped reading posts by several people because they are nauseating and revolting. I admire your stomach in wading through their venomous tripe, and in smacking down every one of their pathetic claims.

Thank you—that really means a lot. I won’t lie, this conflict takes me back emotionally in a way that’s hard to put into words. The images, the videos, the sheer scale of suffering—it’s overwhelming. I think it affects most of us that way, even if we don’t always say it out loud.

Sometimes I do feel like a broken record, and maybe I am. But I also know I’m echoing someone whose voice shaped how I see the world—Noam Chomsky. When this conflict reignited, I saw a lot of people online asking, “Where’s Chomsky?” Nobody knew yet that he’d suffered a stroke, and I think that collective absence hit especially hard for those of us who grew up learning from him.

But I’ve thought a lot about that silence since—and it struck me that maybe Chomsky was preparing us all along. Preparing us for the day when he wouldn’t be here to do the heavy lifting. When it would be our turn to speak, to resist, and to call things what they are—whether or not it’s convenient, and no matter how much pushback we get.

So I guess that’s what I’m trying to do. Not just argue facts, but hold a line. And it means something to know that others are still willing to stand in that same space and say: enough.

Thanks again for the encouragement. It makes it easier to keep going.

NHC

 

[pood]

From The Myth of American Idealism, by Noam Chomsky and Nathan J. Robinson

 

[pood]

Chomsky’s statement on the war in Gaza: It is not a war, it is murder.

 

[TomC]

Chomsky’s statement on the war in Gaza: It is not a war, it is murder.

I don't care about the opinions of celebrities very much, so I will just ask.

Is it a murder by the Gazans who launched the assault or the Israelis defending themselves against the assault?
Tom

 

[NoHolyCows]

Chomsky’s statement on the war in Gaza: It is not a war, it is murder.

I don't care about the opinions of celebrities very much, so I will just ask.

Is it a murder by the Gazans who launched the assault or the Israelis defending themselves against the assault?
Tom

I don’t think he was quoted because he’s a “celebrity.” He was quoted because he’s spent a lifetime studying power, propaganda, and the structure of violence—especially when the words used to justify it are designed to hide what’s actually happening. He’s not weighing in for applause. He’s doing what serious thinkers do: reminding us to ask who holds the power, who pays the price, and what stories we tell to live with it.

Now to your question: Is it murder by Gazans or Israelis?

Let’s be honest—October 7 was horrific. Civilians were killed. That is a war crime. No one should ever excuse that. But recognizing that doesn’t mean you get to whitewash what’s happened since. Over 35,000 Palestinians—mostly women and children—are now dead. Neighborhoods flattened. Families starved. Hospitals bombed. Aid convoys turned back. Children dying not just from bombs, but from dehydration.

That is not “self-defense.”

You don’t get to bomb refugee camps and say you’re defending yourself. You don’t get to use starvation as a weapon and call it restraint. You don’t get to kill thousands of civilians because someone else attacked you first. That’s not justice. That’s vengeance.

And the law—international humanitarian law, not my opinion—says exactly that. The Geneva Conventions don’t disappear because someone fired rockets. They don’t vanish because you’re angry. They exist precisely for moments like this: when grief turns into retribution, and civilians are made to suffer for someone else’s crime.

So yes—what Hamas did was murder.

But if that’s your standard, then be consistent. Because what’s happening now isn’t just war. It’s systematic, it’s relentless, and it’s targeting an entire population. That, too, is murder—only on a scale that should stop the world cold.

But it hasn’t.

And maybe that’s the hardest truth of all.

NHC

 

[laughing dog]

Chomsky’s statement on the war in Gaza: It is not a war, it is murder.

I don't care about the opinions of celebrities very much, so I will just ask.

Is it a murder by the Gazans who launched the assault or the Israelis defending themselves against the assault?
Tom

Actually, if you bothered to actually think about it, the answer is yes. Hamas's terrorist attack was murder. The IDF knowingly bombing Gazan civilians is also murder, because that ain't defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is there are a lot of forces out there radicalizing Muslims. "Muslim terror attack" does provide the relevant information. We don't know the exact identity of the radicalizers, we don't know exactly how the radicalizers manipulated them, but unless that information permitted effective action to be taken against the radicalizers it adds nothing. (And if the government has actionable information they'll be keeping it a secret as it would be of little value if the bad guys knew we knew.)

If your point is that radicalization is real and dangerous, I agree. But that’s exactly why we shouldn’t reduce the label to “Muslim terror attack.” Because radicalization isn’t an inevitable consequence of being Muslim—it’s a distortion fueled by politics, ideology, war, poverty, and sometimes foreign interference. Labeling it by religion blurs those causes and narrows the public imagination to a single, lazy conclusion: Islam equals violence.

I never said it was inevitable. Any more than while you know the abortion clinic bomber is Christian it doesn't mean all Christians bomb abortion clinics.

That doesn’t help fight terrorism. It helps fuel it. It turns potential allies into suspects, communities into surveillance zones, and foreign policy into a self-fulfilling cycle of fear and reprisal. If your goal is to stop radicalization, you don’t do it by reinforcing the frame that terrorists themselves want: that they speak for all Muslims. They don’t. And the more we buy into that framing, the more power we hand them.

While the threat is the radicalizers that information is implicit in saying "Muslim terror attack". Some combination of money + manipulation got them to do it.

It's not merely when they kill in <insert group>'s name, but when they are radicalized by the group. As for Christian terrorism--I'm not coming up with any examples of "Christian" that are not better described by a subset. White nationalist terrorists. Abortion clinic terrorists. The thing is the Christians are in the majority, what you see is oppression, not terrorism.

What you’re describing is exactly the problem. When the attacker is Muslim, the religion gets top billing. But when the attacker is Christian, it’s qualified—“white nationalist,” “anti-abortion,” “lone wolf”—anything but “Christian terrorism.” That’s not objectivity. That’s selective framing.

I don't recall anything referred to as "lone wolf terrorist attack", although I have heard of lone wolves attacking. The others have well defined subsets, human nature is to use the narrowest grouping that defines a situation. The ones that are doing it for Islam might actually have a narrower focus but rarely is that apparent or communicated.

You say Christian terrorists are better described by a subset. But so are Islamist ones—Salafist, jihadist, Wahhabi. Yet we don’t hear those labels dominate. Instead, we get “Muslim terror” as the headline, as if 1.9 billion people share a motive.

"Jihadist" is certainly not a relevant category. The others--might be relevant but we don't see it so we don't describe it that way.

And saying “Christians are the majority, so it’s oppression not terrorism” just reinforces the double standard. Terrorism is defined by method and motive, not by the perpetrator’s demographic. If a white Christian man shoots up a mosque for ideological reasons, that’s terrorism—no less than if a Muslim man attacks a synagogue.

I do agree--but how often do Christians shoot up mosques?

What I'm saying about oppression is that while the objective is the same (impose their will) the method differs. Terrorism is the tool of the minority, not the majority. Doesn't mean Christian oppression isn't a bad thing, just that it's a different thing.

"try their best" and "take all feasible precautions" are the same thing. And that's all that's expected of them.

No—they’re not the same, and that difference is the heart of the law.

“Try their best” is subjective. It lowers the bar to intention—what someone meant to do. “All feasible precautions” is objective. It asks what could have been done, given the means and knowledge at the time. It doesn’t let you off the hook just because you claim you cared. It demands you act accordingly, even if that means not striking at all.

Except you still haven't established that they didn't do so.

If a military knows civilians are likely to die in large numbers and proceeds anyway, that’s not taking feasible precautions. That’s weighing civilian lives against tactical gain and deciding they’re expendable. And under the Geneva Conventions, that’s not just tragic—it’s unlawful.

And you still can't seem to get it that it's the ratio that shows what's going on, not the raw numbers.

It's not sleight of hand. It's demonstrating a tremendous effort to get people off the X.

You continue to act as if the numbers somehow prove something. They don't.

But they do prove something—just not what you claim.

A low average kill-per-bomb stat only matters if it reflects lawful targeting and civilian protection. But when you drop thousands of bombs into one of the most densely populated areas on Earth, where civilians are trapped and infrastructure is collapsing, then even “low” ratios add up to mass civilian death. That’s not just numbers—it’s evidence of systemic harm.

"If it reflects"??? Of course it reflects! It would be utterly impossible if they weren't being very careful.

And if your justification rests on aggregate statistics while hospitals, shelters, and aid workers keep getting hit, then you’re not showing “tremendous effort.” You’re showing selective math to excuse unacceptable outcomes. The law doesn’t care how efficient your bombing is—it cares whether it respected civilian life.

And once again you fail to get it. The numbers unquestionably show that they are taking great care. If they weren't things would be much, much worse.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. You have a very idealized notion of how war goes. (Not surprising, most people don't realize how bad it is.)

No—this isn’t about liking or disliking. It’s about misrepresenting the law.

War crimes are not just isolated acts like “someone pulled a trigger they shouldn’t have.” They include broader patterns: starvation as a method of warfare, disproportionate attacks, targeting civilian infrastructure, and collective punishment. These aren’t vague ideals—they’re codified in the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute, and decades of legal precedent.

And you still are taking the wrongs as a given, never proving them.

The list I referenced isn’t a rhetorical invention—it comes directly from binding international law. The Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute all define war crimes with specific language and legal thresholds. For example, targeting civilians is prohibited under Geneva Convention IV and Additional Protocol I, which clearly state that civilians cannot be the object of attack.

Yeah, and we see zero targeting of civilians. Note the word "targeting". Geneva does not say that it's automatically wrong if a civilian is in the area.

Collective punishment is explicitly outlawed in Article 33 of Geneva IV, making it illegal to penalize people for acts they did not commit.

And you still haven't established that there is any punishment involved.

Disproportionate attacks—where expected civilian harm outweighs the direct military gain—are banned under Additional Protocol I.

The world has basically defined proportionate based on what we see actually happening. And Israel raised the bar considerably.

The destruction of infrastructure essential to civilian survival, like food and water supplies, is forbidden unless absolutely required by military necessity.

And where's your evidence of any destruction of either by Israel? Note that supplies in the hands of Hamas are not civilian supplies.

And starvation as a method of warfare is not a vague accusation; it is codified as a war crime in both Additional Protocol I and the Rome Statute.

And, once again, you have failed to establish that it's an objective. Or that it's happening.

These aren’t emotional appeals or theoretical ideals. They are specific legal prohibitions agreed upon by the international community. If you believe they don’t apply in this context, then make that case. But don’t deny that the legal standards exist—or pretend that citing them is just moral posturing.

It's not a matter of not apply, but not happening.

Examples??

Examples? Sure. Let’s start with Nuremberg. The Nazis didn’t say, “We’re committing war crimes.” They said they were defending their nation, restoring order, and acting under law. They invoked national security, enemy sabotage, and collective threats. But the tribunal cut through those justifications and established that even in war, some acts—like targeting civilians or using starvation as policy—are criminal.

And that's relevant how?

Take My Lai in Vietnam. U.S. soldiers massacred over 500 civilians, many of them women and children. The initial reports were buried, sanitized as “a firefight,” and those involved claimed they were following orders or couldn’t tell civilians from enemies. None of that changed the facts on the ground—and when exposed, it was prosecuted as a war crime.

Is anybody saying that it wasn't a war crime?

(But note that the not being able to tell civilians from enemies can be a very real issue. That's why Geneva is strict about markings. Soldiers will shoot at those who look like those who are shooting at them. When those look like civilians that will tend to get actual civilians shot at. Look at the history of such massacres by forces that would generally be regarded as good guys--you'll always find they were taking a lot of fire from people in civilian attire. Unfortunately, sometimes people will not recognize that who they are looking at is clearly not a combatant even though they look like (civilian attire) those who have been shooting at them (in civilian attire.))

Or Srebrenica. Serbian forces claimed they were responding to enemy provocations and conducting evacuations. What they actually did was murder over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys. Again, layered in military rationale, but the legal system recognized it as genocide.

Again, what's the relevance? You're taking things everyone agrees are wrong.

These weren’t crimes because they were simple. They were crimes because, beneath the strategy and language, they violated the basic protections international law was built to preserve. That’s what the law is for—not to rubber-stamp the actions of the powerful, but to hold them to account even when they hide behind complexity.

They were simple: Killing those who were clearly not combatants.

The problem is that you are demanding the impossible. I've never been in the military, I can't evaluate all the details. But I can look at what happens: Israel has by far the best record. And I have a very hard time with the notion that the world's best is an abysmal failure. Especially since nobody is making any realistic proposals of how to do better. There are plenty of countries with skilled people who don't like Israel, if they can't see something why do you think there is something??

If the “world’s best” record still means tens of thousands of civilians dead, then maybe the world’s standard is broken. The point isn’t perfection—it’s responsibility. If a country claims moral and technological superiority, then it must be judged by that standard, not by the worst wars in history. Saying, “no one’s offered a better method” isn’t a defense. It’s an admission that we’ve normalized the mass death of civilians as acceptable collateral. And once that’s the bar, “best” stops meaning good—it just means least horrific.

You don't get to decree what reality is.

And I'm not judging based on the worst wars in history, but on the typical modern conflicts.

And saying that no one has offered better is not a reason is saying you believe there is better. Why in the world do you believe you know more about it than the world's military experts?

The point is the data is sufficiently flawed as to probably mean combatants exceed civilians.

That’s not how the burden of proof works. You don’t get to assume a civilian is a combatant just because the data might be flawed. If you claim more fighters than civilians were killed, prove it with independent, verifiable evidence—not speculation from the party doing the bombing. Civilian protections exist because war zones are chaotic and truth is contested. You can’t erase those protections by guessing at a ratio. That’s not law. That’s convenient math wrapped in moral evasion.

There is no independent, verified evidence in either direction and thus no way to know. However:

1) We have two data points that Hamas inadvertently leaked. Both showing that casualties are quite disproportionately male.

2) We have at one point at least a 20% fraud rate in the Hamas data. That's just the low hanging fruit, reality is certainly worse. If it's still 20% we are at civilians = combatants. But we also have a large number of Hamas rockets that fell in Gaza. Thus some of the dead (which will almost all be civilians) aren't due to Israel. Note that that leaves combatants > civilians. In past conflicts this tends to run around 20%, this time around we have no data so far.

Two completely different methods of estimating, both coming up with the same conclusion. In the absence of certainty I'm going to go with what looks most probable.

None of what you discuss proves your point. You have a flawed idea of what war entails.

That’s not how the burden of proof works. You don’t get to assume a civilian is a combatant just because the data might be flawed. If you claim more fighters than civilians were killed, prove it with independent, verifiable evidence—not speculation from the party doing the bombing. Civilian protections exist because war zones are chaotic and truth is contested. You can’t erase those protections by guessing at a ratio. That’s not law. That’s convenient math wrapped in moral evasion.

NHC

You keep demanding independent, verified evidence--yet have none supporting your position. Everything that "supports" your position fundamentally traces back to what Hamas says with no verification whatsoever.