Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[VorZakone]

Lets crunch some numbers. Rwanda was 500k-800k so between 7-10% population of 8 million. Syria was 300k civilians. 600k is overal. so 300K is 1.5% of civilian population. Even so, not all civilians were killed by Assad, so under 1.5%

officially (most likely more), we are talking about 30k (25K kids and women and we agree that not all men are hamas). so at least 1.5% gaza civilian population and counting what it puts it above your example of Syria

I don't believe that numbers constitutes a genocide but the intent and the receiving population. A clear example is Srebrenica with less deaths than Gaza

But you want to play the number games. So I would like to ask you 2 clear questions and hopefully you will answer

So if you consider Syrians civilians deaths a genocide and proportionally Gaza is above this, would you consider this a genocide?
If the Gazans death toll ever surpasses the 150-200k over a 2 million population (7-10% like Rwanda), would you consider this a genocide?

I hate how this question comes across, but for educational purposes: why is Srebrenica called a genocide and not 'just' a massacre?

 

[Raven]

Just to make things clear - I don’t see this as competition of genocides. First, my position is clear - Israel is not comiting a genocide. And second each of these conflicts is bad enough already on its own.

But man. Have you hear About Rwanda? 800 000 people killed. Or when Assad butchered 600 000 of his fellow citizens?

And the list go on.

My comment literally says in your face. I wasn't talking about numbers, but I'm sure you knew that anyway.

 

[4bars]

I hate how this question comes across, but for educational purposes: why is Srebrenica called a genocide and not 'just' a massacre?

I am not the one that can answer in a proper manner. I have limited information in my mind and english is not my first language

As far as I know a massacre kills indiscriminately while a genocide is a massacre that kills on intent of singling out for reasons that can go from nationality, religion, ethnicity and any other things that makes us "different". And is basically planned in advanced while a massacre might (or no) happened on the spot. So a genocide is basically a massacre but a massacre is not a genocide

In the case of srebenika, they enter in town (as in many others) looking for "turks" how they refered bosnian muslims. While they were fleeing as they knew what it was happening to other towns (raping, tourture, concentration camps and executed even with list names), they were ambushed and killed for the reason of being different

Again, massacre is just killing for killing as you are perceived as enemy, white, black, muslim, christian...it doesn't matter. Genocide is planned to single out who you want to kill

Srebenica and ethnic cleansing/genocide was proven planned to kill the bosnian mulsims

But please, someone that has a better command of english and definitely better working than me, please correct me and/or put it in better words

 

[Giggsyking]

Just to make things clear - I don’t see this as competition of genocides. First, my position is clear - Israel is not comiting a genocide. And second each of these conflicts is bad enough already on its own.

But man. Have you hear About Rwanda? 800 000 people killed. Or when Assad butchered 600 000 of his fellow citizens?

And the list go on.

Srebrenica 8,000? Is it a number game to you?

 

[Giggsy PO]

The thing you wanted to make clear became unclear in the rest of your post. Is it just a numbers game to you? Will it become a genocide when half a million palestinians die?

No, it is not game of numbers. There is no threshold. Srebrenica is an example. I fully agree that for something to be called genocide, you dont have to kill every single person. Or even try to. It is the question of intent. And no, some stupid comments from idiots like Ben gvir does not constitute an intent. There has to be a clear line of longterm systematic governmental policy of this aim. And here I guess, the opinions will differ.

 

[Kaos]

Just to make things clear - I don’t see this as competition of genocides. First, my position is clear - Israel is not comiting a genocide. And second each of these conflicts is bad enough already on its own.

But man. Have you hear About Rwanda? 800 000 people killed. Or when Assad butchered 600 000 of his fellow citizens?

And the list go on.

Two questions. Firstly, what do you suggest as the threshold for genocide?

And secondly, do you accept Israel is at the very least heading towards a policy of ethnic cleansing?

 

[Giggsy PO]

I think he means the visual aspect of it. There's lots of Syria footage. With Rwanda I assume there's less but others can correct me.

You might be right. But he also mentioned statistics, so I provided some.

 

[VorZakone]

I am not the one that can answer in a proper manner. I have limited information in my mind and english is not my first language

As far as I know a massacre kills indiscriminately while a genocide is a massacre that kills on intent of singling out for reasons that can go from nationality, religion, ethnicity and any other things that makes us "different". And is basically planned in advanced while a massacre might (or no) happened on the spot. So a genocide is basically a massacre but a massacre is not a genocide

In the case of srebenika, they enter in town (as in many others) looking for "turks" how they refered bosnian muslims. While they were fleeing as they knew what it was happening to other towns (raping, tourture, concentration camps and executed even with list names), they were ambushed and killed for the reason of being different

Again, massacre is just killing for killing as you are perceived as enemy, white, black, muslim, christian...it doesn't matter. Genocide is planned to single out who you want to kill

Srebenica and ethnic cleansing/genocide was proven planned to kill the bosnian mulsims

But please, someone that has a better command of english and definitely better working than me, please correct me and/or put it in better words

Thanks. Your post was clear to me anyway regardless of your English.

 

[Raven]

No, it is not game of numbers. There is no threshold. Srebrenica is an example. I fully agree that for something to be called genocide, you dont have to kill every single person. Or even try to. It is the question of intent. And no, some stupid comments from idiots like Ben gvir does not constitute an intent. There has to be a clear line of longterm systematic governmental policy of this aim. And here I guess, the opinions will differ.

You've just described the last 75 years in Palestine.

 

[Giggsyking]

I hate how this question comes across, but for educational purposes: why is Srebrenica called a genocide and not 'just' a massacre?

Because genocide is not strictly killing, but more like acts that are committed to harm an entire or part of a group whether its physical or mental harm. While a massacre is a strictly killing a group of civilian people.

 

[maniak]

No, it is not game of numbers. There is no threshold. Srebrenica is an example. I fully agree that for something to be called genocide, you dont have to kill every single person. Or even try to. It is the question of intent. And no, some stupid comments from idiots like Ben gvir does not constitute an intent. There has to be a clear line of longterm systematic governmental policy of this aim. And here I guess, the opinions will differ.

At this point, someone who denies that israel's policy is to deliberately and systematically target palestinian civilians with the goal of physically removing them from certain areas, is either not paying attention or just plain wrong. This is a genocide, will be eventually recognized by all as a genocide and historians will refer to it as a genocide. Some people are just clinging to thin threads of deniability so that the genocide can be carried forward as much as possible before the obvious becomes accepted by everyone.

Then, of course, people like you will change their tune to something like "yeah it eventually became a genocide, but at the time I said it wasn't, it wasn't yet, so you can't blame me." We've all seen these episodes throughout history, there's nothing new to this genocide denialism.

 

[Giggsyking]

No, it is not game of numbers. There is no threshold. Srebrenica is an example. I fully agree that for something to be called genocide, you dont have to kill every single person. Or even try to. It is the question of intent. And no, some stupid comments from idiots like Ben gvir does not constitute an intent. There has to be a clear line of longterm systematic governmental policy of this aim. And here I guess, the opinions will differ.

So you have 75 years of mass killing, multiple massacres, land theft, siege, apartheid, illegal occupation, but you do not know what is the Israeli intent .

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pala pa pa pa pala pa

Be careful, do not say the forbidden word (Palestine) or you will be sacked.

 

[Raven]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pala pa pa pa pala pa

Be careful, do not say the forbidden word (Palestine) or you will be sacked.

Christ, not even allowed to say the word

 

[Giggsy PO]

So you have 75 years of mass killing, multiple massacres, land theft, siege, apartheid, illegal occupation, but you do not know what is the Israeli intent .

In those 75 years occupation, do you count Egypt and Jordan too? Or only Israel?

 

[Raven]

So you have 75 years of mass killing, multiple massacres, land theft, siege, apartheid, illegal occupation, but you do not know what is the Israeli intent .

I don't think he realised what he was writing until he hit post. A little more than a mask slip there, to me this indicated that he knows very well that this is a genocide.

 

[jadaba]

At this point, someone who denies that israel's policy is to deliberately and systematically target palestinian civilians with the goal of physically removing them from certain areas, is either not paying attention or just plain wrong. This is a genocide, will be eventually recognized by all as a genocide and historians will refer to it as a genocide. Some people are just clinging to thin threads of deniability so that the genocide can be carried forward as much as possible before the obvious becomes accepted by everyone.

Then, of course, people like you will change their tune to something like "yeah it eventually became a genocide, but at the time I said it wasn't, it wasn't yet, so you can't blame me." We've all seen these episodes throughout history, there's nothing new to this genocide denialism.

It's optimistic of you to assume that people like him would ever acknowledge it as a genocide, regardless of expert and widespread sentiment. If the ICJ determines it as genocide, they'll claim the ICJ is biased (it is a UN body after all, and we're not far from the entire UN being equated with Hamas). He'll always have the inevitable US, Israeli and German denial/talking points to refer to as well.

 

[Raven]

In those 75 years occupation, do you count Egypt and Jordan too? Or only Israel?

And just a sprinkle of whataboutery. Et voila. *Chef's kiss*

 

[Giggsy PO]

At this point, someone who denies that israel's policy is to deliberately and systematically target palestinian civilians with the goal of physically removing them from certain areas, is either not paying attention or just plain wrong. This is a genocide, will be eventually recognized by all as a genocide and historians will refer to it as a genocide. Some people are just clinging to thin threads of deniability so that the genocide can be carried forward as much as possible before the obvious becomes accepted by everyone.

Then, of course, people like you will change their tune to something like "yeah it eventually became a genocide, but at the time I said it wasn't, it wasn't yet, so you can't blame me." We've all seen these episodes throughout history, there's nothing new to this genocide denialism.

Ok, you can predict the future. Lets abandon the rule of law, courts and so on. What you think will be declared as facts. And when there will any disagreements in world politics, you will decide which side is right/wrong. Fair enough.

 

[Badunk]

Ok, you can predict the future. Lets abandon the rule of law, courts and so on. What you think will be declared as facts. And when there will any disagreements in world politics, you will decide which side is right/wrong. Fair enough.

Do you write Israeli government policy? Because that's uncanny!

 

[maniak]

Ok, you can predict the future. Lets abandon the rule of law, courts and so on. What you think will be declared as facts. And when there will any disagreements in world politics, you will decide which side is right/wrong. Fair enough.

It's not what I think, it's what everyone can see with their own eyes. I just choose to acknowledge reality while you prefer to live in a parallel one. I kinda get it, if my side was committing genocide, I'd cope in any way possible.

 

[Giggsy PO]

Two questions. Firstly, what do you suggest as the threshold for genocide?

And secondly, do you accept Israel is at the very least heading towards a policy of ethnic cleansing?

I answered the first one in the previous post. There is no threshold.

The second one, please be more specific what do you mean.

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

A genocide survivor.

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Giggsy PO]

It's not what I think, it's what everyone can see with their own eyes. I just choose to acknowledge reality while you prefer to live in a parallel one. I kinda get it, if my side was committing genocide, I'd cope in any way possible.

So you are now speaker for everybody.

What do you see? Besides your Twitter feed and this thread? Are you on the ground? Have you been there? But I get it. All you see is facts and reality. All I see is propaganda and parallel reality. Cool.

 

[maniak]

So you are now speaker for everybody.

What do you see? Besides your Twitter feed and this thread? Are you on the ground? Have you been there? But I get it. All you see is facts and reality. All I see is propaganda and parallel reality. Cool.

Multiple entities on the ground have confirmed it.

You see it as well, you're just denying it. I hope it's just because it would be too difficult for you to accept reality and not because you actually support the genocide.

 

[Idxomer]

He actually deserves applause.

I don't post much on this thread now but read it.

One thing I've noticed is that whenever Israel commits another atrocity that can't be defended along comes someone like this guy. Writes a post which is worded a certain way, que 2/3 pages of whatboutery (for want of a better word). Perfect way to steer the conversation into a sort of he said she said.

I admire the patience of some of the posters in dealing with them.

 

[Kaos]

I answered the first one in the previous post. There is no threshold.

The second one, please be more specific what do you mean.

Do you think that Israel's current trajectory - specifically the damage they're causing, both in terms of civilian loss of life and destruction of infrastructure, coupled to trapping most of Gaza in Rafah, with an attack there imminent - is leading to the feasible danger that the Palestinians may be permanently withdrawn from the territory into neighbouring countries as refugees?

 

[berbatrick]

Much smaller than the massacre, but a good example of the way they work

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[gfactor86]

Hamas rejected a ceasefire. Remember that this week while you march for the eradication of the only Jewish state

 

[Mike Smalling]

The genocide supporters really are out in full force today.

 

[gfactor86]

The genocide supporters really are out in full force today.

as are the Hamas sympathisers

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Hamas rejected a ceasefire. Remember that this week while you march for the eradication of the only Jewish state

Oh, keep on bombing the innocent then! Good job hero. You genuinely get more and more incoherent by the day.

 

[berbatrick]

Hamas rejected a ceasefire. Remember that this week while you march for the eradication of the only Jewish state

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[JPRouve]

Oh, keep on bombing the innocent then! Good job hero. You genuinely get more and more incoherent by the day.

It's also kind of a lie. Basically both sides said that they were willing to negotiate but neither agreed on anything, the New York Times went with that headline based on the claim that a Hamas official said that they wouldn't be willing to trade israeli soldiers for imprisoned palestinians convicted for terrorism.

 

[maniak]

Hamas rejected a ceasefire. Remember that this week while you march for the eradication of the only Jewish state

You just have to turn on the news to see who's being eradicated.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Fergies Gum]

Saw the photo of the guy that the IDF bulldozed (yes literally) over. Just sickening.

 

[4bars]

I admire the patience of some of the posters in dealing with them.

And I applaud them. all this genocide deniers, like the holocaust deniers have to be answered relentlessly. When the truth shuts up, the liars wins

 

[Kyonn]

I'm not intending to attack you, nor am I suggesting you leave the thread, but considering your alleged apathy or 'neutrality', I'm curious what it is you're wanting to discuss or debate in this thread. So far your sole contribution is insisting you're impartial and feel like the whole situation is hopeless. If so what's there to discuss? Is there anything in particular surrounding this conflict you want to put to debate?

The thread itself made me think of that quote I shared. I think it perfectly describes the situation. After sharing the quote and my opinion I was questioned, attacked and ridiculed. I was merely responding.

I have one question for you: Why do you think a two state solution will work when both sides have publicly stated they're not interested? Isn't forcing a two state solution from the outside exactly what got the world into this mess?