this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
236 points (96.5% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1391 readers
1 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly
Edit: I'm convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
UN isn't a credible source for anything Israel related. (and especially not the ministry of truth) And also, its a very different kind of war and furthermore this are the numbers from the Gaza ministry of health, wich is a hamas institution and wich does the thing mentioned above.
I don't doubt that there are many casualtys, many civilian casualtys as well, but that doesn't mean its a genocide.
By Israel's own admission they kill two civilians for every Hamas soldier.
Israeli soldiers film themselves committing war crimes and dancing on the graves of Palestinian civilians they've killed.
What more do you want?
Please don't use Al Jazeera, they are owned by the Qatari government, which is the same government that actively holds Hamas leadership. They are extraordinarily biased and not to be taken seriously.
Didn't question that, but its a war not a genocide. Furthermore it is common knowledge that hamas does hide among civilians and uses human shields, that's why hamas isn't legally protected by the Geneva conventions, as they don't count as combatants in that matter, they wear mostly civilian clothes.
Aljazeera article... Fuck them they are known to be super pro Hamas. However i didn't question that there happened to be war crimes on the side of the IDF, they do happen, its however a big difference between systematical and individual war crimes, war crimes have to be prosecuted but that doesn't mean its a genocide.
Some Cookies and milk, also maybe not using Aljazeera sources or sources that just cite them unchecked while you are at it.
So, what would you accept as a credible source for Israeli genocide, theoretically?
I can't speak for them, but a general consensus among Western governments.
What's a consensus, in this case? Supermajority? Plurality?
Majority. As long as they can present convincing evidence (i.e. evidence that doesn't rely on trusting the word of Hamas and/or their friends in Doha and Tehran).
Edit: I'll also say that I trust some Western governments more than others. I'll take the word of the current German government over that of the current Italian one, for example.
Understanding that any government declaration that Israel is committing genocide would necessarily require politically hazardous action in accompaniment, do you require that the majority of Western governments declare Israel is committing genocide, or only that a significant and credible portion of the legal and foreign policy institutions of Western governments declare as much?
Ideally I would want to see governmental acknowledgment, but I wouldn't call it a hard requirement. But ultimately it depends on the evidence presented, and on the people and institutions who agree/disagree with it. I can't really give you a more firm answer than that.
Alright, so what do you think about...
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-judges-intelligence-experts-call-halt-israeli-arms-sales-2024-04-04/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-law-clerks-rare-anonymous-statement-decry-genocide-gaza-2024-05-29
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce48wpd08pgo
https://apnews.com/article/spain-israel-icj-genocide-case-67d4d9b8ecf6fd88e718319a5d93465a
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
At what point does the accusation of genocide towards Israel's behavior become plausible?
What about the Israeli government themselves claiming a (very dubious) 50/50 civilian-militant casualty ratio? We've flattened cities in WW2 with better casualty ratios than that.
What about prominent members of the Israeli government openly saying the intention is to commit genocide?
Regarding your initial set of links, I think it's clear that I don't consider these particularly credible. With that said, the accusation obviously has some degree of surface-level plausibility. But there's more to genocide than "people are being killed".
I don't have any issues with that. I know, that sounds callous but considering that urban warfare and sieges always have exceptionally horrific civilian death tolls even without one side (Hamas) very deliberately placing as many civilians between them and the enemy as they can, I'd argue that those numbers are actually exceptionally good.
Not for lack of trying. Civilian casualties were basically a non-concern for the Americans (this is also true of Israel), and the Brits very deliberately sought out attacked purely civilian targets in a terror bombing campaign (this is not). Me saying Israels conduct reminds me of the Allies in WW2 was not a commendation of either. I consider both to be necessary evils to eliminate the Nazis and Hamas respectively.
Ben-Gvir and his party certainly would like to turn it into a genocide, but coalition governments don't work that way. A public statement from one minor coalition member doesn't make something government policy. Otzma Yehudit has two ministers and six seats in the Knesset, they're very much not able to dictate government policy. The fact that they haven't been kicked out of the coalition over their remarks is concerning, but so far that's all it is.
If some of the most respected legal institutions of these countries aren't credible, what IS credible? Israeli spokespeople?
Claims of Hamas using human shields aside, the US claimed civilian casualty ratio in the War on Terror, in which we were (rightfully) condemned for being trigger happy, was .2%. The actual number was 15%.
50% is horrifying - and 50% is the lowest possible estimate, which relies on the IDF being more honest than the US government. Outside sources put the low estimate at ~63%, which assumes, like the .2% claim of the US, that all military-age males killed are enemy combatants, which is pretty fucking dubious at best. Upper estimates go north of 90%.
For reference, the October 7th terrorist attack, in which Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, had a civilian casualty ratio of ~75% according to the Israeli government (whose claims in this case are credible, considering the evidence presented and the difficulty of falsifying one's own casualties in the context of civilian reporting)
The Americans pursued strategic bombing, industrial and military targets, the Brits pursued terror bombing, choosing civilian targets that would demoralize the population. Israel is performing precision strikes on civilians. They're not trying to demoralize the population. They're attempting ethnic fucking cleansing. Fuck's sake, what do you put Israel's effective siege on humanitarian aid as? Is setting up starvation conditions in Gaza just being friendly?
How many members of the government need to express genocidal intent before you consider genocidal intent to be present? Do you apply this standard to all ongoing genocides?
As mentioned above, there is no genocide, and that's why no credible source is speaking about a genocide.
The ICJ (UN so has a anti Israel bias) fir example said that there is no genocide currently even though Israel must take action to protect civilians in Gaza, wich they did, see the other threat here.
Theoretically speaking, what sources would you accept as authoritative on the matter of an ongoing genocide?
There is no credible authority body that calles or doesn't call something genocide, genocide has a very clear definition and genocide is defined according to that definition, ICJ does try to be neutral but Israel has as said a very hard time with UN because UN turned into a anti Israel body, so they don't get people into Gaza or Israel. The only external people in gaza currently are a few selected journalists that travel with IDF (CNN from what i know, maybe the guardian, but I'm not certain on that) or the hamas propaganda speakers that call themselves journalists (aljazeera) but are legally not.
Then why say
as an objection?
You're all over the place.
You asked about a credible source for something, and for a authority body, those are different things so there are different answers
Did you really just "fake news" the UN? LOL!
So you think a Diplomatic forum is the fucking ministry of truth. Its a political platform, its the exact opposite of truthful.