7 ms·

Yes. I reckon Trump will win this presidency purely on the number of conscience voters not voting for Biden this time around. I don’t think the (probably PR) bu

Yes. I reckon Trump will win this presidency purely on the number of conscience voters not voting for Biden this time around. I don’t think the (probably PR) building of the port is going to save Biden here. That is not to say I think Trump would have handled the situation any better. I’m sure it would have been fuel on the fire. Can we all agree on one single thing though: The Governments of USA, Germany, UK and Israel would be best informing the world of their definition of genocide as there is definitely a massive difference in opinion of what genocide is. It is super important. If they can explain why and how what is happening doesn’t match the definition of genocide agreed upon in the Genocide Convention of 1948 then maybe the world will stop using the word. But until they can change everyone’s minds, people are going to keep believing it. I think that would solve a lot of this back and forward.

ajross 2y ago
> People aren’t using the ‘G’ word lightly They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so. I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.
- PoignardAzur 2y ago
  > Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. You've put my thoughts into words better than I could. I'm not seeing a happy ending to this story, ever. I keep thinking about the turf war storyline in The Last of Us II (which was clearly written as an allegory for the Israel-Palestine conflict), and I think the storyline's conclusion was apt. There is only death and misery ahead. Get out if and while you can, and don't look back.
- WhackyIdeas 2y ago
  I disagree, but I appreciate your opinion regardless. The thing is, there is a definition of Genocide and while I think what Hamas did in October was absolutely monstrous I just can’t logically conclude they committed Genocide. So anyone saying that is just ‘saying it’ if you catch my drift. But for what is happening in Gaza, I just want my Government to explain why so I can know for sure that I am mistaken about it and it isn’t genocide. The definition shows it is, but my Govt are saying that it isn’t. It just feels like a whole load of double think to me. Y’know what I mean? If there’s a definition of what it is, then why is the world seeing with their eyes it is genocide and a few powerful allies of Israel saying it isn’t. Why does logic need to be so controversial eh? A definition is right there yet ‘opinions’ are taken more than fact in this age. Feeling the same as you - won’t be any peace in the middle east at this rate.
  - ajross 2y ago
    > what Hamas did in October ...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect the limits of what non-palestinians like you are calling for. All the kids in NYC chanting "From the River to the Sea" are embracing a genocidal frame (that the expulsion of an existing population from its home is an OK thing to do). And... you don't really care, and choose to excuse that while you condemn the other side. And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. Like I said, there will be no peace here. And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      << is not all of what Hamas is responsible for I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it. From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here. << And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare. << And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another. I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad. Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  I’ve been having fun. This is like the Flat Earth equivalent in geopolitics — and getting people to explain why they think things is fascinating. I also like irony — so seeing Israel “prosecuted” for the lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history is hilarious.
  - pyth0 2y ago
    Please tell me by what metric and to what other conflicts are you comparing this to where over 35,000 people (over 15,000 of which are children) killed constitutes the "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history". The smugness with which you treat the tragedy that is currently unfolding is disgusting.
    - decohen 2y ago
      Not parent, but let's take each side's numbers at face value: The Gaza Ministry of Health says as of today that 35,562 people have been killed [0]. The Israeli Ministry of Defense in March said it has killed 13,000 Hamas operatives [1]. Leaving aside the two month gap between these figures, the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.7. I tried to find a source for what a "typical" casualty ratio is in urban conflicts. This source [2] claims that 90% of overall casualties is a typical number. That would be a ratio of 1:9. John Spencer, who chairs the Modern Warfare Institute at USMA, and seems to be an authority on the subject, has a tweet addressing this specifically [3], in which he cites the Battles of Mosul, and Manila as having casualty rates of 1:2.5, 1:6 respectively. I don't think proving the negative of "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history" is feasible, but a nearly 5x improvement in civilian casualties compared to the assumed norm, and lower civilian casualties than Spencer's comparisons seems to indicate that the claim is not without merit. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza-death-toll-at-least-31341/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza... [2] https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/ https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urb... [3] https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769 https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769
csomar 2y ago
> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not. There is no definition of Genocide but only of what you can get away with. These countries are engaged in a proxy war via Israel. They can't replace Israel right now, heck they can't even replace the current leadership. So they just have to explain away and launder the reputation of the operation.

ajross 2y ago

> People aren’t using the ‘G’ word lightly They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so. I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.

PoignardAzur 2y ago
> Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. You've put my thoughts into words better than I could. I'm not seeing a happy ending to this story, ever. I keep thinking about the turf war storyline in The Last of Us II (which was clearly written as an allegory for the Israel-Palestine conflict), and I think the storyline's conclusion was apt. There is only death and misery ahead. Get out if and while you can, and don't look back.
WhackyIdeas 2y ago
I disagree, but I appreciate your opinion regardless. The thing is, there is a definition of Genocide and while I think what Hamas did in October was absolutely monstrous I just can’t logically conclude they committed Genocide. So anyone saying that is just ‘saying it’ if you catch my drift. But for what is happening in Gaza, I just want my Government to explain why so I can know for sure that I am mistaken about it and it isn’t genocide. The definition shows it is, but my Govt are saying that it isn’t. It just feels like a whole load of double think to me. Y’know what I mean? If there’s a definition of what it is, then why is the world seeing with their eyes it is genocide and a few powerful allies of Israel saying it isn’t. Why does logic need to be so controversial eh? A definition is right there yet ‘opinions’ are taken more than fact in this age. Feeling the same as you - won’t be any peace in the middle east at this rate.
- ajross 2y ago
  > what Hamas did in October ...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect the limits of what non-palestinians like you are calling for. All the kids in NYC chanting "From the River to the Sea" are embracing a genocidal frame (that the expulsion of an existing population from its home is an OK thing to do). And... you don't really care, and choose to excuse that while you condemn the other side. And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. Like I said, there will be no peace here. And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << is not all of what Hamas is responsible for I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it. From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here. << And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare. << And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another. I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad. Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.
zmgsabst 2y ago
I’ve been having fun. This is like the Flat Earth equivalent in geopolitics — and getting people to explain why they think things is fascinating. I also like irony — so seeing Israel “prosecuted” for the lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history is hilarious.
- pyth0 2y ago
  Please tell me by what metric and to what other conflicts are you comparing this to where over 35,000 people (over 15,000 of which are children) killed constitutes the "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history". The smugness with which you treat the tragedy that is currently unfolding is disgusting.
  - decohen 2y ago
    Not parent, but let's take each side's numbers at face value: The Gaza Ministry of Health says as of today that 35,562 people have been killed [0]. The Israeli Ministry of Defense in March said it has killed 13,000 Hamas operatives [1]. Leaving aside the two month gap between these figures, the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.7. I tried to find a source for what a "typical" casualty ratio is in urban conflicts. This source [2] claims that 90% of overall casualties is a typical number. That would be a ratio of 1:9. John Spencer, who chairs the Modern Warfare Institute at USMA, and seems to be an authority on the subject, has a tweet addressing this specifically [3], in which he cites the Battles of Mosul, and Manila as having casualty rates of 1:2.5, 1:6 respectively. I don't think proving the negative of "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history" is feasible, but a nearly 5x improvement in civilian casualties compared to the assumed norm, and lower civilian casualties than Spencer's comparisons seems to indicate that the claim is not without merit. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza-death-toll-at-least-31341/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza... [2] https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare/ https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urb... [3] https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769 https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769

csomar 2y ago

> If a country has a functional, independent judiciary, that judiciary gets the right to address the wrong. Or not. There is no definition of Genocide but only of what you can get away with. These countries are engaged in a proxy war via Israel. They can't replace Israel right now, heck they can't even replace the current leadership. So they just have to explain away and launder the reputation of the operation.