In response to complaints about its coverage, CBC says Israeli state violence is different than Hamas’ violence because the killing of Palestinians happens “remotely”
“Did that even happen?
And if it did, was it that bad?
And if it was, was it that big of a deal?
And if it was, does it matter?
And if it does, did they mean it?
And if they did, didn’t the victims deserve it?”
The narcissist’s prayer is no less cowardly when you phrase it in question form.
Well if 2-3 people with a label said so I should ignore the numbers, the terrorist human shield fighting style, and urban warfare’s well documented chaos.
Why use hard numbers to come to conclusions when I can have someone tell me it is
I like that even your source has experts disagreeing and cherry picking what equates for real genocide
Pay attention folks: this is why fascism is anti-intellectual, because they have to deny the experts that will recognise what they’re doing and call it out for what it is.
Well, first of all is the idea that this level of destruction is in any way normal in war.
Take a look at this chart here. Those date ranges in the chart have some of the bloodiest conflict in each war, and yet on any given day only a handful of children would die.
Israel is killing an average of almost 150 children per day.
Did you ever wonder why the population of Gaza is majority children?
Do note that the people of Gaza have been under a complete border lockdown for the last 17 years. Nothing enters or exists without the IDF okay. Including money for Hamas.
That’s like describing the purposeful crushing under a steam roller of a person tied up in the middle of the road and unable to escape as a “more than normal” traffic accident.
Appreciate the good faith response. While I’m certainly not going to excuse thousands of dead children, I don’t find these other conflicts comparable for the following reasons:
these are averaged over about a decade, most of which is in the form of a “frozen” conflict between entrenched armies outside of populated areas. We might (I don’t have numbers on this) see a much higher rate if we focused in on the hottest/most urban part of each war. The “30 day” range for this conflict is widely out of step with the others. If we “froze” the conflict for a decade, we’d depress the number by 120x and it would suddenly match the others.
most of these did not involve significant urban conflict in populated areas, especially with an entrenched defender making use of human shields.
the average age in Gaza is only ~18, meaning all else being equal, child deaths will be outsized. Further, Hamas employs teenage soldiers and the provided numbers don’t make a civilian/militant distinction. As horrific as it is, there is a difference between an armed 17 year old child soldier and a 3 year old bystander.
Israel is using 2000lbs bombs in Gaza, using hundreds of them. These are not, in any way, targeted strikes. They kill civilians by the dozens.
In 20 years of war, the US only ever used 500lbs bombs in urban environments. Even that was often barbaric in the amount of collateral damage caused.
Also, are you calling the fucking Battle of Mosula frozen conflict?
That was some of the bloodiest fighting in the entire war, all of it urban. There were fewer children killed in the entire 9 months than there have been killed in 3 in Gaza. And not by a small amount.
Yeah those are fair points. I’ve never defended the usage of 2000 pound bombs in urban areas.
I’m also certainly not calling Mosul a frozen conflict, merely noting that it is deceptive to present an average figure of child deaths over the 14 year long Iraq war against 30 days of intense urban fighting in Gaza.
I didn’t follow the fighting at the time, but per wikipedia the operation took 9 months, with the majority of the fighting/bombing happening during the initial 3 months during which half the city was taken. The enemy force was approximately half as strong as Hamas, and an estimated 20k - 40k civilians were killed, with about 1 million displaced. Interestingly it seems like the population density is somewhat comparable today, although it is hard to estimate the population at the time.
Taken together, this might make Mosul a good benchmark against which to judge the Israeli assault. Doing so, Israel definitely seems more cavalier to civilian deaths, but not wildly so. I still don’t see “genocide” here.
Take it from someone who was paying attention at the time. As bloody and horrific as it was, the fighting in Mosul was fucking laser guided precision compared to what Israel is doing in Gaza.
Israel is using massive bombs in areas that it tells refugees are safe. They bomb refugee camps and convoys. As in, directly targeting them, with bombs designed to cause as much collateral damage as possible.
And remember, the refugees are only camped in those places and taking those routes because Israel said they would be safe.
As to the “not being fair” comparing the dead children in different wars, remember that Total deaths of children in Iraq, for the entire 14 years of the conflict with ISIS, were less than died in Gaza in a single month.
That’s what you don’t seem to understand. That’s why we can easily call this a genocide in motion.
It’s pure genocide. They’re literally saying “leave your home or die, surrender your land and property on the way out”. It’s exactly what the Germans said to Jews in the lead up to the Holocaust.
I haven’t seen evidence for a lot of those points as you state them. I have seen evidence of single bombs dropped both along evacuation routes and in camps. These were always accompanied by statements that there were Hamas targets present, which obviously could be a lie. That being said, and taking all the reports together, I think if Israel was directly targeting civilians (as opposed to targeting Hamas and not caring about nearby civilians) they would have both killed hundreds of thousands and there would be evidence of repeated, sustained bombings of civilian targets.
As to your final point, statements by a few Israeli officials regarding “voluntary” resettlement is advocating genocide. These people should be arrested, and if such a resettlement happens I will reverse my stance of this.
If it was i’d be advocating a counter-invasion of Israel and trials at the Hague. Don’t presume I support genocide just because I require evidence for it.
Raz Segal, the program director of genocide studies at Stockton University, concretely says it is a “textbook case of genocide.” Segal believes that Israeli forces are completing three genocidal acts, including, “killing, causing serious bodily harm, and measures calculated to bring about the destruction of the group.” He points to the mass levels of destruction and total siege of basic necessities—like water, food, fuel, and medical supplies—as evidence.
That was so easy to find. If you really cared you could figure it out and not come here and make it everybody else’s problem. If you still don’t get it, it’s because you don’t want to. When you look for every opportunity to avoid the obvious conclusion of guilt, the narcissist’s prayer is the inevitable result.
I suppose it’s good that public perception has shifted so far against this atrocity that this is what apologists have to stoop to. We’re not really seeing too many people saying “human shields” anymore.
An ad hominem would be “you are wrong because you are a coward”. My statement was in effect “you are wrong and you are a coward”.
You could call it an insult, although I would say it was a generous term for someone who offers up mealy mouthed equivocations over the wholesale slaughter of civilians from the air by a nuclear power.
You didn’t say much that was wrong; you didn’t say much at all. You were just asking questions.
“Did that even happen?
And if it did, was it that bad?
And if it was, was it that big of a deal?
And if it was, does it matter?
And if it does, did they mean it?
And if they did, didn’t the victims deserve it?”
The narcissist’s prayer is no less cowardly when you phrase it in question form.
Copy and pasteing an internet trope isn’t always useful
You can look up civilian casualties in wars
And you could look up whether or not this is a genocide: https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
Well if 2-3 people with a label said so I should ignore the numbers, the terrorist human shield fighting style, and urban warfare’s well documented chaos.
Why use hard numbers to come to conclusions when I can have someone tell me it is
I like that even your source has experts disagreeing and cherry picking what equates for real genocide
Pay attention folks: this is why fascism is anti-intellectual, because they have to deny the experts that will recognise what they’re doing and call it out for what it is.
If I said something factually wrong please correct me. Otherwise let’s leave the ad hominem attacks unsaid.
Well, first of all is the idea that this level of destruction is in any way normal in war.
Take a look at this chart here. Those date ranges in the chart have some of the bloodiest conflict in each war, and yet on any given day only a handful of children would die.
Israel is killing an average of almost 150 children per day.
That’s why we’re calling it a genocide.
Gazas population is like half children of course they show up more than normal
Did you ever wonder why the population of Gaza is majority children?
Do note that the people of Gaza have been under a complete border lockdown for the last 17 years. Nothing enters or exists without the IDF okay. Including money for Hamas.
Even before the current genocide, 40% of Gazan households experienced extreme food insecurity.
“more than normal” in this case is 1/3 of the total child deaths in 11 years in Syria, done in ONE MONTH
Weird how population density and firepower differences can be multiplicative. Welcome to war it sucks
That’s like describing the purposeful crushing under a steam roller of a person tied up in the middle of the road and unable to escape as a “more than normal” traffic accident.
Appreciate the good faith response. While I’m certainly not going to excuse thousands of dead children, I don’t find these other conflicts comparable for the following reasons:
Okay, city fighting is messy…
Except the second item on the list,
https://edition.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs
Israel is using 2000lbs bombs in Gaza, using hundreds of them. These are not, in any way, targeted strikes. They kill civilians by the dozens.
In 20 years of war, the US only ever used 500lbs bombs in urban environments. Even that was often barbaric in the amount of collateral damage caused.
Also, are you calling the fucking Battle of Mosula frozen conflict?
That was some of the bloodiest fighting in the entire war, all of it urban. There were fewer children killed in the entire 9 months than there have been killed in 3 in Gaza. And not by a small amount.
Yeah those are fair points. I’ve never defended the usage of 2000 pound bombs in urban areas.
I’m also certainly not calling Mosul a frozen conflict, merely noting that it is deceptive to present an average figure of child deaths over the 14 year long Iraq war against 30 days of intense urban fighting in Gaza.
I didn’t follow the fighting at the time, but per wikipedia the operation took 9 months, with the majority of the fighting/bombing happening during the initial 3 months during which half the city was taken. The enemy force was approximately half as strong as Hamas, and an estimated 20k - 40k civilians were killed, with about 1 million displaced. Interestingly it seems like the population density is somewhat comparable today, although it is hard to estimate the population at the time.
Taken together, this might make Mosul a good benchmark against which to judge the Israeli assault. Doing so, Israel definitely seems more cavalier to civilian deaths, but not wildly so. I still don’t see “genocide” here.
Take it from someone who was paying attention at the time. As bloody and horrific as it was, the fighting in Mosul was fucking laser guided precision compared to what Israel is doing in Gaza.
Israel is using massive bombs in areas that it tells refugees are safe. They bomb refugee camps and convoys. As in, directly targeting them, with bombs designed to cause as much collateral damage as possible.
And remember, the refugees are only camped in those places and taking those routes because Israel said they would be safe.
As to the “not being fair” comparing the dead children in different wars, remember that Total deaths of children in Iraq, for the entire 14 years of the conflict with ISIS, were less than died in Gaza in a single month.
That’s what you don’t seem to understand. That’s why we can easily call this a genocide in motion.
Add in comments by Israeli officials about “voluntary resettlement” in other countries.
It’s pure genocide. They’re literally saying “leave your home or die, surrender your land and property on the way out”. It’s exactly what the Germans said to Jews in the lead up to the Holocaust.
I haven’t seen evidence for a lot of those points as you state them. I have seen evidence of single bombs dropped both along evacuation routes and in camps. These were always accompanied by statements that there were Hamas targets present, which obviously could be a lie. That being said, and taking all the reports together, I think if Israel was directly targeting civilians (as opposed to targeting Hamas and not caring about nearby civilians) they would have both killed hundreds of thousands and there would be evidence of repeated, sustained bombings of civilian targets.
As to your final point, statements by a few Israeli officials regarding “voluntary” resettlement is advocating genocide. These people should be arrested, and if such a resettlement happens I will reverse my stance of this.
Said another way: “And if it was, does it matter?”
You’re following the narcissist’s prayer to a tee.
If it was i’d be advocating a counter-invasion of Israel and trials at the Hague. Don’t presume I support genocide just because I require evidence for it.
If you really wanted to know the information is a single google search away: https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
That was so easy to find. If you really cared you could figure it out and not come here and make it everybody else’s problem. If you still don’t get it, it’s because you don’t want to. When you look for every opportunity to avoid the obvious conclusion of guilt, the narcissist’s prayer is the inevitable result.
I suppose it’s good that public perception has shifted so far against this atrocity that this is what apologists have to stoop to. We’re not really seeing too many people saying “human shields” anymore.
An ad hominem would be “you are wrong because you are a coward”. My statement was in effect “you are wrong and you are a coward”.
You could call it an insult, although I would say it was a generous term for someone who offers up mealy mouthed equivocations over the wholesale slaughter of civilians from the air by a nuclear power.
You didn’t say much that was wrong; you didn’t say much at all. You were just asking questions.
But thats not an ad hominem attack, it’s a direct critique of the form your statement takes.