Israel-Gaza war

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/syylllia/status/1794855529753506121
https://twitter.com/lululitae/status/1794828582075900256
https://twitter.com/Portes_Thomas/status/1794835072895565936
https://twitter.com/rifain_nouvelle/status/1794818507089076591
https://twitter.com/stairwayto3dom/status/1794817769730388093
https://twitter.com/JonnyFX1/status/1794862444156006600
https://twitter.com/hamad_alnajjar/status/1794828909797912693

That JonnyUTD guy is a pretty rabidly anti-Semitic nutjob whose Twitter is filled with Hamas propaganda and conspiracy theories like his claim that Hamas’ campaign of rape and sexual violence against Israeli civilians on 10/7 was an Israeli hoax.  

To be clear, this doesn’t mitigate how bad what happened in Rafah just now was, but it’s also not a great look that you’re treating this guy like a remotely credible source.

Are you disputing the legitimacy of the videos that have been posted?

Did you read my post?  I literally made it clear I was not doing so. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

Well your side is definitely in the majority, just the position of nations alone show that the world by far supports South Africas case.



compared to



including most human rights majority organizations that rightfully classify this is a genocide.

This is a genocide, and it isn't even close. It's textbook genocide.

 I mean this in the nicest way possible, but with all due respect, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about.  We can discuss the actual definition of genocide another time, but you’re factually wrong about this.  Words have meaning.  I’ll also note that most of the countries on the “opposed” side have far better human rights records than most of those “in support” side.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with!  I think they’ve definitely committed some pretty serious war crimes and there does need to be accountability for that (as well as the ongoing crimes against humanity in the West Bank).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree that the legal case against Israel for genocide is….highly dubious (at best!). But what of it? They are still guilty of horrific war crimes and quite possibly crimes against humanity. This is more important than debating the details of the genocide definition.

A lot of pro Israel folks would rather hairsplit about definitions than talk about the war crime in Rafah the other day. It's a coping mechanism for sure.

"Well yeah, we're doing awful things but you called it a genocide so you're antisemitic and worse than us. Look over there! Focus on that guy!"

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

I believe I was also one of the first in the thread to argue that what happened yesterday may very well have been a war crime.

I actually wasn't referring to you, you have been pretty consistent here. A good number of folks, both on and off this forum, haven't.

Fair enough, can’t really argue with that sadly.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

With things like this, words matter a lot.  There is no “technically” here regarding genocide.  It simply isn’t one.  I agree with what Dave said.  I’d personally like less discussion of the word genocide and more on what both Israel and Hamas are actually doing.  Because things like the 10/7 massacre or what happened in Rafah yesterday should horrify anyone with a soul on either side.  We can disagree on whether this word or that word is the right term, but getting lost in the weeds of that distracts from the bigger issue.  Alas, when folks misuse the word “genocide,” one feels compelled to pushback even though I’d prefer discussion center on what’s actually happening on the ground and the crimes that I’d hope most of us can agree are being committed by both sides here.

Sorry for posting three times in a row btw

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I hope the penny is starting to drop that war crime after war crime without a war plan (or a peace plan) by a democratic nation that we are supporting and funding, is a more important point of observation than the armchair dismissals of 'well it's not technically a genocide' or 'it's not technically a famine.'

And the peoples strength of feeling about this is genuine and human.

With things like this, words matter a lot.  There is no “technically” here regarding genocide.  It simply isn’t one.  I agree with what Dave said.  I’d personally like less discussion of the word genocide and more on what both Israel and Hamas are actually doing.  Because things like the 10/7 massacre or what happened in Rafah yesterday should horrify anyone with a soul on either side.  We can disagree on whether this word or that word is the right term, but getting lost in the weeds of that distracts from the bigger issue.  Alas, when folks misuse the word “genocide,” one feels compelled to pushback even though I’d prefer discussion center on what’s actually happening on the ground and the crimes that I’d hope most of us can agree are being committed by both sides here.

Sorry for posting three times in a row btw

Genuine question: Do you consider what happened in Sabra and Shatila to have been a form of genocide, or do you believe the same lack of care was used with the etymology of the crimes that happened there, too?

Not only do I believe that it was an act of genocide by the Phalange (and I don’t see how anyone can argue it wasn’t an act of genocide), but I also believe Ariel Sharon and Rafael Eitan should’ve been tried before a special international tribunal as war criminals.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The chickens are finally coming home to roost. There is only so much that Gantz is going to tolerate from here; his six point ultimatum to Netanyahu has made that clear.

I believe Gallant signed off on that ultimatum as well, although I could be misremembering

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Furthermore, the word "genocide" has sort of become a byword in our discourse for the ultimate evil. This isn't true at all. There's no hierarchy here with war crimes and then crimes against humanity and then genocide at the top. Genocide is a specific legal term defined in the Genocide Convention, it's not meant to define the absolute evil. Just because Israel isn't committing a genocide doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged. I do not believe Israel is committing a genocide, yet still I am outraged! No more bombing of Gaza, no more invasion of Rafah, cease-fire immediately!

The problem is that Hamas refuses to release the hostages alive. Should Israel just give up on them?

I don’t necessarily buy that Hamas has to be removed from power militarily- after all, only a suicidal Ukraine  would support military action to remove the Russian government because of their invasion of Ukraine- but at the same time, anything less than a full defeat of the Nazis was considered the only acceptable outcome during WW2.

I continue to believe that negotiation is the only way to free the hostages, it may require concessions but it's the only way that doesn't result in the death of the hostages and thousands more of Gazan civilians. I believe that ideally, Hamas would be removed from power, it is, after all, the only way to resurrect a two-state solution, but the current Israeli government has no intention to pursue this solution. My perspective is that Israel has no idea how to, or no intention to, construct a lasting peace in the region, so the overwhelming majority of the present violence (which is caused by the IDF) must be brought to an end via a humanitarian cease-fire. I'll put it like this, we need a total and complete shutdown on the war until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

I don’t think you can have an end to this round of fighting until Hamas is crushed and completely out of power in Gaza permanently and Deif as well as both of the Sinwar brothers are dead.  You can certainly do a temporary humanitarian ceasefire before then, but definitely not a long-term or permanent shutdown of the war.  

Also, I disagree that the present violence is being caused primarily by the IDF.  At the end of the day, this is ultimately a defensive war caused by Hamas’ unprovoked campaign of rape, murder, and kidnapping against Israeli civilians on 10/7.  There is no equivalency there.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

Edit: Yeah, “Amalek” is often used in Israel as a catch all term for folks like the Iranian regime, the Nazis, Hamas, etc who seek to wipe out the Jewish people.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

>Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

That sure as hell isn't only talking about Hamas.

I’m talking about modern usage of the term in Israel.  Context matters.  But again, we’re getting bogged down in irrelevant debates about exact terms and language. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The second Trump wins the election (if he wins, which looks increasingly likely) Netanyahu will withdraw all troops from Gaza. Biden only gave him 99% of what he wanted, and that's not enough for the most pampered, entitled country on the planet.

The fact that supposed moderates like Gantz still haven't pulled their war cabinet support to stop this madness reflects awfully on their character too. This is a very sick society.

Both Gantz and Galland gave a three week deadline that hasn’t passed yet

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The second Trump wins the election (if he wins, which looks increasingly likely) Netanyahu will withdraw all troops from Gaza. Biden only gave him 99% of what he wanted, and that's not enough for the most pampered, entitled country on the planet.

The fact that supposed moderates like Gantz still haven't pulled their war cabinet support to stop this madness reflects awfully on their character too. This is a very sick society.

Netanyahu doesn’t care who wins in 2020 nor do I think he trusts Trump or Biden.  All Netanyahu cares about is remaining in power and avoiding prison.  Any other considerations are completely irrelevant to him.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A lot of young Israeli Jews have a great-grandparent who was murdered in the Holocaust. No one needs a reminder from white leftists about how they are "not oppressed."

Their great-grandparents would be horrified by what Israel is doing right now.

It's hard for you to sink lower but you manage to do it.

As questionable as this statement was, it should nevertheless be noted that most well known holocaust survivors who have publicly commented on the current situation (and Israel/Palestine in general) have criticized Israel's actions and shown solidarity with Palestinians.
[/quote]

Lets not forget that Jeremy Corbyn was extremely antisemitic for sitting next to a Jewish Holocaust survivor.
[/quote]

Corbyn called Hamas suicide bombers his “brothers,” among many other things

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Did Biden actually just embarrass Bibi? Wow. He should do more of that.

From your mouth to God’s ears!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

(PBS News Hour - 31 May 2024)

30 Israeli's for 700 Palestinians.

That is nowhere near fair.

35,000+ Palestinians dead

>85% Gaza destroyed

Are you still taking about fairness?

Spare us the Hamas propaganda

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It blows my mind that stuff like this is NEVER reported on this forum:

London warns Beirut that Israel will launch offensive during the middle of June

Britain has warned Lebanon that Israel will launch a large-scale offensive in mid-June whose extent and duration are not known, and advised Beirut to “make the necessary provisions for the war,” according to the Lebanese news outlet al-Akhbar.

Al-Akhbar is affiliated with Hezbollah, the terror group that has launched daily attacks on northern Israel since the start of the war in Gaza in October.

In recent days, diplomats from various countries have warned Lebanese officials of an imminent escalation by the IDF, and have underscored that the threat is serious, al-Akhbar reports.

The paper adds that Nabih Berri, the speaker of Lebanon’s parliament and a Hezbollah ally, received a phone call from US special envoy Amos Hochstein last week. Hochstein reportedly told Berri that the US intends to continue negotiations “to achieve a solution” on the Israel-Lebanon border and to reach a ceasefire in Gaza, and after that, talks will begin on the outstanding points between Israel and Lebanon.

Imagine actually believing this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Nation is a standard center-left magazine, not even close to being a outlet for Tankies.

The Nation is a leftist magazine and has never been center-left. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Nation is a standard center-left magazine, not even close to being a outlet for Tankies.

The Nation is a leftist magazine and has never been center-left.  

Okay? He said it was a 'tankie' outlet so your deflection is baseless.

Ray is just wilding, as usual.

How is it a deflection?  I was just posting a fact.  I don't have a dog in this particular fight re: The Nation's credibility or lack thereof.  I just think it's silly and objectively inaccurate to call them a center-left magazine.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Israeli strike kills at least 33 people at a Gaza school the military claims was being used by Hamas

DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — An Israeli strike early Thursday on a school sheltering displaced Palestinians in central Gaza killed more than 30 people, including 23 women and children, according to local health officials. The Israeli military said that Hamas militants were operating from within the school.

It was the latest instance of mass casualties among Palestinians trying to find refuge as Israel expands its offensive. A day earlier, the military announced a new ground and air assault in central Gaza, pursuing Hamas militants it says have regrouped there. Troops repeatedly have swept back into parts of the Gaza Strip they have previously invaded, underscoring the resilience of the militant group despite Israel’s nearly eight-month onslaught.

Witnesses and hospital officials said the predawn strike hit the al-Sardi School, run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees known by the acronym UNRWA. The school was filled with Palestinians who had fled Israeli operations and bombardment in northern Gaza, they said.

Ayman Rashed, a man displaced from Gaza City who was sheltering at the school, said the missiles hit classrooms on the second and third floor where families were sheltering. He said he helped carry out five dead, including an old man and two children, one with his head shattered open. “It was dark, with no electricity, and we struggled to get out the victims,” Rashed said.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-6-6-2024-3d07e712f8abc1e08339163180823fb8

Hamas is providing those figures; Israel has claimed no civilians were killed and the only casualties were somewhere between 20 and 40 of the Hamas militants operating out of there.  One of these sources is credible and it’s not Hamas.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This almost made me throw up. JFC.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1798815756332720382?t=IPJzi2hGSDIY9YcQ_v...

It’s from an UNWRA report. Sorry if I believe they might tell a lie or 10.

No, it's from interviews that the New York Times conducted, but you are so eager to dismiss Israel's war crimes that you didn't bother to read the NYTimes article.

And the article is citing a leaked UNRWA report, meaning it’s functionally no different than Hamas propaganda

Israeli strike kills at least 33 people at a Gaza school the military claims was being used by Hamas

DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — An Israeli strike early Thursday on a school sheltering displaced Palestinians in central Gaza killed more than 30 people, including 23 women and children, according to local health officials. The Israeli military said that Hamas militants were operating from within the school.

It was the latest instance of mass casualties among Palestinians trying to find refuge as Israel expands its offensive. A day earlier, the military announced a new ground and air assault in central Gaza, pursuing Hamas militants it says have regrouped there. Troops repeatedly have swept back into parts of the Gaza Strip they have previously invaded, underscoring the resilience of the militant group despite Israel’s nearly eight-month onslaught.

Witnesses and hospital officials said the predawn strike hit the al-Sardi School, run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees known by the acronym UNRWA. The school was filled with Palestinians who had fled Israeli operations and bombardment in northern Gaza, they said.

Ayman Rashed, a man displaced from Gaza City who was sheltering at the school, said the missiles hit classrooms on the second and third floor where families were sheltering. He said he helped carry out five dead, including an old man and two children, one with his head shattered open. “It was dark, with no electricity, and we struggled to get out the victims,” Rashed said.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-6-6-2024-3d07e712f8abc1e08339163180823fb8

Hamas is providing those figures; Israel has claimed no civilians were killed and the only casualties were somewhere between 20 and 40 of the Hamas militants operating out of there.  One of these sources is credible and it’s not Hamas.

Israel has claimed = not credible

Yeah, no kidding. The IDF doesn't just make mistakes, they actively lie and cover up their crimes. They lied about the 2014 bombing of kids playing on a beach, they lied about Shireen Abu Akleh, they even lie when they have nothing to gain like when they tried to claim that a calendar was a list of hostages. No honest person could seriously take anything the IDF claims at face value when they lie so reflexively.

Also, it's pretty telling that doctors, women, children and civilian refugees are all categorized as "Hamas". Of course if you call everyone in Gaza "Hamas" then there are no civilian casualties but that says a lot more about the IDF than it does about Hamas.

Just last year, Israel lied that it didn't used white phosphorus and got caught red handed.

You are absolutely right.

Israel has a culture of impunity.

It lies and doesn't care if it gets caught because there is no repercussion

I mean, even Human Righta Watch found there was no evidence Israel used white phosphorous, but you do you

Israeli strike kills at least 33 people at a Gaza school the military claims was being used by Hamas

DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — An Israeli strike early Thursday on a school sheltering displaced Palestinians in central Gaza killed more than 30 people, including 23 women and children, according to local health officials. The Israeli military said that Hamas militants were operating from within the school.

It was the latest instance of mass casualties among Palestinians trying to find refuge as Israel expands its offensive. A day earlier, the military announced a new ground and air assault in central Gaza, pursuing Hamas militants it says have regrouped there. Troops repeatedly have swept back into parts of the Gaza Strip they have previously invaded, underscoring the resilience of the militant group despite Israel’s nearly eight-month onslaught.

Witnesses and hospital officials said the predawn strike hit the al-Sardi School, run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees known by the acronym UNRWA. The school was filled with Palestinians who had fled Israeli operations and bombardment in northern Gaza, they said.

Ayman Rashed, a man displaced from Gaza City who was sheltering at the school, said the missiles hit classrooms on the second and third floor where families were sheltering. He said he helped carry out five dead, including an old man and two children, one with his head shattered open. “It was dark, with no electricity, and we struggled to get out the victims,” Rashed said.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-6-6-2024-3d07e712f8abc1e08339163180823fb8

Hamas is providing those figures; Israel has claimed no civilians were killed and the only casualties were somewhere between 20 and 40 of the Hamas militants operating out of there.  One of these sources is credible and it’s not Hamas.

Israel has claimed = not credible

Imagine actually believing this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This almost made me throw up. JFC.

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1798815756332720382?t=IPJzi2hGSDIY9YcQ_v...

It’s from an UNWRA report. Sorry if I believe they might tell a lie or 10.

Because, famously, the Israelis have never lied before, right?

They're totally paragons of truth and honesty, right?

Compared to UNRWA?  Yeah, although admittedly that’s the definition of a low bar.