There is no genocide in Gaza
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Don't forget that pictures of Hunter's gun were found on his laptop. Why are they trying to take his gun away? Dang liberal courts. (now it's the worst thread)
FTFY
From Iraq, to Yemen, to Libya to Syria Hillary’s policies got our country into wars and left over a million people dead.
I was basically alone on this forum saying we shouldn't support the Saudi dictatorship’s regime change efforts and blockade of Yemen that the UN said was killing hundreds of thousands of people. And yet some folks wanted to see her become President.
Weird, huh?
In late April, the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor estimated that "Israel" dropped more than approximately 70,000 tons of bombs on Gaza, over the six months between October 7 and April 24, surpassing the combined amount of bombs dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London during World War II.
If this were genocide it would be long over by now, and 90% of the population of Gaza would be dead...
Near 100% of the population is displaced, 70% of Gaza is destroyed, and half of the population is at starvation levels. That's not much better.
3,2,1 commence source attacks.Ah, here we are:
Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Either way, across this relatively broader (and more conservative) range of general modern conflict estimates, the ratio in Gaza is still, at worst, pretty ordinary. Perhaps most interestingly and most hilariously, the unadjusted Gaza 1.3:1 ratio is less than the 2:1 ratio w/r/t Israeli casualties on 10/7.
That is much much better than genocide,.. If Israel wanted genocide this would have been an air campaign and it would have been wrapped up inside of 4 weeks.
Sounds like a good post-Hamas plan!
Would you consider “Eye on Palestine” an unbiased source?
Source?
And, do you have a single idea the IDF could implement that simultaneously works to destroy Hamas and yet not hurt any civilians? Any suggestion at all since you are critical of Israel?
Yikes.... I thought most of the civilized world decided that the whole "Ethnically Cleansing" thing was a bad idea in the 20th century.
I consider a video and direct quote from an Israeli politician a good source. Do you?
Last edited:
They want to make the Palestinian civilians suffer to convince them to leave the region permanently so that Israeli settlers can build in Gaza, that's why it's not "wrapped up"
97 doesnt kill it in any thread. Uses obscure sources and tries to argue against a point that only exists in his own mind while repeatedly asking what he thinks is a "gotcha question" that is unrelated to the existing topic - then gets triggered when people don't answer it. Rinse/reapeat.
The Palestinians have nowhere to go,.. Nobody wants them, and there's a good reason for that.
How does “encouraging relocation” (as the gentleman said) equate to ethnic cleansing?
If you were bullied in school by your neighbor, was it not standard for the teacher to move the bully?
This part you said, it’s quite a claim that is worthy of asking for your source (preferably an unbiased one). Are you referring to work programs that allowed Gazans to work inside Israel and earn higher wages to help enrich the lives of Palestinians? Or are you referring to cash that was allowed to flow to maintain peace (because otherwise if Israel didn’t allow then the liberals would be angry that Israel is withholding money to feed starving Gazans). Can’t have it both ways.
“Did you know that Bibi played a pivotal role in shaping Hamas into its current form? He not only allowed but actively encouraged funding—billions of dollars—from Qatar to flow into Hamas.”
Lord. You just used a bully in a classroom changing desks as a comparison.
I posted in another thread a video of former PM Barak as well as Bibi's former DM stating Bibi supported the billions of dollars going to Hamas. You can do a simple google search and find the source you respect in finding if my comment is accurate or not.
I don’t dispute they allowed money to flow but I don’t see the point? You will be upset with Israel either way.
- Let money flow to help keep the peace = @SI_NYC ”see Bibi helped fund Hamas and turned a blind eye and caused this problem!!!!”
- Don’t let money flow = @SI_NYC “See, Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gazans by taking away money for food, water, shelter, health necessities. Genocide!!!!!”
Your comparison literally compared bows & arrows to modern-day rockets & drones as well as invasion, executions, kidnapping, raping, and burning children alive.
Bibi Netanyahu is often perceived as a warmonger due to his aggressive policies and hardline stances. As I mentioned earlier, his extreme positions on settlements significantly contributed to the political climate that led to Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995. Despite this, Netanyahu managed to claw his way back into power through strategic manipulation and political maneuvering.
I believe that, behind the scenes, Netanyahu harbors a desire to eliminate the Palestinian presence. He has a knack for obscuring his true intentions, but his actions consistently escalate conflicts with Israel's neighbors and opposition groups rather than fostering peace. Time and again, he has made decisions that exacerbate tensions, rarely working towards de-escalation.
In my view, Netanyahu is a poor leader whose policies ultimately harm Israel. While he claims to act in the country's best interests, his approach often leads to increased violence and instability, making the situation worse rather than better.
Last edited:
Sure, but replace Israel with Bibi and nothing he could do would appease you? He lets money flow to Gaza and you’ll blame Bibi for enabling Hamas. If Bibi stopped it, you’d blame him for causing ethnic cleansing.
My comparison absolutely does not compare bows and arrows to modern day weapons. First of all I wouldn't make that comparison because in the 1830s in the Eastern United States the natives had firearms. Secondly I don't think the weaponry is particularly relevant.
My comparison is based on the justification. You are suggesting that they are just asking people to move like a bully being moved in class. Andrew Jackson was arguing the same thing. He wasn't killing the natives he was just asking them to move.
For your bully analogy to be apt the teacher would ask the students sitting around the bully team move so they wouldn't get hurt when they tossed a grenade at the bully sitting in his desk.
Semantics but yes, you are comparing 19th century technology to 21st century technology.
Andrew Jackson/US Gov’t was the aggressor looking to move Native Americans. This is apples & oranges since Hamas is the aggressor and the aggrieved is looking to move them.
Forcibly relocating Palestinian civilians and making them leave Gaza is the definition of ethnic cleansing.
lmfao
Israel's Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession
Mass human rights violations during the 50-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have devastated the lives of millions of Palestinians.
www.amnesty.org
I am not comparing technology. Show me where I brought up technology. The comparison specifically relates to the use of forcible relocation and the justification of that relocation as being an acceptable tool. Particularly suggesting that it is similar to moving a bully's desk.
The ‘Blitz’ lasted from September 1940 to May of 1941.
Sorry the RAF stopped the Luftwaffe?
The Western Allies dropped about 2,700,000 tons of bombs on Europe.
You might assume I would feel that way, but I don't believe that's the case. I wasn't opposed to Israel retaliating against Hamas. My issue lies with how Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Department of Defense are handling the situation. Additionally, I believe his response to the events of October 6 has been excessively disproportionate.
So basically you want to criticize the response without offering a single suggestion to improve?
You want to eliminate Hamas (hooray!) but want zero civilian casualties. Either admit that is an impossibility or provide a suggestion. If you can’t then your best course of action is to STFU.
There are still American hostages being held.
I see what you're saying, even if hamas is removed the evil will remain and there's no chance of Gaza to ever be on the good side. So I guess you feel the only way to remove the evil/hamas is to kill everyone, is that what you're saying?
Or, what he's saying is that if you keep taking peoples homes/land and forcing them into ever more squalid conditions while killing their families you'll continue to make new terrorists.
When hamas is gone then palestinians will have an opportunity to become good citizens and if they choose to create a new hamas, then that will be their decision and they'll have to live with it. At this point palestinians have to prove they're not going to try and exterminate Israel. We'll see what they want to do and they will control their own future. First step, get rid of hamas, second step palestinians decide their future.
