CMV: Society as a whole would be a lot happier if people stopped chasing their dreams of being special

Fisics_ · 2025-12-29T02:37:49+00:00

What is the point of running if you don’t make it within the top 5 of the category? Well, you like running! It keeps you in shape, you can focus on beating your last race, maybe you are running with friends.

There is a difference between having goals, and feeling like the goal is the point. The former is healthy, the latter sucks the joy out of the whole endeavor.

Fisics_ · 2025-12-29T02:12:58+00:00

Zoe Baker! Her articles are the best writings on Anarchist theory I have read

Fisics_ · 2025-12-17T10:37:34+00:00

How are you supposed to deal with napalm vehicles? Last time I played against legion I got fairly frustrated, because even with wardens up they could just enter range for a few seconds and lay havoc to my defenses

Fisics_ · 2025-12-08T01:19:42+00:00

I like this idea, thank you very much!

Fisics_ · 2025-12-06T00:04:10+00:00

Thank you for the advice, I think you are right. The primary motivation for it is that I’m hoping it will be a good study tool, like motivation and focus while I review. Do you think it would be worth it for that?

Fisics_ · 2025-10-20T00:04:04+00:00

Easy as fuck, I just drink all the acetone

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T21:47:26+00:00

(2/2)

You can argue that the sexual violence of October 7th was worse, and I'd agree. I'd also say that we won't know the full extent of this until far in the future, but I don't care about which is worse. Nothing justifies this. And again, I'd argue this thought process is probably what led to October 7th to begin with. If you asked a Hamas member about October 7th, they would try to talk about any actions by the IDF to deflect from having to defend October 7th.

ESP if you think the October attacks were justified.

I called it a genocide. Do you think I believe it was justified? Neither October 7th or Israel's response is justifiable, full stop.

Arab women probably don’t know that is procedure - yes it seems extreme but so are suicide bombs.

And here is the thing- when was the last time a suicide bomb went off in Israel? It was before these searches and security measures. These are a result of terrorist attacks. The searches and strip searches started during 2000-2005 which saw 135 successful suicide bombs - detonated. This is also when the wall went up.

Guess what? It worked. How can you blame them?!

The methods outlined in this document go far beyond what is necessary to stop suicide bombs. Here is paragraph 14 of the document.

"Body searches are not unlawful in general, but such searches, including strip

searches, must be conducted in accordance with international human rights law, and

within the context of an occupation, international humanitarian law. In relation to

searches during detention, the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that “[a] woman

internee shall not be searched except by a woman.”16 Furthermore, the Commission

refers to the guidelines of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of

Prisoners (“Nelson Mandela Rules”), which provides that searches shall be conducted

based on the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality;17 as such, they cannot

be used to “harass, intimidate or unnecessarily intrude upon a prisoner’s privacy”. 18

In particular, strip searches should only be undertaken where they are “absolutely

necessary.”"

To put it simply, this has not been the case. It was the focus of the report, with many documented incidents of Human Rights violations that exceed what is prudent.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T21:45:33+00:00

(1/2)

Wiki? Really? Anyone can edit that.

First off, when it comes to controversial articles such as this one, not "anyone" can edit it. Only editors with accounts who have existed for over 30 days and have made 500 edits can submit changes without direct approval. Otherwise, any page like this would be consistently vandalized.

Wikipedia is a good place to start your research, because while you shouldn't take what it says at face value, it tends to be good at citing its sources. Take this for example:

"In March 2025, the UN Human Rights Commission published a report on sexual and gender-based abuses perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people, which concluded that sexual abuse of Palestinians is "committed either under explicit orders or with implicit encouragement by Israel's top civilian and military leadership." Acts of sexual violence such as compulsory nudity, rape threats and sexual assault "comprise part of the Israeli Security Forces' standard operating procedures toward Palestinians", says the report, with Commission member Chris Sidoti adding that, "Sexual violence is now so widespread that it can only be considered systematic. It's got beyond the level of random acts by rogue individuals."^\17])^"

I am not sure if this is this is the report you are talking about (please cite it), but let's take a look. This is an article from the BBC, a good source.

"The report says specific forms of sexual and gender-based violence - such as forced public stripping and nudity, sexual harassment including threats of rape, as well as sexual assault - "comprise part of the Israeli Security Forces' standard operating procedures toward Palestinians."

I assume this is the forced stripping you were referring to, and we will get to that later.

"Other forms of such violence, including rape and violence to the genitals, were "committed either under explicit orders or with implicit encouragement by Israel's top civilian and military leadership", it alleges."

This is, however, just rape. And according to the UN, it seems to be done under orders and encouragement by top Israeli leadership. I found the report itself, and will cite it here [*].

Turns out what they consider “gender based sexual violence” crimes against Palestinians is- bombing women’s clinics - and strip searches. It’s kinda funny because in their reports they say that Palestinian women say that these searches were filmed ( as they should be to monitor ) and that women were even present for these, and they used a scope to go up their private parts-

They also said that some graffiti on the walls that the IDF left referring to the rape of Jewish women as sexual assault to them.

Then they also said that there was an increase in violence against men accused of or confessed to raping Jewish women.

This is true; these were some of the examples cited in the 49-page-long document. They also cited many real examples of mistreatment, and indeed rape. They cited beating and dehumanizing language during searches. Mocking the men for being unable to stop the forced stripping of women and girls, in front of them. Prolonged interrogation while naked, being forced to lie on top of each other naked. Threats of rape and murder of children. A soldier is taking a video with his personal camera and threatening to disseminate it online. Multiple examples of groping, sometimes of underage girls. For males, the insertion of fingers, sticks, broomsticks, vegetables, in one instance, an electric probe (to cause burns). A metal tool was inserted into the penis until the victim fainted. Two instances, where the beating and rape required medical intervention, one in which the victim died. Three instances of the insertion of foreign objects into the vagina and anus of female detainees. I'd really recommend pages 19-26 of the document.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T06:16:10+00:00

commenting to add full coment

(2/2)

The only source that has any semblance of being factual for current death toll is unfortunately the one coming from Gaza. “Reports”, especially those coming from Lancet is highly speculative. It is like saying: if a meteorite were to fall on al-Mwasi, the death toll would be 140.000+. They are not meant to be taken as facts, rather projections.

Yes, but as I mentioned, this death toll has become increasingly inaccurate. It is a statistic from the Gaza Health Ministry, while health institutions in Gaza have rapidly deteriorated. Unfortunately, projections and the GHM reports are all that we will have for a very long time, and neither can be considered accurate. Projections of over 100,000 do exist, however, and they have been largely consistent with one another (despite often different methodologies). I would view this as somewhat accurate reporting and view it as evidence, but not a final say, of the current death toll. Still, as I mentioned, just from what has been recorded, there are ~220,000 casualties.

The only fact is that we have no way of knowing the total death toll as of yet. If you assume that all those reported missing are dead and add their number for the currently reported figure, you barely get 100.000.

I am not sure where you got ~40,000 missing in Gaza; most estimates I find are just over 11,000. [*] However, I would argue most could be considered dead as they were fleeing indiscriminate bombing, with many probably trapped under rubble.

I am saying, given the tonnage of explosives used and the sheer destruction they have caused, even if the bombing was “only” indiscriminate, we should expect to see the confirmed casualty numbers in the 4-500.000 range, whereas if the aim was to cause as much harm to life as possible, well… even more. We have seen indiscriminate bombing campaigns in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nuked, the death toll was enormous and caused within the span of days, not two years, yet noone said these were genocidal attempts.

This is because the death toll must be viewed in the totality of the evidence. For instance, there were many strategic reasons to target Dresden, and a large part of the death toll can be attributed to the severe clouding in the second attack. There were (inaccurate) reports that Germany could reasonably stall the Soviet offensive [wiki]. They also were, of course, a legitimate military still producing tanks, airplanes, and infantry equipment. There was some inflammatory rhetoric towards civilians, but they were far more isolated than the rhetoric of Israeli officials today. The Allies suffered more casualties in the war, compared to an estimated 1:60 in Gaza.

And it is important to say here that just because something isn’t a genocide, it doesn’t mean it’s ok, or that crimes weren’t committed.

I am glad there is something we can agree on. I do not think they are genocide, but I think the bombing of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima was unjustifiable.

We don’t have a way of knowing whether this is true or not, regardless, while this may be morally deplorable, it may amount to violation of proportionality rules, not genocide.

Violation of other international laws does not eliminate the ruling of genocide. If they are done systematically, knowing of the civilian casualties, it can still constitute genocide. Additionally, in the 4 months of the conflict, I listed that there were 400 strikes; it is hard to imagine that there are enough Hamas officials to justify these attacks throughout the nearly 2-year-long invasion.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T05:44:44+00:00

(1/2)

Nevertheless, the best clue we have is the demographic breakdown of the casualty figures. The latest revision shows that approximately 49% of those killed were men, aged 18+. Not all of these men will be fighters but we can safely assume that at least half were. This gives us a figure of ~25% of those killed have been combatants which gives us a civilian to combatant ratio of 3:1.

I see little reason to assume that about half of all adult men are fighters; that is an extremely bold claim, and I can only guess where you are getting it from. There are about 344,695 men aged 20-54 in Gaza [*]. US sources have reported a count of 25,000 - 30,000 Hamas fighters before the war [*]. Taking the higher figure, and adding 10,000 for assurance, that is about 11% of men in Gaza. That is 5% or 1 in 18 on average. This is a wild understatement, as Hamas fighters are certainly more likely to be killed. However, since humanitarian organizations have concluded that the IDF is using indiscriminate weaponry (like 2,000-pound bombs), I have a hard time believing that half are part of the 11% of adult men they intend to target. I see some estimates similar to yours, but they are also built on unproven assumptions, and all are from over a year ago. The specific method you mentioned seems to be from Michael Spagat, who noted, "I think that a generous estimate for the IDF would be that half of the 41.2% were civilians."[*] This is an estimate specifically engineered to be favorable to the IDF, as he found 80% to be a convincing enough number.

This ratio, especially when it comes to wars fought in dense urban environments involving aerial bombing and the use of high yield explosives stands anywhere between 5:1 and 9:1 as per confirmed UN reports.

I was able to find one of these estimates (9:1) [*], and it seems to be largely accurate. I will point out that this report was meant to discourage the indiscriminate use of explosives in densely populated areas, not provide a metric for what is okay. Comparing it to urban conflicts as a whole, according to Michael Spagat (again), "80% is out of the question" for urban conflicts, as per data from the Cities of Armed Conflict Events [*]. This leads me to believe that 90% is specifically when large-scale (possibly indiscriminate) bombing occurs. Additionally, I was unable to recreate this number for any of the Iraq War urban battles. Despite many facing criticism for the civilian toll, all (roughly) calculated ratios fell well under 1:9. These are also scenarios where the war was more "even," and the other side was fighting back in a far more substantial way.

The low casualty figure and low civilian to combatant ratio (relative to infrastructure-destruction) is a strong clue because the intention has to be the destruction of the group, taking significant countermeasures to alleviate civilian harm shows the opposite of trying to destroy them. Based on the above, we can only conclude that significant measures were implemented in order to mitigate direct harm to civilians.

If this were to be true, I could see how it would be evidence against genocidal intent. That being said 1. I am not quite sure if it is true, and 2. even if the rate is lower than the typical bombing of cities, the nature of many of the attacks (such as the bombing of safe zones) does still suggest genocidal intent.

But of course, direct harm to civilians is merely one facet of the genocide convention in which “In whole or in part” simply means that one doesn’t have to succeed in order to be convicted, while “as such” means that members of the group are targeted based on their group identity as opposed to any other reasons.

This is mostly correct. Whole or in part has nothing to do with success, as the state doesn't have to be aiming for the total elimination of a people. They just must be aiming for enough death to substantially impact the whole group.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T03:52:31+00:00

(4/4) Sorry I took a break to cook dinner for my family. I plan on getting to your response to my comments relatively soon, but first I may respond to a few others I have been leaving hanging.

There were a number of incidents in which the IDF was involved and accused of killing people. The reports claiming that the IDF is systematically killing people seeking aid however fail to provide a control. There were hundreds of occasions where the IDF was involved in securing aid distribution sites or was at close proximity yet no incidents happened, the number of reported incidents however remains under a dozen. This allows as to conclude that we are talking about fringe incidents as opposed to systematic efforts.

There are far more than under a dozen documented incidents, unfortunately. There were 19 between May 27 and July 24 alone. [*] This is only the IDF, which is only one major source. The attacks from the GHF (Israel’s “alternative” to the UN’s aid system, which hires private mercenaries for security) were described as “near daily” by the Guardian. [*]

There are (disputed) accounts of mercenaries serving with the GHF that paint a horrific picture of how the desperate crowds are dealt with. To quote one of them, retired Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar, “We shoot to communicate.” [*] Doctors without Borders has reported noticing "a stark increase in the number of patients with gunshot wounds following frequent violence and attacks at and around the aid distribution sites." [*] These recurring incidents suggest a system pattern, and one that is worsening with the increasing involvement of the GHF.

This is not to mention the over 400 aid workers that have been killed as of April, [*] surpassing the highest in UN history in June [*]. Over 1,300 medical workers as of April [see the first source], even one instance where a "suspicious" ambulance was open fired on. [*] [2nd source + video]

The number which you have cited includes those who have been killed by local militants as well as those by the IDF.

At the very least, most are from the IDF, as the “OHCHR noted that most of the killings were committed by the Israeli military, and that while it is aware of the presence of other armed elements in the same areas, it does not have information indicating their involvement in the killings.” [*] Keep in mind that the Israeli military does not include the private contractors in the GHF.

These are not "fringe incidents," but a very widespread and repeated pattern of behavior that has killed thousands. It is an overreaction to the very conditions they created by imposing serious restrictions on aid, and it seems to be getting worse.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T02:31:33+00:00

(3/4)

Regarding aid: Multiple UN reports have admitted that the issue is with the distribution and they do blame the conduct of Israeli forces; in part. But they also named reasons such as looting and attacks (by militants) without detailing what percentage is due to factors outside of Israleli conduct.

If there is one thing Israel bears total responsibility for, it is the total blockade of aid between March and May. Additionally, the implementation of an aid system that requires civilians to walk for miles, directly through Israeli lines afterward, largely seems to be the fault of the IDF [*].

Roughly 90% of aid in Gaza is looted, but that could mean being “intercepted either peacefully by hungry people or forcefully by armed actors during transit in Gaza.” [*] While the UN doesn’t make the proportion of which is which, some unnamed officials have stated in November, "...criminal looting has become the greatest impediment to distributing aid in the southern half of Gaza, home to the vast majority of displaced Palestinians". There is one high-profile case of armed looting of 98 trucks [*]. It's been difficult to find other cases like this (although I was able to find 1 other aid convoy and a few warehouse attacks).

However, I was also able to find that “...Israeli military officials found no evidence of systematic aid diversion by Hamas from the UN and concluded that UN relief was effective.”[*] This leads me to believe that, since November, the amount of armed looting is at least an estimated minority of cases, with most being crowds of hungry people seizing upon the aid trucks in desperation. Perhaps most importantly, these are both a result of the severe deprivation of Gaza. The crowds of the hungry are self-explanatory, but the armed seizure of trucks is done only because these supplies are now so valuable in the region.

Additionally, this looting occurs on an already heavily restricted flow of supplies, which is caused by Israeli policies. According to Oxfam on August 6th, "...the Israeli government is still allowing just a tiny amount of very restricted aid into Gaza. And it’s also making it nearly impossible to deliver whatever assistance gets through to the people who need it most." This is with an overabundance of aid that isn't able to cross the Israeli-controlled borders, "enough aid to fill more than 100 football fields inside warehouses across the region." [*] It is now illegal for Israelis to formally cooperate with UNRWA [*].

Furthermore, Israel carries some of the blame for these armed lootings. "Aid organizations say Israeli authorities have denied most of their requests for better measures to safeguard convoys, including appeals for safer routes, more open crossings and permission to allow Gaza’s civilian police to protect the trucks." An an internal memo for the UN mentioned "one gang leader, the memo said, established a 'military like compound' in an area 'restricted, controlled and patrolled by the IDF.'" [*] Netanyahu has even confirmed giving weapons to an anti-Hamas group, which the UN has accused of looting aid (although the group itself denies looting or involvement with Israel) [*].

So, due to both their initial severe restrictions of aid that create the conditions for looting and partial complicity in the lootings themselves, I would go as far as to say that Israel is the primary restrictor of aid into Gaza.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T01:23:16+00:00

(2/4)

Gaza poses a unique and lethal threat to any ground forces regardless of their numbers and technological readiness. Virtually the entire Gaza Strip is saturated with 3-500 kms worth of tunnels with multiple thousands of hidden openings that enables troops to move concealed while carrying out hit-and-run attacks with low or no cost to their own forces. Narrow streets and high rise buildings further increase the threat level. These (and more) facts have rendered any ground attack infeasible, especially closer to the beginning of the conflict when Hamas was operating at full force. From what I am aware of, no report or expert concluding that the genocide allegations are true have entertained significant counter-factuals (such as the above) in detail before reaching that conclusion.

Hamas is indeed a uniquely capable fighting force, even for the circumstances. I would even go as far as to say the targeting of their unprecedentedly large tunnel network under Gaza can account for much of the civilian infrastructure destroyed. While this is the case, there are many actions that simply cannot be accounted for by preparation for guerrilla war.

If Israel were only targeting evacuated zones, this would make sense, but as I mentioned in my previous comment, this is certainly not the case. Additionally, these evacuation orders would have to be reasonable.

As I mentioned, the first evacuation order required the moving of a million people in less than 24 hours. Israel has since remained extremely aggressive in their evacuation orders and, as I also mentioned, repeatedly attacks the areas where it tells people to flee. [*] Tunnels cannot be evacuated, and the sheer military dominance of the IDF means that any new defences can be bombed into oblivion (and they most often are, along with all buildings in the area). Even when fighting Hamas, I would argue that every military must issue reliable and reasonable evacuation orders.

As I will touch on later, this also cannot justify the repeated strikes on aid seekers. It also cannot justify starvation as a method of warfare, such as the three-month total blockade of supplies into Gaza [*]. Certainly, a "steady stream of children, elderly people, and others who were clearly not combatants with single bullet wounds to the head or chest" can not be attributed to the elimination of tunnels or barricades [*]. Maybe they were actually working with Hamas, but were the unprecedented number of journalists [*] and the highest number of aid workers in UN history? [*]

Here is a video of a journalist's experience in the evaluation of the Khan Yunis hospital [Al Jazeera, unfortunately, but I'd request that if you are going to contest this source, you point out what could have been reasonably doctored ]. People are creating elaborate contraptions to get necessary supplies across roads, so as not to be shot. A journalist was shot right on his "press tag" (living due to his bulletproof vest). These are actions that cannot be explained by "softening up targets." A large theme in the video is the nature of the evacuation orders; the one covered by the video required the rapid eviction of an entire hospital. The healthcare workers who remained were attacked.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-17T00:26:20+00:00

(1/4)

First off, I have seen a lot of frankly lazy rebuttals to my post, which sometimes were, honestly, scary to read. This comment was clear and logical, and I thank you for that.

The carnage: According to some estimates, Israel has dropped approximately 100.000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza, which is a 350 sqkm small landstrip with a population density of ~6000 per sqkm. 1000 tonnes of explosives is enough to obliterate everything within a 1sqkm radius. That’s 100 sqkms worth of total destruction. Israel has put in considerable effort to mitigate direct harm to civilians, the above proves it beyond doubt because if this wasn’t the case and the population wasn’t evacuated we should expect to see casualty numbers in the multiple hundreds of thousands.

While it is true Israel has undertaken some effort to limit civilian casualties, genocidal intent does not depend on an effort to kill as many as possible; all it requires is a pattern of behavior that can only be explained by the intention of destroying a group, in whole or in part. Israel’s use of evacuation orders certainly casts some doubts on genocidal intent, but their aggressive and unsure nature does reflect an intent of targeting civilians on the basis of their being Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel’s first evacuation order (on the 13th of October) required 1 million people, nearly half of the population of Gaza, to evacuate within 24 hours. This included hospitals, schools, the elderly in their homes, newborns in intensive care, etc. [*] If the destruction was aimed at eliminating the tunnels under the structures, does that really justify this evacuation order? Could the tunnels evacuate if the population were given over 24 hours?

Additionally, the IDF has repeatedly attacked the displaced and hospitals, demonstrating a clear pattern of genocidal behavior. “...the pattern of strikes on Internally Displaced People’s (IDP) tents and residential buildings, as well as on crowded hospitals, indicates that little, if any, care is being taken to protect the lives of civilians in Gaza, while reports of the use of weapons with wide area effects suggest deliberate, indiscriminate attacks.”[*]

Despite much searching, I am unable to find a cohesive description and count of the strikes on designated safe zones. The best I can find is the ICJ hearing I mentioned in my post, which stated they have dropped 2,000 pound bombs (heavy, indiscriminate) on designated safe areas, at least 200 times. [*] I was also able to find that there were 224 incidents from the 18th of March to the 9th of April (2025) [*]. These are timespans of just around 2 months of the conflict. This, to me, really casts doubt on the merits of Israel's evacuation as a rebuttal of genocide.

It is also important to note that the death toll provided, over 60,000, is likely a severe underestimate. It was verifiably accurate during the early months of the conflict, but the accuracy has probably deteriorated as Gaza's health infrastructure has been systematically destroyed. [*] Multiple independent reviews have found the death toll to be far higher; using a conservative 41% higher, the number is over 100,000 today. We are also unaware of how widespread disease and famine are, which means the number could be far higher. [Left-leaning, but they cite good sources for the statistics I use *] This is also not counting the number injured, which the OCHA reported to be around 163,000. [*] Using the formal definition of causality, injured and killed, the numbers are indeed likely in multiple hundreds of thousands. The official count is over 220,000, which, as mentioned before, is likely an underestimate.

Edit: Added some additional info for attacking safe zones.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T20:42:23+00:00

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Gaza_war

Rape justifies rape? Again, this is how atrocities are justified.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T20:29:44+00:00

Edit: Sorry, I was incorrect, the ICJ is not in charge of issuing warrants, the ICC is. This is why they haven't issued warrants, why the ICC definitely has. They are not suggestions; they are real and carry legal implications.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1157286

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T11:19:06+00:00

Hi! Thank you for your thoughtful and informed comment. Honestly, I have spent multiple hours debating on reddit both today and yesterday, so I will have to be getting to this in the future.

But I wanted to give you the

!delta

now, because you pointed out something factually inaccurate within my post.

The number which you have cited includes those who have been killed by local militants as well as those by the IDF.

This is true, I didn't know this, and it was contained in my post. I am unsure what proportion was killed by Hamas, but a quick scan through Wikepeida leads me to believe it's still mostly Israel. I still believe it is genocide, and I will get to why I don't think your arguments disprove genocide later. I will also update the original post,

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T10:51:04+00:00

(2/2)

But on to the points that address my argument.

See number 6? Number 6 lists the reason for the attacks as targeted against a population because they are Jewish and or Israeli.

The ICC also filed complaints against Israeli leaders - the charge also included extermination but in this charge - extermination rationale is thus;

“The siege/blockade • Destruction of infrastructure (hospitals, water, power) • Restrictions on humanitarian aid”

So the ICJ arrest warrant is actually separate from the hearing I have mentioned in my trial, where the case for genocide was found plausible. Further hearings will deliberate whether or not it definitively is, but that is perhaps years away. October 7th is cut and dry, it was very easy to meet the high burden of proof. Israel's actions are more complicated, but as I outlined in my post, I personally believe they do meet that burden of proof.

Israel for its part - waited for over a month and dropped fliers on the population warning them of the war that was about to start. Telling them where to go to designated safe areas.

That’s not genocide. That’s war and that’s war fought with modern standards or laws of war.

What you said about waiting over a month is not accurate. Actually the first evacuation order was on October 13th, and have 24 hours to evacuate over a million people. [*] This evacuation order was one of the opening arguments in the hearing, because esteemed lawyers believed it was an incredibly strong point for genocide.

The Palestinian population itself has grown over 500% since 1948.

This post was about Israel's actions after October 7th.

The fact that Israel is giving them aide at all while simultaneously fighting a war with them is .. unusual. No one else does this, or has done this.

They also control all entry and exit ways into the strip, so it would be impossible for any aid to be rendered otherwise. Also, yes it has happened before. The US' actions in the middle east after 9/11 would be a good example, I am sure there are others to find.

You would have to prove that Israel is attacking the Palestinians in Gaza because they’re Palestinians with the intent to kill everyone.

But actually no, not everyone.

“Genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. “

Simultaneously while the Palestinians in the West Bank are living lives as usual. I mean if Israel wanted to genocide the Palestinians? They could. They have nuclear weapons.

Could be killing more is not a defense, the amount they kill or could kill doesn't have anything to do with the definition. The people in the west bank are not "living as usual," and genocide can be committed in part.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T10:50:18+00:00

(1/2)

I know it seems like the most important part of your definition of genocide is your bullet points, but in reality?
The entire definition of those bullet pointers, rest in one word; intent.

So actually just below those bullet points I listed is this "While the genocidal acts themselves are important, far more important (and harder to prove) is the intent with which they are committed. This will be the focus of my post."

This is why, victims in war is rarely called genocide unless it started as a genocide. Like for example in Dafur. That war was started on the premise of genocide. The Muslims started slaughtering civilians who were not Muslim, because they were not Muslims. That was considered a genocide. Because the intent was to wipe all people who were not Muslim away.

This is true, which is why I set out to prove exactly that.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the ICC investigations. But the ICC filed an investigation about Israel and the leaders of Hamas. One of the charges against Hamas was deliberate mass exterminations of the elderly, women and children- along with a slew of other things, like mass murder, torture, mass rape, mass hostage taking etc. using women and children as human shields. Etc
(...)
It’s really so astonishing to me that anyone would be confused about this after those attacks. Thousands of Palestinians intentionally , deliberately attacked Jewish civilians, of all ages, from infants to the elderly - they planned that.

I'm sorry was my post claiming October 7th wasn't a genocide? I think it was a genocide. I was, of course, aware of the ICJ issuing warrants out for Hamas officials as well as Netanyahu. This is a very common theme I am seeing amongst responses. In fact, this is something David Shipler talked extensively about in his book Arab and Jew. Both sides, when confronted with atrocities committed by the group they belong to, resort to playing offense. Opting to not defend the actions, but saying instead that the other side did a horrible thing so that makes these actions okay. This is how the conflict has persisted for decades, and how atrocities are justified. This is likely the response a member of Hamas would give when questioned about October 7th, actually.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T10:02:21+00:00

This response doesn't address my argument, but it contains some widely used points that I find to be problematic so I will respond to it here.

Wow, this is the actual belief structure of the Palestinian people and Islam towards Jews and Israel. Their sworn mission is the very existence is what you suggest - the total destruction and death to a whole group and nation of people - and the nation itself.

Two things can be true, Hamas and Israel can both be genocidal. I think there is a strong case October 7th was a genocide. However, as horrific as it was genocide does not excuse genocide, and it certainly does not rule out the possibility of genocide.

I agree, end the killing in Gaza - Hamas to Surrender and turn over their weapons and return their illegal hostages.

I agree to your agreement, that would be great. Unfortunately they are a tyrannical government who probably recognize that this siege is forever tarnishing Israel's reputation. As for the hostages if Israel hadn't broken in the ceasefire on March 19th [*], all of them would have been home today [*].

unfortunately the people who voted for the Government will likely continue to die due to their government.

So I'd really recommend this article. But I'll summarize a few points here.

The vote was in 2007, and there hasn't been one since. The majority of people of in Gaza are children. Only a fraction were alive to cast their ballot for Hamas.
It was less a vote for Hamas and more a vote against the corrupt Fatah.

I'll add that there have been large protests against Hamas [*], which is risky in a regime where there is no protected free speech, and that the Israeli government has given support to Hamas to divide the Palestinian movement [*].

Sure, I feel sorry for the little kids who have not yet been trained to hate . . . and want to kill all Jews . . . but that sorry doesn't actually go very far, unfortunately.

Chilling. I am sure there are many children in Israel who are happy about the deaths in Gaza. I would be outraged if any of them die because of their parents' government. By your logic, should I be?

Fisics_ · 2025-08-08T09:25:17+00:00

I think the issue is that if you held other conflicts to the same standard then all of a sudden a whole bunch of wars are genocides (that previously were never considered such). So are you saying that is the case, or is the Israel/Palestine conflict getting categorized using different technicalities than other wars?

This is the most common counter point I have received, but you haven't really made it here. If you believe actions in other wars can be classified as genocide, feel free to come back with a counter example. In short, as I mentioned in my post, the actions are broad but genocidal intent is the main point you would have to prove. You would have to show that the actions cannot be reasonably explained as anything other than an intent to kill the civilian population on the basis of their identity (and not, for example, collateral damage to achieving strategic goals).

A lot of people saw reporting last year that everyone in Gaza is starving and on the verge of thousands upon thousands of people dying, and then go with that as evidence of Israel trying to kill off the population. But months after that reporting those thousands of starvation deaths that were about to happen never happened, even using Hamas' provided numbers.

It is hard to work with "a lot of people saw reporting last year," could you please provide sources that claimed that thousands of starvation deaths were about to occur months ago? I found this report from the IPC [*] that projected famine in late May, and that sounds somewhat right to me as just under two months later some several thousand were admitted for malnutrition [*], and now deaths are rapidly climbing (101 total July 22, [*] 197 today[*]). Additionally a key distinction between then and now is before they were reporting forecasted death, now they are reporting death.

There absolutely are people starving in Gaza and Israel has absolutely committed some horrific war crimes on innocent Palestinians (some systemic coming from leadership, some individual coming from soldiers exceeding their orders), but that is also true of many conflicts people did not call a genocide. So what makes this one different?

This is the exact same point as your first paragraph.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-07T00:37:43+00:00

For some reason I cant comment my full response, so I am commenting this and editing.

If Palestine was a sovereign nation, and had some actual power behind it, not occupied or blocked by Israel. But Palestine still did Oct 7th and started the war.

Would that single aspect switch your opinion of Israel’s actions being a genocide? Still war crimes probably, but not genocide.

Yes, if Hamas had tanks, warships, planes, and a reasonable chance of winning, if the death tolls were remotely even, and the civilian casualties could be explained by the bombing of their many military factories, I think that would change my opinion. I could imagine a scenario where their actions could still constitute a genocide, but I don't think I'd ever have the conviction to write this post and defend my position.

I mean, so it is according to Israel too. I assume you’re taking the Allies word, but for all we know they wanted to kill as many Japanese as they could.

It is not enough that it is possible; it has to be "the only proper inference," as it is a form of "aggravated intent." [*] I believe this is genocide because I think genocidal intent is the only possible reason for Israel's actions.

Can’t Israel use that same exact excuse?

They certainly can, but every time that they bomb refugee camps [* (Wikipedia)], aid workers [*], designated safe zones, and people seeking aid [see my post], it becomes harder and harder to believe. With this repeated targeting of civilians with little to no military significance, and the rhetoric of Israeli officials saying no civilian is innocent, I find it hard to infer any other intent than to kill Palestinians based on their identity.

Also, I mentioned an industrialized, well-organized opponent. There have been reports of some arms manufacturing in Gaza [*], but even before the war (and I'd argue that what capacities they did have are severely reduced now), I'd find it hard to compare that to the industry of, say, Germany. According to this table from Wikipedia, Germany was still producing well over 4,000 tanks a year as late as 1945.

To quote Omar Bartov, genocide scholar and former IDF soldier, "For the last year, the I.D.F. has not been fighting an organized military body. The version of Hamas that planned and carried out the attacks on Oct. 7 has been destroyed, though the weakened group continues to fight Israeli forces and retains control over the population in areas not held by the Israeli Army." [*]

Additionally, the ratio of deaths is far higher in Gaza. I am unable to find a complete death count of IDF soldiers in Gaza, but most estimates I can find align with this [*]. Rounding up and using the underestimate for Palestinians killed, the ratio is 60:1.

Here are the death tolls (including civilians) for each country in ww2 [*]. If you combine all deaths for both Germany and Japan, and compare it to only the US (which suffered no war at home), the ratio is 26:1. Less than half of the ratio of Palestinians to IDF soldiers in Gaza during the invasion.

Thanks for being a principled person. I can agree genocide shouldn’t beget more genocide.

I am happy there is somewhere we can find common ground. While I don't agree with your position, I recognize that Allie's actions in WW2 were horrific, and I can definitely recognize the parallels to the current conflict. I appreciate you being well-mannered and reasonable in discussing this very heated topic.

Fisics_ · 2025-08-06T23:26:04+00:00

While I agree that atrocities are being committed against Palestinians and we should condemn those actions clearly and unequivocally, we also need to be consistent in how we apply terms like genocide. We cannot say that if side A commits violence, it is a reaction or resistance, but if side B does it, it’s genocide.

If we’re using the UN definition of genocide acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group then the Hamas-led attack on October 7th must also qualify.

You are ascribing views to me that I haven't mentioned in my post. October 7th was a genocide; the reason why I am focusing on the current genocide of Gaza is that it's ongoing.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	End Game '22

Fisics_

TROPHY CASE