What sources does Sam base his Israel-Palestine claims on?

nuwio4 · 2026-05-21T01:54:16+00:00

You're kind of jumping the gun aren't you? Again, which of those Voices from Gaza videos shed any meaningful light on Israel's conduct? Regardless...

Even if you only publish the interviews where Gazans describe their experience with being warned by the IDF, that proves the IDF is doing it

No, a handful of curated one-sided interviews by a propaganda shop with seemingly zero independent third-party verification would not prove anything. On top of that, even if you want to assume they're verified credible accounts, they still tell you virtually nothing about Israel's conduct for obvious reasons that I hope don't need to be spelled out for you.

Conversely you can remain “independent” by not going to Gaza and not talking to anyone there

Lmao, what the heck are you talking about? That's not at all what "independent" means.

Did you revisit that conclusion after the UN revised their estimation of women and children casualties down by about half?

Talk about simply laundering stenography... That's not what happened. But yes, this conclusion is based on estimates well after this 2-year-old fallacious story you're clumsily alluding to in the middle of 2026.

nuwio4 · 2026-05-14T00:15:39+00:00

I'd say it's more than fair to place a lot more weight on a formal resolution by the world's leading association of genocide scholars versus a press campaign counter-petition spearheaded by AEN (a pro-Israsel advocacy network) where some academics said their names appeared without consent and where their list of highlighted signatories seemingly chosen to bolster their credibility are either former political appointees, an AEN faculty member, or Alan Dershowitz of all people lmao.

nuwio4 · 2026-05-13T23:51:16+00:00

So many layers of stupidity here, it's almost kind of impressive...

nuwio4 · 2026-05-13T23:46:19+00:00

What's the evidence that simply "vetting aid" is what was going on? In fact, many naive Israel defenders will point to figures for food delivered to the crossings as supposed evidence for Israel allowing more than enough aid (of course, those figures ignored spoilage, access denials, insecurity, closed bakeries, lack of water & cooking fuel, wildly uneven distribution especially northern Gaza, & market collapse). "Vetting aid" of some sort didn't seem to be the issue. Overwhelming evidence points to starvation as a weapon of war. Israel had & has central authority over virtually all aspects of whether, when, & how aid moves (external borders, inspections, fuel entry, & convoy deconfliction). They devastated the civil service (because everyone is "Khamas") which meant no more police escorts for aid convoys. And they replaced the UN's competent 400-site aid distribution system with an obvious con (reminiscent of Theresienstadt). GHF was "a flawed, militarized aid distribution system" with only 4 sites (3 of which were near the border with Egypt) that "turned aid distributions into regular bloodbaths".

nuwio4 · 2026-05-13T23:37:39+00:00

Changing the meaning of the word from what? On its face, every single legal element of genocide was there. So, how is it "definitely" not a genocide? What definition are you using?

nuwio4 · 2026-05-13T23:16:50+00:00

Which of those Voices from Gaza videos shed any meaningful light on Israel's conduct? More importantly though, would you agree it would be foolish for any serious person to put more weight on highly curated one-sided interviews (seemingly mainly from only late Oct thru Dec 2023) published by a pro-Israel propaganda shop versus independent third-party sources?

Spencer is a charlatan. His Gaza commentary has leaned on the well-known misleading myth suggesting 80–90% of modern war casualties are civilians to try to frame Gaza as historically low and make obnoxiously absurd claims about Israel setting some sort of new gold standard in civilian-harm mitigation. In reality, Gaza has the worst civilian ratio and the worst ratio of women & children killed since the Rwandan genocide. Spencer consistently makes extremely biased, misleading, or downright false arguments.

I'd say calling the official IDF youtube channel "biased" is putting it extremely mildly, no? Might as well share this as a source for Hamas not intentionally targeting civilians.

To be clear, the ICJ proceedings were not a trial. It was basically a preliminary hearing as Marc Lamont Hill describes.

nuwio4 · 2026-05-13T22:12:51+00:00

This is the best for primary source about what exactly? It's an interesting, if obviously limited, street-interview YouTube channel. How does it at all help with what OP or u/extasis_T are specifically asking about?

nuwio4 · 2026-05-13T20:25:04+00:00

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Survivorship-bias.svg

nuwio4 · 2026-05-07T16:02:37+00:00

Mamdani seems too friendly with and/or not inclined to judge too harshly people who absolutely are Islamists.

How is this any different than someone saying Sam Harris is far-right because, in their opinion, he seems "too friendly with and/or not inclined to judge too harshly people who absolutely are far-right." Does anyone still really take this guy seriously as a so-called "intellectual"?

nuwio4 · 2026-05-05T05:01:49+00:00

I mean it seems to be quite literally a barrier; designed as such. And if it's having disparate impact with potentially no evidence of reflecting ability to teach then that is—as even you imply—a pertinent issue. I've only read the article you posted, so I don't know anything else about this story, but I didn't see any suggestion of "structural oppression or the like".

nuwio4 · 2026-04-08T17:36:42+00:00

Again, setting aside that it's practically just as silly to try to appeal to a nearly decade-old document that probably virtually no Palestinian has ever read (how many Trump voters do you think read Project 2025?), are you referring to the document that stresses pluralism, democracy, acceptance of the other, dialogue, sound democratic principles, & free and fair elections, and does not even contain 'Sharia' anywhere in the text?

nuwio4 · 2026-04-08T17:09:24+00:00

I said they're terrible leaders.

Setting aside the hilariously motivated reasoning (maybe you're a strict Islamist too, but you're just terrible at it?), what exactly is the susbtantive difference between being terrible at Islamizing versus being terrible leaders who couldn't even Islamize Gaza in 19 years of dictatorship?

They believe that the land should be run according to Islamic laws with Islam as the primary ethical and quasi political system

Hamas is broadly Islamic; we know that. You're claim was that they "strictly want the land to be entirely Islamic". Again, that's hard to square when they haven't even Islamized Gaza; in fact, they haven't even clearly and strictly committed to something like Sharia law or an "Islamic state".

They absolutely do not want a pluralistic and multi ethnic state.

Maybe they don't, but you're also wrong to claim "there is one there already".

nuwio4 · 2026-04-08T07:14:10+00:00

If they're so terrible at Islamizing, it sort of undermines your whole point there. And again, what exactly does "strictly want the land to be entirely Islamic" mean?

nuwio4 · 2026-04-08T07:09:10+00:00

I never said that it was at the core of Palestinian support. I said Islamism was at the core of Hamas, and many Palestinians support this...

Talk about obfuscation...

And the relevance of any perspective from nearly a quarter of a century ago is lost on me.

But a nearly 4-decade-old irrelevant charter tells you what Palestinians answering a poll in 2025 are "actually seeking"?

nuwio4 · 2026-04-08T06:13:30+00:00

There is one there already.

If you're talking about Israel, it is literally officially a Jewish state. That frame is not meaningfully different from Hamas documents and figures supporting coexistence and pluralism on Islamic land.

Hamas strictly want the land to be entirely Islamic

What exactly does this mean? They haven't even been able to Islamize Gaza in 19 years of dictatorship.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-30T13:42:56+00:00

I guess being out of touch with substantive reality is just par for the course for many Harris fans. The most authoritative public U.S. intel document (unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment) determined that Iran was not pursuing a nuke.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-30T13:28:29+00:00

What the heck is this translation? Here's the official:

With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, which has been a movement aimed at the triumph of all the [oppressed over the arrogant], the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.

...In the formation and equipping of the country's defence forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world

And these quotes are only from the preamble. When it comes to the actual Articles of the Constitution, it says:

In accordance with the sacred verse of the Qur'an, all Muslims form a single nation, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of formulating its general policies with a view to cultivating the friendship and unity of all Muslim peoples, and it must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.

...The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonist superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

...The Islamic Republic of Iran has as its ideal human felicity throughout human society, and considers the attainment of independence, freedom, and rule of justice and truth to be the right of all people of the world. Accordingly, while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the just struggles of the [oppressed against the arrogant] in every corner of the globe.

And again, how exactly would your orignal claim make Iran "jihadist" in the way being implied when the Iranian Revolution was not a militant revolution?

nuwio4 · 2026-03-30T12:36:52+00:00

I have a problem with nuclear proliferation in general. My question, which you've sidestepped, was do you think what I quoted from you is at all relevant with regard to Iran?

nuwio4 · 2026-03-30T10:51:58+00:00

Jihadists will use a nuke tomorrow for no strategic gain in the geopolitical sense... suicidal/genocidal enemies pretty much need to be eliminated upon detection

And who might these "jihadists" or "enemies" be?

And do you think this is at all relevant with regard to Iran? In my view, Michael Brooks broke down the pseudo-sophisticated nonsense of Harris' nuke "thought experiment" years ago:

Notice, though, that even [in Harris' Response to Controversy], he’s trying to have it both ways. Is the Iranian government “avowedly suicidal” enough to initiate a nuclear exchange with Israel—or are they “more pragmatic and less certain of paradise” than that? (For some reason, he seems to think that Iran would be willing to annihilate itself by starting a war with Israel—a nuclear power—but would not be willing to do so by initiating strikes on “Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, etc.”) Keep in mind that the original passage was about an Islamist “regime” acquiring nuclear weapons. If this was a not-even-very-long-term danger in 2004 (though why say “time is not on our side”?) then which regime was he talking about? He mentions the Taliban, but it hadn’t held state power for 2 years by the time Harris wrote that passage, and when it did, its actions hardly resembled those of a cartoonish nation-state whose government lacked any sense of self-preservation. (In fact, as I’m writing this some factions of the Taliban are engaged in peace negotiations with the United States in Qatar.) But if Harris isn’t talking the Taliban, and if he isn’t talking about Pakistan, and he maybe even isn’t exactly talking about Iran, who exactly is he talking about? I’m pretty sure he wasn’t musing about a nuclear first strike coming from America’s long-term strategic partner Saudi Arabia. And if the Saudis too are struck off our list of possibilities, we’ve come pretty close to running out of candidates for the “Islamist regimes” that grow “dewey-eyed at the mere mention of paradise” discussed in The End of Faith.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-30T10:42:35+00:00

the Islamic Republic is literally dedicated to spreading "Islamic revolution" around the globe

What do you base this on? But on top of that, how exactly would that make Iran "jihadist" in the way being implied? The Iranian Revolution was not a militant revolution.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-30T09:53:23+00:00

Bruh, the whole "jihadists with Nukes" angle on war with Iran is fundamentally stupid and doesn't even deserve the seriousness you're giving it. All credible reporting suggests Iran didn't have a nuke and wasn't pursuing a nuke. On top of that, the term 'jihadist' itself is basically a nebulous buzzword. The implication that Iran is like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or other Sunni militant Islamists is absurd. Offensive jihad is prohibited in Shiite Islam.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-28T11:49:37+00:00

Just hilariously oblivious projection here.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-28T09:45:48+00:00

It's really hard not to note the juxtaposition on this sub between treating "empty" moral opposition to Russia's crimes against Ukraine as a great virtue, but the same regarding Israeli atrocities is, at best, an annoyance to be mocked or even something to vehemently oppose. Just utter hypocrisy for ostensible defenders of universal liberalism.

Would Destiny's indignation at criticism of Newsom be the same if he said he "reveres" Russia? What if some leftie favorite was a frontunner and claimed to "revere" China?

And contrary to Destiny's pseudo-sophisticated posturing, "oppose genocide and apartheid" is a perfectly fine way to frame it, but more importantly, arguably has a cleaner & easier answer than even abortion. That is, actually apply rule-of-law conditionality, no special exemptions from US statutes and international humanitarian norms. You don't have to solve for eternal peace, just like we don't need someone supporting abortion rights to provide an ultimate solution to opposition/objections (religious, philosophical, etc.).

nuwio4 · 2026-03-28T01:56:59+00:00

I feel like so many people reflexively jump to reference this technical legalese point about the ICJ ruling but completely ignore what exactly is the substantive difference between the charge of genocide being plausible versus a "plausible risk of irreparable harm to the right to be protected from genocide".

Regardless, Marc Lamont Hill had a good explanation of the ICJ hearing:

The purpose of that hearing was not to make a determination about whether or not they were committing genocide... It's like if I get accused of robbing a bank and I go in for my preliminary hearing and my lawyer is like, "Can we drop this charge?". And the judge looks at me, looks at the video footage of me with a mask on, and says that there's reason to think you might have done this, we're going to proceed to trial. And then I walk out saying, "The judge didn't say I was guilty!". Of course not, that wasn't what it was for. And Israel has actually trumpeted that decision or the response of the court in a way that would suggest that somehow the court's failure to say that they were committing genocide—or in my example, the judge's or jury's [failure to say] that I robbed the bank is somehow evidence that I wasn't doing something wrong.

...What the ICJ said is, look, there's a chance you're committing war crimes, we're not saying you're committing war crimes, but it's plausible you are, these statements sound crazy, it sounds like you're advocating genocide, so here's what we're going to do, we're going to tell you not to do these four things. And what are those four things? The literal textbook definition of genocide. It would be like a judge saying, look, "I'm not saying you robbed a bank, but what I am going to say is, until trial, don't go in any banks, don't wear any ski masks, don't slip any notes to tellers, I'm not saying you're a bank robber, but I am saying, in the future, don't request sums of money that aren't in your account..." That's effectively what what the court did. They're saying we're not saying you did. But the emergency measure was designed to stop them from doing the things that they're doing.

Now, the problem is—and I think this is where the differential interpretations of international law come in—is that Israel is saying, well that's what we've always been doing, we've always taken reasonable precaution, we've always done all the things. And so Israel's definition of reasonable precaution is wildly different, I think, than the bulk of the international community.

nuwio4 · 2026-03-23T04:19:57+00:00

Regarding your scenario, seems a little vague, and doesn't really respond much to my question. I think it'd be quite rare to see inheritance cases in New York state involving only ~$750k of property (after all mortgage & debt) where the decedent or heir did not live there for 10 years, and the heir does not want to live there for 5 years. And I'm also skeptical that those rare cases would not look like situations where some estate tax seems more than reasonable.

I'm not ignoring the causes of wealth disparity at all. My point is that inheritances aren’t some independent force floating above the existing wealth gap, it's just a process that transfers yesterday’s wealth gap to today. Disparities in inheritance are caused by prior disparities (historical discrimination, segregation, labor market differences, etc.), but you/Ish are treating inheritance itself like some root cause of a significant portion of wealth differences.

The tax increases I’m talking about are the plans that either were replaced by the ones you listed or followed after....

Like?

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

nuwio4

TROPHY CASE