AlexL

The wishers of Israel's extermination, of course! Who did you think? i.e. Islamists with their western sycophants. OK

@whYNOT, have you notices that @SpookyKitty argues for the always righteous Palestine and against the “genocidal” Israel in the exactly same way as you argued for the always righteous putinist Russia and against the “Nazi” Ukraine? That is by presenting the Palestinian narrative and the associated lies and never proving anything?

So, in your view, the entire Israel is evil because there is, in Israel, a specific movement which is evil. Let's then see first how popular it is: Here is the breakdown of seats for the party groups in the current 120-seat Israeli Knesset following the March 2021 elections: Center-right/right parties: Around 53 seats Center-left/left parties: Around 36 seats Ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties: 16 seats Arab parties: 6 seats Other/unaligned: 9 seats The Ultra-Orthodox group represents slightly more than 13% of the parliament. It is indeed "connected to the government" because, due to the strictly proportional representation, it is almost impossible for a government to form without the support of these people - which allows them to participate in almost all Israeli governments; today with 6 members out of 36. Yes, religious far-right is indeed "in the mainstream of Israeli society", but only in the sense that about 13% of the Israelis vote or them. You presented the Ultra-Orthodox as the root cause and proof of Israel being an "indescribably evil, racist, genocidal lunatic state led by twisted, sick men who promulgate the most anti-man, anti-western ideologies imaginable." As less than 15% of Israelis vote for them, you should try to find another root cause of the "indescribably evil, racist, genocidal lunatic" character of Israel.😁 Besides, you are far from having proved racist and genocidal character of Israel. I hope to return to this point later, as well as to your other claims. But meanwhile you can start collecting facts/proof about PS: You are trying to argue that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza (and in Palestine in general) by analyzing the ideological currents in the Israeli society - instead of by examining the factual events, like the enormous percentage of dead Gazans or the catastrophic fall in the Palestinian population, in West Bank and Gaza. As to your "analysis" of the ideological currents - it is all fraudulent. PS2. The David Sheen lecture is sponsored by www.palaestina.ch. Is it from this kind of sites that you get your information regarding Israel ?

Whose exercise?

You still didn't explain the extraordinary low number of bombardment victims (low in context), after using a dozen of kilotons of explosives in "indiscriminate" bombings, within a strategy of "genocide" - allegedly 20K out of 2.4 millions, that is no more than 0.08% --------- You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into (Jonathan Swift?)

You mean knowing that there are only civilians there? How do you know what they do know? Mind reading? Or it is because you need to assume this in order to come out with "genocide"? Mind reading again? Or you have some solid direct evidence that this was the intention? How do you know that the locations/buildings were not used by Hamas operatives, which would make them legitimate targets? All in all, you don't have an explanation why the number of killed Palestinians tops at 15-20'000 in "the most densely populated area" with 2.4 millions of people, after using a dozen of kilotons of explosives in "indiscriminate" bombings, within a strategy of "genocide"

My main factual point was about the implausibility of the alleged Israeli intention to kill all the residents of Gaza (=genocide), and it was based on analysis of the number of killed Gazans. 15-20'000 killed out of 2.4 millions in a densely populated urban area after allegedly blind bombardment with about the equivalent of 15-20'000'000 kg of TNT (Hiroshima bomb!) is a pathetic performance for an intended genocide (=intention to kill all the residents of Gaza).

It is you who suggested that "it is not working well for me", it is then for you to point out which of my claims were disproved.

It is working perfectly: none of my claims were disproved.

Before addressing your objections, I draw your attention to the fact that you missed my main factual point - the implausibility of the alleged Israeli intention to kill all the residents of Gaza (=genocide) - the one based on the number of killed.

A comment is accessible for editing for 60 minutes after being posted. Experimental result 😁

Thank you for the detailed answer, augmented by references. However, your answer is incomplete: you are only trying to justify your genocide claim, but neglect your claim about the racist motivation. OK, let’s deal with what is available. You correctly identify the main, and an extraordinary complex difficulty, of justifying an accusation of genocide, which necessitates proving the intention to destroy, “in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. In our case it is about the – still unspecified! – Palestinians; to alleviate your task, I will assume that you refer to Gazans only (you chose not to take advantage of the possibility to amend your claim in order to specify this). Now, on the formal side: who is authorized to qualify an action as genocide? Is it you or me? It is the political commentators or experts? Is it NGOs, ICRC or other international organizations? According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from which you extracted the definition of genocide, it works in the following way: the signatories commit themselves to (a) enact, in their countries, the necessary legislation and (b) to try the persons charged by a competent tribunal (art. V and VI). Therefore, although the guilt of IDF/government is, in your view, “beyond question”, it is, in fact, not for me, or for you, or for … to make such a complex determination, but for a tribunal. However, let’s consider your argumentation, to see if it supports at least the plausibility of a genocide verdict. In support of your genocide claim you quote three or four Israeli politicians who threatened Hamas, or the Palestinians, at different times, with belligerent rhetoric containing the most terrifying, god-supported, punishments. But these are words, Politicians’ words ! Were they translated into military tactic, policy, field orders? You have still to prove it, but the reality suggest otherwise – see below. If the objective is genocidal extermination, that is the killing of as many people as possible, any prior evacuation order, establishment of evacuation routes, issuing warning messages, leaflets, maps indicating safe areas etc. are simply absurd. Instead, if the objective were to kill all Gazans, a surprise attack, by night, with all IDF’s means simultaneously – all bombers, cannons, tanks - should have been enacted for carpet bombing of Gaza. And a repeat in the next hours in order to finish off the survivors, including the wounded. Is this what Israel did? No, but the usual pro-Hamas propagandists had no other choice but to say it did. But what do the facts suggest? With about 15-20’000 dead (just assuming, generously, that Hamas numbers are true and that all dead are civilian), after the above described carpet bombing of Gaza, allegedly the most densely populated, 2.4 million city in the world, there should have been at least 1-200’000 dead and 300’00 to 800’000 wounded. After the first day of a carpet bombing... Even Hamas’ total numbers are orders of magnitude lower. Your evidence is far from being conclusive. I am afraid your genocide arguments fell flat on its face. However, you may improve on it, but don’t forget about the racism argument. But first of all, try to get some solid facts. Don’t do like @whYNOT in the Russian Aggression Against Ukraine thread, where he showed to be blatantly unaware of real facts and was following instead the opinions of, mostly notorious, pro-Putin propagandists.

"Definitely" means you are in possession of conclusive evidence that: it is a war of extermination of Palestinians (or is it of Gazans only?) for racist reasons and with genocidal intentions. I would like to see that conclusive evidence. If you think you have gone too far, you may still amend your claim.

Only ad hominem? This is such an understatement !

Is this language acceptable in this forum? @dream_weaver

It is NOT.

Do you claim that this is the identification that the Israeli government makes? Care to prove?

You are thus refuting your own unqualified claim that "the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists"

No. You are certainly aware that these tunnels are used also for storing weapons, including rockets and missiles. As well as for housing Hamas leadership and operatives. You are also aware that Hamas fired dozen of thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israel. in the last weeks, but also before that. So, let's connect the points to understand how it works: Hamas leadership sends small groups of operatives to collect weapons from the tunnel storages, to pop up at the surface from the many hidden tunnel shafts, fire the rockets/missiles then disappear back in the tunnel network. If this usage of the tunnel network is defensive, what would be an offensive usage???😁

What a scumbag !

I told you what I thought based on what you wrote. If you think my reasoning went wrong, you have to point out where. What you wrote is perfectly clear, I just think you don't realize the implications of what you're saying. What was your reasoning to arrive to what you thought from what I wrote? Start from what I wrote, with exact quotes, and show how you arrived at your conclusions. IOW, using exact quotes from my original comment, explain the reasoning behind your conclusions.

Which provisions of the Guidelines would allow @stansfield123to be banned on the spot? Did he? Do you have a reference?

Recent micro-poll in Rostov region of Russia:

I am still waiting for your coment on this. You should better be aware that the matter is serious.

Then clarify what you wrote. Then tell me what do you find unclear in what I wrote. Here is it again: