Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

canoso said:

---

Gazans are things in Hamas' game. Expendable objects. Hamas is the entity starving Gazans.

---

So who should feed them? Or should nobody? Certainly nobody expects Hamas to.

---

Maybe, gasp, their own ******* selves. And if that's not working out, well, they should probably overthrow the government that they put in place. Seems like they may have chosen poorly.

---

LMAO! Israel bombs their homes to the ground, destroys nearly every hospital, and of course I support their war against Hamas! But Israel targeted their infrastructure, and now you want them to use that bombed infrastructure to "feed themselves." What a truly dumbass take.

---

Mmm hmm. Why did that infrastructure get destroyed?

Might expedite things if they'd surrender and release the hostages they've been holding since October of 2023.

---

Can you not see the disconnect in logic? The hospitals, the groceries, the markets, get bombed by Israel because Hamas is there, hiding in tunnels. Therefore it is logical that the innocent civilians should mass starve?

How does that work? Shoot the victim twice to make sure he's dead? Shouldn't have gotten shot in the first place?

---

How did Hamas manage to build tunnels in all those places?

---

Are you holding the 2.1m civilians of Gaza responsible for terrorism? I forget how easy it is to not care about mass death once the appropriate label is used. Palestinians are terrorists, and should all die, right? They deserve it? Voted for it?

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

Yeah be right back while I go ask them.

You're setting up a logical fallacy you can't even defend. No matter what I say, you will claim Gazans helped them build the tunnels, and are all terrorists by default.

When i put your question to Wikipedia, I get

Quote:

---

developed by Hamas and other Palestinian military organizations

---

---

Good work. I'd also avoid it if I were you.

william said:

---

---

How is that relevant? Israel is killing terrorists and starving innocents. Who is negotiating?

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

canoso said:

---

Gazans are things in Hamas' game. Expendable objects. Hamas is the entity starving Gazans.

---

So who should feed them? Or should nobody? Certainly nobody expects Hamas to.

---

Maybe, gasp, their own ******* selves. And if that's not working out, well, they should probably overthrow the government that they put in place. Seems like they may have chosen poorly.

---

LMAO! Israel bombs their homes to the ground, destroys nearly every hospital, and of course I support their war against Hamas! But Israel targeted their infrastructure, and now you want them to use that bombed infrastructure to "feed themselves." What a truly dumbass take.

---

Mmm hmm. Why did that infrastructure get destroyed?

Might expedite things if they'd surrender and release the hostages they've been holding since October of 2023.

---

Can you not see the disconnect in logic? The hospitals, the groceries, the markets, get bombed by Israel because Hamas is there, hiding in tunnels. Therefore it is logical that the innocent civilians should mass starve?

How does that work? Shoot the victim twice to make sure he's dead? Shouldn't have gotten shot in the first place?

---

How did Hamas manage to build tunnels in all those places?

---

Are you holding the 2.1m civilians of Gaza responsible for terrorism? I forget how easy it is to not care about mass death once the appropriate label is used. Palestinians are terrorists, and should all die, right? They deserve it? Voted for it?

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

Yeah be right back while I go ask them.

You're setting up a logical fallacy you can't even defend. No matter what I say, you will claim Gazans helped them build the tunnels, and are all terrorists by default.

When i put your question to Wikipedia, I get

Quote:

---

developed by Hamas and other Palestinian military organizations

---

---

Good work. I'd also avoid it if I were you.

---

I answered, will you?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

canoso said:

---

Gazans are things in Hamas' game. Expendable objects. Hamas is the entity starving Gazans.

---

So who should feed them? Or should nobody? Certainly nobody expects Hamas to.

---

Maybe, gasp, their own ******* selves. And if that's not working out, well, they should probably overthrow the government that they put in place. Seems like they may have chosen poorly.

---

LMAO! Israel bombs their homes to the ground, destroys nearly every hospital, and of course I support their war against Hamas! But Israel targeted their infrastructure, and now you want them to use that bombed infrastructure to "feed themselves." What a truly dumbass take.

---

Mmm hmm. Why did that infrastructure get destroyed?

Might expedite things if they'd surrender and release the hostages they've been holding since October of 2023.

---

Can you not see the disconnect in logic? The hospitals, the groceries, the markets, get bombed by Israel because Hamas is there, hiding in tunnels. Therefore it is logical that the innocent civilians should mass starve?

How does that work? Shoot the victim twice to make sure he's dead? Shouldn't have gotten shot in the first place?

---

How did Hamas manage to build tunnels in all those places?

---

Are you holding the 2.1m civilians of Gaza responsible for terrorism? I forget how easy it is to not care about mass death once the appropriate label is used. Palestinians are terrorists, and should all die, right? They deserve it? Voted for it?

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

Yeah be right back while I go ask them.

You're setting up a logical fallacy you can't even defend. No matter what I say, you will claim Gazans helped them build the tunnels, and are all terrorists by default.

When i put your question to Wikipedia, I get

Quote:

---

developed by Hamas and other Palestinian military organizations

---

---

Have the hostages been released?

---

How many should Israel kill to make up for these hostages? 100k? Bibi let the attack happen on Oct 7th so that he could take over Gaza.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

muddybrazos said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

canoso said:

---

Gazans are things in Hamas' game. Expendable objects. Hamas is the entity starving Gazans.

---

So who should feed them? Or should nobody? Certainly nobody expects Hamas to.

---

Maybe, gasp, their own ******* selves. And if that's not working out, well, they should probably overthrow the government that they put in place. Seems like they may have chosen poorly.

---

LMAO! Israel bombs their homes to the ground, destroys nearly every hospital, and of course I support their war against Hamas! But Israel targeted their infrastructure, and now you want them to use that bombed infrastructure to "feed themselves." What a truly dumbass take.

---

Mmm hmm. Why did that infrastructure get destroyed?

Might expedite things if they'd surrender and release the hostages they've been holding since October of 2023.

---

Can you not see the disconnect in logic? The hospitals, the groceries, the markets, get bombed by Israel because Hamas is there, hiding in tunnels. Therefore it is logical that the innocent civilians should mass starve?

How does that work? Shoot the victim twice to make sure he's dead? Shouldn't have gotten shot in the first place?

---

How did Hamas manage to build tunnels in all those places?

---

Are you holding the 2.1m civilians of Gaza responsible for terrorism? I forget how easy it is to not care about mass death once the appropriate label is used. Palestinians are terrorists, and should all die, right? They deserve it? Voted for it?

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

Yeah be right back while I go ask them.

You're setting up a logical fallacy you can't even defend. No matter what I say, you will claim Gazans helped them build the tunnels, and are all terrorists by default.

When i put your question to Wikipedia, I get

Quote:

---

developed by Hamas and other Palestinian military organizations

---

---

Have the hostages been released?

---

How many should Israel kill to make up for these hostages? 100k? Bibi let the attack happen on Oct 7th so that he could take over Gaza.

---

Good grief…

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting the false narrative that the starvation is accidental, yes. But that's contrary to the point you were making.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

Porteroso said:

---

william said:

---

---

How is that relevant? Israel is killing terrorists and starving innocents. Who is negotiating?

---

a little sleep, a little doomscrolling predawn, and hunger will come up you like a closed arbys.- BoL 31:6

- KKM

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating mini donuts }

D!

Porteroso said:

---

william said:

---

---

How is that relevant? Israel is killing terrorists and starving innocents. Who is negotiating?

---

So those prisoner for hostage swaps just happened spontaneously?
The Israelis have tried to negotiate with the Arabs for decades. The Arabs don't want peace, they want genocide. The chant "from the river to the sea" is a literal call for genocide.... yet you idiots claim that it's the Israelis that are the ones who want a genocide.

At this point, it would be completely logical to commit a genocide in Gaza. The Gazans have proven that they will never live on peace. They have been given multiple opportunities and billions of dollars, if they would just live in peace and build a utopia. Instead they launch rockets, dig tunnels, commit acts of terrorism, brainwash their children, and then fully invade & attack their neighbors. The only peace that the Gazans want is the peace that comes after they have murdered all the Jews & Christians.
They have been given every opportunity to live in peace, and they have rejected it every time.
If all the Gazans were wiped out, it wouldn't be a genocide, it would be a more like pest control.... like getting rid of an infestation of termites or roaches.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

ShooterTX said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

william said:

---

---

How is that relevant? Israel is killing terrorists and starving innocents. Who is negotiating?

---

If all the Gazans were wiped out, it wouldn't be a genocide, it would be a more like pest control.... like getting rid of an infestation of termites or roaches.

---

Thanks for a textbook example of genocidal language.

I don't really what you MAGAgotts call it, it is sub human and must be stopped. I don't care you MAGAotts defend Izzy. Yes, Hamas started it. Izzy has neutered them militarily. Simple question for all you Izzy lovers, it the killing of innocent civilians and children ok? Eff Izzy and cut their funding , period. Let those war criminals go at it alone. If they get out of line, we bomb their military to oblivion.

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-ben-gvir-leads-settler-raid-al-aqsa-mosque-under-heavy-guard


"Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship."

Wise? Unwise?

Realitybites said:

---

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-ben-gvir-leads-settler-raid-al-aqsa-mosque-under-heavy-guard


"Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship."

Wise? Unwise?

---

Par for the Izzy Far Right. Cut all funding.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Gaza is barely the size of a city - 17 square miles.
Many famous siege battles were in much larger spaces. Vicksburg was 33 square miles in 1863 and its siege involved civilians.

if Israel had made the push into Gaza quicker, they would have still been vilified by many for how bloody it would have been. It also might not have been able to take care of Hezbollah in the north as effectively with assets tied to urban fighting in Gaza.
For those Gazan civilians not supporting Hamas, it would have been much better if Israel could have moved much quicker. Gaza would not be starving with Hamas destroyed.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Gaza is barely the size of a city - 17 square miles.
Many famous siege battles were in much larger spaces. Vicksburg was 33 square miles in 1863 and its siege involved civilians.

if Israel had made the push into Gaza quicker, they would have still been vilified by many for how bloody it would have been. It also might not have been able to take care of Hezbollah in the north as effectively with assets tied to urban fighting in Gaza.
For those Gazan civilians not supporting Hamas, it would have been much better if Israel could have moved much quicker. Gaza would not be starving with Hamas destroyed.

---

Israel has said it will let more aid in. That's all I want. Feed the innocents, keep killing the terrorists. We will see if it's enough.

Have the hostages been released yet?

I love Hamas Harry and his band of
Jew haters posting stuff that would make an idiot blush.

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-ben-gvir-leads-settler-raid-al-aqsa-mosque-under-heavy-guard


"Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship."

Wise? Unwise?

---

Par for the Izzy Far Right. Cut all funding.

---

How many Jews did you hate today?

Quote:

---

How many Jews did you hate today?

---

Wise or unwise move? Really, trying to drag antisemitism into any discussion involving specific actions or policies has lost its effectiveness.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Gaza is barely the size of a city - 17 square miles.
Many famous siege battles were in much larger spaces. Vicksburg was 33 square miles in 1863 and its siege involved civilians.

if Israel had made the push into Gaza quicker, they would have still been vilified by many for how bloody it would have been. It also might not have been able to take care of Hezbollah in the north as effectively with assets tied to urban fighting in Gaza.
For those Gazan civilians not supporting Hamas, it would have been much better if Israel could have moved much quicker. Gaza would not be starving with Hamas destroyed.

---

The absolute size of the territory isn't the point. If you herded every living Martian into the Ferrell Center and locked them up without food and water, it would be genocide.

If you're suggesting that the Israelis could have quickly defeated Hamas, I see no evidence for such speculation. If it were true, it would arguably put them in an even worse light.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Gaza is barely the size of a city - 17 square miles.
Many famous siege battles were in much larger spaces. Vicksburg was 33 square miles in 1863 and its siege involved civilians.

if Israel had made the push into Gaza quicker, they would have still been vilified by many for how bloody it would have been. It also might not have been able to take care of Hezbollah in the north as effectively with assets tied to urban fighting in Gaza.
For those Gazan civilians not supporting Hamas, it would have been much better if Israel could have moved much quicker. Gaza would not be starving with Hamas destroyed.

---

The absolute size of the territory isn't the point. If you herded every living Martian into the Ferrell Center and locked them up without food and water, it would be genocide.

If you're suggesting that the Israelis could have quickly defeated Hamas, I see no evidence for such speculation. If it were true, it would arguably put them in an even worse light.

---

Hamas Harry - have you guys released the hostages yet?

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

How many Jews did you hate today?

---

Wise or unwise move? Really, trying to drag antisemitism into any discussion involving specific actions or policies has lost its effectiveness.

---

It's called Calling a Spade a Spade.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Cities vs territories is an academic not a tactical difference. And Israel is concerned with the weapons caches they've found in aid and fuel trucks, not price gouging.

One thing is certain, this isn't genocidal starvation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Gaza is barely the size of a city - 17 square miles.
Many famous siege battles were in much larger spaces. Vicksburg was 33 square miles in 1863 and its siege involved civilians.

if Israel had made the push into Gaza quicker, they would have still been vilified by many for how bloody it would have been. It also might not have been able to take care of Hezbollah in the north as effectively with assets tied to urban fighting in Gaza.
For those Gazan civilians not supporting Hamas, it would have been much better if Israel could have moved much quicker. Gaza would not be starving with Hamas destroyed.

---

The absolute size of the territory isn't the point. If you herded every living Martian into the Ferrell Center and locked them up without food and water, it would be genocide.

If you're suggesting that the Israelis could have quickly defeated Hamas, I see no evidence for such speculation. If it were true, it would arguably put them in an even worse light.

---

I'm sorry, but did you not just complain about siege tactics not usually being used on "whole territories?" Gaza is a fortified city for all intents and purposes. Just try to find a part of it that doesn't have tunnels and militant strongholds. It is urban warfare, which is what most would call a siege as the attacker is trying to minimize its own casualties from traps and dug in enemies.

Also…
Those who wanted offensive weapons withheld from Israel when they perhaps could have made a quicker war early on;
Those who didn't want the IDF to swamp the tunnels of Hamas or make any other destructive moves in this war's first months;
Those who from the beginning wanted to hamper any serious Israeli offensive;
They can be part owners this now drawn out conflict.

Israel started its fighting in the war with major powers trying to hold them back. Seems the same crowd here that cheered that on are now complaining about the usual results of a drawn out war on an area. I know you didn't forget about that.

I also pointed out that Israel likely could not have ended it quickly when Hezbollah launched attacks in the north.

J.R. said:

---

Par for the Izzy Far Right. Cut all funding.

---

Jewish supremacists have attacked many Christian sites and villages in the past. This is just their latest move. They are quite serious about trying to rebuild a temple from a defunct covenant that will engage in thousands of pointless animal sacrifices and stand waiting for the antichrist.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-ben-gvir-leads-settler-raid-al-aqsa-mosque-under-heavy-guard


"Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship."

Wise? Unwise?

---

Par for the Izzy Far Right. Cut all funding.

---

How many Jews did you hate today?

---

young hank, you are just a Moron . You are too stupid to notice or comprehend that every time I state my objection to genocide in Gaza, I qualify it with Bibi and his fascist (best historian parody with the invocation of fascist in every post, incorrectly) govt or far right govt as I did on this post. I have said many times that I only have serious issues with the current govt and no the people. I'm fairly sure I have many more Jewish friends than you do (used to date a Jewish gal), so you can go eff yourself and continue on with you little backwater existence.

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-ben-gvir-leads-settler-raid-al-aqsa-mosque-under-heavy-guard


"Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship."

Wise? Unwise?

---

Par for the Izzy Far Right. Cut all funding.

---

How many Jews did you hate today?

---

young hank, you are just a Moron . You are too stupid to notice or comprehend that every time I state my objection to genocide in Gaza, I qualify it with Bibi and his fascist (best historian parody with the invocation of fascist in every post, incorrectly) govt or far right govt as I did on this post. I have said many times that I only have serious issues with the current govt and no the people. I'm fairly sure I have many more Jewish friends than you do (used to date a Jewish gal), so you can go eff yourself and continue on with you little backwater existence.

---

Some questions I've not seen someone answer with specifics: What would our government have done differently if a neighboring country killed 45,000 Americans and took 10,000 hostages?

Do you think we would kill more or less of the people in that neighboring country in retaliation for the attack and in trying to get hostages back?

Even anti-Israel sources have said for months that Hamas is not negotiating in good faith with any of the parties involved. What would you do right now if you were Israel?

sombear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

In First, Ben Gvir Leads Settler Raid On Al-Aqsa Mosque Under Heavy Guard

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/first-ben-gvir-leads-settler-raid-al-aqsa-mosque-under-heavy-guard


"Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir led hundreds of settlers in storming Al-Aqsa Mosque complex on Sunday, were they loudly performed Jewish Talmudic prayer, under a heavy police guard, and attempted to antagonise Muslim worshippers.

Videos seen by Middle East Eye showed hundreds of settlers storming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque where some could be seen dancing and shouting, seeking to disrupt the Muslim place of worship."

Wise? Unwise?

---

Par for the Izzy Far Right. Cut all funding.

---

How many Jews did you hate today?

---

young hank, you are just a Moron . You are too stupid to notice or comprehend that every time I state my objection to genocide in Gaza, I qualify it with Bibi and his fascist (best historian parody with the invocation of fascist in every post, incorrectly) govt or far right govt as I did on this post. I have said many times that I only have serious issues with the current govt and no the people. I'm fairly sure I have many more Jewish friends than you do (used to date a Jewish gal), so you can go eff yourself and continue on with you little backwater existence.

---

Some questions I've not seen someone answer with specifics: What would our government have done differently if a neighboring country killed 45,000 Americans and took 10,000 hostages?

Do you think we would kill more or less of the people in that neighboring country in retaliation for the attack and in trying to get hostages back?

Even anti-Israel sources have said for months that Hamas is not negotiating in good faith with any of the parties involved. What would you do right now if you were Israel?

---

If your answer is anything less than pummeling the other side until they completely abdicate, have no ability to harm you again, and return all the hostages, your empathy has outrun your brain such that throughout almost all of human history you would be food or slaves for stronger people.

Hell, traditionally, one group would just move with express intent to exterminate the other one. That's actual genocide and has often been the norm. This notion that "you may be doing a lot to concentrate on military /strategic targets and to help minimize civilian casualties and provide aid, but you're not doing *enough* or not doing it *well enough* is genocide" is just patently silly. It's even more patently silly when you ponder that Hamas/Gaza spent the last 20 years and huge amounts of time and resources intentionally burying military and strategic targets underneath civilians. And refuses to surrender, and still can't even be bothered to return the remaining hostages.

sombear said:

---

Some questions I've not seen someone answer with specifics: What would our government have done differently if a neighboring country killed 45,000 Americans and took 10,000 hostages?

Do you think we would kill more or less of the people in that neighboring country in retaliation for the attack and in trying to get hostages back?

---

We would do no such thing. We would put the perps on welfare and medicaid and 100% of one of our major political parties would fight for them to stay, while 30% of the other one did.

In fact, it's already happened.

The ICE data from last week shows that among those on the non-detained docket, 62,231 were convicted of assault, 14,301 convicted of burglary, 56,533 had drug convictions and 13,099 convicted of homicide. An additional 2,521 have kidnapping convictions and 15,811 have sexual assault convictions

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Cities vs territories is an academic not a tactical difference. And Israel is concerned with the weapons caches they've found in aid and fuel trucks, not price gouging.

One thing is certain, this isn't genocidal starvation.

---

Genocide isn't defined by tactics. And weapons smuggling is no reason to cut off aid. That's why they have inspections. This would be obvious to everyone if our enemies were the ones doing it.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Gaza is barely the size of a city - 17 square miles.
Many famous siege battles were in much larger spaces. Vicksburg was 33 square miles in 1863 and its siege involved civilians.

if Israel had made the push into Gaza quicker, they would have still been vilified by many for how bloody it would have been. It also might not have been able to take care of Hezbollah in the north as effectively with assets tied to urban fighting in Gaza.
For those Gazan civilians not supporting Hamas, it would have been much better if Israel could have moved much quicker. Gaza would not be starving with Hamas destroyed.

---

The absolute size of the territory isn't the point. If you herded every living Martian into the Ferrell Center and locked them up without food and water, it would be genocide.

If you're suggesting that the Israelis could have quickly defeated Hamas, I see no evidence for such speculation. If it were true, it would arguably put them in an even worse light.

---

I'm sorry, but did you not just complain about siege tactics not usually being used on "whole territories?" Gaza is a fortified city for all intents and purposes. Just try to find a part of it that doesn't have tunnels and militant strongholds. It is urban warfare, which is what most would call a siege as the attacker is trying to minimize its own casualties from traps and dug in enemies.

Also…
Those who wanted offensive weapons withheld from Israel when they perhaps could have made a quicker war early on;
Those who didn't want the IDF to swamp the tunnels of Hamas or make any other destructive moves in this war's first months;
Those who from the beginning wanted to hamper any serious Israeli offensive;
They can be part owners this now drawn out conflict.

Israel started its fighting in the war with major powers trying to hold them back. Seems the same crowd here that cheered that on are now complaining about the usual results of a drawn out war on an area. I know you didn't forget about that.

I also pointed out that Israel likely could not have ended it quickly when Hezbollah launched attacks in the north.

---

The point is not the size of the territory but the fact that it constitutes a territory of a specific ethnic, national, or religious group.

I never saw anyone here, much less any major power, saying Israel shouldn't take any destructive action against Hamas. What has been done is not normal or usual.

Israel "not doing enough" is a red herring. They've systematically destroyed farms, livestock, schools, hospitals, housing, and infrastructure, including water and electricity. In short, they've done almost everything they could to increase civilian casualties.

Over 600 former Israeli military and intelligence officials just signed a letter calling for an end to the war. These folks aren't sentimental. They're cold, calculating people who've realized that Israel is losing legitimacy and losing it fast.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Cities vs territories is an academic not a tactical difference. And Israel is concerned with the weapons caches they've found in aid and fuel trucks, not price gouging.

One thing is certain, this isn't genocidal starvation.

---

Genocide isn't defined by tactics. And weapons smuggling is no reason to cut off aid. That's why they have inspections. This would be obvious to everyone if our enemies were the ones doing it.

---

You are the one arguing tactics defining Israel's genocide, I posited the lack of genocidal intent multiple posts ago.

The aid wasn't cutoff. It was slowed due to, checks notes…inspections.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.
By Omer Bartov
July, 15 2025

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

This is not just my conclusion. A growing number of experts in genocide studies and international law have concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza can only be defined as genocide. So has Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, and Amnesty International. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The continued denial of this designation by states, international organizations and legal and scholarly experts will cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again. It is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/opinion/israel-gaza-holocaust-genocide-palestinians.html

---

It should have said "I'm someone who wants to get published in the NY Times, so I'm going to drop rhetorical bombs".

I have a good friend who is over there. He said a few intel mistakes by the Israelis resulted in two incidents in the past month+ that killed a large number of non combatants. It's been jumped on by the sympathetic media, and the pro-Palestinian echo chambers (these are my words), who barely mentioned the Hamas counter attack earlier this month that killed 5 Israeli soldiers. Israel won't apologize or admit fault for it as they already know they'll be hammered for it.

What doesn't get reported are the weapons caches they're seizing at these crossings, many hidden in aid trucks. They tightened the clearance process which has slowed some aid delivery down. This isn't genocide. This is an ugly asymmetrical nightmare with few good options without a Hamas surrender or Israeli capitulation, neither of which is likely at the moment.

---

Your friend must think you are pretty naive.

---

The only naivete here is the recycled buy in to the genocide narrative every time Israel escalates in response to Palestinian aggression. This brutal, asymmetrical war just makes for convenient moral theater where you can stage whatever accusations suit the script.

---

Starving and shooting civilians is not a response to aggression. It's not the same as Hamas attacking Israeli soldiers or vice versa. It has no purpose except to exterminate a people.

---

If it were a genocide, the same would be happening in the West Bank. And that's giving you the false narrative that the starvation is intentional and not a result of war time challenges

---

The West Bank is irrelevant. By definition, genocide is committed with the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

---

It's not genocide because you're conflating a war against a militant enemy with a campaign to destroy a people. That distinction matters legally and morally. Genocide requires intent to destroy a group as such. Civilian suffering, starvation, and displacement are horrific, but they are also tragically common features of war, not unique proof of genocidal intent. What's happening is an ugly, asymmetrical and costly war, but not the systematic eradication of a people.

---

Granting your false narrative that the starvation is accidental, then yes. But that was the opposite of your point.

---

You do realize that siege tactics like cutting off supplies to pressure a surrender have been a common part of warfare for centuries, right? That doesn't make it genocide. It makes it war, with all its ugly strategic calculus. In this case they aren't even cutting it off, they're being cautious with what they allow in.

---

Siege tactics were typically used against fortified cities and strongholds, not whole territories.

There's no need to be "cautious" about what goes into Gaza. If Hamas is taking advantage, it's mainly because people are paying $100 for a few pounds of flour or a gallon of fuel. Flooding the strip with aid would solve both problems overnight if that's what Israel really wanted to do.

---

Cities vs territories is an academic not a tactical difference. And Israel is concerned with the weapons caches they've found in aid and fuel trucks, not price gouging.

One thing is certain, this isn't genocidal starvation.

---

Genocide isn't defined by tactics. And weapons smuggling is no reason to cut off aid. That's why they have inspections. This would be obvious to everyone if our enemies were the ones doing it.

---

You are the one arguing tactics defining Israel's genocide, I posited the lack of genocidal intent multiple posts ago.

The aid wasn't cutoff. It was slowed due to, checks notes…inspections.

---

You argued that if Gaza is a genocide, so is any siege. I've explained why it isn't. Lest we forget, that doesn't mean sieges involving civilians aren't war crimes.

Inspections don't necessitate reducing the number of aid distribution centers from 400 to four, locating them in active combat zones, opening them in the middle of the night, on an hour's notice, for five or ten minutes at a time, and shooting people as they're coming and going. To call that a "slowdown" verges on the Orwellian. It's all further evidence of genocidal intent.