Yet it sounds implausible that a quantitative condition (e.g. for the death toll) and cumulative condition (among the listed acts) are strictly applied, since in this case even killing one person would amount to a genocide, if intent is proven. So I guess those conditions are present (to prove intent) but treated with greater discretion by the jury/judges. Yet maybe the Israelis can play around international laws by smartly exploiting legal ambiguities to their advantage. In this case this is a problem of international laws.

Yes, I was aware of these definitions. I have thought about the case of one person’s death at length. In the end, I concluded that it’s not the deaths that are pertinent, but rather the harm and intent to harm a national, ethnic, or racial group.
I agree international law needs tightening. However I think the parameters are sufficient currently for the judges to reach a finding.

I think that Bibi will in the end achieve to get Israel into similar international position what Apartheid South Africa was.

Israel has more advanced hardware and technology at hand.

Israel has more advanced hardware and technology at hand. — Punshhh

Israeli economy is quite export oriented:

In Israel, exports account for around 40 percent of GDP. Israel main exports are: cut and uncut diamonds, pearls and other precious metals and stones (33 percent of total exports); electrical machinery and equipment, mechanical machinery and appliances, sound and TV recorders and reproducers and computer equipment (22 percent) and chemical products (11 percent). Main export partners are: United States (28 percent of total exports) and Hong Kong (8 percent). Others include: Belgium, United Kingdom, India and China.

So go for example against the diamond trade, which consists a huge part of exports. Something that people wouldn't be offended so much (as they don't buy diamonds themselves often, typically.) Something that isn't seen as harmful (like going after the medical industry). And something that wouldn't hit Silicon Valley as the IT sector in Israel. Even if a large part of the diamond trade is for industrial use, consumer diamonds are crucial. So if someone goes against "Israeli Genocide-diamonds", or something similar, then that might work.

We have to understand the Palestinians themselves don't represent an existential threat to Israel as it has an overwhelming military compared to them. In fact, that ONLY non-state actors have been attacking Israel shows the dominance of the Israeli armed forces. So unlike the narrative cherished by Israel, it's not a tiny country surrounded by mighty Arab armies. Nobody else would dare to attack Israel. And for Bibi, the objective is to make the war a perpetual low intensity conflict, that won't effect the lives of ordinary Israelis. Hence all the talk about mowing the lawn. Hence Israel is really the country where sanctions would have an effect.

The simple fact is that nobody wants to make a negotiated peace. They'll make a negotiated peace only if war or the present course of action will be totally catastrophic. And Netanyahu has dedicated all his life to fight against the peace process.

I have thought about the case of one person’s death at length. In the end, I concluded that it’s not the deaths that are pertinent, but rather the harm and intent to harm a national, ethnic, or racial group. — Punshhh

Here is the problem, if the quantitative element is totally irrelevant than that definition sounds good also to claim that Hamas’ massacre on October the 7th was a genocide. And any accusation of proportionality as intended by many pro-Palestinians here (1 zillion of Palestinian children casualties vs one Israeli soldier casualty) would be equally irrelevant to defend Hamas’ crimes from the accusation of committing a genocide.

We have to understand the Palestinians themselves don't represent an existential threat to Israel as it has an overwhelming military compared to them. In fact, that ONLY non-state actors have been attacking Israel shows the dominance of the Israeli armed forces. So unlike the narrative cherished by Israel, it's not a tiny country surrounded by mighty Arab armies. Nobody else would dare to attack Israel. — ssu

I find this argument weak. First, Hamas has a destabilisation power over Israel for the victims Hamas’ attacks provoke and for their indirect effects (psychological trauma for the population, internal migration and lack of investments due to perceived insecurity, political extremism/division). On the other side, if Hamas government gets the necessary international recognition and manages to form an actual state with conventional military forces while preserving its martyr ideology and commitment to wipe out the Zionist regime, risks can grow further for Israel.
Second, given Hamas extremism and support from Muslim world, there is a risk they could manage to get and use biological/chemical weapons: “In the August 13, 2001 edition of the Palestinian weekly Al-Manar, Abu-Khosa Taufiq, the deputy chairman of the Palestinian Center for Information Services-Gaza, called for 'weapons of deterrence'—including biological or chemical weapons—to help redress the conflict’s military imbalance.” (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/058003010).
Third, Hamas is not a relatively isolated threat (as the Basque or IRA terrorism were). Indeed, it can easily combine with anti-Zionist threats coming from incumbent hostile forces (states and jihadist groups) around Israel, which also may have territorial demands over Israel as history has shown. Besides if Iran’s race for nuclear weapons succeeds, the support to Iran from Russia and China continues, while the support to Israel from the US declines and the normalisation with the Saudis doesn’t succeed fast enough, Israel survival as a state can be very much in danger. The world is changing.
Fourth, since Israelis are the ones to have put skin in it (from past persecution in the Christian and Muslim world until the massacre of October the 7th) and will put skin it in case of another Hamas aggression, I wouldn’t dismiss their security concerns wrt Hamas as overblown (or just hijacked by crazy messianic Israelis) even if measures to counter related threats remain controversial.

First, Hamas has a destabilisation power over Israel for the victims Hamas’ attacks provoke and for their indirect effects (psychological trauma for the population, internal migration and lack of investments due to perceived insecurity, political extremism/division). — neomac

I find this argument weak.

What Hamas could do was to breach a wall that had lulled the Netanyahu goverment not to focus on Gaza and Hamas. And basically it seems that the Israelis were confident about the inability of the simpleton ragheads to do any kind of coordinated military strike against the wall. And then the wall was breached in a humiliation manner. Somehow it's quite similar to the 1973 Yom Kippur war, which came as a surprise to Israel and it's leaders. Well, Hamas had planned it for a long time and then saw now the time to do it. Basically a force less than one infantry brigade (without any assisting arms) managed to infiltrate few kilometers into Israel, kill about 200 Israeli soldiers and 800 civilians. Some of those were killed by friendly fire as the IDF helicopters and incoming forces had trouble finding the terrorists among the people. I think in 24 hours or so the attack was over and Israel had gained back the territory. And naturally Hamas had withdrawn as they knew they had no way against the IDF on open terrain, even for a moment. To do that they would had to have vast numbers of shoulder lauched SAMs and Javelin-type ATGMs. Or tanks, aircraft, etc. Which they don't have as they have only their home made variants of the RPG-7 and rockets.

The "destabilisation power" that Hamas had was only because of the Israeli unpreparedness. This simply isn't at all an existential danger. A simple infantry/security team with enough ammunition could fight off the Hamas terrorists, as it in few places happened. A few companies ready in ambush behind the wall would have stopped Hamas bikers in their tracks. Yet Hamas achieved strategic surprise. Existential danger happens when large parts of your armed forces are destroyed. When the nuclear tipped Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha would be taken out in a surprise attack, that would be a real destabilization to the region.

Second, given Hamas extremism and support from Muslim world, there is a risk they could manage to get and use biological/chemical weapons — neomac

Ah, sorry to say this, but I've heard this so many times this lurid narrative during the war on terror. But let's think about this.

Biological weapons, really? I wonder which people have more safety measure to deal with HAMASCOVID+, the Israelis and their efficient health sector or the Palestinians now starving to death?

Then chemical weapons? So Hamas have their made at home rockets, which have a tiny warhead. Now filling that up (which would likely kill more Hamas fighters when making them), but what would be the purspose? To freak out the first responders coming to a scene of a rocket attack? Besides, the rockets can go wildly offcourse and aren't precision weapons in any way. And chemical weapons aren't simply very efficient. That's why they haven't been used much after WW1. The real way would pour some nerve gas in the water system of a big city, if you really want many casualties.

Yet how does this help Hamas? That Bibi's administration has more credibility when saying that they are human animals that one cannot negotiate with? That the media would be even more fixated on the terrorist attacks and turn a blind eye to the response of more intensified ethnic cleansing? That the US and the West would be more firmly on the side of Isreal?

Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win. That was the whole idea with Al Qaeda specifically saying that Americans and American civilians are a worthy viable target. It got the tiny cabal noticed. Unfortunately for them the US didn't bomb Mecca and Medina and didn't even break up ties with Saudi-Arabia (from where the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorist came from). But Hamas has already gotten Israel to lash out with the October 7th attack.

But if you want to believe that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting Hamas is this rabid death cult who hate democracy and want everybody to be dead, including all Palestinians, then there's not much to argue with you. Because obviously it just then repeating the mantra we heard so many time during the War on Terrorism.

Third, Hamas is not a relatively isolated threat (as the Basque or IRA terrorism were). Indeed, it can easily combine with anti-Zionist threats coming from incumbent hostile forces (states and jihadist groups) around Israel, which also may have territorial demands over Israel as history has shown. Besides if Iran’s race for nuclear weapons succeeds, the support to Iran from Russia and China continues, while the support to Israel from the US declines and the normalisation with the Saudis doesn’t succeed fast enough, Israel survival as a state can be very much in danger. The world is changing. — neomac

OK, first of all, nobody else has territorial demands on Israel than the Palestinians naturally, who want their own independent state and Syria, which lost the Golan Heights to Israel in 1967. Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi-Arabia or Iran don't have territorial demands on Israel.

Secondly, do you understand that with nuclear weapons those hostile to Israel seek nuclear parity? If they have nuclear weapons, perhaps Israel won't so casually bomb them as it does Lebanon. Or do you go with argument that Iranians are these rabid mad mullahs who want to destroy Israel and don't care that millions of Iranians could die in the Israeli counter-attack? Is this the death cult argument again?

Why is it so hard to understand that nations seek nuclear weapons for deterrence reasons, especially when a country hostile to them wanting regime change have them? We already see in Ukraine what happens when one country that has ambitions over another one's territory has nuclear weapons and the other one hasn't.

I don’t know what you take to be “pivotal” in geopolitics.

Like a fulcrum, an arena in which large hegemonic goals, or failure depend on a relatively small arena. Whereas a distraction is an arena where hegemonic powers can become preoccupied meaning they lose focus elsewhere. Ukraine is pivotal for both Russia and Europe and by extension for the U.S. and to a lesser extent China.

I see the pulling out of Afghanistan as part of Trump’s demented behaviour, it was Trump who set that ball rolling and Biden couldn’t easily reverse the decision. And Trump by the way who pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.

As far as I’m concerned, a narrow-minded distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction” can mislead us into discounting or underestimating the role played by circumstances in guiding or misguiding geopolitical efforts.

Again, I don’t see what is happening in the Middle East as pivotal, even though it can generate an awful lot of hot air.

Still the Chinese military build-up, posturing and meddling in other conflicts is understandably taken to signal the US should prepare for the worse anyways. And we should not forget that there are also preventive wars.
Anyways, maybe the US under Trump would not be interested in a conflict with China either:

Yes, more demented behaviour from Trump. There are by the way signs coming out of the U.S. that Trump is suffering from dementia and so won’t make it to the election in a fit state. Everyone around the world is building up their military atm. The issue of Taiwan is tied up more in diplomatic relations and commerce between China and the U.S. than in terms of military showdown, as I see it. I will cover this in my last paragraph.

You sound pretty confident, I don’t know what evidences you have to support your claims. For example 10 years seem enough time for Russia to restore its pre-war capacity for another push

This presumably would be funded from Putin’s war chest. The money saved up from a few decades of selling oil and gas to Europe, including to Ukraine. All income streams which have stopped suddenly. Russia has been able to sell some oil to China and client states, but I doubt it would make up the shortfall. What other income would Russia have? She is under the most severe sanctions and the ruble is worthless. But I don’t have the figures, so I accept that it may be possible that Russia can rearm for another go in ten years. In the meantime, which was my point, Europe will have rearmed and with the appropriate weaponry for such a fight.

Again, you sound pretty confident, I don’t know what evidences you have to support your claims

I’m not making specific claims just making broad observations. For Europe to rearm over the next ten years would be easily financed from the current level of economic activity. Provided there is sufficient incentive( which Russia provides).

financial crisis, pandemics, wars, and the crisis of the Western world order under the pressure of a more assertive Rest,

These issues (excepting the pandemic) did not affect the EU as much as the U.S., U.K. etc. apart from the effects of globalisation.
Also Europe in the longer term, which I was referring to when I said it would become a super power is inevitable. With a population over 500 million and wide ranging resources including the longer term opportunities for growth, why wouldn’t it?

To keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine, the West still needs to adequately and promptly support Ukraine as long as needed.

I know, I can’t see the EU failing to provide enough support. They will be aware of the pivotal nature of the war. I know U.S. funding is under question atm, other countries will provide funding from time to time. Japan for example provided I think $15 billion a few weeks ago.
There may be a calculation which Putin has made, that his war chest will outlast the efforts of the coalition supporting Ukraine. If this is the plan, then Russia will likely be a basket case by the time this stand off were to play out.

Economic growth is possible if input, output, shipping are secured, free, and sustainable from and to China. But we are seeing a resurgence of global security concerns, Western protectionism, national demographic decline that may compromise the Chinese economic growth.

Yes, in some respects China might be in a malaise of some sort. I expect that they were hit hard by the effects of the pandemic and that they will bounce back to an extent.

I want to highlight the extent to which the economic miracle of China over the last 30 years, has impoverished the West. Although it wasn’t just China, but the whole Asian region. People in the West didn’t realise what was happening at first and even now even those who have realised haven’t grasp the extent of it. Simply China has undercut our manufacturing base resulting in outsourcing to Asia on a mass scale, accompanied with mass closures and decline of the same manufacturers in our countries. Alongside this was outsourcing of call centres, admin. Meanwhile China invests the capital they’ve made from this all around the world and dumps commodities like steel in countries struggling to keep those industries afloat. Compounding the movement of wealth and prosperity away from Western countries.
One example is that my father in law makes use of for financial expediency. He mends electrical goods and repeatedly finds the parts available directly from China with free postage. Often at one tenth of the price of producers in our own country, who would charge for postage. Much of our IT equipment is made in China, or other Asian countries.
This is why countries in the West are struggling economically, with some in considerable decline. Increased protectionism and economic problems in China will actually alleviate this situation. Further more if China were to end up in a war with the U.S. the economic fallout would dwarf the economic effects of the pandemic and could collapse the global economy.

"As we did in our previous poll three months ago, we asked the respondents in this poll what
they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive. A vast majority of
71%, compared to 72% in December 2023, say it was correct."
https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2091%20English%20press%20release%2020%20March%202024.pdf

Here is the problem, if the quantitative element is totally irrelevant than that definition sounds good also to claim that Hamas’ massacre on October the 7th was a genocide. And any accusation of proportionality as intended by many pro-Palestinians here (1 zillion of Palestinian children casualties vs one Israeli soldier casualty) would be equally irrelevant to defend Hamas’ crimes from the accusation of committing a genocide.

Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th. But for me it doesn’t qualify, on two counts;
Firstly, the intent, I don’t see those Hamas insurgents having in their heads an intent to harm the racial group of Israel. But rather to commit a violent raid in a small area outside the wall. I know there are calls from people in important positions in the Hamas hierarchy who have called for the eradication of Israel etc. But this is sounding off, hot air. Arabic people often engage in this kind of rhetoric.

Secondly, the act of genocide, The Hamas attack was not capable of hurting the racial group of Israel. Yes, it did hurt the people in and connected to the incursion. Who have been very vocal and it has caused a lot of turmoil within Israel. But there was no way in which the racial, or ethnic group of Israel, or the Jews was under threat, or being harmed. In a genocidal sense.

I think it is important to bear in mind that genocide is not the intent in itself, but intent and the carrying out of the act intended. So even if it can be demonstrated that Hamas had the intent, I don’t see it being demonstrated that the act intended was carried out.

Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th. — Punshhh

Despite the barbarity of the act, anyone who argues that isn't worth taking seriously.

For those still defending Israel here, go fuck yourself.

Foul language from a supporter of a foul group. The movement is foulness. Can't say I'm surprised.

go fuck yourself doubly for misrepresenting my position.

Ukraine is pivotal for both Russia and Europe and by extension for the U.S. and to a lesser extent China. — Punshhh

Again, I don’t see what is happening in the Middle East as pivotal, even though it can generate an awful lot of hot air. — Punshhh

You have introduced the distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction”, without clarifying its implications, at least to me. As far as I’m concerned, analogies are good to complement not to replace analytical arguments when it’s matter of clarifying meaning. And your analogical distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction” doesn’t help me understand why the US looks concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict way more than about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict even though both would arguably be equal distractions wrt the competition with China in the Pacific.
Besides, your argument makes me seriously doubt that your views are congruent. For example the Middle East is pivotal to Israel and the Jews as much as Ukraine is pivotal to the Europeans, right? To the extant the pro-Israel community in the US (Jews and Evangelicals) is influential to the US foreign policy (and arguably it is), then the US can’t simply pull out from the Middle East just because Middle East is a distraction wrt the competition with China in the Pacific. To use your own words, since Israel is pivotal for pro-Israel Americans then, by extension it is pivotal for the U.S., right? If so, what was the point of invoking the distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again?

In the meantime, which was my point, Europe will have rearmed and with the appropriate weaponry for such a fight. — Punshhh

I’m not making specific claims just making broad observations. For Europe to rearm over the next ten years would be easily financed from the current level of economic activity. Provided there is sufficient incentive( which Russia provides). — Punshhh

You sound more convinced than convincing. I understand that circumstances are motivating Europeans to think more strategically and re-arm. However geopolitical analyses sound more uncertain about the outcome of this wake up call. Here an example: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/27/russia-ukraine-nato-europe-war-scenarios-baltics-poland-suwalki-gap/

Also Europe in the longer term, which I was referring to when I said it would become a super power is inevitable. With a population over 500 million and wide ranging resources including the longer term opportunities for growth, why wouldn’t it? — Punshhh

I already answered that question. You seem to observe “inevitable” trajectories based on a couple of approximative parameters (what are the “wide ranging resources including the longer term opportunities for growth” you are referring to?) without considering the influence of historical circumstances and the implications of hegemonic competition. Europe is still a contended space for hegemonic competition, from within (conflicting interests among European states) and from outside (under the pressure of Russia and the US to begin with). The European economy relies on foreign markets of commodities for their input and/or final products for their output, which are already either under control by regional/world hegemonic powers or contended by regional/world hegemonic powers (example, Germany depending on Russia for oil and on China for export). Besides regional/world hegemonic powers are not just going to sit and watch what Europe will do in the longer term, just to give Europe a chance to “inevitably” become a competing superpower. They can try to exploit European vulnerabilities AGAINST Europeans at convenience.
So even if there is a potential for growth, there is also a potential for decadence. Indeed concerns about EU’s decline are persistent and widespread in all domains: population, economy, politics, technology. Here some related readings:
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/04/china-sees-first-population-decline-in-six-decades-where-does-the-eu-stand
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/10/11/brussels-sounds-alarm-about-eus-rapidly-ageing-population-recommends-migration-to-fill-vac-
https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/very-worrying-trade-unions-alarmed-by-eus-industrial-collapse/
https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/642-the-european-union-s-declining-influence-in-the-south
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/15/majority-of-europeans-expect-end-of-eu-within-20-years
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12286-021-00481-w
https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/digital-tech-europes-growing-gap-eight-charts
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/securing-europes-competitiveness-addressing-its-technology-gap
https://www.ft.com/content/d4fda2ec-91cd-4a13-a058-e6718ec38dd1

Conclusion: again you sound more convinced than convincing.

I know, I can’t see the EU failing to provide enough support. — Punshhh

Most certainly not enough to support an Ukrainian offensive, right?

Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th. — Punshhh

And it is argued by various legal experts and genocide studies scholars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel

Firstly, the intent, I don’t see those Hamas insurgents having in their heads an intent to harm the racial group of Israel. But rather to commit a violent raid in a small area outside the wall. I know there are calls from people in important positions in the Hamas hierarchy who have called for the eradication of Israel etc. But this is sounding off, hot air. Arabic people often engage in this kind of rhetoric. — Punshhh

So you can scan “intents” directly from people’s heads now? If you dismiss evidences of Hamas’ massacre and declared intents against Israel, others can dismiss your capacity of scanning intents from people’s heads or even retort it against you: one can scan in Nethanyahu’s head he has no intent to commit a genocide and calling Hamas animals is just hot air.

Secondly, the act of genocide, The Hamas attack was not capable of hurting the racial group of Israel. Yes, it did hurt the people in and connected to the incursion. Who have been very vocal and it has caused a lot of turmoil within Israel. But there was no way in which the racial, or ethnic group of Israel, or the Jews was under threat, or being harmed. In a genocidal sense. — Punshhh

For what reasons “there was no way in which the racial, or ethnic group of Israel, or the Jews was under threat, or being harmed. In a genocidal sense”? Yours is just a claim. There are people claiming that Hamas committed a genocide. Why should I be more compelled by your claims than by others’? What’s the argument? Dude, I didn’t join this forum to make a survey about people’s opinions or to socialize. I welcome actual arguments if you have any. If you don’t, we’re wasting time here.

I think it is important to bear in mind that genocide is not the intent in itself, but intent and the carrying out of the act intended. So even if it can be demonstrated that Hamas had the intent, I don’t see it being demonstrated that the act intended was carried out. — Punshhh

Again you didn’t offer any analytical criteria nor evidences about what DEMONSTRATES genocidal intent when people are massacred.

What Hamas could do was to breach a wall that had lulled the Netanyahu goverment not to focus on Gaza and Hamas. And basically it seems that the Israelis were confident about the inability of the simpleton ragheads to do any kind of coordinated military strike against the wall. And then the wall was breached in a humiliation manner. — ssu

The "destabilisation power" that Hamas had was only because of the Israeli unpreparedness. This simply isn't at all an existential danger. A simple infantry/security team with enough ammunition could fight off the Hamas terrorists, as it in few places happened. — ssu

Notice that I didn’t take my 4 points as individually sufficient reason to consider Hamas an existential threat to Israel. Some of my most basic assumptions are that the first purpose of a state is the monopoly of coercion over a territory, and that people under a state rule are expected to support it at least to the extent the state keeps them safe. Challenging the Israeli territorial sovereignty is built-in Hamas’ declared anti-Zionist ideology. And by indiscriminately killing Israeli civilians Hamas is both challenging Israeli territorial sovereignty and its popular support. Even more so if Hamas can manage to pull into this conflict foreign military support and international support to pressure Israel. In that sense, Hamas is an existential threat to the Zionist state project.
Sure, the disparity of military capacity isn’t in favor of Hamas in a conventional sense, so one could argue that it’s a threat that Israel can easily contain. However, that conclusion doesn’t add up with what you want to claim later (which I don't discount). Indeed, if Hamas succeeds in getting Israel “stuck in a war it cannot win”, something like an unsustainable or endless war for Israel, with ever growing material and reputational costs for Israel, then this would be a strategic failure for the Zionist project. And that still is what makes Hamas an existential threat to Israel as a Zionist project.

Ah, sorry to say this, but I've heard this so many times this lurid narrative during the war on terror. But let's think about this.

Biological weapons, really? I wonder which people have more safety measure to deal with HAMASCOVID+, the Israelis and their efficient health sector or the Palestinians now starving to death?

Then chemical weapons? So Hamas have their made at home rockets, which have a tiny warhead. Now filling that up (which would likely kill more Hamas fighters when making them), but what would be the purspose? To freak out the first responders coming to a scene of a rocket attack? Besides, the rockets can go wildly offcourse and aren't precision weapons in any way. And chemical weapons aren't simply very efficient. That's why they haven't been used much after WW1. The real way would pour some nerve gas in the water system of a big city, if you really want many casualties. — ssu

I don’t know what the chances for Hamas to get and use bio/chemical weapons are,
but I can still argue that there are persistent concerns about bio/chemical terrorism which I have no strong reason to dismiss since they come from both the West and the Middle East:
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15396.doc.htm
https://press.un.org/en/2022/gadis3697.doc.htm
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International%20Law/ILP0904bp.pdf
https://www.prif.org/fileadmin/HSFK/hsfk_downloads/A_WMD-DVs_Free_Zone_For_The_Middle_East.pdf
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cia-report-on-proliferation-of-wmd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Besides related technology can evolve, so what is costly and unpractical for Hamas today, may be cheeper and handy tomorrow:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-is-defenseless-against-a-drone-terror-attack-be1fabdb
https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/drones-of-mass-destruction-drone-swarms-and-the-future-of-nuclear-chemical-and-biological-weapons/
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Islamic-State-and-Drones-Release-Version.pdf

Yet how does this help Hamas? That Bibi's administration has more credibility when saying that they are human animals that one cannot negotiate with? That the media would be even more fixated on the terrorist attacks and turn a blind eye to the response of more intensified ethnic cleansing? That the US and the West would be more firmly on the side of Isreal?

Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win. — ssu

But if you want to believe that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting Hamas is this rabid death cult who hate democracy and want everybody to be dead, including all Palestinians, then there's not much to argue with you. Because obviously it just then repeating the mantra we heard so many time during the War on Terrorism. — ssu

Your arguments don’t sound consistent to me: on one side you readily concede that “Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win”, on the other side you seem to refuse to accept the consequences of such logic. If Hamas’ terroristic attacks aim at indiscriminately killing civilians with the purpose of having Israel lashing out and kill Palestinian combatants and civilians in larger numbers (whom are then called “martyrs”), and yet that’s not enough for you to take Hamas as a “rabid death cult”, all right, so what?! Still the issue is that Hamas’ mindset is alien to humanitarian concerns as Westerners understand them, no less than Israel, and arguably worse than Israel because Hamas can even be accused of committing war crimes against its own people.
Besides, if Israel can not win this war against Hamas, can Hamas win this war against Israel while bearing greater costs in terms of life, suffering and territorial losses? The exchange rate of offenses can still favour Israel, no matter if the feud between Israel and Palestine could last for an undetermined number of generations. In any case, it’s not me who is going to settle what is bearable to Israelis or Palestinians, since Israelis and Palestinians are putting their skin in this game, not me.

OK, first of all, nobody else has territorial demands on Israel than the Palestinians naturally, who want their own independent state and Syria, which lost the Golan Heights to Israel in 1967. Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi-Arabia or Iran don't have territorial demands on Israel. — ssu

Still there are disputed territories between Israel and Syria or Lebanon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_Golan_Heights
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/13/why-is-there-a-disputed-border-between-lebanon-and-israel

Secondly, do you understand that with nuclear weapons those hostile to Israel seek nuclear parity? If they have nuclear weapons, perhaps Israel won't so casually bomb them as it does Lebanon. Or do you go with argument that Iranians are these rabid mad mullahs who want to destroy Israel and don't care that millions of Iranians could die in the Israeli counter-attack? Is this the death cult argument again?

Why is it so hard to understand that nations seek nuclear weapons for deterrence reasons, especially when a country hostile to them wanting regime change have them? We already see in Ukraine what happens when one country that has ambitions over another one's territory has nuclear weapons and the other one hasn’t. — ssu

States driven by security concerns are not necessarily pursuing deterrence means (e.g. by getting nuclear weapons) just in legitimate self-defence as you seem to suggest. Indeed, we have seen authoritarian regimes (like Russia and North Korea) use the nuclear threat to get other countries satisfy their predatory demands. So, once nuclear deterrence works to prevent interstate wars, yet the conflict with predatory intents can continue in asymmetric ways (like terrorism) and proxy wars (again see the case of Ukraine wrt the hegemonic competition between US and Russia, both with nuclear weapons).

There is no food, no drinks. We are eating plants. We started eating pigeon food, donkey food — victim

25 children have died of starvation — David Miliband

... due to existing food trucks being turned back, either at crossing points or inside Gaza. Some trucks with medical supplies turned back because a pair of surgical scissors deemed a security threat. As mentioned by Miliband, it's kind of an immediate crisis, not about rhetoric or whatever.

Apparently, decisions to block the trucks are being made by whatever (overzealous) troops on the spot. Do you think more pressure on Netanyahu can get them to issue orders to let humanitarian aid through?

Money talks. Immediate sanctions and stop selling weaponry. They will change course before they can say "vi shreklekh".

go fuck yourself doubly for misrepresenting my position. — Benkei

How the hostages doin', Benkei?

You have introduced the distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction”, without clarifying its implications, at least to me.

The implications are that in the case of the Ukraine conflict the difference between the two outcomes, 1, that Russia wins and incorporates Ukraine into Russia and 2, that Russia fails to win Ukraine and Ukraine becomes incorporated into the EU. Would have far reaching and profound implications for the geopolitics between Europe and Asia (and by implication between the West and the East) for a generation or more.
By contrast, the difference between likely outcomes in the Isreal Gaza conflict will not make much difference to geopolitics either way. I don’t see any significant wider geopolitical ramifications. (Please provide some, if I’m wrong). Any linking of these alternative scenarios to a swing of power towards China, or away from the U.S. is weak as the struggle between the two is primarily elsewhere. Russia and the U.S. have been playing proxy wars in the region since WW2. This is just another of those.

The first (Ukraine)is pivotal geopolitically, the second (Israel) is little more than a distraction for any big players in the geopolitics. I can’t see how more simply I can put this distinction than this, one is geopolitically significant, the other isn’t.

why the US looks concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict way more than about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

The difference is that the U.S. has an interest in one and not the other.

For example the Middle East is pivotal to Israel and the Jews as much as Ukraine is pivotal to the Europeans, right?

The difference being Europe is an important world power, with geopolitical heft. Israel is a small Western outpost in an area in which there are no big geopolitical players(including Israel).

To the extant the pro-Israel community in the US (Jews and Evangelicals) is influential to the US foreign policy (and arguably it is), then the US can’t simply pull out from the Middle East just because Middle East is a distraction wrt the competition with China in the Pacific. To use your own words, since Israel is pivotal for pro-Israel Americans then, by extension it is pivotal for the U.S., right? If so, what was the point of invoking the distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again?

I meant a distraction in a general sense. In that it is a region in which the big geopolitical players throw something from time to time, have a proxy war, or play some games with oil, or something. Which may distract the voices flying across the world for a while from other concerns. But things settle down again after a while and the big players settle back to their established positions.
I agree that Israel is a unique case of U.S. involvement, which can draw the U.S. into proxy wars. But this has been going on for a good while now in one Middle Eastern country, or another, no change there.
Again Russia and her proxy’s and the U.S. and her allies in the region are having a spat, just like they have been for god knows how long. China will see it for what it is, a skirmish in an intractable situation in an unimportant region.

You sound more convinced than convincing. I understand that circumstances are motivating Europeans to think more strategically and re-arm. However geopolitical analyses sound more uncertain about the outcome of this wake up call.

Yes there are complexities to the situation, I’m simply describing the major shift, a profound development in European security planning. The majority of the member states of the EU are successful wealthy countries. Yes there is some economic turmoil around the world currently as a result of the pandemic and the Ukraine war. But they are quite capable of spending a percent or two of their budgets on this.

what are the “wide ranging resources including the longer term opportunities for growth” you are referring to?

Industrial, technological, innovative resources from a coalition of advanced Western nations. As I have pointed out, Europe has the opportunity to develop solar energy in its southern states to fuel the northern states, also wind farms in the North Sea. The economic activity of developing the accession states in Eastern Europe to similar levels of advancement is a big economic opportunity. Ukraine has great agricultural resources, which will be valuable with climate change.

Germany depending on Russia for oil and on China for export

Germany is making a rapid move away from Russian energy supplies, it will take a while to make the adjustments. Their trade with China is mutually beneficial. If China ceased trading with Western powers such as Germany, it would provide an economic boost and opportunity for whomever replaces the supply, markets would adjust. As I say, China undercutting Western countries with their manufacturing is the main drag on economic activity and growth in those countries. Not to mention China’s economy being dependent on such trade.

They can try to exploit European vulnerabilities AGAINST Europeans at convenience.

Who will be doing this?

So even if there is a potential for growth, there is also a potential for decadence. Indeed concerns about EU’s decline are persistent and widespread in all domains: population, economy, politics, technology. Here some related readings:

Quite, issues faced by many countries around the world at this time.

I know, I can’t see the EU failing to provide enough support.
— Punshhh

Most certainly not enough to support a Ukrainian offensive, right?

Imagine the response from European countries should Russia start to make substantial ground and look likely to occupy Kiev.

So you can scan “intents” directly from people’s heads now? If you dismiss evidences of Hamas’ massacre and declared intents against Israel, others can dismiss your capacity of scanning intents from people’s heads or even retort it against you: one can scan in Nethanyahu’s head he has no intent to commit a genocide and calling Hamas animals is just hot air.

I have said more than once that it is only for the specialist investigators who will testify to the ICJ to determine what is in the heads of these terrorist groups. Maybe I should get back to you in 10 years when they have concluded their work. In the meantime all we have is personal opinion, or judgement.

What’s the argument? Dude, I didn’t join this forum to make a survey about people’s opinions or to socialize. I welcome actual arguments if you have any. If you don’t, we’re wasting time here.

Ahh, Neomac’s requirement for in depth arguments again. I’ve given my argument. Let me give it again.

I think it is important to bear in mind that genocide is not the intent in itself, but intent and the carrying out of the act intended. So even if it can be demonstrated that Hamas had the intent, I don’t see it being demonstrated that the act, (according to the Israeli’s), intended was carried out.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what intent there is, it only becomes genocide when that intent, sufficient to meet the bar of genocide, is acted out on the ground. Hamas was not capable of acting out a genocidal act, all they were capable of was an incursion across the wall, to massacre anyone they found and return home for their evening meal. Doesn’t look like genocide to me.

Security Council Fails to Adopt Resolution on Imperative of Immediate, Sustained Ceasefire in Gaza, Owing to Vetoes Cast by China, Russian Federation
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15637.doc.htm

Your point being? Or is that your defense to continue to defend Israel? Starve 2,2 million to save a few hundred (who are probably starving as well!)? If so, my point stands, go fuck yourself.

You have introduced the distinction between “pivotal” and “distraction”, without clarifying its implications, at least to me.

↪neomac
— Punshhh

The implications are that in the case of the Ukraine conflict the difference between the two outcomes, 1, that Russia wins and incorporates Ukraine into Russia and 2, that Russia fails to win Ukraine and Ukraine becomes incorporated into the EU. Would have far reaching and profound implications for the geopolitics between Europe and Asia (and by implication between the West and the East) for a generation or more.
By contrast, the difference between likely outcomes in the Isreal Gaza conflict will not make much difference to geopolitics either way. I don’t see any significant wider geopolitical ramifications. (Please provide some, if I’m wrong). Any linking of these alternative scenarios to a swing of power towards China, or away from the U.S. is weak as the struggle between the two is primarily elsewhere. Russia and the U.S. have been playing proxy wars in the region since WW2. This is just another of those. — Punshhh

I get that the conflict in Ukraine is of primary importance for the EU and Russia, but if you are focusing on the swing of power between China and the US, I’m not sure that the difference between likely outcomes either in the Ukrainian conflict or in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would make a difference for China and the US. As you say “the struggle between the two is primarily elsewhere”. Besides the conflict in Ukraine still looks far from being settled in a way that is amenable to most certainly boost China's or the US's hegemony.
Concerning the “contrast” between the Ukrainian conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for that matter) you highlight, it doesn’t look that compelling to me. One reason is that the pro-Israeli political front in the US is arguably very strong (https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-is-now-three-times-as-jewish-as-the-us-is/) and it can keep the American focus more on Israel than on Ukraine. Another reason is that the ramification that may have an impact in both rebalancing the power struggle in the middle east between regional powers is for example the normalisation between Saudis and Israeli, with cascading dividends for world hegemonic powers (the US, China or Russia) because the US then would be facilitated in pulling out from the middle east and re-invest its military capital/troops elsewhere to contain China. Yet, as I anticipated, it’s not easy to pull out from the middle-east:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/24/america-is-planning-to-withdraw-from-syria-and-create-a-disaster/
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-13/the-us-needs-to-get-out-of-the-middle-east-soon
https://www.theglobalist.com/iran-united-states-middle-east-geopolitics-security/

Germany is making a rapid move away from Russian energy supplies, it will take a while to make the adjustments. Their trade with China is mutually beneficial. If China ceased trading with Western powers such as Germany, it would provide an economic boost and opportunity for whomever replaces the supply, markets would adjust. As I say, China undercutting Western countries with their manufacturing is the main drag on economic activity and growth in those countries. Not to mention China’s economy being dependent on such trade. — Punshhh

Maybe Germany won’t find any replacement, because other foreign markets will be increasingly dominated by competing regional/world hegemonic powers (as it happens in Africa and South America and Asia)

They can try to exploit European vulnerabilities AGAINST Europeans at convenience.

Who will be doing this? — Punshhh

I already answered that question. Russia and the US are the first ones to come to mind. Both may have strong incentives to play divide et impera strategies in Europe to preserve their supremacy. And what’s worse is that the conflict between the two can move from European borders to the heart of Europe in the most insidious ways, through all sorts of political/military/economic blackmailing and/or proxies. The conflict in Ukraine can arguably be considered a case of divide at impera strategy played by the US against Germany (https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277488.shtml). A specular argument can be construed against Russia: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/why-russia-wants-to-divide-united-states-and-germany.html
The same game can be played ad libitum with other European countries.

So even if there is a potential for growth, there is also a potential for decadence. Indeed concerns about EU’s decline are persistent and widespread in all domains: population, economy, politics, technology. Here some related readings:

Quite, issues faced by many countries around the world at this time. — Punshhh

The prospects vary among superpowers. But only in the EU the situation looks so worrisome in all domains at the same time, at least now.

I know, I can’t see the EU failing to provide enough support.
— Punshhh

Most certainly not enough to support a Ukrainian offensive, right?

Imagine the response from European countries should Russia start to make substantial ground and look likely to occupy Kiev. — Punshhh

Still, EU’s military aid wasn’t enough to support a Ukrainian offensive, so far. No matter how badly wanted by Zelensky.

I have said more than once that it is only for the specialist investigators who will testify to the ICJ to determine what is in the heads of these terrorist groups. Maybe I should get back to you in 10 years when they have concluded their work. I’m the meantime all we have is personal opinion, or judgement. — Punshhh

You said it more than once to me? Don’t you need “the specialist investigators who will testify to the ICJ to determine what is in the heads of” Netanyahu too before claiming that Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza?
As for your opinions, actually I didn’t ask you a legal account, but for your compelling reasons to claim Israel is committing a genocide, while Hamas didn’t in the massacre of October 7. You didn’t offer anything else than your ability to scan “intentions” in people’s heads which is not compelling to me. Do you have other more compelling than this?

I think it is important to bear in mind that genocide is not the intent in itself, but intent and the carrying out of the act intended. So even if it can be demonstrated that Hamas had the intent, I don’t see it being demonstrated that the act, (according to the Israeli’s), intended was carried out. — Punshhh

What act are you talking about? The massacre of October 7 is the act carried out by Hamas. This act can be accused of being genocidal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel . Is such act genocidal or not, to you? If not, what DEMONSTRATES that it is not, to you?

In other words, it doesn’t matter what intent there is, it only becomes genocide when that intent, sufficient to meet the bar of genocide, is acted out on the ground. Hamas was not capable of acting out a genocidal act, all they were capable of was an incursion across the wall, to massacre anyone they found and return home for their evening meal. Doesn’t look like genocide to me. — Punshhh

What is the genocidal act which Hamas would not be capable of acting out, despite having a genocidal intent and committing massacres with genocidal intent? What is the bar of genocide you are referring to? Are you grounding your notion of genocide on the legal definition or on another one?

Your point being? Or is that your defense to continue to defend Israel? Starve 2,2 million to save a few hundred (who are probably starving as well!)? If so, my point stands, go fuck yourself. — Benkei

Well done, Benkei. You need to take a break.

My point being that if you stick your thumb in someone's eye and he in turn takes you by the throat, it is only decent, if you're asking him to remove his hands from your throat, for you to take your thumb out of his eye. That the thumb is hostages makes everything very serious.

Were Hamas just a gang in Gaza I'd mostly agree with you. But Hamas is not just a gang in Gaza. Imo Hamas and their kind are a cancer that should have been removed a very long time ago, but that has been allowed to metastasize to where it will kill its host. By "kill" I mean I expect Gaza soon enough to be a very different place than it is now or has been.

Well done, Benkei. You need to take a break.

My point being that if you stick your thumb in someone's eye and he in turn takes you by the throat, it is only decent, if you're asking him to remove his hands from your throat, for you to take your thumb out of his eye. That the thumb is hostages makes everything very serious.

Were Hamas just a gang in Gaza I'd mostly agree with you. But Hamas is not just a gang in Gaza. Imo Hamas and their kind are a cancer that should have been removed a very long time ago, but that has been allowed to metastasize to where it will kill its host. By "kill" I mean I expect Gaza soon enough to be a very different place than it is now or has been. — tim wood

Dumb shit as usual. What Hamas did or didn't do is entirely irrelevant as to the humanitarian laws and treaties Israel and its Western supporting states signed up to. There's no excuse to collectively punish, through starvation, a civilian population for the crimes of a terrorist organisation in their mids, or indeed, their government. This is obvious to even my 5-year old, who realises hitting another kid than the one that hit you has nothing to do with justice. And in this case, it also has nothing to do with their communicated goal of saving the hostages, for which entirely different solutions are available (try negotiating). So well done for regressing beyond the level of a 5-year old where it comes to understanding justice and fairness, I suppose.

For the first time, a demand for an immediate ceasefire has passed a UN Security Council vote. The US abstained.

It seems like supporting genocide is no longer in US interests, or rather, tanking Joe's chances at re-election.

It remains to be seen whether this will be anything more than a symbolic victory, since even if the US reprimands Israel in word, it likely will continue to support the genocide through its actions, as it has.

It seems ol' Joe is between a rock and a hard place. Support genocide, invite Trump. Condemn genocide, get dragged through the mud by the Israel lobby.

IDF general: US official accused IDF of sexually abusing Palestinian women, general says

Normally I would treat articles like this as likely spin, but it comes from the Jerusalem Post, and the intelligence comes from Israel's best friend, Uncle Sam himself.

Odd.

There's no excuse to collectively punish, through starvation, a civilian population for the crimes of a terrorist organisation in their midst, or indeed, their government. — Benkei

So tell us, then, why exactly are Hamas still holding the hostages?

I do not know what any Israelis are thinking - I imagine they think all kinds of things. My thinking is that I want the hostages, and I want Hamas, with good reason for wanting both. And I will press until I get both, history having taught that all else fails. For at least immediate relief, the Palestinians need only turn over both. Simple as that. But they would rather die. Well, they do not get a prize for that; they only get the death they want - and to be sure, that they force.

You, Benkei, seem to think the Israeli have a choice. I think they don't, Arab attitudes. policies, and actions having made it clear that they don't.

seem to think the Israeli have a choice. I think they don't, — tim wood

Yeah, it’s just a law of nature that one must murder 30,000 innocent people and starve a population, more than half being under 24.

But of course this doesn’t apply to Hamas. They had a choice when they murdered. Israel has no choice. Because they always have the best intentions.

With a second Trump presidency looking more likely, perhaps the United States may come to its senses.

If Biden is going to lose anyway, the US might as well stop making itself complicit in genocide and accept Israel and the Israel lobby are going to throw a fit.

Some of my most basic assumptions are that the first purpose of a state is the monopoly of coercion over a territory, and that people under a state rule are expected to support it at least to the extent the state keeps them safe. — neomac

You do understand that in case of the Palestinians, it is an independence movement. You may argue that Hamas has an "anti-Zionist ideology", but naturally an independence movement would be against any state, be it Israel or the United Kingdom. Challenging the Israeli territorial sovereignty is built-in Hamas’ declared anti-Zionist ideology. During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt the Palestinians fought against the British, hence then you could argue that the ideology was "anti-British".

However, that conclusion doesn’t add up with what you want to claim later (which I don't discount). Indeed, if Hamas succeeds in getting Israel “stuck in a war it cannot win”, something like an unsustainable or endless war for Israel, with ever growing material and reputational costs for Israel, then this would be a strategic failure for the Zionist project. And that still is what makes Hamas an existential threat to Israel as a Zionist project. — neomac

The "stuck in a war it cannot win" is basically because the Netanyahu government hasn't any policy what to do after the military operation. Here what is forgotten is that war is the continuation of policy. Just saying "destroy Hamas" isn't enough when you have no idea, no political objective what to do afterwards. It is as simplistic and stupid as Bush going to Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and then declaring that he won't do anything else and isn't interested in nation building. Well, it didn't go so and it's naive to think that once the IDF declares that it has destroyed the last Hamas battalion, then it can go home and everything is back to normal.

This isn't an anti-Israeli view. I think who makes this quite clear and obvious is former prime minister Ehud Barak. He states that the military side of might go as now, yet what is lacking is the political side of what to do. Many have stated similar thoughts, but Barak I think gives the most straight forward analysis (even if his English isn't the best). If you have time, you should listen to the former prime minister says here:

I don’t know what the chances for Hamas to get and use bio/chemical weapons are, but I can still argue that there are persistent concerns about bio/chemical terrorism which I have no strong reason to dismiss since they come from both the West and the Middle East — neomac

At the present, it's obviously low. For them to get any weapons now is questionable. Hamas has been capable of acquiring it's arsenal only by a slow process of making itself the rockets and funneling through tunnels the weapons. And Hamas isn't ISIS, even if don't care to "sort them out". But you will surely find alarmist literature of terrorists getting their hands on "dirty bombs", bioweapons, WMD's etc. It's a small possibility, but not the likeliest outcome, just as Russia invading Finland. That is a possibility too, but not something immediate and likely.

And btw many of your links look at states like Syria (prior Iraq) and their WMD projects. Understandably the objectives of these countries has to do a lot with having some kind of parity and deterrence towards Israeli WMDs.

Your arguments don’t sound consistent to me: on one side you readily concede that “Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win”, on the other side you seem to refuse to accept the consequences of such logic. — neomac

I'm not seeing anything inconsistent here. Terrorist want that their target governments lash out in anger and thus show how evil they are. That's their thinking.

Or you don't understand how Al Qaeda or ISIS work? Or how fringe terrorist groups of twenty people think they can change things and move millions of people in their favor?

Al Qaeda and ISIS aren't states, even if the latter insists being the Islamic State. They want publicity for their cause and anticipate the crackdown on themselves and hope that the crackdown will create itself support for their cause. They want an Islamic Caliphate to rise allover, hence their objectives are quite messianic (and really out there). It's quite consistent, so I'm not understanding what is so confusing to you.

Hamas and the PLO have the objective of creating an independent Palestine. The PLO has used similar terror tactics, until it choose to attempt the peace process way. Hamas is still using terrorism.

With a second Trump presidency looking more likely, perhaps the United States may come to its senses. — Tzeentch

How?

And why do you think so?