In what fucking world is that “one or two crazy people”??

Did you even read the sources you sent me? Because it’s this world. Like random politicians making crazy claims is not evidence(hence me bringing up MTG and friends). Your crazy ramblings are getting old.

And I guess calling Israel out for war crimes is “disproved Israeli government propaganda”? You clearly haven’t read my comments.

I hope you have the day you deserve too. (I’ll give you a hint, the day you deserve is a day in middle school English class to work on your reading comprehension)

I’m not sure if they test for that but I’m pretty sure if they do they don’t do follow ups

It’s not larping when you’re actually military.

But that brings up a big point. He was military. Support the troops and give them mental healthcare. Also screen them, he should not have still been in the reserves.

Your bad faith excuses for genocide

This right here shows you didn’t actually understand what I’ve been writing.

First off, please read my fucking comments, I don’t support what the Israel government is doing. You’re having an emotional response because I’m showing this situation is more complicated.

None of that is “ample fucking evidence” if I’m lying so are you.

I’m sorry this conflict is more complicated than you’d like, but one person who happens to be in a government making a statement does not mean that’s the government’s opinion. You need this thing called evidence. Give me a whistle blower, give me documents. Don’t give me one or two crazy people, there are crazy people everywhere and they aren’t representative of everyone.

Do you think that it’s America’s opinion that there are Jewish space lasers? Because MTG an American politician made that comment. Or that after rape you should get a shot of estrogen from the ER, that one’s from Ron Paul. Those must be America’s opinion according to the logic you’re presenting.

Also with regards to the safe zone issues. If that happened frequently you’d have an argument, and if it keeps happening that’s great evidence. But it’s not happened that much so it’s going to be really easy to argue that it was an accident, a misfire, broken communication etc etc etc.

Again, there are war crimes Israel has committed, if you take them to kangaroo court, you should come at them correctly.

People handle this situation like it’s a sporting event. Like one side can do no wrong and if you’re not in lock step with one side then you must be in full collusion with the other. Completely ignoring that one side is a terrorist organization that took over by force, the other side is an apartied government that’s perpetrated a siege for years, both have civilian deaths on their hands and caught in the middle are actual people that didn’t ask for this.

But yeah, thanks for your comment.

While I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. I don’t fully agree with it either.

Because what I’m actually stating is. Don’t charge a pedophile with murder, or don’t charge a murderer with child molestation.

Words and charges matter.

Think about it like this, since there’s no hard evidence that this is a genocide because of the legal definition. Israel is likely going to win this case. That means they can say they defended their actions in court and won, can’t we all agree that’s bad?

Charge them with what you can actually prove. They have committed war crimes, it’s just not likely feasible to prove this is genocide without a lot more evidence.

Don’t get me wrong, sure investigate it, make sure it isn’t. But…

Yes I would, I mean. There’s literally no evidence in that article. It’s just detailing a situation, a horrific situation that needs to stop. But there’s no evidence of genocide. Please again, provide evidence.

Yes, Israel has committed other war crimes and should be held responsible. But that’s not the argument.

Prove it was intentional and not a misfire, a problem with civilians accessing up to date information etc etc. Gaza is very small and very densely populated. You have to prove without a shadow of a doubt intent here. It ain’t gonna happen.

Again, you’d be better off taking Israel to court on war crimes you can actually prove. Ones that don’t require proving this intent.

Second part

Prove it. Give any evidence, prove that you’re smarter than basically every lawyer outside of the South Africa team and prove genocide.

If you think I’m a supporter of the Israeli government you didn’t actually read my comments.

You people act like this conflict is between sports teams, fucking hell.

That doesn’t matter in a legal sense.

Okay my dudes. Look. Israel thinks UN court is a kangaroo court, but they’re sending a crack team of lawyers. Why? PR. Because they know they’ll win and then they can say “we defended our actions in court and won”

Sure, take them to court, but take them to court for things they’d actually lose.

fucking useful tool

Thanks mate. I know I’m useful. As are dictionaries, and the lawyers that I’m basically just quoting…

I spread no misinformation. My entire stance was effectively “it’s hard to prove intent” but good job getting aggressively upset about common knowledge.

Imma go ahead and put this edit at the top.

Edit: the following legal explanation does not absolve Israel from other war crimes they have definitely committed such as collective punishment. It’s just explaining why “genocide” is not an appropriate claim.

Edit over, original post follows.

The problem with the genocide claim is actually laid out by a lawyer in the article. I’m sure this comment will get removed because every time I try to explain this someone reports me.

Genocide is the intentional murdering of a race or ethnic group. Hamas is not an ethnic group, that’s the intended target as long as Israel warns or attempts to move civilian populations away from bombing targets it’s going to be really hard to prove they are intentionally killing those civilians. Israel has done those measures the entire conflict.

The civilian casualty number could be much higher and not matter to the definition of genocide. Because genocide requires intent, regardless of the number.

For a modern day example of genocide look at Sudan, where people are going door to door shooting members of an ethnic group. That’s genocide. The intentional killing of an ethnic group.

I mean you attacked me because you didn’t like a logical, obvious, critique of something. Which again, I never said it was bad, I just said it could be improved. And you said things that I just repeated back at you, and now you can’t handle your own words?

Goodness me indeed.

Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It’s just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.

A CEO is not a manager. You’re already embarrassing yourself here 😉

Perhaps you didn’t read my comment. I’ve been a treasurer for a number of medium size charities. I know exactly how much money is needed to support the charities objectives.

I did read your comment, but I kinda assumed you either were lying or getting really defensive. There’s a lot of waste that wouldn’t exist if they were consolidated into the government.

Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?

For example?

Yeah sure, since it’s already been brought to. The red cross does blood donations, but they’re only 35% of America’s non profit blood donations, there’s also America’s blood centers and vitalent and more! So much overhead! If they were all one organization, you could eliminate much of the overhead and more effectively coordinate the blood donations.

Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you’ll understand why it exists.

Sorry mate, but you’ve got your head up your ass and you’re getting defensive.

I have been involved in both charities and government.

I mean, you can look anywhere, whether it’s upwards of 70% of medical donations not being used: https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/article/11/5/379/5420717?login=false#151492984

Also you can dive into the problems with definitions of “the cause” https://hbr.org/2009/06/beware-of-highly-efficient-cha

A charity can loosely define what counts as their cause which means they can tell you that 95 cents on the dollar go to the cause, even if it’s only 20 cents.

Moreover it’s really suspect that the rich keep getting richer even in the “nonprofit” sector: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/24/15377056/big-charities-best-charities-evaluation-nonprofit

Furthermore, even from an innocent standing. When you have multiple charities working on the same thing, that’s crazy inefficient.

Let’s talk about the Red Cross, great organization. One of the things they do is blood donations. They’re responsible for about 35% of the blood donations in the US, the rest come from other non profits.

That means there’s competition among the non profit blood donation organizations to provide blood for emergencies. Whether they want to compete or not, they have to.

Just from a blanket statement, if you moved all of those blood donations under a single entity, you remove a lot of inefficiencies.

You don’t need to advertise for multiple organizations, you don’t need to coordinate with all those different organizations during a crisis, you don’t have the same overhead for the same problems across multiple organizations. It’s just by design, inefficient. It’s not their fault.

So first off, you can totally volunteer for government things. I mean, I can volunteer at my local government library for instance, there’s nothing about a government contract that removes the ability to volunteer.

But I wouldn’t need to have volunteers if the red cross and all competing charities were swallowed up into one thing.

There are a bunch of organizations that do the same or part of what the red cross does. That’s a lot of wasted time of resources, that would be better spent lumped together as a collective unit.

Charity is simply one of the places you absolutely don’t want competition/capitalism. You want oversight and efficiency, that’s the government.

That was the point of my comment.

I think ideally the point of charity organizations should be a stop gap measure that identifies issues the government needs to address, and then temporarily addresses them.

How that works in practice 🤷‍♂️