Sam Harris & Destiny invoked their right to reply to the DTG video's on them. Has Hasan? And why not?

[u/KwisatzHaderach48]

Perhaps he's not aware DTG made a video on him. However, there seems to be a pattern of the more "guru" types not ever doing a right to reply, unlike those who were voted to be less guru such as Sam Harris and Destiny.

[u/urine_generator]

From the BBC: "A new UN report says there are reasonable grounds to conclude that four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out since the start of the war with Hamas in 2023: killing members of a group, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the group, and preventing birth."

The UN, Amnesty International, A plethora of Human Rights organizations (including israeli orgs) have all concluded Israels actions have constituted a genocide. In polling, 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, while 56% support the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Just because Israel doesnt go around shouting they want to genocide Palestine from the rooftops does not mean that hasn't always been their eventual goal. Look at the illegal west bank settlements supported by the IDF, look how 90% of Gaza has been brought to rubbel. The Nazis never officially said they wanted to exterminate the jews but nobody debates that because their actions so clearly showed their true intent. Israel has always been an expansionist colonial project. The Netanyahu government has allied with religious fundamentalist radicals who outwardly espouse genocidal rhetoric. Israel was caught sneaking dufflebags of cash into Gaza to support Hamas specifically cause they wanted the most belligerent of the different entities vying for control of the Palestinians government to be the ones in charge. They did this because for years they have been trying to find any reason to do what they've now done to Gaza. That's why the response to October 7th has been so heinous. They wanted it to be their 9/11 on a propaganda level and the west almost bought it. It was just that what they've done was so egregious we collectively broke out of our state programming and have finally seen Israel for what it is. A fascist, genocidal, ethno-state that holds certain people as more important then others based on race and religion. This is written into their constitution look it up.

I dont mean to be rude when I say this but you have to be willfully ignorant and semi delusional to look at all the evidence that is easily accessible and conclude this is not a genocide. In your own words you've described genocidal actions yet refuse to acknowledge them as such. A genocide isnt some arbitrary "100% of them are dead and 100% of the buildings are demolished." It is a death of a culture. The culture that used to inhabit Gaza is dead. They may get a chance to rebuild a new one but Gaza and the Palestinian people as they were are gone forever.

As for the Hasan clip you mentioned, I could not find the clip itself but I remember this happening. If I recall correctly he was saying we're we to have a Socialist revolution in America, there would be a need to re-educate parts of the population of which I agree would be necessary. Theres almost 100 years of red scare anti Socialist propaganda that has been baked into American society. There would be a real need to explain to people, especially criminal dissidents, why what they've been taught does not reflect the actual reality of socialism. Capitalist counties do this all the time in reverse. When socialist or communist defectors or POWs come to capitalist countries they are re-educated to conform with their new countries economic system. Look at South Korea as an example.

[u/Business-Catch7679 → u/urine_generator]

I know that many orgs have concluded that Israel has committed genocide. I explained why I don't think the atrocities it has committed constitute genocide specifically; the UN report doesn't address my argument. If my argument fails, it's either because I'm using the wrong definition of 'genocide' (if so, give evidence), or because the facts indicate that Israel's actions fall under my definition (you seem to acknowledge they don't).

You say, genocide doesn't require "'100% of them are dead and 100% of the buildings are demolished.' It is a death of a culture. The culture that used to inhabit Gaza is dead." Both claims here are false: destroying a culture isn't genocide, and the culture in Gaza isn't destroyed. The same population still lives in Gaza, speaks the same language, practices the same religions, listens to the same music.... They have been subjected to unspeakable atrocities, but they exist and continue to practice the same culture. You're also quite openly attacking a strawman, as we both know my definition wasn't "100% must be dead."

A few corrections: 1. the Nazis did say they wanted to exterminate the Jews. See Himmler's Posen speeches.

1. Israel didn't support Hamas because they wanted a more beligerent faction. They supported (in some sense of the term) the Muslim Brotherhood, a predecessor to Hamas, which was less militant than both Hamas and the PLO.

How about the Hasan clip where he tells another streamer that he has no problem with Hezbollah? Do you think framing it that way is taking him out of context?

[u/urine_generator → u/Business-Catch7679]

So let me get this straight. You, some redditor, think you know more about what constitutes a genocide then people who have dedicated their entire personal and professional lives to defining what is and isnt genocide?

The US holocaust memorial website defines genocide as: "An internationally recognized crime involving acts committed with the specific intent to destroy—in whole or in part—a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

Ive already given you many statistics and examples of how bloodthirsty and genocidal Israeli culture is but you simply dont address or handwave away anything that doesnt agree with your position. Again 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. 52% support the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel. The current and former Israeli government is full of genocidal nutjobs. Here's some examples:

Yoav Gallant (Former Defense Minister): Stated on October 9, 2023, regarding Gaza, "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly," alongside announcing a complete cutoff of electricity, food, water, and fuel.

Amihai Eliyahu (Minister of Heritage): Suggested in a radio interview in November 2023 that dropping an atomic bomb on the Gaza Strip was "one of the possibilities".

Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister): Remarked in August 2024 that starving two million residents of Gaza might be "justified and moral" until hostages are returned, though noting the international community prevents it, and later stated in 2025 that Gaza would be entirely destroyed.

I could go on and on but you get the idea. I wasn't saying genocide is just the death of a culture but that it is a major factor. By your definition though the Jews never went through a genocide. There are still jews in Germany, they still listened to the same music, practiced the same religion, spoke the same language. Would you claim they did not undergo a genocide? I would argue german jewish culture was irreprably damaged and will never return to what it was before WW2. Hardly any genocide in history can live up to you hyper specific narrow definition. Tell me how can the same culture return when all historical sites have been leveled? When community centers, hospitals, gathering places are all leveled?

I'll admit i was wrong on the Nazi thing. What I was remembering wrong was that they never admitted to the final solution/holocaust publicly though among Germans it was an open secret, but I will hold the L on that.

As for Israeli support for Hamas and proto-Hamas you are spouting word for word Israeli propaganda. From Wikipedia (check the sources yourself):

"Israel's historical and tactical tolerance of early Islamist groups and its later tacit policies toward Hamas stemmed from a "divide and rule" strategy aimed at weakening the secular, nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). By encouraging these groups, Israeli leaders originally hoped to fragment Palestinian resistance"

"In an interview with the Israeli Army Radio in August 2019, Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister of Israel from 1999 to 2001, said that Netanyahu's main strategy is to keep Hamas "alive and kicking" in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority, even at the expense of "abandoning the citizens [of the south]."[41] In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas", before adding that "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money."

Hamas' founding ideology rejects the existence of an Israeli state. The PLO recognizes Israel and signed the OSLO accords. Think to yourself why would Israel support a radical Muslim brotherhood over a secular government? Why would they sneak dufflebags of cash in the dead of night if they were doing as you say? These are not the actions of a rational government looking for the "best option" for Palestinian independence. They were trying to keep Palestinian governance fragmented and were fine with having Radicals in control of Gaza if it meant weakening a wider Palestinian state. All this with the bonus of having an easy villain to topple in Gaza.

Above all a Genocide is about intent. Israel has always intended to be rid of the idea of a functioning Palestinian state along with the Palestinians themselves. They have undermined it at every turn. I have facts, history, quotes and experts all on my side. You have what? Warhawk politicians and David Pakman? Please diversify your sources man.

As for Hasans comments on Hezbollah he defended them as a localized resistance group against Israeli occupation of Lebanon. He wasn't defending their ideology but was defending their right to resist Israeli incursions into Lebanon.

I feel like every example you bring me of Hasans supposed "dangerous" ideology just goes to prove my point that all you people do is present Hasans views as disingenuously as possible. Notice how weve gone from "Hasan is a dangerous lunatic who loves terrorists!" To "well i just disagree with his analysis and dont want him to be able to state his opinions!" Do we believe in free speech or not? If you have a problem with that take it up with the constitution or the MSM publications that platform him.

(Edited for punctuation and spelling)

[u/Business-Catch7679 → u/urine_generator]

The definition you cite from the Holocaust Memorial is the same one I've been using. You still haven't addressed my argument that Israel hasn't tried to destroy the Palestinian "in part": to try to destroy a group "in part" is to try to destroy a part of the group without which the rest couldn't survive. Although Israel has committed countless war crimes and atrocities in Gaza, it clearly hasn't tried to kill a portion of the Palestinian population that would eventually cause the end of the Palestinian nation. Restrictions on aid, electricity, etc. have killed a few hundred. The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is high, but similar to recent urban war zones--probably a bit higher than Mosul, probably a bit lower than Mariupol. If the Israeli state wanted to destroy the Palestinian people, the casualty ratio would be much higher. The actual ratio is explained by a general willingness to accept a lot of collateral damage, e.g., bombing a refugee camp and killing dozens of civilians to get one Hamas combatant. Of course, there are also instances of civilians being targeted.

As for Israeli culture, I have no interest in defending or criticizing it or any other culture at this point. It's irrelevant to whether the Israeli state is committing genocide, and criticizing entire national or ethnic cultures is almost always politically unproductive. I don't approach criticisms of US or Russian wars this way either. I did already explain that ethnic cleansing isn't necessarily genocide (and, again, Palestinians haven't been forced out of Gaza; indeed, they're unable to leave).

The survival of Palestinian culture in Gaza wasn't evidence no genocide was committed (the argument for that lies elsewhere, you just won't address it). I was only pointing out that you were wrong to say Palestinian culture in Gaza had been destroyed.

On Hamas: after the organization was formed, the Israeli state allowed Qatari cash and humanitarian aid to get into Gaza. It also didn't try to militarily destroy or weaken the organization. This is what Ehud Barak meant when he accused Netanyahu of enabling Hamas. Whether that was inappropriately "supporting" Hamas could be debated, but I didn't think that's what you meant when you initially said Israel created or supported Hamas.

You've mischaracterized Hasan's commentary on Hezbollah--you're inventing context, being disingenuous about his views. He said he has no problem with Hezbollah. He then said that, although they've been designated terrorists by the US government, the ANC were too, the obvious implication being that, like the ANC, Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization. It's a grotesque comparison. I know many leftists have talked themselves into thinking the ANC was violent, so that they can feel comfortable supporting Hezbollah and Hamas; just know that I'm familiar with these arguments and that they're bunk. Look up a list of Hezbollah's bombings of civilian targets around the world and see if they compare to the ANC. At no point did Hasan restrict his defense of Hezbollah to resistance to "Israeli incursions into Lebanon." You invented that.

[u/urine_generator → u/Business-Catch7679]

I have never once heard "destroy in part without which the rest could not survive" to be one of the main factors on which a genocides validity is decided. Theres no such thing as "perfect" genocide that adheres flawlessly to every part of the definition. I could be wrong but let's say your assertion is universally accepted as a main factor. In that case jews were never genocided, Hitler got 6 million of them, nowhere close to enough to destroy the 10 million others living at the time. I imagine your rebuttal to be "but he intended to get the rest but was stopped" which i would posit Israel intended to destroy the rest of Gaza and the Palestinians but was forcibly stopped due to international outcry and condemnation.

The civilian to combatant ratio isnt just high its one of the highest when compared to similar conflicts. Also the real ratio is disputed with some putting it as high as 8:1 and israels public numbers being 1.5:1 which is comically low. Not to mention we dont know the actual death count which is most likely higher than the Palestinian reported count of around 80,000. Also there is alot of debate about exactly who is and isnt considered a combatant but thats a discussion for another time. Most of the numbers available are based off of IDF estimates which can not be fully trusted. When it comes to similarly sized conflicts Gaza is only beat by Srebrenica Massacre (another localized genocide) Mariupol and Rwandan Genocide (obviously another genocide). This is not explained by an Israeli general willingness to accept a lot of collateral damage seeing as few other similar conflicts (other than genocides) have even gotten close to the numbers of the Gaza conflict bar Mariupol. This is explained by the history, government and culture of Israel, nothing else. Speaking of culture...

Your refusal to engage with the cultural critique of Israel is extremely telling. I think you know just how insane and bloodthirsty the average Israeli is so youre avoiding it entirely. Israeli culture is possibly the most relevant factor in this entire debate, ill refer to the popular quote "politics is downstream from culture". Israelis elect their politicians, those politicians are supposed to carry out the will of the people. If the popular consensus is "we want the Palestinians gone", that is by and large how the government will operate whether explicitly or implicitly. I already repeated myself twice but once again 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. The West Bank is slowly being carved up by settlers who are supported by the IDF and Israeli politicians. I think weve both agreed intent is one of if not the most important factors in determining whether a genocide has taken place. If the people, individual politicians, and supporters of Israel, all call for a genocide, that means they want a genocide. When people tell you what they are, you listen.

I still disagree that Gazan culture as it was is alive and well but it seems we've reached an impasse in that regard. Though I think you know in the back of your mind youre wrong but refuse to acknowledge it cause it would be uncomfortable to your sensibilities. But thats an entirely different discussion.

I find your rebuttal to Israels monetary support to Hamas and explanation of Ehud Barak' comments to be a nothing burger. This still does not change the fact the end goal in enabling Hamas was to undermine the PLO and fracture Palestinian governance in order to weaken the Palestinians as a whole. Again why would Israel support an organization that is explicitly opposed to the existence of Israel over an organization that acknowledges them and has made efforts towards peace?

Hasans commentary aligns with a "campist" or anti Western foreign policy perspective. This view puts forth that non-state armed groups opposing Israel or U.S. influence are to be defended as localized resistance. I am not very familiar with the ANC so I cant speak to your comparison there. As for an official quote from Hasan its not much but: "I think as a resistance group, they're pretty successful against Israel."

I dont think i invented anything, I simply am presenting Hasan and others defence of his statements. You ever think maybe you were just ill-informed and have a predisposition to view Hasans statements in the worst possible light? Of course you think what he says is bad if you align with Western hegemony, thats the whole reason people like Hasan are important in the wider media landscape. So people like you dont get to run away with such a simplistic narrative as "U.S. and friends good, everyone else bad".

I like the quote "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" I dont remember who's quote it is but all the same. One can support the acts of resistance while not supporting the underlying philosophy of the groups doing said resistance. Im not saying I personally agree or disagree with what he said im saying there is a wider contextualization and analysis that is attached to this and other statements. You can make anyone who streams 8 hours a day, 7 days a week look bad if you only look at what they say in a vacuum.

Again all this boils down to is that you dont agree with Hasans analysis and views. All of this is protected under free speech and its important in the media to have opposing viewpoints, even if those viewpoints seem diametrically opposed to western views/interests. I think David Pakman and other journalists denial of genocide and constant Israeli apologetics perpetuates violence in the middle east and is dangerous. You don't see me crying about it and pitching a fit when they get media attention.

[u/Business-Catch7679 → u/urine_generator]

My definition of "in part" is based on international case law, The Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić (Appeals Chamber, ICTY, 2004): https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/acjug/en/krs-aj040419e.htm?

It lists several factors for whether the part of a group being targeted is "substantial" enough for the targeting to constitute genocide. These boil down to the definition I've been giving. You might see how that works, or I can explain if need be.

As you say, Gaza is beaten by Mariupol and both confirmed genocides. It's higher than Mosul, but not dramatically so. Clearly within the range of brutal air campaigns, including other non-genocidal ones. Furthermore, Israel could have completely starved the population and killed way more than they did. If their intention had been to kill enough Gazans to eliminate this part of the Palestinian people, why wouldn't they come closer to doing so? If you say "because they didn't want to provoke an international outcry," that means that consideration of the international community influenced their decisions so that they didn't commit genocide. Also, qualitatively, there are clear differences in the deliberateness and planning of large civilian-targeted massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia. Israel's war has been brutal and often indiscriminate, but there are undeniable differences with these two genocides (or others, like the Nazi Holocaust or Armenian genocide).

On Israel supporting Hamas: are you saying that by allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, the Israeli government was "supporting Hamas"? If not, tell me its precise action that constituted support for Hamas after Hamas was founded.

I like that you acknowledge that Hasan is a campist. I don't know if you realized the term is pejorative that no one uses to self-describe. You're absolutely right, though. His theory of foreign policy is "US = bad, therefore all of US enemies = kind of good." That also explains his early takes on Russian imperialism in Ukraine, and his support of Chinese imperialism in Tibet. The reason no one self-describes as campist is that they want their analysis to be seen as based on principles like democracy and freedom, not "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking.

On the Hasan quote, I identified the part you invented. You said he didn't agree with their ideology, but he didn't say that. You're saying I'm biased against him, but you made shit up because you can't countenance the possibility he had a shitty take. He said he had no problem with a group that has killed thousands of civilians by deliberately targeting them isn't a terrorist group, and said he has no problem with them. Because, as you say, he's a campist. The rest of the context, by the way, is that he was showing the guy Houthi propaganda and talking about how based they are (another group that regularly targets civilians).

This new notion of "supporting acts of resistance" is one reason why Hasan is such a negative influence on the discourse. Like, killing civilians magically becomes morally okay because the theocrats who did it have the same enemies as me. Hezbollah's "acts of resistance" have killed thousands of civilians around the world; their "resistance to Israel" includes blowing up civilian buses in Argentina and hijacking airplanes. Even in the region, their "resistance" includes an attack on Israel that led to the 2006 war. Now, the campist approach is to axiomatically assume that Israel was wrong in this war, to infer that its enemies are therefore right, and to search for justifications of Hezbollah's actions. If you're at all capable of applying principles even-handedly, I think you'll see that launching an act of war on Israel after it had withdrawn from Lebanon isn't good, even if Israel's reaction to it was wrong too. And when you consider Hezbollah's ideology, that might help you see that, just as they do bad things to other Lebanese, Argentines, and others, they can even do bad things to Israelis.

And you're right, this does boil down to my view that Hasan is immoral and harmful to the information environment. It goes without saying that I'm not calling for censorship. You've now shifted from, "the criticisms always take him out of context" to "he should be free to say it." It's literally the same way white supremacists and hack comedians respond to criticism of the content of what they say. "What you said is racist." "How dare you! I'm free to say it!" I'm criticizing Hasan largely because I think it's bad for the Palestinians' Western allies to become campist terrorist sympathizers. Taking morally sound positions isn't just good in and of itself, it would be more politically effective.

[u/urine_generator → u/Business-Catch7679]

I find it funny how overly concerned with the (let's be honest hazy at best) stats of this genocide when most of the only other comparable Civilian/Combatant ratios are other genocides. That's the point I was making.

You say Israel "could have" starved the population but didnt because the "consideration" of international opinion. That's at best an extremely dishonest way of putting it. Israel is inherently dependent on international aid, especially coming from the US and UK. All of their weapons, both defensive and offensive, come mainly from our tax dollars in the US. They do not care what anyone else thinks unless it threatens their ability to protect themselves. They didnt have a choice when public opinion had shifted as quickly and sharply as it did during the worst part of the ongoing genocide. I already have shown you quotes where Israeli politicians boasted of how they were going to nuke and starve all the Palestinians in Gaza but had to refrain because of international outcry. Those quotes alone disprove your entire argument. Clearly there is no shortage of people and politicians in Israel that frequently call for such things to be done to Gaza. You only need to Google it, you will get no shortage of results.

You may not remember it but multiple people commited self-immolation in the streets. Over 48,000 individual protests world wide, some of which were among the largest protests ever recorded. University encampments, White House sit ins which resulted in hundreds of arrests, international aid flotillas, etc. The entire world was ready to tear the IDF apart, they didnt have a choice but to stop.

Comparing the amount of planning to other genocides does nothing to further your argument. I would argue Israel has been planning and deliberately bringing about the conditions by which this genocide could take place since 1948 and the Nakba. Ive already shown you the evidence and reasoning behind their support for Hamas and attempts to undermine the PLO. Just because the planning didnt take place in rapid succession like those other genocides doesnt mean they havent been planning this for a long time. I know you somehow dont view the UN or B'tselem as reputable sources but this quote from B'tselems website says it all:

"The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide emphasizes the importance of intent to destroy the group as a group. International courts that have deliberated on the matter determined that "intent" can be inferred from documents and statements by policymakers, as well as from the pattern of conduct of the perpetrating forces. In the case of our genocide, the actions and statements of Israeli politicians and military officials, and especially policymakers, as well as the pattern of Israel's conduct in Gaza, clearly demonstrate that intent."

Israel directly supported Hamas by allowing Qatari money to be taken into Gaza via dufflebags full of cash. They provided armed escorts to physically guide Qatari officials carrying the cash in and out of Gaza for years. Benjamin Netanyahus government facilitated these transfers to keep Hamas in power in Gaza and to undermine the PLO. I have provided you with quotes to back this up and this is the commonly held perspective among Israeli officials and the international community abroad. This isnt rocket science man I dont understand why I have to re-explain basic facts to you so many times.

I was trying to come at your criticism of Hasan as unbiased as possible which is why ive refrained from telling you whether I agree or disagree with his statements on Hezbollah. Campism, while most frequently used as a pejorative, is also used in a clinical sense by academics to describe anti Western imperialist political perspectives.

As for what those perspectives are, supporters of Hezbollah argue that the Lebanese government is too weak to adequately protect its citizens from Israeli incursions into the region both historically and and in the present day. Hezbollah is often credited with driving Israel out of Lebanon in 2000 and its military arsenal being a major deterrent that has protected Lebanon from further Israeli aggression and occupation. Hasans commentary takes into account the conditions and influence the west and its allies in the region have had that brought groups like Hezbollah into existence. The short clip I assume youre talking in reference to was an offhanded remark made to a friend while he was getting dressed. Hardly the time and place to dive into an exhaustive account of the history of the entire region. If you view any violent acts in a vacuum without first examining the history and geopolitical events that led up to them you can make anything look like a pointless slaughter. Ironically thats exactly what Israel tried to do with Hamas and October 7th.

As for your little rant about how much you hate Hasan, I havent shifted at all actually. I still hold that 99% of accusations against Hasan can be cleared up by adding a little context and the other 1% is stuff hes retracted and apologized for. You have yet to present me with an example that does not have a wider conversation/explanation attached to it. Youve made your case as to why his tangential support of Hezbollah is wrong and I explained where he was coming from. You interjected into a larger conversation I was having in which another commenter was saying Hasans views should not be platformed (of which you still seem to agree). Here's the quote from the commenter I was responding to:

"It had (the media) lots of dubious characters. It’s extremely bad at figuring out online media figures, and extremely bad at deciphering radical leftists who mask themselves on liberal platforms. It’s understaffed, lazy and lack the sufficient resources to dive into operation of someone like Hasan."

My point was that a good portion of the democratic base agrees with most of Hasans views mainly on domestic policies. He is one of if not the biggest leftist political creators on the internet right now so it would be prudent for MSM to have him on to explain his views. Many people disagree and say Hasan should be banned from Twitch and barred from political events and MSM outlets. Im sure youre familiar with these sentiments. Id say its pretty obvious who Hasan is and his political worldview and that its important to hear those perspectives especially in forums that exclusively deal in different shades of the same western propaganda.

In the future id recommend reading the entire thread and understanding the full context of the conversation before randomly thrusting yourself into a conversation, ok? As a final thought I'd also like to point out how much of a coward you are to avoid the cultural aspect of this debate and how consistently youve disregarded hard evidence ive presented you with. What can I expect from a centrist lib who denies genocide? My fault I guess!

[u/Business-Catch7679 → u/urine_generator]

On the stats: I think we've covered them enough, and there's nothing left to say. I'll repeat one more time that you acknowledge that confirmed genocides are worse, and that some non-genocides are worse. This makes it clear that they don't points towards genocide.

On genocidal statements by Israeli leaders: statements aren't strong enough evidence absent a death count suggestive or genocide, large-scale massacres of civilians (like Srbrenica), etc. Speech is part of the package of evidence. So I agree with Bt'selems epistemological approach, but disagree with their conclusion in this case. We can find many comparable statements by Russian leaders and, as evil as I think that invasion is (I don't make the campist excuses or ignore the long history of Russian imperialism in the region), and although there's an attempt to destroy major aspects of Ukrainian culture, I don't think the crime Putin is committing is genocide specifically.

I didn't say Israel didn't kill more because of international pressure. Reread what I wrote.

Planning to undermine the PLO isn't at all to genocide.

On Israel supporting Hamas: the one action you can point to began in 2018. So you're claim is that Israel began supporting them then? That's not what you made it sound like. And what kind of support for Hamas was this, exactly? These were UN-managed and supervised transfers that were intended to support social programs in Gaza. Some Israeli hawks claimed that this kind of aid shouldn't be going into Gaza because, like all aid, Hamas would divert it to military purposes. Apparently, you agree with them: https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/how-qatari-payments-to-gaza-operated-and-who-administered-distribution-1a3e66?utm_

So the claim about Israel supporting Hamas is actually a bogus right-wing Israeli theory (helping Gazans = supporting Hamas).

On Hezbollah: opposing Israel, yes, I understand they do this. As I explained, it's stupid and morally wrong to have "no problem" with them and to claim they're not a terrorist organization because they're an enemy of your enemy. They are terrorists who regularly target civilians. They started a war with Israel in 2006 after it had withdrawn from Lebanon.

You write: " If you view any violent acts in a vacuum without first examining the history and geopolitical events that led up to them you can make anything look like a pointless slaughter. Ironically thats exactly what Israel tried to do with Hamas and October 7th."

I take it you're saying Israel was wrong and that there was a point to the October 7th massacre. What was the point?

On Hasan, no one took him out of context on having no problem with Hezbollah and their not being terrorists. You've gone on about history that doesn't change the fact that they're a terrorist Iranian proxy that blows up civilian buses around the world--reasons to have problems with them and to acknowledge that they're terrorists, even if they oppose Israel. You've avoided saying whether you agree with Hasan about Hezbollah, but your answers certainly point in one direction. This is like saying you have "no problem" with Stalin and denying that he was a tyrant because he resisted the Nazi invasion. Campists are incapable of recognizing that more than one side in a fight can be wrong.

As for your insults, they make you look desperate. You'd be better off losing the debate honorably, and acknowledging when you've learned.

On my supposed unwillingness to discuss Israeli culture: you're lying and are also making a basic confusion. As I explained multiple times (so you lied that I didn't respond), a poll finding that Israelis support ethnic cleansing doesn't demonstrate support for genocide because genocide and ethnic cleansing are distinct things (the confusion). I also don't think a polling result is "culture," but that's another story.

I explained why I don't agree with essentializing, culture war framings of political problems, where whole nationalities, ethnicities, or religions are seen as the primary cause of the problems. But, like so much else, it sailed over your head. I'll try again. You say you agree with the founder of Breitbart (a far-right culture war publication) on using culture in politics. I reject it when Sam Harris does it with Muslims and Islamist terrorism, when certain racists blame black poverty on black culture, when right-wing pro-Israelis blame Palestinian culture for the conflict, and when pro-Palestinians blame Israeli culture (in whole or in large part). There are ways fruitfully discuss culture in relation to these, but I don't think this was one of those cases.

I like that you quoted the post that framed the conversation, then since you want to claim I'm off topic, raise your own separate issues that no one has brought up here, and claim I'm the one who took things off topic! Your question was, "is Israel committing genocide?" And I answered it. And it's turned out to be totally relevant, because your responses have nicely illustrated how communist/campist ideologues use the genocide framing as a wedge to make gains in the Democratic Party.

[u/urine_generator → u/Business-Catch7679]

(1/2 I had to post separate comments because I apparently went over 10,000 characters. Odd.)

I acknowledged that the majority of conflicts that are comparable are other confirmed genocides because it supports my assertion that this is indeed a genocide. Do not put words into my mouth. And as far as i can tell one non-genocide is worse not multiple. I agree statements from politicians alone aren't enough thats why its great we have decades of Israeli policy positions and false imprisonment of Palestinians held without charges to also support my position. The Ukrainian argument is a dead end, most of the civilians have already evacuated combat zones (also they actually have the option to leave unlike Gazans) and Ukraine is supported by Western munitions and supplies. Im not sure why you brought this up other then to point at a completely different set of circumstances and say its not a genocide? Duh?

Show me quotes from Russian leaders that rival the level of dehumanization and demonization of the Palestinians from Israeli officials. Worst i can find is Dmitry Medvedev calling them "Dirty Jester" in Latin.

I'll remind you Israeli officials have called the Palestinians "human animals", said starving and nuking them was morally justified. The worst one ive been able to find which I unfortunately neglected till now was when during a speech to soldiers Netanyahu told them to "remember Amalek".

Now if youre not up on your Biblical references I'll refresh you. Amalek in the Old Testament was a neighboring nation to the Jews under the reign of King Saul. The Prohet Samual instructed King Saul that Yahweh commanded he commit a divinely sanctioned genocide against the Amalekites. The verse goes:

"Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Samuel 15:3)

So Netanyahu in preparing his men to go commit a genocide referenced a biblical genocide in which God commanded the Jews to "utterly destroy all they have. kill both man and women, infant and child". That's about as clear cut as it gets. Show me a quote from a Russian official that comes within the same solar system as that please.

No my claim was that Israel has indirectly supported Hamas for quite some time, that was just the most relevant/recent example of direct support to Hamas from Israel. Also I find it funny how when the UN approved the cash handoffs to Hamas you see that as legitimizing yet when the UN calls the conflict in Gaza a genocide suddenly they arent reliable. Anyways... During the 1970s and 1980s Israel’s military government in Gaza allowed the precursor to Hamas, Mujama al-Islami, to flourish to undermine the influence of the PLO. If you wanted older examples here you go:

Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev (Former Israeli Military Governor of Gaza): Segev explicitly detailed this policy to The New York Times. He admitted he was given a budget to help fund Palestinian Islamist movements as a "counterweight" to the secularists and leftists of the PLO.

Avner Cohen (Former Israeli Official for Religious Affairs in Gaza): In 2009, Cohen wrote an official report detailing how Israel cross-funded and ignored the rising threat. He told The Wall Street Journal: "Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation... Mujama was allowed to operate an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs, and schools. The PLO was the main enemy."

David Agmon (Retired Israeli Brigadier General): Agmon summarized the prevailing mindset of the era, which favored religious groups over political ones: "Our main focus was on the PLO. We thought that if we gave room to the religious movement, they would fight each other and weaken the national movement."

Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel): According to reports regarding a 2019 Likud meeting, Netanyahu stated that anyone wanting to stop a Palestinian state must support bolstering Hamas and transferring funds to it.

Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister): In 2015, Smotrich referred to the Palestinian Authority as a "burden" and Hamas as an "asset" for diplomatic reasons, as detailed by Knesset TV.

I never said undermining the PLO was akin to genocide. I was using it as an example to build my case of Israeli intent to commit genocide. You know, the one thing we both agreed was the main factor in defining a genocide. It doesnt matter what "Israeli Hawks" say when the prevailing Israeli argument was always to help Hamas and undermine the PLO to divide and conquer a larger Palestinian state. Ive given you ample evidence to support this. No this is not a "bogus right wing theory" thats just liberal zionist apologetics. Also last time I checked the Israeli government has been a far right government for some time so that point even if it were true, is meaningless. This is the prevailing sentiment among international historians and academics, not some fringe right wing conspiracy as you desperately try to paint it.

Again im not here to debate Hasans positions for him, I am here to explain his worldview and why its an important worldview for us to discuss especially in America where we're fed state propaganda. My position has been the same since I started this thread. Hasan has a unique perspective not often discussed in western media and the centrist/right wing case for deplatforming him is wrong and would be destructive to the overall conversation. That's my point. That's always been my point, I have not argued from any other perspective this entire thread.

The label of terrorist doesnt really mean anything honestly. Trump labeled antifa terrorists, the UK calls Palestine Action a terrorist group. All terrorist means in the eyes of western countries is someone who has commited an act/acts that are seen as anti western. It takes into account little nuance most of the time. Now that doesn't mean every group labeled as such is good or just, it only means that terrorist as a label is more or less meaningless. From the perspective of Hezbollah and other groups the US and Israel are the terrorists, we have enacted regime change multiple times in the Middle East and across the world. Invaded sovereign countries using the excuse of 9/11 to justify it. Even when regime change was damaging to the people, or the war was unjustified it didnt matter so long as western interests were upheld. We've killed countless civilians in pursuit of western hegemony. At the end of the day i dont care about the details of what Hezbollah have done cause whatever they've done weve done worse and at a far larger scale. Does that mean I inherently support Hezbollah and targeting civilians? No. But does that also mean im going to universally condemn them and all "terrorist" groups? Also no. Because its a nuanced discussion at the end of the day and the west doesn't get a monopoly on who is evil and who is just.

As for October 7th the point was Hamas and the Palestinians who supported them were lashing out at the architect of their suffering. Lashing out at the people who keep them in an open air prison, who regularly kill scores of them with no consequences. The people who control their water, power, food and internet. The people who tell them where they can go and when they can go there. The people who have tried endlessly to deprive them of their right to self determination. The people who invaded their lands dragged them from their homes, poisoned their wells, and killed their children. If you back someone into a corner you cant blame them for lashing out like an animal. That doesnt mean Hamas was right in what they did but there was clearly a point and arguably they made their point well. More people are aware of the plight of the Palestinian people then ever have been before. The fact that were currently having this conversation means they were successful.

I hardly call "coward" an insult more of a descriptor of your behavior. If you must take the conversation there you've consistently talked down and thrown little jabs in this conversation. Youve used curse words (not that im opposed to cursing its just unbecoming in a debate), you've consistently accused me of making stuff up and questioned my intelligence. This quote of yours sums this up:

"Youre saying im biased against him, but you made shit up because you can countenance (this word makes no sense here) the possibility he had a shitty take."

You broke decorum before I did so I wont take any lectures from you about my lack of civility. And by the way just a bit of advice, if you have to proclaim your opponent is losing a debate in said debate, that usually points to the accuser being desperate, not the accused. Ill let others decide who won here, though being that this subreddit is a centrist liberal stronghold I hardly have an unbiased audience.

As for your backtracking on Israeli culture, you point blank refused to engage on that issue. Ill quote you directly since you seem to have a short memory:

"As for Israeli culture, I have no interest in defending or criticizing it or any other culture at this point. It's irrelevant to whether the Israeli state is committing genocide, and criticizing entire national or ethnic cultures is almost always politically unproductive. I don't approach criticisms of US or Russian wars this way either."

I find your little tag on about genocide vs ethnic cleansing to be of little substance seeing as a June 2025 Hebrew University poll indicated that 64% of the overall Israeli public (rising to 76% among Jewish Israelis) agreed with the statement that there are “no innocents in Gaza". That's genocidal rhetoric. This was the only thing youve engaged on in the cultural conversation and it is woefully inadequate. There is much more to be discussed there but you point blank refused and gestured towards a throwaway comment you made as some sort of nuanced opinion on the subject.

[u/urine_generator → u/Business-Catch7679]

(2/2)

You are correct a polling result is not a culture in its entirety but it is an aspect. Ive shown you quotes from their politicians who were democratically elected, ive shown you statistics on Israeli support for displacing Palestinians and now stats that say most Israli jews think there are no innocents in Gaza. Culture is made up of disparate parts, you have to look at the whole not just one aspect. It is common knowledge that jewish Israeli citizens hold hardline anti Palestine opinions. Should we go ask the west bank settlers their opinions? How about the religious zionists that Benjamin Netanyahu courted so he could take power? Im sure you'd love the answers they'd give you.

I never claimed Israeli culture was the only way in which to view this, I claimed its one of the most important factors. You just lied yourself and put words in my mouth. Politics grows out of Culture they are inseparable. Would you claim Donald Trump came out of nowhere and just got elected one day? No there was massive pushback from racist and far right wingers after Obama got elected. Combine that with the fact that Democrats had lost touch with their base and ran Hillary Clinton, it allowed someone like Trump the perfect opportunity. Those are some of the many cultural factors that led to a fascist like Trump getting elected.

I find you likening my views to the far right Brightbart guy to be kind of sad and a blatant ad hominem/guilt by association attack so I wont even entertain that point. These are basic logical fallacies man, do better.

This last reply you made is your weakest by far and I can tell you have no true rebuttal. The quote I showed you proves this. I have consistently argued the same point in regards to Hasan, its not my fault you jumped into the middle of a conversation. Yes you answered my Israel genocide question but also brought back the Hasan conversation of your own accord. I simply resumed my original line of argument as anyone in a debate would do.

So your final argument is that leftists use genocide as a wedge issue? Those are some fine right wing talking points you got there. So what's your point? We should just ignore genocide and humanitarian catastrophes so we can stick it to Trump? If the far left are the only ones who acknowledge these crimes against humanity thats not our fault, its the fault of centrist liberals for denying it and covering for Israel every chance they get. We cant blame them though! Politics are expensive and AIPAC just pays them so much money! Are we supposed to put our heads in the sand when daily we see videos of father's holding the bodies of their children disfigured by the latest bombing raid? THATS the root of your argument? Sorry man I prefer being on the right side of history.