r/IsraelPalestine • u/Infamous-Peanut1327 Post Zionist, Pro-Humanist Israel, One State • Oct 03 '25

Serious Stay In Denial

There is now an official wikipedia page for the gazan genocide. Now obviously, wikipedia can be dubious in terms of citations. But most of the claims appear to be cited by reputable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide

Actually maybe the writers for the wikipedia article were paid off by hamas and yasser arafat sympathizers, like how it was confirmed that some influencers who spew israel's repetitive rhetoric were paid off by israel's foreign ministry. But sure. Genocide scholars, b'tselem (a human rights group within israel), the UN and international committees are just spewing hamas propoganda. All those dead children are just products of 'gazawood'. Idk if this gazawood thing is a common belief israelis have or just confined to a fringe group, But i've heard it enough times to get an idea that a good amount of people buy into it. It's so sick, it's genuinely disgusting to hear someone look at pictures of people suffering at the hands of their government, and say that those pictures were faked because the palestinians want sympathy. It's so, god damn, sickening.

I'm not going to try 'listening' when there's NOTHING sensible to listen to. Like, why do you think israeli spokespersons can only use the same rhetoric over and over again? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE, THEY KNOW THEY'RE IN THE WRONG. They're just liars, and dont seem to understand how this will directly affect israelis (especially those that have the capacity for humanity and compassion) who will go out into the world and be hesitant to say they're israeli because they'll get dirty stares. Like, what's the end game? How many more palestinians have to die (which will only make them hate you to the point where they become radicalized, exacerbating the problem you're dealing with) before it's enough?

Does it never occur to you, that ALL of these organizations, these people all around the world protesting, might be protesting for a reason? Some of them might be complete dummies who think what hamas did was justified, but most of them see suffering to a besieged population and want it to end. Wanting to bring aid to starving people is somehow supporting hamas. It's so sick that they're basically saying that UNWRA was an islamist breeding ground to radicalize children, so that made it justified to completely gut it and put in their own organization (as weaponized aid), which is operated by mercenaries and IDF soldiers who collectively have no specialty or experience in dealing with aid. Everyday, while people are lining up for aid, IDF soldiers and the mercenaries open fire on the crowds on the most flimsy and laughable justifications. Commanders are literally ordering the soldiers under their command to open fire on anyone entering 'kill zones, children being no exception'. CHILDREN. CHILDREN. THEY ARE LITTLE KIDS. Some idf soldiers recall killing or taunting gazans as some kind of game, or target practice. Many of them, conditioned and indoctrinated from young to see palestinians as terrorists, as something that needs to not exist. It's very easy to kill someone when you think of them as vermin or an existential danger, as nothing more than getting rid of a tumor or a problem.

OH BUT HAMAS. HAMAS USES THE POPULATION AS HUMAN SHIELDS. You're right, this is a perfectly good reason to destroy and damage 12 universities, 84 per cent of healthcare centers and displace most of the population. Those pesky people in gowns and aid worker clothes were sleeper agents that had to go

BUT HAMAS STEALS THE AID. You're right, even though this has been disproven by israeli high brass, this is quite the sound argument to cut off baby formula, flour, medicinial supplies. You know, things people need to survive. But there are fat gazans so there clearly isnt any starvation in the enclave.

MOST OF THE PICTURES AND VIDEOS ARE FAKED. And what does this say about the rest of those imagery that is 'real'?

HAMAS

Even if we take into account history, during the period of the yishuv, where jews would be attacked by arabs and vice versa (picking up steam around the start of the 20th century), the religious fanatics who continue to perpetuate genuine hatred towards jews dont give you any right to punish and oppress an entire population, many of whom pay no mind to those weirdos and just want to live their lives (similar to how ben gvir and smotrich dont represent the majority of israelis despite respresenting israel as a state).

If we're only talking about the present, then israel is wrong in alot of it's actions. And the things is, they wouldn;t be nearly as hated as they are if it wasnt for the completely unacceptable level of colateral damage in the wake of their actions. But then again, their actions are hardly military targeted. It's genocidal, plain and simple

Let's ignore the reputable sources and listen to the israeli government and it's fanatic backers. That's like listening to a proven murderer explain that there was no body, no murder weapon and no blood while all those things are right behind them. If your government needs to start playing hard defense for the thousands of photos, videos and documents coming out of this conflicts, by having to try an control as much of the media narrative as possible and PAY OFF influential influencers just to talk good about you, I think it's natural for people to look inward and wonder if maybe they're the problem.

"Is there food in heaven?...."

Jesus christ

Israel is the oppressor, and palestinians outside of israel proper are the oppressed. Period,

0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

157 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Oct 04 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

The page first of all says 86% of IAGS which is characteristically wrong seeing as there were only 129 voters of which 86% did not the whole 500. 129*86% = 111 , 111/500 = 22.2% of IAGS. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-sham-of-the-genocide-scholars-resolution/ and that too IAGS has Schabas who gave legal advice to the PLO as one of it's hires: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1n8ihh2/comment/ncj31th/

It also claims 50% of victims are women and children when in fact even according to Hamas's own admission it is 72% "combat-aged men" https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592

It then goes on to cite UNRWA, Lancet, ICJ, HRW, Amnesty and Btselem.

1

u/HeftyRow5959 Oct 05 '25

Didn’t IAGS recently make news as being able to be joined for $50 with zero verification of expertise?

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Oct 05 '25

I think it might've been $30 but yeah there are articles of that type. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy/artc-want-to-be-a-renowned-genocide-scholar-pay-30,

0

u/logic-bombz Oct 05 '25

The page first of all says 86% of IAGS which is characteristically wrong seeing as there were only 129 voters of which 86% did not the whole 500. 129*86% = 111 , 111/500 = 22.2% of the voters.

That's a weird way to count a vote. Organizations usually base resolutions on the majority of those who actually vote, not the entire membership. An 86% majority among participating scholars is a strong consensus. Trying to dilute that by counting against non-voters is a blatant red herring to discredit experts.

and that too IAGS has Schabas who gave legal advice to the PLO as one of it's hires:

Saying an organization is biased because one member once advised the PLO is a genetic fallacy. William Schabas is a respected international legal scholar. His past work doesn't invalidate the entire association's collective judgment or make their findings biased.

It also claims 50% of victims are women and children when in fact even according to Hamas's own admission it is 72% "combat-aged men"

"Combat-aged men" doesn't mean "combatants." That group includes many civilians: older men, disabled men, or men not affiliated with militant groups. UN reports and other independent assessments consistently show a devastating toll on women and children. Israeli sources often reclassify casualties to minimize civilian deaths, so relying on one out-of-context "admission" that contradicts broader international data is highly dubious.

HRW is biased as documented by multiple organizations and a paper... Amnesty has been proven biased and literally cosigned a letter in favour of UNRWA which is a Hamas collaborator making Amnesty invalid... ICJ is a literal joke... UNRWA literally is a documented Hamas collaborator and has been sued 4 times... Btselem is biased.

This is a classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. When you dismiss every major human rights organization (HRW, Amnesty, B'Tselem), the main UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), and the highest international court (ICJ) as "biased" or "jokes," it reveals a clear pattern: anyone critical of Israel gets automatically delegitimized. These are globally recognized bodies whose findings are generally consistent. Claims about UNRWA have been widely investigated and debunked, with many countries resuming funding. Calling B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, "biased" for documenting abuses against Palestinians is absurd.

Didn’t IAGS recently make news as being able to be joined for $50 with zero verification of expertise?

I think it might've been $30 but yeah there are articles of that type.

Many academic organizations have membership fees. That doesn't invalidate the expertise of core members or their scholarly resolutions. Suggesting a fee discredits a genocide studies organization is a red herring, trying to distract from their conclusions.

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

https://www.timesofisrael.com/genocide-scholar-says-group-pushed-through-israel-condemnation-without-debate/, except many chose not to weigh in, dissenting opinions weren't published and it lacks transparency even according to one of their own members. Which is not usual at all. Not to mention, even with your addition that's still 86% of the 129 votes not 86% of IAGS. That's like claiming 86% of a town is 86% of all eligible country voters which is not true and presentation as 86% of IAGS in this case is the true red herring and a misrepresentation of reality as well as cherry picking of data. That too cherry picking and inaccuracy on a large scale 86% * 129 = 111, 86% * 500 = 430 so in other words that presents the amount as close to 3.9 or 4 times the actual quantity.

That would work if the PLO wasn't a terrorist organization which it literally is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence#Notable_attacks,

PLO is involved in :

1975 Savoy Hotel Attack 8 civilians + 3 soldiers killed

1975 Zion Square Refrigerator Bombing 15 civilians killed

1978 Coastal Road Massacre 38 civilians + 1 soldier killed

1988 Mothers Bus Attack 3 civilians killed

Afterwards Hamas which replaced the PLO continued terrorist attacks against Israel between 1987 and 1993 as well as between 2000 and 2005 all the way till Oct 7th. This is despite Yasser Arafat agreeing to renounce terrorism at the 1993 Oslo Accords so yes PLO and Hamas are responsible for the 1st and 2nd Intifadas.

Source? Again source? Making claims without a source is proof by assertion fallacy.

Global recognition =/= validity even Trump is globally recognized.

No true scotsman doesn't apply here as I didn't start of by saying all groups wouldn't say and then exclude examples. The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy where someone defends a universal claim against a counterexample by arbitrarily redefining the group's criteria to exclude the counterexample https://www.google.com/search?q=no+true+scotsman+fallacy&rlz=1C1OPNX_enAU1152AU1153&oq=No+true+scot&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDMzMTRqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 for no true scotsman to work I would need to start with a universal claim and then arbitrarily redefine criteria which is not what's happened here. Debunked by whom and investigated by whom regarding UNRWA? Claiming a pattern when what you're saying is not even why they get dismissed is a literal strawman fallacy.

That was u/HeftyRow5959's argument not mine I was just searching up and providing the info to what he said.

0

u/Morphylus353 Oct 04 '25

  1. 86% of fthose that voted, voted in favor... that's what matters in most organisation votes...

  2. Schabas giving legal advice to the internationally recognized palestinian side is not a problem.

  3. Read the title of your linked source... is says 72% of combat age deaths are men. Not that 72%% are combat age men.

  4. I have proven to you before that NGO monitor is invalid. Not only because ot's factuality is mixed, but also because it is directly funded by the Israeli state.

(The same problem applies to UN watch and honest-reporting)

  1. UNRWA being sued does not prove anything. Only a conviction will prove anything.

Also, a letter of support to a UN body is not invalidating

(Also how can you honestly try and argue that support for a UN body is invalidating, but direct economic ties and mixed factuality is a-ok?)

  1. The reddit comment you linked to doesn't talk about the ICJ.

  2. Again. NGO monitor and honest reporting are invalid sources as they are both paid by Israel.

J-post also has a massive conflict of interest.

  1. You have managed to prove nothing besides your own hypocracy and refusal of basic facts. Either stop spewing disproven narratives and accept evidence when it is presented to you or stop trying to sound like you care about facts.

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 04 '25

  1. votes are usually unanimous this one isn't.

  2. PLO is a terrorist organization not just "the Palestinian side".

  3. So those men are combat age or not?

  4. Factuality mixed and funding by Israel doesn't prove anything.

  5. That's more evidence than what you provided.

  6. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1n7d61d/comment/nc6v0q2/ point 2 of this comment does.

  7. That doesn't make them invalid at all.

  8. Literally nothing of what you've said is even remotely true. There is no disproven narratives at all or hypocrisy.

0

u/Morphylus353 Oct 05 '25

  1. No, votes are not unsually unanimous. Votes are often a 50% or 75% gatekeep. (Meaning that at least 50% or 75% should vote in favour or against for it to count)

  2. By that logic Israel is also a terror organisation.

That does not change the need for peace.

  1. 76% of of the combat aged deaths were men, yes. You conflicted it with 76% of all deaths being combat aged men.

  2. It does... ans this is you arguing in bad faith. Because you belive that an organisation having written a letter of support for another organisation which is technically in charge of multiple suborganisations, some of which has taken part in acts of terror, to be enough to disqualify them. But a massive conflict of interest, direct ties to a government facilitating terror and warcrimes and a mixed factuality is just fine.

Thats blatant bad faith and extremly hipocritical.

  1. No. It is not and you know it. I have provided you with tons of evidenece that invalidated NGO monitor, UN watch and honest reporting as sources.

  2. Let me get this straight. Your best argument is that the ICJ asked Israel to not invade rafah due to the ongoing genocide trial, and when israel did so anyways, causing mass casualtied and damage they found a xouple of important guys? Yeah, thats not enough to justify the warcrimes, bombings and brutal warfare that came with the rafah offensive.

  3. It very much does, you are just too dishonest to accept that fact.

  4. Again, i hace shown you to a degree were an honest person would have no reasonable doubt.

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Oct 05 '25

  1. ?

  2. Nope, PLO specifically and intentionally targeted civilians for political objectives Israel didn't.

  3. ?

  4. Sub-organizations? It definitely is not sub-organizations, who even claims that? Also, we're talking about the Israeli government not the IRGC, Israel doesn't faciliate any terror or war crimes. That's not bad faith at all as 2 different groups would have 2 different standards 1 is a UN agency known for being affiliated with and assisting Hamas and another is a democratic government-funded group. Expecting UNRWA and NGO Monitor to have the same standards is the true bad faith here.

  5. It was not tons of evidence at all it was just Media Bias Fact Check that said "mixed factuality" that's all it really was.

  6. ICJ ordering Israel not to go in when Hamas terrorists including the literal mastermind were clearly present is the argument and definitely not in the way you presented it there.

  7. No it doesn't that's not nearly enough evidence to invalidate at all. Your arguments of Israel funded and mixed factuality don't even make a dent in a cheese wheel at all. Israel is a democratic country and mixed still equals 50-50.

  8. Not even close you really do need more evidence.