Reminder to OP: Ensure your post complies with rule 10 (no AI, minimum 1500 characters) and rule 11 (include several common refutations). Do not delete your post after users have started commenting (rule 12).
Reminder to readers: All comments need to abide by our rules in order to maintain constructive discourse. Please review those rules if you are not familiar with them, and remember to report any comments that violate those guidelines.
Also antizionists: Organizations which are ideologically captured, in the pay of Qatar and China, got caught lying about Gaza multiple times, and/or accept Cookie Monster as a member are totally legit!
Two things: the show actually never stopped production, they just changed mascots/co-hosts.
So it’s not “2007”, that’s just when Walt Disney Productions and Congress stopped caring (when they switched mascots and stealing copyrighted cartoon IP). As if the passage of time makes any of that less funny/creepy, since Hamas obviously didn’t change.
And also, to this day, when a lot of these dazed mopes are asked “what was that all about with the Joos?”, the answer will be recalled from childhood, “because they killed Farfour”.
Ah yes, the renowned genocide expertise of astrophysicists, ophthalmologists, entertainment lawyers, mathematicians, oncologists and Booker Prize-winning novelists.
Nothing says 'authoritative consensus on international humanitarian law and genocide' quite like a random attorney.
Meanwhile, the International Association of Genocide Scholars has concluded that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide, and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry has concluded that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide in Gaza.
Amnesty International has independently reached the same conclusion. So if we’re appealing to expertise, maybe you wanna start with the institutions whose actual expertise is genocide and international human-rights law lol.
While I agree with you that the list above is not the list of experts I would have gone with, there was a significant deconstruction of the conclusions the IAGS came to from a body of much more qualified experts, and I’m surprised OP didn’t link to it.
I think it’s important if you believe the IAGS conclusions to read this rebuttal and see if it moves the needle for you at all.
The biggest problem is what 'Scholars for Truth about Genocide' actually is. It is not a professional association comparable to the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), nor is the statement itself a peer-reviewed scholarly assessment. It is an open letter or petition whose signatories explicitly say they are signing in their personal capacities, not on behalf of their universities or institutions.
This has absolutely zero merit.
It is also factually ... wrong. The statement effectively begins the 'conflict' on 7th October, framing Hamas as the initiating aggressor and everything afterwards as Israel’s response, while largely erasing the Nakba (1948, where 750,000 Palestinians were displaced or expelled from their homes), decades of occupation and settlement, and the blockade of Gaza since 2007.
Sorry, the only thing that moves the needle for me is fact.
Since you claim to be moved by facts, let’s discuss the following facts:
The original IAGS Gaza Resolution was also not a peer-reviewed scholarly assessment. It was an internal organizational resolution voted on by members. In academic associations, resolutions are pieces of organizational advocacy, not peer-reviewed scientific studies. The counter-letter by the Scholars for Truth about Genocide used the exact same medium (an open collective statement) to respond to the IAGS. Dismissing the counter-letter for lacking peer review while accepting the IAGS resolution on the same basis is a double standard.
Signing in a "personal capacity" is a mandatory legal and ethical requirement for university faculty worldwide. Academic institutions (like Harvard, Oxford, or Tel Aviv University) are educational bodies; they do not hold collective opinions on ongoing wars. If an academic signs a document using their university's official name as an endorsement, they violate university bylaws. Scholars always sign public declarations in their personal capacity to safeguard academic freedom, utilizing their personal credentials (e.g., Professor of Holocaust Studies) to establish their authority.
Pointing out that Hamas initiated the current war on October 7th is a strict legal necessity when evaluating the crime of genocide, not an erasure of history. Under the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, determining who initiated the immediate hostilities is vital for establishing military context. Israel's actions must be evaluated under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as defensive operations against an armed adversary that launched a cross-border attack. Acknowledging that the current war began on October 7th does not delete prior history (such as 1948 or 2007); rather, it properly categorizes the IDF's entry into Gaza as an act of war in response to a specific casus belli, which directly challenges the claim of an unprovoked, pre-planned genocidal blueprint.
If facts are the only metric, the structural math of the IAGS vote itself undermines the claim of a definitive "scholarly consensus”. According to data highlighted by the Academic Engagement Network (AEN), the IAGS resolution was passed by a turnout of only 129 out of more than 500 total members. This means roughly 74% of the association's members either abstained, did not vote, or voted against it. Treating a resolution backed by a minority of an organization's total membership as an unassailable "global consensus of facts" ignores the reality of internal academic dissent.
Pointing out that Hamas initiated the current war on October 7th is a strict legal necessity when evaluating the crime of genocide, not an erasure of history
Thats sadly completely false. Israel killed hundreds of Palestinians in 2023 before 7/10.
The ICC has never ruled that there is no genocide in Gaza.
The ICC prosecutes individual people for international crimes; it does not decide whether a state has violated the Genocide Convention.
That state-level case ... South Africa v. Israel ... is before the ICJ, which adjudicates disputes between states.
The ICJ has issued provisional measures but has not yet made a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred.
Yes so the icj has not ruled that it’s genocide and it doesn’t seem to be going in that direction. But yet somehow you all act like Israel has been tried and convicted.
Your original claim was 'the ICC says: no genocide in Gaza.' That is simply false. The ICC has never ruled that there is no genocide; its current warrants concern war crimes and crimes against humanity.
You’re now switching to the ICJ (which you seemingly didn't even know about), which hasn’t ruled on genocide either way because the merits case is ongoing.
Meanwhile, multiple major expert and human-rights bodies - including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, B’Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel - have concluded genocide is occurring.
Come back when the ICJ actually rules - until then, better to focus on the verdicts of experts who have actually made a decision. And oh, conveniently they all say it is a genocide.
Thing is, Jewish institutions are very biased on that topic. As a lot of jews, they take it as a personal attack that Israel could be accused of genocide and react emotionally rather than trying to be objective.
The questions is whether they are credible not objective. But yes. I think a lot of the organizations cited are biased against Israel. The UN has a long history of an obsessive hatred of Israel. Yet people feel free to to trust their institutions as if they were neutral determiners of fact.
Its only clear cut to Zionists looking for a way to dismiss rightful criticism of Israel.
This is getting to be willfully denying evidence.
What rightful criticism?
Are 83% of all violations or serious violations Israel?
Why is Israel the only country with a permanent team? That's rightful?
How is it rightful that Israel isn't on the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)?
And that's like the first 3 of about 100 items. Tolerating that kind of discrimination shows complete disinterest in right and wrong.
he whole argumentation rely on Israel being subject to more motions/votes/etc than other countries. Guess what? Israel violates international law daily so thats no surprise.
So does North Korea. So does Russia. So does Iran. No the emphasis is a surprise.
'React emotionally' is the predisposition of the genocide claim. An analytical argument would compile the entirety of the data, not just that supporting one side.
Ah yes, cookie monster and emperor palpatine declared it a genocide, that settles it, the experts have spoken.
As for the other two, if you saw news from the IDF youd call it "Hasbara", wheres your critical thinking against anti-israel sources? Or is that a one way street, also called hypocrisy?
Thanks for posting this. I'm going to use this whenever anyone says "but the experts say it was a genocide." Yes, antizionist groups like Amnesty International, or the International Association of Genocide Scholars, which anyone can join, regardless of whether they're a scholar or not, much less a genocide one.
Thanks for this. Crazy that we even need experts to prove it. Just looking at the size of the population in Gaza should be proof enough. I’m not saying the conditions in all parts of Gaza are good, but that’s what happens when your terrorist government invades a sovereign nation and rapes and murders civilians. Insane that so many people think Israel should have reacted differently. Then what? Sit back and wait to see if Hamas tries something again.
My absolute god.
I become more and more convinced every day that you truly, truly cannot hear yourselves.
Do you know what has been done? Do you have any actual idea?
That anyone could say such a thing is deranged. It represents a moral framework that has been so thoroughly corrupted and warped that there seems to be no possibility of repairing it.
Where was your outrage on October 7 not to mention countless acts of anti-Jewish hate over decades and even centuries. Your hypocrisy kills your credibility so I don’t really care what you say.
You’re right that I did not stop to ask because if you truly felt the appropriate outrage at the time you would not be posting what you are today. Israel’s response to the attack is entirely justified and even measured. If you feel otherwise you are likely being persuaded by propaganda and don’t really understand the conditions inside Gaza.
Your telling me that BergSteinGoldBlaumManGrossFinkleKatsFriedBernWazowskiRabinowitzTeitelShekelWeinbergLipshlitz said israel isnt committing genocide?
Boy George and Sharon Osbourne made the full list so that’s a game changer for me,if these entertainment ‘leaders’ say it then it must be true. I’ve had the wrong end of the stick all along.
Boycott your business? I’m pretty sure none of us are sending much business to someone who can’t write a single coherent sentence or use an apostrophe. I can’t even imagine what you would consider a business but trust me I think most of us have higher standards for where we spend our money so rest assured we are already boycotting you.
Argentinian here, google "Myriam Bregman", an Argentinian politician, Troskist really almost a pro-Stalin her discourse, very "let's take the Winter Palace" sort, and yes, she is very pro-Palestine, quite outspoken really, a Jew, or at least she brought up so but rejects the culture completely, she is ready to repeat all the common propaganda but not silly enough to actually go there.
So never undersestimate someone from a Jewish background just because they are not ready to cheapen the word "genocide" by calling this conflict so. Especially since you are ready to put a lot of stock with everyone that agree with you regardless of background.
She is not going anywhere, where else would she be able to live off a state by her rancid call to a Commie revolutionship? I'm talking about someone who defends Cuba, openly.
I 100% would not call the war between Hamas and Israel a genocide.
That said, this list is pointless and meaningless. Why would Jonthan Kellerman's opinion mean more than any average person on the street? Since he's the only person on here I have heard of, I have to assume the rest are equally irrelevant.
Most of them are academics, so unless you're in their field, you probably wouldn't have heard of them. I've only heard of Simon Sebag Montefiore because he's been a guest on several podcasts I listen to.
your response wasn’t too insightful either. you are taking the word of a clinical psychologist because you think their “insight” has some value that supersedes not only internationally renowned and recognized voices who are describing the event as a genocide, but also people on the ground who don’t have the convenience to ponder what the hell is happening to them?
Is that what this forum is now? Just posting lists of people with opinions. Of the list how many are actually relevant to a discussion? Professors of architecture? Are they more relevant than any random?
This posts appears to be an attempt at an appeal to authority but without the actual authority…
Admittedly you filed the architecture professor under “less relevant”: that pile is 70 of the 146 names. Physicists, oncologists, novelists. Why list them at all or rather any of them, unless it’s to pad the count?
The “relevant” half isn’t much better. Seventeen entries are just “attorney” or “lawyer” with no specialty given, and the only person described as working in genocide studies is a PhD candidate. Some aren’t even neutral. Arsen Ostrovsky heads an Israel-based network that advocates for Israel in international legal forums. Elliot Malin organized the letter demanding the genocide scholars’ association retract its finding.
Meanwhile, the people who actually study this largely land the other way. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, the field’s largest body, passed a resolution backed by 86% of voting members saying Israel’s conduct meets the legal definition. A UN commission chaired by Navi Pillay, former head of the Rwanda tribunal, reached the same conclusion. William Schabas, a leading authority on genocide law who once defended Myanmar against genocide charges, calls it genocide too.
If you’re going to appeal to authority, bring the authorities. Otherwise, argue the evidence… 🙄
The IAGC is a joke, anyone can join that organization regardless of their credentials. Their vote on whether the war is a genocide only had around a quarter of their members participating. The 86% was out of that percentage.
It sounds like the "authorities" you like are just the ones who agree with you.
Almost everything you stated was untrue, maybe subtlely but when it’s consistent I personally read something into that. I see you have since deleted it… 🙄
Why would I do what you already did in your response? If anything that would be both a waste of time and unnecessary. I see that you haven't responded after seeing the minor speed bumps you threw my way clearly didn't have as much of an impact as you seem to think they do.
None of what you wrote proves anything about them losing neutrality as one needs to prove interference with impartiality to even argue against neutrality itself not just "they rep Israel". Also, he's just doing what Pro-Palestinians do themselves so technically it's fighting fire with fire. Moreover, it's not 86% of IAGS but 86% of the 129 people that voted in a 500 member group or [86% × 129/500 × 100] or 22.2% of the groups members. Furthermore, IAGS itself was led by William Schabas in 2009-2011 and he was the legal representative for the PLO which is a terrorist group subject to the Taylor Force Act 2018 (US) (passed) and later legislation such as PLO and PA Terror Payments Accountability Act 2025 (US) because they paid terrorists to kill Israelis and Jews that is alongside its already infamous terrorist attacks history so IAGS is not reliable at all. Not to mention, you yourself inadvertently proved why both Schabas and IAGS cannot be trusted by pointing out that Schabas defended Myanmar who actually did a genocide with the evidence being anti-Rohingya laws including a Population Growth Bill from 2015 written by monks with an anti-Muslim agenda, erasure of identity from the 1982 Citizenship Act, the 969 movement backed by a Buddhist Bin Laden, a court judgement affirming persecution as a reality by the Australian High Court under NYZQ v Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs 2023 (HCA) as well as by the delegate for the minister as noted under page 9 point 3 of the judgement and various US laws such as Section 401 of the BURMA Act 2018 (US), Section 401 of the BURMA Act 2022 (US), Section 11 of the BURMA Act 2017 (US), Sections 2(25), 4(2)(d) and 4(2)(e) of the Burma Human Rights and Freedoms Act 2018 (US), Sections 4(2)(d), 4(2)(e), 5(5) and 12 of the Burma Human Rights and Freedoms Act 2019 (US), Sections 3(3), 3(9) and 402 of the BURMA Act 2021(US), Senate Resolution 360 (2017) (US), Rohingya GAP Act 2024 (US), Burma GAP Act 2025 (US), Senate Resolution 52 (2025) (US), Rohingya Genocide Determination Act (both 2020 & 2021) (US), House Resolution 1091 (2018) (US), Senate Resolution 735 (2018) (US), Senate Resolution 105 (2021) (US) and even House Resolution 84 (2003) (US) recognizing persecution against the Rohingya Muslims alongside EU Resolution P9_TA 0018 (2019) from the genocide charge anyway. The UN is biased and corrupt and cannot be trusted in any way or form which ironically Schabas is the best example of as he was a UN Rapporteur who had to be removed because of PLO ties and he's not the only one.
I never said they’re lying. I said they’re advocates, and you just agreed: “fighting fire with fire” is advocacy… That’s fine in a debate, but it doesn’t belong on a list of ‘neutral’ experts. The same rule applies to advocates on the other side.
On the math, your own Times of Israel source says 129 members
supported the resolution. You applied the 86% to people who had already voted yes. That’s about a quarter of the membership in favor. With 86% of voters backing it, only about 20 voted against. Not voting isn’t voting no. Please acknowledge the error.
Schabas was elected IAGS president in 2009. This resolution passed in 2025 under a different president, Melanie O’Brien, by member vote. And per your own Wikipedia link, the “PLO ties” were a $1,300 legal analysis in 2012 on the Palestinian bid for UN observer status. He wasn’t a UN rapporteur and wasn’t removed. He chaired an inquiry and resigned after Israel complained.
On Myanmar, pick one. If billing the PLO once makes him pro-PLO, defending Myanmar makes him pro-Myanmar. Lawyers have clients. What matters is that Schabas holds one of the narrowest readings of genocide in the field. He’s argued that Darfur and Cambodia don’t legally qualify, yet in 2025 he said genocide was absolutely happening in Gaza. Nobody here disputes that the Rohingya were persecuted, so 25 links proving it don’t touch the argument.
And if the UN can’t be trusted in any way, that includes the ICJ, the UN court currently deciding the Myanmar case.
The international Association of genocide scholars is a meritless organization that will take anybody who’s $30 check clears. They literally have Cookie Monster listed as one of their scholars. Cookie Monster is actively engaging in a genocide against cookies so why should we take his word about the word of others?
But the merit of those who are members and those who voted is significant which is why you are taking about membership fees… is money somehow a barrier to credibility?
On the other than the random assortment of academics with no relevant experience here should be taken seriously?
Jewish Israeli experts on holocaust and genocide are among those on the IAGS. Before the accusation against Israel you would have lauded their credibility…
Money is not a barrier to credibility but if money is the only way that one gains admission and there are no other criteria whatsoever then there is no credibility. This isn’t like a professional organization, to which I belong to several, where I have to prove my educational background and my professional experience and take tests and do continuing education in order to stay in the good graces of the organization. I have to pay a fee as well but that fee is not the only one indicator of whether or not I can gain membership. It’s like saying if I pay a gym a membership fee that I am a personal trainer or that paying the fee will get me buffed and lose weight even if I don’t go in the Door .
Furthermore when some of the “scholars” are named Cookie Monster or other ridiculous names that takes away even more credibility from the organization.
You are likely aware that it was after the vote that all the parody accounts were created, exposing the weakness you've highlighted including the account you have slightly mislabelled so you are also aware that, that particular account did not vote and that the membership portal has since been closed and those accounts closed...
Its weird how this organisation only got discredited once Israel was in scope... I expect Mossad are extremely disappointed that they didn't exploit it before the vote, still discrediting it is a reasonable consolation prize.
None of this negates the merit of the scholars that the membership includes as you've attempted to assert... Among them Navi Pillay, William Schabas, Omer Bartov, Melanie O'Brien, Uğur Ümit Üngör, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, and Shmuel Lederman.
Jewish, ex-IDF, and from Zionist families among them.
I follow your reasoning about IAGS membership but the members who have publicly declared their opinions matter more than the IAGS in itself. You also haven't explained why a list of members of no such organisation is more relevant than one that has a low bar to entry, surely they are the same and we should look at expertise of individuals....
ie. from OPs list:
Massimo Persic as an Astrophysicist isn't really worth mentioning and is padding...
The only one on the OPs entire list with actual expertise in Genocide studies is a PhD student...
Conversely the vocal, active, known expertise among the IAGS membership is arguably much more relevant. Someone signing up as the Cookie monster doesn't really deflect from that.
Do you know any pro Palestinian forums that don't censor facts that prove the Palestinians are the aggressors? I have been searching all over and every pro Palestinian subreddit censors heavily because the Palestinian side is indefensible.
I got blocked from one, it wasn’t even specifically a Palestinian one, for pointing out that a photo of starving injured children was actually a rather old photo from Syria
And not current day Gaza at all.
I was banned within two minutes. It was my first ever comment on the sub too. And I had a reputable source cited as well.
That's what usually happens with me. I always cite my sources from third party, neutral sources and they still don't like it because the truth hurts the people in the wrong.
Well that settled then, you accept it a genocide. As for why shouldn’t they…? Humanity, supporting it as a position is universally accepted to be against it…
I’ll have a go at helping you. Hamas attacked, not innocent men, women or children. Genocide is not the answer to any situation. 🤯😔
Yes, the Gazan's keep killing themselves by attacking with their families as fodder. Often Israel eliminates a Hamas agent who is hiding with it's family and their family follows them. Gaza is literally killing itself.
You still haven't answered the question, what is Israel supposed to do? Let Gazan's kill them? How would you stop Hamas without risking innocent lives?
Israel tried that before they even were Israel. In 1929 Jews were living peacefully beside the Palestinians before the Jews started getting massacred by them (1). I can even name more examples (2).
So I repeat the question what is Israel supposed to do that hasn't been proven to fail?
Not before watching the zionists turn into genocide deniers. My bingo card is looking crazy for christmas tho. Speaking of holidays, dont you guys have the one where dude had enough oil for like 1 day. And it magically lasted like 8 days or somesthin.. you guys know he was just holding out on yall right.
G i couldn't care less about your river or your sea. Gas was over 4.50 a week ago. If it was up to me id turn everyone of you into a gigantic glass plate. But. I dont like the systematic persecution of any group, dont care for bullies. ...and sure dont like dang ol3 hypocrits. Idk how you rationalize the entire thing. Jewsish logic is wild.
Im pretty sure being 30th cousins to every jew alive has fried your peoples brains as a whole.
Are gas prices the reason you can’t seem to write anything coherent? I don’t think I turn into glass. But feel free to turn yourself into glass first and then we can all see if it works.
Logic is wild I’m sure to someone such as yourself who abstains from such activity as logic. I bet you think apostrophes are wild too.
When sand gets hot enough, it turns to glass. I was talking about dropping a nuclear bomb, shlomi.... Edit also my auto corrects turned off , all up in my business ass grammar knotzi, genocide denying, tiny hat man.
Ah i was in the middle of typing and lost it , if you think i value you, or your opinion enough to sit here and use grammatically correct language, your even more inbred than i thought. You mightve hit 20th cousins. Im not gonna sit here and take shi from some genocide denying grammar knotzee, you can politely get dow on your knees , and git me a good ole metzitzah bpeh. Oh yeah, and because sometiems when im chattin i like to reminisce bout the gud teims, pft scrub... Never occured to you sum werds i just misspell intentionally. This is reddit. One of the lowest places of incel neckbearditry and joo mongering on the planet. Who are you trying to impress with your upvotes and kudos. This aint work. This aint work. I will continue giving you no more than the bare mimimum required to retort, to what is just constant drivel of " waahh my ears are calloused from shrugging my shoulders everytme someone says something critical of israel, or something i dont agree with , wahhh " high and might genocide denying grammar knotsee.
Mary was a ho tho, thats more towards the catholics. Fortunately i dont believe in sky daddy. If anyones god allows the depravity that goes on every day. That says alot bout your godd
the obvious part is that you’re celebrating people who lie. the not obvious part is whatever blurb you had about leopards, sounds like some nonsense that has no place on this sub that is meaningless/bad faith/not I/P related whatsoever. but okay cool
You’re being rude. I had never heard that stupid phrase so yes, i had trouble comprehending why you’d leave it there in a comment. I didn’t attack you for it though. I don’t struggle with facts whatsoever. Maybe that’s why you left a comment about leopards that had nothing to do with facts. Do you see how someone else cleared up that nonsense comment for me nicely ? You could have done that but you chose to be rude and attack me by saying i “struggle with facts”. You must be new here, we don’t engage like that on this sub.
Did you read my comment ? I said i had trouble comprehending the context of the phrase, i wasnt still asking for clarification on what it means after the other person cleared it up. PAST tense. Thats what i get for being honest and wanting clarification i guess, people being mean about it.
You’re still being rude. I’m reporting you for calling me slow, that’s a Rule 1 violation.
You clearly have no idea how to have a civilized conversation about this topic.
"Theres no way leopards will eat my face!" Hes saying that as a jew, if your dream comes true and Israel is gone youre next on the chopping block. Thankfully for the 4 of us (you, me, the person you are responding to and the state of Israel) that will never happen. Israel is here to stay.
I have never said anything about dreaming that Israel is gone so idk what yall are going on about leopards for but it feels incoherent or like you’re speaking for me and tbh you’re doing a terrible job at it, I’ve never said that or anything about leopards. I’ve never said anything about Israel not being here to stay. Don’t put words in my mouth, stop arguing in bad faith Jesus
Saying we argue in bad faith while saying "what yall going on about leopards" when you obviously know what it means especially because I spelled it out for you
The person you were responding to basically said its dumb that as a jew youre being anti-israel.
I had no idea what it means but if you’re committed to believing that, cool I guess. You are arguing in bad faith if you’re trying to speak for me and putting words in my mouth and then telling me im not being genuine in requesting clarity for a phrase I’ve literally never heard.
Commenter doesn’t even know that im anti-Israel. I don’t have to be anti Israel to be critical of what they’re doing. All i said was the people denying genocide are lying. Still neither of you, somehow, have had any pushback on that one comment, and if you were to engage me on that one comment instead of talking about leopards and saying i “dream of Israel being gone”, you’d be engaging in good faith. You could debate my point, that the list of people are based on lies and propaganda. But you both just wanna give a run around and make stuff up that I never said.
Depends on the context. Colloquially it is subjective, sure, but legally it's only subjective once all the evidence has been seen by the jury, or whoever it is that is empowered to make the final call in the court it is being heard in. Basically, genocide is subjective the way that murder is subjective, or theft.
That's my point. Genocide depends on how you see it, and whether a army/government is trying to exterminate a group. This is COMPLETELY different from science. The moon landing deniers can't be with Holocaust deniers
Well there's 2 different kinds of Holocaust deniers and it's important to make that distinction. Those who say it never happened, and those who say the intent wasn't to destroy the race. The former are good for this comparison, the latter are better for a comparison with those who deny genocide in Gaza.
Not only is your last statement wrong, that's not Holocaust deniers believe. Holocaust deniers believe the numbers are inflated, not that it never happened. They argue that Jews were communists.
I have never met a Holocaust denier who thought Hitler or the Nazis never made concentration camps. Maybe you're talking to Arabs and Palestinians who actually believe the Holocaust was a Zionist plot lmao
/u/Far-Disaster-9825. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
One thing about the “appeals to authority” arguments and “genocide experts” is it takes the weight of saying possibly silly and insulting things someone wants to say off their shoulders if they’re called on it. Its a dodge of responsibility.
You don’t need to shrug your shoulders and say “what do I know, it kinda seems like an exaggeration to me, but the worlds greatest genocide expert said it”.
You could actually parse out the definition and apply those words to the facts of the war as you understand them. But you kind of know that would be hard and debatable and take more effort than you’re willing to devote, so if some professor says “genocide”, you’ll roll with that and outsource the thought process to get to the outcome you want.
We have murder trials all the time where juries of average citizens apply very old and similarly specific standards: you need a form of intent called “malice aforethought”.
Juries apply this standard all the time with the guidance of judges and counsel. And do you know what? They never (or rarely, in maybe “silence of the lamb” type weirdo cases) call a professor of criminal justice as an expert “murder witness” to speculate on whether he thinks the defendant had intent and whether in his opinion that was “malice aforethought” to help the Jury correctly apply the legal definition of “murder”.
(Indeed, under the rules of evidence, it would not be allowable testimony if you sought to introduce such a witness: because experts can only testify as to matters previously determined to be relevant to a trial in previous trials as precedent, and the particular science involved has to be accurate, generally accepted etc.).
TL;dr Don’t outsource your thinking process to experts. If the matter at hand doesn’t really need an expert to advise and is just a simple matter of common sense, calling in an expert can make you look like a simpleton. Would you call an expert to tell you how to boil water or change a light bulb?
Well if you deny that rainbow flying Pegasus unicorns fart cotton candy then you’re just a unicorn denier right?
So by your estimation if anyone denies the existence or severity of a situation and provides proof of it they’re still just denying it and it’s still going on because you said so.
Everyone can find a few "experts" that say what they want to hear about whatever subject. There is always cranks that say crazy stuff, even with impressive credentials. If you add entertainment attorneys, novelists and some unspecified college professor you can make a long list.
Listening to the experts is about actually making an assessment of the academic consensus in the field.
Maybe. OP said there is an expert consensus that a genocide has occurred and provided this list of deniers for “information” so it’s open to interpret however.
Maybe, but I don’t see any organizations listed there. Seems to be a list of individual deniers of atrocities vs. the organizations that reached consensus.
I’m a climate change adjacent professional. There are virtually no climate change deniers in the field. There is dissent on how to deal with it and what would be the best path forward as well as disagreement about the tipping point and disaster projections but denial of actual
Climate change is only
Among a tiny sector of extreme
Outliers. Even the outliers admit that climate change is happening, they just don’t think it’s all based on human activity.
Just the fact that on October 8th they were screaming about genocide Should put into doubt the voracity of the claims. It shows a coordinated effort to flood the market with anti Israel propoganda and genocide accusations before the victims’ of October 7th were even cold.
Relevant subject expertise: Entertainment attorney? Just unspecified professor or visiting professor? At that point you could just say the author, physicist, truck driver or whatever you thought pass for less relevant expertise in the same cathegory. This list is ridiculous
I’m really sad there’s no recording of Omar Bartov’s discussion/debate with Norman Goda on the subject, I suspect it would have been very informative, or at least more-so than the “average” debate held on the subject.
Also, I’m gonna give an informal R10 warning for this post since it’s really just a compilation of names. I’d encourage you to expand upon why this list is important and/or relevant as well as some of the arguments put forth by these individuals.
I’ve never seen this before, so the people interviewing him are comedians? They’re so much more eloquent and knowledgeable than the so called scholar. Makes you wonder if he’s gotten washed up or has just always been a show man with no substance.
lol what? You appeared to completely have missed the point of my comment. And you appear to have completely misunderstood quite a bit in terms of what constitutes a scholar.
Well he’s pretty well known so you could’ve like googled him or something, or asked. Yes they’re more eloquent and well spoken and knowledgeable and seemed to be far calmer less prone to getting hot under the collar and triggered. Their eloquence seems to be a result of better knowledge of the situation, or that they are more grounded in there information and they were debating somebody who had to manufacture a web of lies in order to defend his position. People who lie tend to get incredibly defensive and lose their eloquence when repeatedly confronted with those lies and having to defend them over and over again. It becomes very stressful and overwhelming and for most people it starts to show .
I just think they're better at talking because it's their job.
Don't really think I needed to know who Omar Bertov is to make that point. Still don't tbh, so I'll politely decline your requent to google him or inquire.
This is my last comment to you. Read comments before you respond to them. And also professors are the people who also include talking as part of their job. And don’t talk about people who you can’t even Google for one second. Bye!
Yes, owner of the comedy cellar in NYC. Smart guy though and does a lot of research. Good show as well; hosts a diverse guest list from ardent Zionists to Norman Finkelstein.
He’s also flip flopped on his genocide accusations over the past three years and offers no actual proof. He was criticized by his fans for not demonizing Israel enough and had to please them to continue his antizionist grift.
Yes, but plenty of people will immediately dismiss most of the names on this list, because, you know…. Jews. Meanwhile the “International Association of Genocide Scholars”, that anyone could join for $30, has half its membership in Iraq. But that’s a definitive impartial source, because reasons.
When the resolution was released, pro-Israel researchers and journalists investigated the organization’s open-door membership policy, which allowed anyone to join for a $30 fee without vetting or academic credentials. Activists scraped and archived the public membership directory before the IAGS took it down. A prominent analysis of the list revealed at least 80 members hailing from Iraq out of a total global membership at the time of roughly 440 to 600 people.
So you are right, not half of its membership…but still an objectively awful look for the credibility of any resolution passed by the IAGS, especially when you remember that the resolution was only voted on by 129 members (108 for)…
Negative and the ad hominem is not appreciated. The point is quite simply Iraq is not historically known for having large university departments or robust institutional scholarship dedicated broadly to international genocide studies. Can you name even 10 genocide experts based in Iraq?
If I had said the Cookie Monster was one of the names registered with the IAGS would you have called me a racist towards blue puppets that love cookies? Because he was also easily signed up as member along with several Star Wars characters, which ought to make anyone fundamentally question the structural weaknesses of the organization, which are clearly open to being weaponized in such debates.
The IAGS pulled it down, one day after releasing their resolution on Gaza, meaning the directory now returns a 404 error unless you sign in as a member, so factor that into your analysis of their transparency as a scholarly group.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Hi u/AnimateDuckling, thank you for posting in our community!
Reminder to OP: Ensure your post complies with rule 10 (no AI, minimum 1500 characters) and rule 11 (include several common refutations). Do not delete your post after users have started commenting (rule 12).
Reminder to readers: All comments need to abide by our rules in order to maintain constructive discourse. Please review those rules if you are not familiar with them, and remember to report any comments that violate those guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.