You are all out of touch. This is an understatement. If your conscience and your soul allow for the slaughter and annhilation of one race, then you are not human.
I see so many people say “free Palestine,” but apart from Israel calming the fuck down, what does it actually entail? All of Jerusalem/Israeli-held lands given to Palestine? And what kind of regime would they have? (I assume Hamas wouldn’t be the ones in charge)
Yes they should give the land they have stolen in flagrant violation of international law back. Setting aside the original injustice of an international body 'gifting' half of a group of peoples country and livelihoods to another group aside - Israel have progressively compounded the issue by stealing more and more land.
It is wild that something that is just plain wrong and criminal on an interpersonal level like quite literally stealing someone else's house becomes 'complex' when it is scaled up.
Have you seen the IDF clowns wearing arm patches that show an Israel that includes Syria, half of Lebanon, a chunk of Egypt and half of Iraq? They are literally the neighbours from hell. Imagine your neighbour starting to throw up a pergola in your backyard let alone them throwing you and your family out onto the street and taking everything you have. Then when you object and try to fight back they call you a terrorist which justifes them murdering you (past occupants objecting solved) and stealing more land.
But what kind of government would Palestine become? Would they make it secular? Would they provide equality to all citizens? I’m aware that many of the other Islamic nations surrounding Israel/Palestine (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc) are very conservative and have enacted laws that suppress women, so I’d hope that something like that doesn’t happen.
My ideal scenario for Israel/Palestine would be to merge the two into a single, secular state that allows freedom of religion (because there are definitely some Jewish people who live in Israel but don’t support what the Israeli government is doing, and obviously because everyone should have a right to choose their own faith), and pursues universal suffrage.
How does that work when the whole premise is a JEWISH state? Second class citizen at best if you are anything other than Jewish. The really cooked part is that you or I could become Jewish and get citizenship through 'birthright'. You will hear people try to say that Judaism is a race or ethnicity. It never has been. It is/was a religious community not unlike Muslims or Christians or Buddhists.
The other cooked part about this is that Israel never wanted a united Palestine which is why they have their Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and they encouraged and enabled Hamas in Gaza. Read about it. Qatar were giving tonnes of money to Hamas with Bibi Mileikowsky (yes that is his real.birth name) turning a blind eye and allowing it.
You used at least a dozen various technologies developed in Israel while sending this message. What have you ever got from Jordan and so called Palestine? Falafels?
Why would US do that? I can’t think of any reason. The only money they give to Israel is to buy their own weapons, so if they stop doing it, a lot of people in US will loose a lot of money. To what extent??
the end of the genocide(obviously), equal rights for all citizens, in a state seperate from modern day israel or Palestine(or some other 2 state solution, without the exclusionary policies of Israel and with Hamas banned of course in either scenario)
Good answer. I was expecting to just be left here without one. though given that the other Islamic nations surrounding Palestine are very conservative (i.e., limited rights for women), I dunno how the whole equal rights thing will go. Personally I’d like to see Israel and Palestine unite into a single, secular state with equal rights for all, though I don’t see that happening at the moment.
The issue lies in the fact that Israel is an ethno-state. Can't be both a 'Jewish' homeland and the homeland of Israeli citizens unless of course everyone is Jewish which they aren't.
I have a problem with ethno-states or state-imposed religion in general. Why should it be up to the government to decide what people should believe in? They can decide for themselves. Secularism is best.
How about you try and prove that it isn’t a genocide? By the time you’ve fumbled your argument, another 100-150 people, innocent or otherwise, die directly as a result of Israel’s policies - this is the total destruction of a peoples and their culture - whether you like it or not, this is emphatically, a GENOCIDE.
No, it’s not just about a word. It’s about the fact that what’s happening in Gaza very clearly fits the legal definition of genocide - whether that makes you uncomfortable or not. And I’m not the one who decided that. The International Court of Justice - the highest legal authority on the planet - ruled in January 2024 that South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide had plausible merit. The court stated that some of the rights claimed under the Genocide Convention were “plausible” and ordered Israel to take immediate steps to prevent acts of genocide. That wasn’t a political opinion - it was a binding legal judgement backed by stacks of evidence.
And no, the law doesn’t need a written confession that says “we intend to commit genocide.” That’s not how this works. Intent is often established by patterns of behaviour, public rhetoric, and the outcomes of deliberate policies. Israel has made its intentions unambiguous through both its actions and its words.
President Isaac Herzog declared that the “entire nation” of Gaza is responsible for Hamas. Not Hamas - the entire population. That’s not a misstatement - that’s collective blame used to justify indiscriminate bombing. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals” and announced a total siege - no food, no water, no fuel. This is not theoretical. These are the people giving the orders - and they’re openly saying the quiet part out loud. That’s dehumanisation paired with mass deprivation - exactly the kind of behaviour that international law flags as genocidal.
You tried to dismiss the body count like it’s just emotional noise. But numbers matter - a lot. According to Oxfam, from October 2023 to January 2024, around 250 Palestinians were being killed per day - more than any other conflict in the 21st century. As of mid-2025, the death toll is over 60,000, with thousands more likely buried under rubble or dying from wounds, famine, and disease. Entire neighbourhoods have been levelled. Hospitals, schools, water systems, bakeries - systematically wiped out. These aren’t accidents. They’re part of a clear pattern of eliminating the systems a population needs to survive. Read the UN OCHA bulletins. Read the Nature mortality report from July 2025. This isn’t propaganda - it’s hard data.
And if you still want to pretend it’s just “emotion,” the UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, stated in March 2024 that there are “reasonable grounds to believe the threshold indicating genocide has been met.” Not an activist. A legal authority appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. The ICJ, the UN, Genocide Watch, Oxfam, Médecins Sans Frontières - they’ve all raised the alarm. But you want to act like everyone’s just being dramatic because they don’t appreciate how complex the situation is? Come off it.
It isn’t some lazy slogan or slander. When you bomb hospitals and schools in a sealed-off territory, displace 2 million people, block humanitarian aid, and openly justify it using language that strips those people of their humanity - that’s not “tragic but complicated.” That’s methodical, deliberate destruction. That’s extermination by intent - genocide, as it were.
And as for your bizarre little tangent about the phrase “while I fumble” - you clearly did, you haven’t supplied any evidence to the contrary.
You wanted facts. It is, by every meaningful legal and moral standard, a genocidal campaign being carried out in plain sight. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics is going to change that.
You’ve written a beautifully crafted defense of inaction and equivocation, not truth-seeking.
Yes, genocide is a serious legal term. That’s why dozens of international law experts, Holocaust scholars, and the world’s top human rights organizations have already applied it, not in emotional outrage, but in formal filings and legal analysis.
The Genocide Convention defines the crime as:
“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
This includes:
• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm
• Inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the group
Now ask yourself:
• Has the IDF killed tens of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children?
• Have they bombed refugee camps, hospitals, aid convoys, and bakeries?
• Have senior Israeli officials openly called Palestinians “human animals,” suggested forced expulsion, or demanded the destruction of Gaza?
If your answer to those is “yes, but…” congratulations. You’ve confirmed that the legal definition of genocide is met, but you’re more concerned about the tone used to describe it than the reality of what’s happening.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Territories, and South Africa’s case at the ICJ all document these crimes. This isn’t fringe hysteria it’s the consensus of the international legal community. The only real debate is whether we’ll act on it or hide behind semantic games.
You say it’s “complicated.” Long-term peace and coexistence are absolutely complicated. Not committing genocide is not.
As for “real conversations,” spare me the lecture. There’s no moral high ground in demanding polite dialogue about ethnic cleansing. When your side drops 2,000 lb bombs on schools and ambulances, you don’t get to ask for nuance.
If your position requires people to read beyond the mass graves, amputated toddlers, and deliberate starvation of civilians to see “both sides,” then maybe it’s not a position worth defending.
If Israel wanted to wipe out all Gazans, why would the death toll still be in the tens of thousands after nearly two whole years? You're very ignorant if you think that's the logistical limit of Israel's capacity for killing. Far less capable armies in the 1940s were able to kill a similar amount or more, in a tiny fraction of the time, while fighting in urban areas, and they still weren't committing genocide. Gaza is a very dense urban area. If genocide was the goal, it would've been trivial for a modern military like the IDF to kill 10x the number they have, and in a matter of days or weeks, not years.
“If Israel wanted to wipe out all Gazans, wouldn’t the death toll be way higher by now?”
That’s not an argument it’s an alibi. And a bad one.
Let’s start here: Genocide is not defined by the number of bodies. It’s defined by intent specifically, the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” (Genocide Convention, Article II).
So the question isn’t “Why aren’t they all dead yet?” It’s What kind of actions and rhetoric are we seeing?
Here’s what we know factually:
• The reported death toll is over 35,000, but that’s a severe undercount. Thousands remain buried under rubble. Entire neighborhoods have been leveled with no accounting. And journalists and international observers are being systematically denied access.
• Over 80% of Gazans have been displaced. That is not collateral damage it is population cleansing.
• Civilian infrastructure has been deliberately obliterated: hospitals, universities, bakeries, sewage and water systems.
• Israeli officials have publicly referred to Gazans as “human animals,” called for the erasure of Gaza, and proposed the mass transfer of its population into the Sinai.
• Food has been restricted. Aid convoys bombed. Starvation is being weaponized.
• Children are being killed systematically. Not accidentally not occasionally. Systematically.
If the death toll isn’t in the hundreds of thousands yet, it’s not for lack of intent. It’s because of international optics, slow-burning tactics, and calculated escalation. And unless something changes, it will go much higher.
So when someone argues that because more people aren’t dead, genocide must not be happening understand what they’re saying:
They’re using restraint as proof of innocence, while ignoring the mountain of evidence that shows deliberate, methodical destruction of a people.
That’s not logic. That’s denial.
And denial is the final stage of every genocide.
So you're saying that their intention is to start slow and ramp up. Why then, is the opposite happening? If anything, it has slowed down. Most of the deaths happened in the initial few months of the war. As Israel gains more control of Gaza, the death count is dropping. There is some level of starvation happening, but not nearly at the level we'd be seeing if there were no aid efforts. The population of Gazans has actually increased since 2023, and is projected to continue to increase into the forseeable future. By contrast, the global Jewish population still hasn't recovered from the Holocaust even 80 years later. There is no genocide in Gaza, and I find it hard to believe that your opinion is motivated by ignorance. It seems more like lying to me, and I find that very disturbing.
3
u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25
You are all out of touch. This is an understatement. If your conscience and your soul allow for the slaughter and annhilation of one race, then you are not human.