Why didn't Lichess made a public declaration about the genocide in Gaza?

@HiramHolliday said in #50:
> I wasn’t in Scotland when I was with her.

That would require stuff to happen outside of Scotland. And we know that things outside of Scotland don't matter.

Because it would lead to exactly what we are seeing in responses here... A bunch of people arguing

To all the people who say that Israel isn't committing genocide because intent hasn't been proven:

www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/1/14/intent-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel-is-not-hard-to-prove

> In Israel’s case, intention too has been laid bare by an ample amount of evidence – as the South African legal team pointed out.

> In arguing the case, they were able to draw on a new and comprehensive database, compiled by Law for Palestine, which meticulously documents and collates 500 statements that embody the Israeli state’s intention to commit genocide and incitement to genocide since October 7, 2023. The statements by people with command authority – state leaders, war cabinet ministers and senior army officers – and by other politicians, army officers, journalists and public figures reveal the widespread commitment in Israel to the genocidal destruction of Gaza.

> Perpetrators of genocide rarely express their intentions in direct and explicit ways, so courts are left to infer such intent through an analysis of state actions or leaked memoranda. In the case of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, however, as the Law for Palestine database shows, people with command authority have been making genocidal statements repeatedly over the past three months.

> They have dehumanised Palestinians in their rhetoric, and painted the population in Gaza, as a whole, as Israel’s enemy. Bolstered by the hubris of settler colonial power and the knowledge that it has killed, maimed, destroyed, expelled, humiliated, imprisoned and dispossessed with more than seven decades of impunity and by the continued material and moral support of the United States, Israelis are explicit and unashamed about their genocidal intent because they have imagined and prosecuted a war against people who they see as colonised “savages”.

> Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant described Palestinians precisely in this way, as “human animals”, in his proclamation of the “total siege” on October 9. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Gaza as “the city of evil” on October 7, and then on December 24, framed Israel’s attack as a fight against “monsters”. “This is a battle, not only of Israel against these barbarians, it is a battle of civilisation against barbarism,” he said.

> Israeli President Isaac Herzog said a few weeks earlier, on December 5, that Israel’s attack on Gaza is “a war that is intended, really, truly, to save western civilisation... [from] an empire of evil”.

> Netanyahu and other senior Israeli ministers have left no doubt that saving “Western civilisation” requires the total destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza by describing them as the Biblical people of Amalek – a people perceived in whole as an enemy that must be destroyed – and as Nazis.

Also please, can you explain what more evidence could show genocidal intent? If destroying life, property, schools, hospitals and residential areas doesn't imply intent, then what does? Do they literally have to state "we have genocidal intent" for you to recognize it? Is that the proof you need?

@Cyber_Sushi said in #53:
> Also please, can you explain what more evidence could show genocidal intent? If destroying life, property, schools, hospitals and residential areas doesn't imply intent, then what does? Do they literally have to state "we have genocidal intent" for you to recognize it? Is that the proof you need?

For me, it’s the plausible deniability factor. None of us can prove genocidal intent, and they were retaliating against an offensive action that targeted civilians.

@clousems said in #54:
> For me, it’s the plausible deniability factor. None of us can prove genocidal intent, and they were retaliating against an offensive action that targeted civilians.
None of us can? Well we definitely can prove the genocide intent, in a previous post I saw someone say missiles didn't make difference between good and bad guys as an argument, but we all are forgetting that a solder holding a rifle, or a drone or a tank or an armored vehicle... can make the difference between a child and a militant, we have footage or solders targeting civilians, there are journalists who got "sniped" can't a sniper see that someone is a journalist.... can't a solder see that the people he is shooting are women and children
But say you think footage aren't enough of a proof.
We know that a few times iof has warned the civilians to move a safe area then bomb this safe area, this is an answer to those who say iof warns civilians, what's the use if u tell people to move to a place that u will bomb, seems pretty genocidal to me???
But ok ok mistakes happen, they didn't mean to bomb a safe area right?
What's the use of starving gaza, starving gaza affects the civilians more then it affects hamas, in what way this would help them fight khamas, put pressure on hamas by starving civilians??? That's by definition terrorism, killing or terrorizing or hurting civilians on perpous for political reasons, in this case pressuring Hamas as u say, that is literally by definition terrorism
All of these things can't be just a coincidence or a mistake
Netanyahu himself called Palestinians amelaks, human animals ... and his representatives showed a middle east map where gaza and the west bank were taken as a part of Israel
Seems that the goal is already denounced
@Cyber_Sushi even if they say they are genociding Palestinians themselves they won't believe them because they already did

If genocide is the intent, they're doing a pretty bad job of it. Typically, genocidal governments in Israel's position round up and eliminate members of a group systematically. The civilian casualties seem to be more isolated than systematic.

Also, you kinda ignored the big point that makes it difficult to attribute genocidal intent to Israel. When a nation is attacked by a group (especially with regards to terror attacks in the 21st century), the nation typically launches a counteroffensive with the aim of eliminating the group in the name of self-preservation (and occasionally vengeance). Were there no Hamas attacks, then yes-- we'd be looking at a situation where genocidal intent is likely. In this situation, the goal of defense is plausible enough that we can't assume it away.

@clousems said in #56:
> If genocide is the intent, they're doing a pretty bad job of it. Typically, genocidal governments in Israel's position round up and eliminate members of a group systematically. The civilian casualties seem to be more isolated than systematic.
Funny how nazis and Holocaust deniers use this same argument now, they say if nazis were genociding jew why there are still jews?
But let me tell you why. Israel isn't doing a bad job at the genocide but Israel is doing a bad job at hiding it
Imagine if Israel now did as you did and genocided Palestinians in a "clear way" what would the world answer
They would lose the support of all countries and rather gain enemies
Instead killing Palestinians slowely and making it look like they don't mean to do it is what they do, either the Palestinians who are left would leave gaza to other countries while the rest die, but their propaganda machine is failing and they can't hide it anymore
Also fun fact: they want to kick El Jazeera out of gaza, one of the only pro palestine journals, Minda tells u something
> Also, you kinda ignored the big point that makes it difficult to attribute genocidal intent to Israel. When a nation is attacked by a group (especially with regards to terror attacks in the 21st century), the nation typically launches a counteroffensive with the aim of eliminating the group in the name of self-preservation (and occasionally vengeance). Were there no Hamas attacks, then yes-- we'd be looking at a situation where genocidal intent is likely. In this situation, the goal of defense is plausible enough that we can't assume it away.
This exact same argument can be made by replacing Israel with Hamas (I replaced Israel by hamas in your same exact text)
Also, you kinda ignored the big point that makes it difficult to attribute genocidal intent to hamas. When a nation is attacked by a group (especially with regards to terror attacks in the 21st century), the nation typically launches a counteroffensive with the aim of eliminating the group in the name of self-preservation (and occasionally vengeance). Were there no Israel attacks before oct 7th or even before hamas was founded , then yes-- we'd be looking at a situation where genocidal intent is likely. In this situation, the goal of defense is plausible enough that we can't assume it away.

You're arguing against points you wanted me to make, not against points I made.

I said that there doesn't seem to be any systematic killings-- you respond by accusing me of denying violence.

I said that the plausibility of defense as Israel's goal needs to be considered-- you responded (in essence) by saying that Israel shouldn't have initiated the conflict, and that Hamas wasn't guilty of genocide.

(Side note: You're parallelism doesn't quite work-- was there a single, massive terrorist attack targeting Hamas/Palestine that Hamas was specifically responding to? If you are talking about the past wars between Israeli and Palestinian forces, I think it's rather misguided to attribute them all to one side-- Israeli and Palestinian forces have been clashing since the literal day Israel was founded, with each side taking turns as the aggressor. The smaller clashes were not unilateral, either. Finally, I don't think I made the claim that Hamas is guilty of genocide.)

You should also keep in mind that I'm not necessarily saying that Israel is NOT committing genocide-- just that we cannot conclusively say that they are. It's the difference between a court finding a defendant "not guilty" and "innocent".

If Israel wanted to kill all Palestinians, why warn them in advance and wait weeks?

If Israel wanted to kill all Palestinians, why allow food and water and medical aid to come in, as they have, repeatedly?

If Israel wanted to kill all Palestinians, why remark to the world that it was a "grave mistake" when they accidentally killed some civilians who were on yet ANOTHER aid mission? Did Hitler ever call the Holocaust a "grave mistake" ? And who in Hamas has publicly stated that October 7 was a "grave mistake" ?

Israeli CIVILIANS were attacked brutally TO BEGIN WITH. It's chutzpah to accuse ISREAL of wanting genocide. The Israeli constitution doesn't call for the elimination of Palestinians. Israelis don't go around chanting "from the river to the sea." It's not Israel who raped and tortured and murdered on October 7.

NONE of this had to happen, But just how many times do you think a nation can let its women and children be raped or tortured or murdered before they ACTUALLY decide to try to STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING?

Israel was attacked in her VERY FIRST WEEK, more than 70 years ago. And people try to make excuses for THAT, too. Israel is almost certainly older than EVERYBODY who makes war upon her. In other words, Israel has been a lawful nation since BEFORE THEY WERE BORN. Yet Israeli is STILL being attacked over and over.

And people convince themselves that it's ISRAEL who wants genocide? Amazing. What do they think chants of "from the river to the sea" mean, anyway? Those chants are not coming from Israelis. Let's hope for peace, not hope to muddy the waters.

I'm done posting in this thread. I doubt anybody will ever change his or her mind about any of this. It all feels socially programmed at this point.

@clousems said in #54:
> it’s the plausible deniability factor

www.voanews.com/a/why-isn-t-desperately-needed-aid-reaching-palestinians-in-gaza-/7499319.html

They are preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the displaced civilians, what military objective does that serve? I don't think any reasonable person can consider they have plausible deniability any more.

> None of us can prove genocidal intent

Correct, but it can be inferred.

> they were retaliating against an offensive action that targeted civilians.

How many innocent children is it okay to murder as retaliation for an offensive action that targeted civilians simply because they were born in the same place as a terrorist group? Two wrongs don't make a right.