Intent to destroy isn’t evident. The IDF took ample precautions against civilian deaths.

We don’t know how many combatants are among the 40,000. The only number available is the IDF estimate of 15,000. Hamas and other militant groups only publish their martyred combatants a while after hostilities have concluded and international attention has withdrawn.

A combatant to civilian death ratio of 1:3 would be fairly good for a war in a dense urban environment against a deeply entrenched and fortified enemy.

Also is you compared the destruction of buildings to the number of dead, it’s obvious that mostly empty buildings were destroyed.

Culture destroyed. Homes taken. Many killed.

Palestinian culture is very much alive in Israel and Palestine.

If you want to go over the last 100 years of this conflict, pay attention to the number of deaths. October 7th 2023 had the most deaths in a single day of the whole conflict. The ensuing Gaza war then followed up with likely more deaths in a year, than over the whole conflict combined including Arab armies.

Lots of terrible things happened before this war, but they don’t amount to genocide.

What’s been happening here is a watering down of the crime of genocide, just to demonize Israel.

The number of dead isn’t sufficient for something to be called a genocide. A very special intent to destroy dolus specialis has to be proven.

Yes, victims of abuse of power should just kiss the boot and shut up. /s

This behavior is against most instances‘ rules.

opposition to the Israeli actions in Palestine is not equivalent to antisemitism. That’s just a fact.

Obviously not. Demonization, delegitimization, and calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state is antisemitic though.

I don’t think a platform that promotes antisemitism to a wide audience is worth growing.

anything I disagree with is misinformation

Your best bet is to avoid discussing the Palestinian conflict entirely

The chilling effect is real.

Rule 3

Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

I don’t see how I broke any of that.

The active suppression of discourse on Lemmy is astounding. The instances and communities are small, but often ruled with an iron fist.

I was the second most active poster in a community with half a dozen regular commenters. The mod got so butthurt over a minor disagreement at some point, he banned half the community members. Now he’s posting alone.

I STILL have people from .world stalking me, tracking me, and trying to get me banned from other instances.

I‘ve seen this happen. Someone was banned from feddit.org as well for a mild pro Israel post on .world.

My love life is great, thank you for your concern. I hope you find someone who loves you one day.

a distinction without much difference

To you his might not matter. Words, especially legal terms under international law have actual definitions.

If it doesn’t make a difference why ban people?

Thank you for being the first person to admit, I didn’t break a rule.

But you still broke multiple rules

Which ones? Please be specific.

none of the “it isn’t” arguments hold water

Nobody, including you, engages with any of the arguments.

I hope you will remember this when the ICJ rules Israel as not guilty of genocide.

Up until now it’s alleged genocide, if one is charitable. Dolus specialis hasn’t been shown, which is essential.

What rule am I violating? Why should arguing a case be off topic? Isn’t this what this community is supposedly about?

From the sidebar

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

The mod didn’t even make an argument that refers to a rule, that was supposedly broken.

Show me the rule. My whole argument is that, it’s not legally or scholarly settled if the war in Gaza is a genocide or not.

Dozens of genocide experts have also denied it being a genocide.

It’s still an ongoing debate among experts if the war in Gaza can be considered a genocide or not. The ICJ hasn’t ruled on the case either.

If one considers the war a genocide or not is still a political and legal argument at the moment. I am making such an argument in my OP. Suppressing political debate that doesn’t violate the rules is blatant powertripping to enforce a political agenda.

Especially in the Israel/Palestine conflict, accusations of (slow motion) genocide have been leveled against Israel decades before the current Gaza war. I think in this case, it’s only used as a phrase to demonize Israel, not actually understand and describe the situation. The whole debate is part of the conflict in the information space.

Why? I didn’t break any rule.