Israel repeatedly accuses Hamas of using such sites as bases for rocket attacks. They claim that Hamas does this precisely to encourage posts like yours: blaming Israel for Hamas' violations of international law.

I cannot validate Israel's accusations, nor can I refute them. I just think it's important to mention them, because if they were true, it changes the interpretation of those facts considerably.

Unfortunately, confirmation of such things is practically impossible, in a self-fulfilling way. At least one side is willing to go to great lengths to deny their own violations. It's entirely possible that it's both.

Genocide is not just about the people.

'Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, defined genocide as "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence".'

Listening to interviews of the people from the west who have been to Gaza (doctors and nurses) I think it has been pretty clear what kind of violence is being perpetrated towards the civilian population. Things I found especially disturbing was Nick Maynard accusation of using teenagers as target practice, and Anthony Aguilar's description of the absolute horror of the GHF relief sites.

But these are just a few of many. There have been more stories of children shot in the head or chest than I can count, and when the stories of snipers shooting children started to fizzle out, it was instead drones that did the shooting.

Together with the absolutely abhorrent things said by Israeli ministers and parliament members I have had no doubt that this has been a genocide for quite some time.

The hardest thing to accept has been the complicit western media. On one side they have reported about killings, but then promptly reported the Israeli spokesperson's response to the accusations despite them being caught lying over and over again. Like the massacre of the ambulance drivers that first was not communicated with cogat. When it was shown to be communicated to cogat, they did not have their emergency lights and sirens on. When films surfaced of them with their lights and sirens on it was going to be "investigated". That led nowhere, despite the soldiers actively trying to hide their tracks by burying all the victims - some with ther frikken hands tied.

This pattern has repeated itself over and over and over, yet news outlets like the BBC or CNN seem to say to themselves "ah, but this time they are telling the truth".

My own government have been more preoccupied with hiding it's own cowardice than with standing up for any kind of principles. They believe in nothing and I have nothing but contempt for them.

What was allowed to happen in Palestine has set a new standard for the value of human life and morals. It was not only set for the Palestinians but also for the other side and everyone else.

Perhaps this is no consolation to the victims, but the pendulum will continue to swing both ways as it always has. These monsters and their offspring will reap what they sowed. Humanity too will reap this reward.

Nothing of the sort, imperialism and colonialism were hallmarks of the developed world. I think it's a good sign, actually, that this time, a significant part of the population saw through all the bullshit and propaganda we've been bombarded with in the last few years.

Very interesting that you’re mixing two sources: one partially reputable and one entirely unreliable for this news.

And then you don’t make a distinction of which claim comes from where. The first claim comes from BBC, all the rest come from the second source. And best part? actual source for this is just one member saying stuff.

This seems to happen a lot from what I've seen. When I saw Al Jazeera I already knew it would be biased.

anyone wondering, here's the actual resolution (which is basically a list of links)

https://genocidescholars.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/IAGS...

it doesn't seem like something that people need to vote on, there's no weighing of evidence, it's on the level of a beginner Wikipedia page

If you look at the NY Times video shared above - the strikes are very precise. First they hit viewpoint/staircase favorited by journalists. Then 10min later they hit exactly the same spot with two separate strikes in a row.

There aren't many other rational explanations than that this is intended? Targeting journalists and then their rescue parties… oof

They have access through software companies who actually provide security. Almost all western companies depend on security solutions (ex: endpoint & SOC providers, that means every electronic device including IoTs has some tracking enabled) provided by Israel founded companies. And we all know Israel seems to be not following rules, even though these security companies have some restrictions on access to customers data, there is no one stopping them from accessing these data in the name of support. Many security companies depend on Israel based employees. And often these employees are drop outs from high rank military intelligence or some family member in a high rank military positions. So if a supply chain has US companies, they have access to the companies data. I am definitely guessing a lot. But the kind of intel they have makes me think they are illegally accessing these data somehow.

If this is true, think twice before using second hand devices. You might be mistaken for someone and unnecessarily targeted.

Note that you can’t basically avoid these companies. They codified using one of these companies in some US regulations. There are no alternatives between. Even though the companies themselves mention they are US based, most of critical technical stuff happens directly from Israel. There are basically no alternatives. They make rules, US follows.

In Iran they mostly blew up stuff that's fixed in place, like the nuclear reactor.

Most stuff in Gaza that was fixed in place has been destroyed already.

A few thoughts,

- We don't really know the civilian casualty ratio for Gaza, but in seems somewhere in the normal range for urban wars (e.g. based on some losses Hamas admitted early in the conflict). The Iran strikes also harmed civilians, e.g. from a collapsed building in Nobonyad Square. If Israel had to repeat things 10,000x, we might have seen many collapsed buildings and it might start to resemble Gaza.

- Intelligence gathering methods that work for a few high-profile targets might not scale to a war against tens of thousands of combatants.

- Israel had the element of surprise against Iran, so the relevant targets were mostly not in bunkers/tunnels. They never did against Hamas.

Israel with the support of literally all of the West cannot cope with a bunch of poor muslims. I cannot understand it, outside of conspiracy. The same holds for any distant war between the USA and some medieval counties in the last 30 years. If I were in charge, I would obliterate the enemy with any means.

Aaand it's flagged/removed.

One aspect of this whole thing that doesn't get discussed enough is how Israel specifically arguing that genocide is okay when acting in situation of perceived danger puts into question the moral consensus we have regarding the Holocaust. As in, if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany?

Well, my personal opinion is obviously that both situations are abhorrent, but what I'm trying to point out the PR damage that Israel is doing to itself. I see two reasons why Israel might be okay with that:

1. They focus on short-term gains and they're acting irrationally

2. They know they'll always have US support because US needs them to do shady stuff in Middle East while at the same time they know that Arabs will always hate them anyway, so there's not much point trying to be the good guys. They don't care what Europe thinks because Europe won't be politically influential in foreseeable future anyway. By committing the genocide they confirm they're ready to do real dirty jobs, which is the core reason behind the US support in the first place.

I have a feeling that the part of Israel's wrath is that this whole war pretty much voided painstaking process of normalizing relations with Arabs. Therefore they thought "you know what, fuck this shit, if we can't have you like us we'll have you fear us". And that's how we ended up with a democratic country committing genocide.

The saddest thing is that the whole idea "it's 21st century, we won't do comically evil shit anymore" turned out to be a mirage, and as a species collectively we're not that far from ancient rulers massacring entire cities just for shits and giggles.

The resolution is an outcome of a process descibed in this organization's bylaws. Quoting:

ARTICLE 6. Resolutions A. Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot. For a proposed resolution to pass, voting must have been undertaken by a quorum of more than 20% (20% plus 1) of paid up IAGS members at the time of the vote.

B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.

C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President and the Executive Board for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Boardwhether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.

D. After consulting with the Advisory Board, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote within two weeks of submission by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least thirty days before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of thirty days of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS.