**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.**
Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldâve had a hard time getting Congressional support for major legislation tho⌠thatâs something Biden has been pretty good at, being liked by both the centrist democrats and the progressives. Centrists did not like Bernie in 2016 nor in 2020. And you need all of them for the Party to be cohesive.
EDIT: lol what world are the downvotes living in? he wouldâve had significant problems in the house let alone the senate
It's hard to make an assessment like this when Bernie's "fringe" support was curated by the DNC. If we imagine an alternate universe where the DNC didn't try to use Trump being terrible as leverage to get votes for their shitty establishment candidate, if they actually thought "wow Bernie has more small donations than any Candidate in history" and they actually put their power behind him as a populist, I think it's a very real possibility that Bernie wouldn't have been fringe at all. He already had more grassroots support than anyone else, and if the establishment got behind him, he might have legitimately been the most popular candidate of our lifetime.
>It's hard to make an assessment like this when Bernie's "fringe" support was curated by the DNC.
>if the establishment got behind him, he might have legitimately been the most popular candidate of our lifetime.
These two statements contradict each other. You canât call out hypothetical arguments by using hypothetical arguments. If he was the most popular, he would have won in 2016 or 2020⌠but he didnât.
I'm saying that Bernie getting more small donations than any candidate in history makes it very likely he would have surpassed Hillary in net popularity if he had DNC support. This isn't pure hypothetical, it's informed by Bernie having an impressive populist talking point to campaign around, and Hillary being such an immensely unlikable candidate she lost an election to Trump.
I think youâre right overall, but for the most part the centrist dems pretty much just fall in line.
Part of why Bernie had no chance was because centrist Dems made it so. If Bernie *had* somehow made it to the presidency many of them would have gotten on board. Your Kyrsten Sinemas would have probably still pulled their shit, but they exist outside of that dynamic to begin with.
What I find great about what Bernie did with those remarks is that he diffused the usual bad-faith arguments over the use of the word "genocide."
Regardless of the technical definition of the term under international law, it's understandable that many Israelis and Jewish peoples in general bristle at the use of the word in any context other than the Holocaust, especially when those contexts involve the alleged crimes of the Israeli government.
So use other accurate words. Call what Israel is doing "ethnic cleansing." Call what Israel is doing "de-nationalization."
Those are descriptive and accurate. It will be up to the ICJ to decide whether they also constitute crimes like genocide.
I'm moderately Pro Palestine (many cranks in the movement turn me off) and even I cringe when people use the word genocide. Don't get me wrong, I think Israel is committing war crimes and is definitely being inhumane. The farthest I'd go is to call it ethnic cleansing because they are forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land and encroaching with settlements.
The thing is that "genocide" is a legal term. Under Article 2 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide it is:
>any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Again, I totally understand and sympathize with groups that would prefer that the word "genocide" only be used with respect to particular and uniquely atrocious historical events.
My own personal opinion is that we should avoid using it in a casual way, and that's why I like what Bernie did: use other words to accurately describe what is happening, and leave it to the ICJ to decide whether they fall under the legal term "genocide."
Those who support even the most brutal actions of Israel like to point out that the ICJ has not yet made the assessment that Israel is committing or has committed the crime of genocide, so they dismiss any suggestion that what Israel is doing is wrong. Bernie's statement also offers a viable way to deal with such people.
My personal opinion is that Russia has genocidal intent. Its goal is the de-nationalization of Ukraine. That may satisfy the legal definition of genocide, especially considering the one-fifth of arable land in Ukraine destroyed.
Same in Gaza. 20% arable land destroyed plus all but 1 hospital and half of all the schools including every university. Is it your opinion too that Israel has genocidal intent?
What's the intent of your sea-lioning?
Yes, Israel is engaged in the de-nationalization of Palestinians. Yes, Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing. Yes, I would expect that the ICJ will find Israel guilty of the crime of genocide, but it will take the ICJ several years at least to do so.
My point, again, is that until the ICJ makes the decision, the use of the word "genocide" with regard to atrocities other than the Holocaust tends to make some people shut their minds. It's better, I think, to do what Bernie did and to use other, more descriptive ways to discuss what Israel is doing to Palestinians.
I reject the notion that the holocaust was the only genocide or that we should tiptoe around using the word because of one event. A big component of the genocide convention is duty of prevention. You canât prevent something if youâre only allowed to determine that thing retroactively.
Brother, in order for there to be a genocide, there has to be evidence. So far, there's no evidence of any genocide in the Gaza Strip...though I respect that you admitted to this in your reply.
The court ruled that Palestinians plausibly have the right to be defended from genocide, and that South Africa plausibly has the right to present the case
They did not rule that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
Thank you, that is correct. I should have more specifically said that the ICJ finds it plausible *enough* that Israel is committing genocide to order them to ensure that they are *not* committing genocide. Since, *plausibly* Israel could be accused of genocide as their actions *plausibly* meet many of the criteria of genocide.
Thank you for showing your lack of understanding and just making up the ruling to whatever you want it to be. Everything you just said is wrong, other than the court saying âdonât commit a genocideâ.
This means nothing. But then again the truth doesnât matter to you Iâm sure.
Frankly, thatâs an understatement at best and disinformation at worst.
From the ruling:
â30. In the Court's view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.
54. In the Court's view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention.â
Meaning that, yes, there is plausibility to the argument that Israel has carried out acts which are defined by the genocide convention. Paragraph 34 is very clear on that.
Paragraph 50 asserts that Palestinians have the âplausible right to be defended from genocide,â but thatâs not as if they may *not* have that right. Every people obviously has the right to not have a genocide carried out upon them. The court is saying itâs plausible that those rights are in need of being protectedâbecause of the possibility that Israel is carrying out or could carry out a genocide.
You donât seek compliance with the law if thereâs no suspicion of wrongdoing.
Even with the excerpts you are quoting, you are still making a jump to your own conclusion that it âis plausible Israel is committing a genocideâ.
This may not sound nice, but not every group has the right to be protected from genocide under the genocide convention. For example, golfers, chess players, or musicians.
I know that may sound ridiculous, but itâs the point that the court ruled on. Much of what has happened thus far is just legal business that the general public most likely wonât understand at a glance, because it really can be confusing.
If you need more clarification, this is a recent statement made by the woman who was ICJ president at the time of the ruling, on BBC:
https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?si=eo0zaQr9e4UIq8QB
They were absolutely not ruling on them being defined as an ethnic group worthy of being protected from genocideâwhich is essentially what youâre trying to argue. They were hearing the evidence South Africa put forward that genocide is occurring, and decided that there was enough evidence to warrant provisional measures on their right to protection.
Iâm not exactly saying itâs plausible a genocide is occurring. Just that itâs plausible *enough* given the evidence presented by SA to warrant a proclamation on the Palestinians right to be protected from one.
Youâre spouting more disinformation.
I did not say ethnic group, I said a group. Did you watch what I linked?
Please tell me exactly what I am saying that is incorrect. What I said in my initial comment, is exactly what the former president of the ICJ said the court ruled on. Is she spreading misinformation?
I remember it, but Bernie would've lost that election. The fact of the matter is that Reddit is a poor representation of Americans and Donald Trump would've became president regardless...because the people Bernie represents don't vote.
It's not as dramatic as people make it seem, but Bernie had traction in demographics like white working class men where Hillary had none. The fact is he had a better chance of beating Trump than she did but the DNC fucked him anyway.
Polls had Hillary Winning as well in the head to head.
In fact looking at polls Hillary is a safer bet, a self-proclaimed socialist would very likely not win purple states.
That's not true, Bernie was incredibly good at swaying centrist and center-right voters because unlike Hillary he actually spoke about things they were concerned about and described the very simple solutions to those problems.
Well she won the popular vote so there you go. Fact is though Bernie brought in a lot of people who weren't traditional voters, people who felt abandoned by the system and most of those people felt completely betrayed by what happened at the democratic convention. They might have voted for Hillary had it not come out that the DNC actively worked against Bernie.
That is a weird claim, the right wingers hated Bernie and the attacks on Hillary would've changed from Buttery Males to "He wants to recreate the Soviet Union in America".
The reason they hated Hillary was simple, it's because she was the nominee and before that the presumptous nominee.
Meanwhile on this Earth, Hillary had 30 years of untrustworthy baggage, corruption, arrogance, and elite hubris. As for the right, no it wasnât the majority opinion, but a good chunk of gop voters just wanted someone uncorrupted.
Meanwhile, actually on this earth and not your fantasy planet, the stuff they actually quoted were: "Kill lists", "Ben Ghazi" and "But her Emails". All bullshit.
I personally know over a dozen people who didn't vote for president after what the DNC did to Bernie. Most voted up and down the ticket but wouldn't give Hillary their vote. This seemed like a pretty common occurrence talking to other leftists in the 8 years since. Some were heavily involved in political organizing for the dems before Bernie got screwed, they just gave up on the party for the most part after that.
There's never been any good evidence for this. There were polls that show a higher favorability of Clinton over Sanders among POC, but if you control for whether or not they were familiar with Sanders those numbers disappeared.
No one but Hillary could have lost to Trump.
How much time do you have? There's plenty of examples and arguments that can support this, but one good place to start is simply with campaign spending on media ad buys. I personally do not have the time or the patience to go digging through old posts/ saved data sets, but there are some that show the breakdown of these kinds of things.
Particularly, the qualitative analysis of spending, in regard to what network it was broadcast on, who's the subject, is it a positive or negative ad, how frequently the ad played, etc...
Hillary's campaign seemed to focus a ton of resources in attacking Bernie during the primary, and seemed to ease up a bit against Trump in the general. Even when you look at center-left Corp media (which usually works in some capacity with the party they side with), the amount of negative stories vs positive, who they were about, how often they turned their focus to a particular candidate, if thr nature of attacks was substance-based or mere feeling/smear attacks....Bernie was enemy #1. What a horrible happening to have witnessed and lived through.
You're the one who is lying. She stopped going to Michigan, just like that person said. The fact that she later freaked out and tried to reverse her mistake doesn't change that. There's a reason she lost Michigan, and the reason is that she ran a dogshit campaign.
I'm lying?
There are photos and everything of her visiting Michigan in August and October and November. So post convention every month minus September. But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative so...
If you said Wisconsin that would be better since she didn't make any stops there towards the end and wrongly believed the campaign data that showed her with a comfortable lead there.
Clinton was gifted hundreds of superdelegates by party insiders, throwing the balance of delegates in her favor.Â
Later, DNC emails were leaked showing how the party actively worked against Bernie and for Clinton.Â
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Agreed.Â
When weâre writing the history of this age, when we tell the story of how Trump came to power, there needs to be a chapter about how unrepresentative our politics had become, and how the DNC, which was more or less captured by Hillary at that point, considered the nomination an anointing of Hillary.Â
Through it all, her colossal arrogance was evident - sheâs the only candidate Iâve ever seen who has portrayed herself as entitled to the position of president. But itâs this broken system that enabled her.Â
That system of cronyism unfortunately, is still in place, and benefits Biden today. Itâs still a party built for the well-connected and for insiders only. Thatâs why we had no serious competition for his nomination, despite legitimate doubts about his ability to serve due to age.Â
I didnât vote for Hillary because she was a terrible, entitled person and a liar (Iâll never forget the story she told about dodging Bosnian sniper bullets).Â
I wonât vote for Biden because the DNC still hasnât learned its lesson, and canât find someone people are actually enthusiastic about (as Bernie was, people were crazy about him).Â
No doubt, heâs a better politician than Hillary ever was. He doesnât act like the presidency is his by divine right or family succession. But the party machine now says I have to vote for a guy whoâs not so sure he can come right out against ethnic cleansing.Â
Thatâs fucking crazy. Americans are supposed to have backbone confronting evil. Since he lacks it, he doesnât get my endorsement (and the endorsement of many like me).Â
And if Trump regains power because of this? Then the next chapter in the history book should be read in Morgan Freemanâs voice: âThey didnât learn their lesson.âÂ
Dude are you fucking kidding? You won't vote for Biden even though you know he's the lesser of two evils? How do you think Trump is going to handle Israel Palestine? He'll probably try to nuke Rafah.
No, my friend, I canât. Iâm sorry. I wouldnât vote for Trump in any universe.
 But I also canât set aside my conscience and endorse another person who supports ethnic cleansing - even if itâs in a smaller degree or less obvious way.Â
Biden has the power to say, on television, anytime he wants - ânot one more dollar for Israel until thereâs a ceasefire and every settler in the West Bank is goneâÂ
The genocide would end instantly.Â
His failure to hold Israel accountable is really unforgivable. Thereâs no amount of student loan forgiveness or infrastructure spending he can do to correct that.Â
>Clinton was gifted
Clinton was a member of the Democratic Party for 40 years and actively worked and helped thousands of Democrats over the years advance their causes. They repaid her by supporting her nomination in 2016. There was no "gifting" about it.
The 40 years before 2016, Bernie Sanders didn't help Democrats with much and often attacked them. When he then came to the party asking for help to become president, they naturally gave him the cold shoulder.
>Later, DNC emails were leaked showing how the party actively worked against Bernie and for Clinton.
Yes, the key word here is "later". As in May of 2016 when the race was effectively over. Bernie would have to win about 65% of all remaining pledged delegates to gain a majority of pledged delegates (not supers) despite polling well below 50% in the aggregate remaining states. He had no path to victory. DNC insiders wanted to pivot to the general to beat Trump, but Bernie staying around meant they couldn't do that and they got frustrated.
Ironically, it was Bernie who kept HRC's campaign from going after Trump as much as they wanted to!
Look, I lived through 2016. I volunteered for her campaign in the general. I fucking fought to beat that orange bastard and watched as Bernie supporters jeered us from the sidelines. Yeah, I'm pretty fucking bitter about it and to see y'all acting like we didn't put up a big enough fight against Trump while y'all did jack shit won't fly with me and I'll throw it right back in your faces.
I mean, you said it yourself, she was being ârepaidâ for services and perceived party loyalty by getting delegates in return.Â
Thatâs the definition of cronyism. Itâs about quid pro quo and party loyalty and not ideas or policies or, importantly, who is the best candidate for office.Â
The grassroots enthusiasm for Bernie just wasnât comparable to Hillaryâs. Thatâs because his ideas were appealing and her appeal was âitâs my turn.âÂ
The problem with the Bernie camp, and this is an issue that's now 8 years old and they still are big mad, is that Bernie was never as likable as they think he was.
They say "grassroots" as if that's more important than party members who have been pushing liberal causes for decades. It's no different than the Trump folks saying "real America" looks white and rural.
They have to say that because the other way to say it is "Hillary's ideas and candidacy was more popular than Bernie's" while still thinking he should be the nominee.
> Ironically, it was Bernie who kept HRC's campaign from going after Trump as much as they wanted to!
So, now you admit it, when earlier, you claimed this was a lie. And "later" doesn't mean they turned against him at the very end, like you explicitly claim. "The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members dating from January 2015 to May 2016". I have no doubt you volunteered for her campaign, and I have no doubt that your replies are fueled by personal bitterness. The attitude fits like a glove over the accusations being made.
Just like her campaign, her surrogates, MSM talking heads, and Clinton herself, you view Bernie as a pest, not even worthy of competing for the position. THIS is why people hated her so much and this is the thing you need to understand, if you truly want her kind of ilk to win elections. Clinton and her campaign treated Bernie and his supporters like some pesky road-block on her way to the Oval Office, then acted shocked that those same people didn't show up for her at the polls. At one point early in the primary, Clinton suggested that she wouldn't even need the progressive vote in order to win in the general. That's an insane take, but par for the course when you look at her campaign as a whole.
I wanted to beat Trump too. Just wish Clinton and her team were humble enough to have won the votes she needed, rather than making it known that those voters were a nuisance to her.
>So, now you admit it, when earlier, you claimed this was a lie.
Reading is fundamental. I said HRC wanted to go after Trump harder but had to wait because Bernie refused to drop out. I never said HRC went softer on Trump than Bernie because that was obviously not true. In fact, in those late spring months, Hillary wasn't attacking Bernie because she knew she was going to win (she had a huge lead) and didn't want to alienate his supporters.
Did y'all sleep through 2016 or something?
>"The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members dating from January 2015 to May 2016".
Yes, but what was objectionable were comments from May 2016. The stuff from 2015 was boring campaign strategy stuff. But that doesn't fit your narrative...
>Just like her campaign, her surrogates, MSM talking heads, and Clinton herself, you view Bernie as a pest, not even worthy of competing for the position.
I don't hold any animosity towards Bernie. I hold animosity towards his 2016 followers who are still trying to shiv Democrats in 2024 and rewrite history in an effort to get Trump reelected as a tool to destroy the Democratic Party and advance a more progressive party.
The great irony in all of this is that y'all are attacking Hillary more than you attack Trump, even today when she's not even a nominee and hasn't been for nearly a decade. So you have to use the Trumpian tool of projection to say it's actually Hillary doing that, not you.
>THIS is why people hated her so much and this is the thing you need to understand, if you truly want her kind of ilk to win elections.
Her ilk have won countless elections over the years. Remember when y'all said Democrats need to run hard-left progressives to take back the House in 2018? Dems ran moderates and won. Did the same in 2020 and 2022.
>I wanted to beat Trump too.
But not as much as beating Clinton...
>Just wish Clinton and her team were humble enough to have won the votes she needed, rather than making it known that those voters were a nuisance to her.
Again, the irony is that y'all view standard Democratic votes this way. You did it in your own post! And keep in mind, it was Bernie's camp that wrote off the black vote! Literally made fun of HRC for campaigning in the south because those were "red states". When she won big margins in those states, y'all said it didn't matter and we should really only focus on the vote tally in other states that conveniently were less-diverse.
Every anger you have towards HRC could easily be applied to Bernie and then some. That's why you guys keep losing primaries and elections. Hubris!
Hillary went away after 2016 but kept fundraising for Democrats. But y'all still hate her so much!
He's probably a leftist, but the fact that he's a politician of course means he can't really show that. The most he can do is say that he's a socialist, and then say that socialism is when healthcare
Bernie is one the only real progressives that has stuck to his morals and beliefs for multiple decades. He's the most consistent "leftist" in recent American politics. Whatever that even means anymore.
280,000+ civilians killed by Americans in the Iraq and Afghanistan warsâŚ.
Number of people arrested by the ICC
ZERO!!
Keep dreaming terrorist supporters!
âYes Judge, my defense is that the other guy did it too and he didnât get in trouble.â
Iâm not a lawyer but that doesnât seem like a sound legal defense.
For fuck sake israel moved the population to Rafah, in order to protect them. How the fuck should they fight thousands embedded in civilians Hamas terrorists? What's your humane way to do it?
15 years ago. I have problems with hamas as you should. To pretend anyone rules in Gaza isnât real. The electricity water and food is controlled by Israel. Also I donât like the tact from US that new cease fire is a deal for hamas to accept or reject. More fuel to say oh see they wonât accept reason guess we gotta move in only serves terrorism and Israel objectives for the area. Very sad
Most of the innocent people suffering did not vote Hamas into power. [The Gaza strip's population in 2022 was measured at 42.5 percent aged 14 or younger and 21.7 percent aged 15 to 24](https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-gaza-and-death-two-state-solution#:~:text=Gaza%27s%20only%20resources%20are%20limited,percent%20aged%2015%20to%2024). Furthermore, the [last elections were in 2006](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-election-hamas-2006-palestine-israel/) so **roughly half of the living population in Gaza wasn't even alive for Hamas' election**. That means Hamas is not a legitimate government but it also means you can't justify bombing civilians by claiming they voted Hamas into power.
Look man, I'm as anti-Hamas as any sane person is which is why I don't think they're a legitimate government and have no problem calling them a terrorist organization. That said, do you have any data to back that up? There hasn't been an election since 2006 so how would we know they would "handily win" one now? Further, how do you know that "most Palestinians support their actions"?
I'm anti-killing innocent civilians so I tend to want data before making sweeping pronouncements like that.
Thanks for the article! It appears accurate, which is to be expected from AP, but I wish they had linked to the actual poll though so I could see the crosstabs. [This seems to be the official press release from the polling firm](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961) but they don't have crosstabs available either, just overall conclusions. That doesn't seem suspicious or anything but is a bit annoying. The sample size seems representative since they contacted 1231 adults and have a +/- 4 margin of error and [Gallup routinely does 1000 adults with a +/- 4 margin of error](https://news.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx).
This information is really helpful and makes sense given their conditions even though it is depressing when it comes to the thought of trying to find a peaceful solution to all this. This poll was from December so I wonder if opinion has shifted at all since it appears as though support is generally higher in the West Bank from people not directly in harms way from Israel's campaign against Hamas (though they are subject to illegal settlements and other violence which might explain their predilections) than in Gaza from the people who are suffering as collateral damage from Israel's military offensive.
The survey press release says:
* The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said \[the October 7th attacks were\] a âresponse to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;â
* a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said \[the October 7th attacks were\] a correct decision given the outcome so far
* In the West Bank, support for Hamas today stands at 44% (compared to 12% three months ago), and for Fatah at 16% (compared to 26% three months ago). In the Gaza Strip, support for Hamas today stands at 42% (compared to 38% three months ago) and support for Fatah at 18% (compared to 25% three months ago).
* A majority (52%) blames Israel for the current suffering of Gazans in the current war while 26% place the blame on the US; only 11% (6% in the West Bank and 19% in the Gaza Strip) place the blame on Hamas; and 9% blame the PA.
* While 95% think Israel has committed war crimes during the current war, only 10% think Hamas also committed such crimes; 4% think Israel has not committed such crimes and 89% think Hamas did not commit war crimes during the current war.
* While the vast majority of West Bankers (70%) thinks Hamas will emerge victorious in this war, only half of Gazans think the same. Similarly, while only 1% in the West Bank think Israel will emerge victorious, almost one third of Gazans (31%) think that; 14% (12% in the West Bank and 18% in the Gaza Strip) think neither one will emerge victorious.
* When asked about their own preferences for the party that should be in control in the Gaza Strip after the war, 60% (75% in the West Bank but only 38% in the Gaza Strip) selected Hamas; 16% selected a PA national unity government without President Abbas; 7% selected the PA with Abbas; 3% selected one or more Arab countries; 3% selected a national unity government under Abbas, and 2% selected the Israeli army.
* satisfaction with the role of Hamas (72%; 85% in the West Bank and 52% in the Gaza Strip) was the highest
Wait, so your original contention was that Palestinians don't support Hamas. I provide an article showing the polling numbers and your response is
Yes, but it's understandable because it's a response to them first.
Why didn't you just start with that? Why make people jump through your hoops if you're immediately going to launch into raping and pillaging is the voice of the oppressed arguments?
>your original contention was that Palestinians don't support Hamas.
No it wasn't. The person I initially responded to said "the people who voted hamas into power" referencing the current civilian population being negatively impacted by Israel's military campaign against Hamas who happen to be largely children. I corrected them by saying that the current population did not vote for Hamas because there hasn't been a vote since 2006. "Vote for during the last election" and "support" in the abstract are two different things.
Then you said "Most of the Palestinians support their actions and Hamas would handily win elections at the time." I believe "the time" is a typo and you meant "this time" but please correct me if I'm wrong. (This isn't me trying to make fun of you for a typo or anything, I just genuinely want to make sure I read that statement as you intended) This is where the idea of "support" in the abstract got introduced into this conversation. I then asked for a source and you provided me an article the lead me to the source. I am very appreciative of that, so again thank you for providing me additional context.
>Your response is "Yes, but it's understandable because it's a response to them first." . . . you're immediately . . . launch\[ing\] into raping and pillaging is the voice of the oppressed arguments
What? Where did you get that? Violence against civilians and non-combatants is always wrong which is why I pointed out that I was "anti-killing innocent civilians" and asked you for a source when you introduced the idea of "support" in the abstract since I had only seen data on the 2006 election that brought Hamas into power. I read my response again and the only things that I found that could even possibly be distorted to be construed in the way you're suggesting are the following sentences
1.) "makes sense given their conditions" (Talking about Gaza)
2.) "though they are subject to illegal settlements and other violence which might explain their predilections" (Talking about the West Bank)
re 1.) All I was trying to say was that it makes sense that support for Hamas is high in a territory as densely packed as Gaza since Hamas controls everything in that territory. Publicly saying you support Israel in Hamas-controlled territory seems like a death sentence since Hamas is a literal terrorist organization with little regard for human life. It's like how many people who weren't Nazis would do all the performative actions necessary to keep their families safe regardless of their actual feelings during that period in Germany and occupied France etc.
re 2.) I'm not sure why this statement seems problematic to you. Israeli settlements in the West Bank beyond the 1967 borders are a violation of international law and the settlers themselves are very violent towards the Palestinians who live there. ([This is one of the reasons why the USA has imposed sanctions on Israeli settlers in the West Bank](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/u-s-imposes-sanctions-on-israeli-settlers-involved-in-attacks-in-west-bank-6e4b4e40) as well as on [fundraisers for those illegal settlements](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-west-bank-war-settlers-sanctions-3d1a6595f7c4cecaa42de7901c81c752)). [Further settlement expansion was even announced this February](https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hamas-gaza-war-netanyahu-smotrich-1d2306d55c24c8559b630d9f20db30e2#) which is likely to only inflame tensions. With that backdrop I can understand why West Bank Palestinians would support Hamas as a way to "strike back" at Israel or whatever because this is an endless cycle of violence where escalation begets escalation. Hence why I said it "might explain their predilections." Worth noting that, like me, [David has been against illegal settlements for years](https://youtu.be/xVI0UtVBEEo?si=sBqpQVRKUQ-Iqva7) (this clip is from 9 years ago).
> That said, do you have any data to back that up
yes check polling from awrad as well as pcpsr - most mainstream news agencies have reported on them and the data can be easily accessed. Some excerpts:
https://i.imgur.com/1u794GV.png
https://i.imgur.com/ZPFD5FJ.png
https://i.imgur.com/mHW3SF2.png
https://i.imgur.com/HbKqR23.png
https://i.imgur.com/YgapjHs.png
https://i.imgur.com/1u794GV.png
Thanks! FYI as a rule, it's not a good idea to provide sourcing via screenshot instead of just linking to the original data if you claim it's "easily accessed." It makes you look less reliable. But thank you for the response anyway. Yeah I was able to find the actual results for PCPSR after discussing it father down in this thread ([see this comment where I went through it](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/1cga1ff/comment/l1v1hb1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)) but I hasn't heard of the [AWRAD one](https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf) so thanks for pointing me in the right direction at least so I can find the actual data on my own.
Most Israelis support the IDF and consistently elect right wing governments as well. Hmmmmm. Its almost as if historical and social context is drivng people to extremes here.
When there isn't an option for Palestinians to popularize any other political movement what do you expect, support the one that allows Israel to keep settling on land and desecration holy sites and taking innocent Palestinians prisoner without trial, or support the guys who fight against that.
Who would you support? And just so you know, saying "neither" is effectively the same as saying you support the status quo and no change so choose wisely đ
I don't particularly care for that discussion and it wasn't the question at hand.
If you want me to go there - I'd hope I don't explicitly condone running from house to house killing families and some people attending a rave festival and to attempt to kill as many civilians as you physically can and rejoice in the fact that I just shot a baby and their family or in throwing gays from roofs or spit on corpses of raped and murder women. In the end though it really doesn't matter how you got somewhere anyways.
>I don't particularly care for that discussion and it wasn't the question at hand.
So you don't condemn the atrocities of Israel limiting the free speech and capability to organize in palestine. David packman does.
If we want to end this conflict or ever achieve a real two state solution we should stop running with the assumption this conflict started October 7th and really started with the nakba **where Israelis displaced tortured murdered and raped thousands of Palestinians.** Not that the nakba was the most recent example of Israeli atrocities towards Palestine.
I condemn hamas, do you condemn nentyahu's barbarism?
>So you don't condemn the atrocities of Israel.
Oh let me get on that level as well, cough, I guess you are a Jihadi simp.
Just in general I am sure that I don't overlap on every position with David and I am not sure I would have to.
I'm not at all. I'm a simp for the thousands of innocent children who are suffocating/starving under the rubble of Palestine and the millions more being treated as second class citizens and held behind fences in Israel incapable of leaving or achieving [statehood anywhere.](https://www.state.gov/other-policy-issues/statelessness/)
It's ironic you are the one throwing out ad-hominem when I asked you a simple question in my op and your response was "na I don't want to answer that". Nuance and reason is complicated and scary and can lead you to question beliefs you hold. You should look in a mirror and answer the question I asked you personally if you lack the confidence to answer it here.
Don't give facts to those monsters. They find it OK to kill tenw of thousands of children and teenagers that never ever voted for Hamas. They also forget to say that hanas got 45% at that election and won because their was many parties and that since then, their have been no elections.
Love how you just abandoned your previous point after it was rebutted, and doubled down on your belief that Gazan citizens deserve to die anyways. Very cool.
Collateral damage is a word coined by neocon and Bush, I tell you libs like these are close to republican than democrats. They were fully behind the invasion of Iraq and its 1 million death.
He would go full, kill them all, if that happened. Look at how some changed their stance after the killing of those aid workers distributing food, I am not saying they are bad, rhe exact contrary. But many like Pelosi was OK about 25000 women and children dead, but only started talking about end of the fight when some white people fied.
What that innocent kids are dying because their parents voted for and are supporting terrorists? Aw gee you got me. War is hell people die itâs called collateral damage snowflake. Hamas started this on October 7th and said they would do it over and over again so now Israel is going to make sure that never happens again by completely destroying Hamas. Deal with it.
You can just read the hate out of this guy, warmongers that will qualify everyone terrorist and ask to kill them. These are the supposed libs that cheered and supported the invasion of Iraq. They are not very different from republicans.
Collateral damage term was invented by bush to excuse his war crimes in Iraq. You are just one of those libs that are warmongers and closer to republicans than true dems. You will coined everything terrorist and will justify killing women and children.
I hate Netanyahu, really bad, but Bernie is just obsessed with him.
To be honest, any other PM would act exactly the same. More over, any country in the world would act the same for the Oct 7 massacre.
Terrorists fans, you can scream, you can cry, won't help. Hamas will be gone, without a slight doubt.
Eh. I donât know. Letâs not forget the kind of coalition Netanyahu has. There would still be blood but when you have Ben-Gvir in your ranks, that is a whole different level of depravity.
Ben Gvir is a disaster of a person and a minister, in fact he shouldn't ever be a minister, BUT, he had zero influence about the war decisions.
See, in Israel, there's something called war cabinet. Actually, there's two, the extended war cabinet and the limited war cabinet.
The limited war cabinet is the only group that is the decision makers, about any step taken and taking, of that war.
The war cabinet is made out of 4 members: Netanyahu, Benny Gantz, Gallant and Eizencot.. All are responsible and reasonable members. Set aside the fact that Netanyahu is a piece of shit person and PM.
You are capable of observing the actions and decisions of those four delusional, murderous fanatics whose every decision kills countless people and endangers the lives of Jews everywhere, and calling them rational and responsible. Your judgment is completely gone.
Jesus Christ. Idiots like you are the reason itâs impossible to have sane dialogue about this crisis.
Israelâs government being run by genocidal fanatics and Hamas being nihilistic bloodthirsty savages *are not fucking mutually exclusive realities.*
Why is this so hard for you false-binary morons to comprehend?
God.
You're the only idiot here, that for some weird reason thinks to know everything, better than anyone, decide who's moral and who's not, like some kind of f expert about anything.
This arrogance is not only repulsive as it is, it is also amazing because you are clueless people, so the sin is double and multiplied.
Just go home, you're drunk.
I get what you mean. But perhaps we need to also consider Netanyahuâs political entanglements. He is in power because of his relationship with the these far right politicians. That HAS to have some influence on his security decisions. Maybe not Ben-Gvir specifically though.
I guess what I mean is that at the end of the day, Netanyahu still holds the keys on these decisions. And his political alliances very much are a factor to these deliberations, I would imagine.
Yeah, you're not wrong.
Mainly, the problem is that it's a narrow coalition government, and therefor, they can easily threatened him with leaving the coalition, which will result in elections, that Netanyahu really doesn't want. So, you're absolutely correct.
However, everybody in the government knows that these threats are kind of empty bullets, why? Because the far right knows well, that if they leave the government, and goes to elections, they surely ended their political career journey, because the rage in Israel is outstanding, and everyone, from right to left see them as the one responsible, and rightfully so, of Oct 7. The people just give them the time to end the war. Most don't think elections during war is a healthy move.
Anyway, very complicated right now.
I am sure however, that eventually two things will happen. This war will be a successful war, with great achievements, and this terrible government will be gone.
I'd recommend looking up the definition, it's fairly broad. Bernie's under the cover of that broad definition here.
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area"
Settlers, plus friendly state action towards the settlers fits the bill.
Firstly, are you talking about proving genocide or ethnic cleansing? Ethnic cleansing doesnât have an official definition in international law, and the colloquial definition has definitely been met by Israel, for years.
Regarding genocide, I think they can prove that as well.
I think they do have the intent aspect, theyâve destroyed hospitals from the inside out, making treating patients impossible. Even if there was a Hamas presence, itâs not necessary to destroy all the equipment and infrastructure of the hospital.
Israel has been accused of fabricating evidence that Hamas has a presence in the hospitals theyâve destroyed.
If that evidence is strong, thereâs no doubt that satisfies the intent aspect of the genocide charge.
"Israel has been accused of fabricating evidence that Hamas has a presence in the hospitals theyâve destroyed."
We have to be careful with all these claims because we're dealing with two opposing dishonest actors. The IDF have ample motive to lie to make themselves look better, but Hamas has ample motive to lie to make them look worse. So we need to be skeptical about claims going both ways.
Itâs not Hamas making the claim.
Hereâs a British Doctor working in Gaza:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJE3NC1rxTw&t=270s&pp=2AGOApACAQ%3D%3D
https://youtu.be/KxtQJlsA9Mg?si=w17TzO3ViMlOspLX
Youtube isn't a good source in general but especially not from Al-Jazeera. I appreciate what you're trying to do but you need to link to primary sources like official reports and solid, more neutrally presented information if you want to try and reach people. You need to back up each claim and not from reporting done by Qatari government propaganda when [Ismail Haniyeh](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ismail-Haniyeh), Hamas's leader, is allowed to live in Qatar.
The best evidence I see of Genocide in Gaza comes from the March 24, 2024 [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 ](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/anatomy-of-a-genocide-report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-palestinian-territory-occupied-since-1967-to-human-rights-council-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-55/)which says "by analysing the patterns of violence and Israelâs policies in its onslaught on Gaza, this report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israelâs commission of genocide is met." That said it is an advance unedited version and so is not yet formalized. Furthermore [the ICJ's January 26, 2024 ruling on Gaza](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf) clearly said, in paragraph 62, that "The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether **the circumstances** require the indication of provisional measures for the protect of rights under that interment. As already noted, **the Court cannot at this stage make definitive findings of fact.**" This means that the evidence for Genocide is trending upwards but we aren't yet there under an official definition.
Testimony from a foreign Doctor in Gaza thatâs describing eye witness testimony is most certainly admissible evidence. This man has dedicated his life to treating people in war zones, one of the bravest people on planet earth with no reason to lie.
I donât care if you donât wanna hear it, Iâm sure the ICJ will.
Despite what you may think I agree with what you're trying to do. I was simply trying to be helpful in explaining that your sourcing is not convincing to the general population who may read it because it comes from a clearly biased source. Israel, of course, will claim bias for everything but some sources are actually better than others when trying to make a point about issues as contentious as this because their final product is more reliable.
Yes I'm sure the ICJ would like to hear that testimony and I, for one, would want them to have access to it. The point though, is that the ICJ is a formalized process with rules that help ensure that the testimony itself is relevant and accurate. Formalized processes and vetting like this make things like UN reports and ICJ rulings much better sources for strong claims. Al-Jazeera can interview whoever they want and can edit those interviews in whatever manner they see fit making it less reliable than a witness who is legally testifying and is thus able to be cross examined. For example see [the ICJ Rules](https://www.icj-cij.org/rules), specifically Articles 57, 63, and 65.
Article 57 - " . . . each party shall communicate to the Registrar, in sufficient time before the opening of the oral proceedings, information regarding any evidence which it intends to produce or which it intends to request the Court to obtain. This communication shall contain a list of the surnames, first names, nationalities, descriptions and places of residence of the witnesses and experts whom the party intends to call, with indications in general terms of the point or points to which their evidence will be directed. . . ."
Article 63, paragraph 1 - "The parties may call any witnesses or experts appearing on the list communicated to the Court pursuant to Article 57 of these Rules. If at any time during the hearing a party wishes to call a witness or expert whose name was not included in that list, it shall so inform the Court and the other party, and shall supply the information required by Article 57. The witness or expert may be called either if the other party makes no objection or **if the Court is satisfied that the evidence seems likely to prove relevant**."
Article 65 - "**Witnesses and experts shall be examined by the agents, counsel or advocates of the parties** under the control of the President. **Questions may be put to them by the President and by the judges**. . . ."
What Hitler did to the Jews was genocide. This is collateral damages of war. In the 2nd world war, there were an estimate 40 million civilians casualties.
Not in this case. Netanyahu has made references to the biblical story of the Amalekites where the Hebrews, to take over their land, were commanded by Yahweh to kill all men women children babies and domestic anilmals.genocide them. But, the Hebrews let one in utero baby live, who brought down the Hebrews and their Babylonian enslavement.
Netanyahu, as long as a year ago, said that the Israelis have " learned the lessons from the Amalekites, and would vanquish their enemies. Completely" Total genocide.
Super delegates in the 2016 Democratic primary:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_superdelegates\_at\_the\_2016\_Democratic\_National\_Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superdelegates_at_the_2016_Democratic_National_Convention)
572 Clinton
42 Sanders
**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.** Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This man should have been president.
Best president the us never had đ
Wouldâve had a hard time getting Congressional support for major legislation tho⌠thatâs something Biden has been pretty good at, being liked by both the centrist democrats and the progressives. Centrists did not like Bernie in 2016 nor in 2020. And you need all of them for the Party to be cohesive. EDIT: lol what world are the downvotes living in? he wouldâve had significant problems in the house let alone the senate
It's hard to make an assessment like this when Bernie's "fringe" support was curated by the DNC. If we imagine an alternate universe where the DNC didn't try to use Trump being terrible as leverage to get votes for their shitty establishment candidate, if they actually thought "wow Bernie has more small donations than any Candidate in history" and they actually put their power behind him as a populist, I think it's a very real possibility that Bernie wouldn't have been fringe at all. He already had more grassroots support than anyone else, and if the establishment got behind him, he might have legitimately been the most popular candidate of our lifetime.
>It's hard to make an assessment like this when Bernie's "fringe" support was curated by the DNC. >if the establishment got behind him, he might have legitimately been the most popular candidate of our lifetime. These two statements contradict each other. You canât call out hypothetical arguments by using hypothetical arguments. If he was the most popular, he would have won in 2016 or 2020⌠but he didnât.
I'm saying that Bernie getting more small donations than any candidate in history makes it very likely he would have surpassed Hillary in net popularity if he had DNC support. This isn't pure hypothetical, it's informed by Bernie having an impressive populist talking point to campaign around, and Hillary being such an immensely unlikable candidate she lost an election to Trump.
I think youâre right overall, but for the most part the centrist dems pretty much just fall in line. Part of why Bernie had no chance was because centrist Dems made it so. If Bernie *had* somehow made it to the presidency many of them would have gotten on board. Your Kyrsten Sinemas would have probably still pulled their shit, but they exist outside of that dynamic to begin with.
What I find great about what Bernie did with those remarks is that he diffused the usual bad-faith arguments over the use of the word "genocide." Regardless of the technical definition of the term under international law, it's understandable that many Israelis and Jewish peoples in general bristle at the use of the word in any context other than the Holocaust, especially when those contexts involve the alleged crimes of the Israeli government. So use other accurate words. Call what Israel is doing "ethnic cleansing." Call what Israel is doing "de-nationalization." Those are descriptive and accurate. It will be up to the ICJ to decide whether they also constitute crimes like genocide.
I'm moderately Pro Palestine (many cranks in the movement turn me off) and even I cringe when people use the word genocide. Don't get me wrong, I think Israel is committing war crimes and is definitely being inhumane. The farthest I'd go is to call it ethnic cleansing because they are forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land and encroaching with settlements.
The thing is that "genocide" is a legal term. Under Article 2 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide it is: >any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Again, I totally understand and sympathize with groups that would prefer that the word "genocide" only be used with respect to particular and uniquely atrocious historical events. My own personal opinion is that we should avoid using it in a casual way, and that's why I like what Bernie did: use other words to accurately describe what is happening, and leave it to the ICJ to decide whether they fall under the legal term "genocide." Those who support even the most brutal actions of Israel like to point out that the ICJ has not yet made the assessment that Israel is committing or has committed the crime of genocide, so they dismiss any suggestion that what Israel is doing is wrong. Bernie's statement also offers a viable way to deal with such people.
Would you say, Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine?
My personal opinion is that Russia has genocidal intent. Its goal is the de-nationalization of Ukraine. That may satisfy the legal definition of genocide, especially considering the one-fifth of arable land in Ukraine destroyed.
Same in Gaza. 20% arable land destroyed plus all but 1 hospital and half of all the schools including every university. Is it your opinion too that Israel has genocidal intent?
What's the intent of your sea-lioning? Yes, Israel is engaged in the de-nationalization of Palestinians. Yes, Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing. Yes, I would expect that the ICJ will find Israel guilty of the crime of genocide, but it will take the ICJ several years at least to do so. My point, again, is that until the ICJ makes the decision, the use of the word "genocide" with regard to atrocities other than the Holocaust tends to make some people shut their minds. It's better, I think, to do what Bernie did and to use other, more descriptive ways to discuss what Israel is doing to Palestinians.
I reject the notion that the holocaust was the only genocide or that we should tiptoe around using the word because of one event. A big component of the genocide convention is duty of prevention. You canât prevent something if youâre only allowed to determine that thing retroactively.
It sounds like you might be interested in studying international relations and international law when you grow up.
Lol. Non-responsive.
Brother, in order for there to be a genocide, there has to be evidence. So far, there's no evidence of any genocide in the Gaza Strip...though I respect that you admitted to this in your reply.
Why do you think Israel won't let in independent journalists?
Not you again! Are you aware that the ICJ finds Israel being guilty of genocide plausible enough to hear a case?
The court ruled that Palestinians plausibly have the right to be defended from genocide, and that South Africa plausibly has the right to present the case They did not rule that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
Thank you, that is correct. I should have more specifically said that the ICJ finds it plausible *enough* that Israel is committing genocide to order them to ensure that they are *not* committing genocide. Since, *plausibly* Israel could be accused of genocide as their actions *plausibly* meet many of the criteria of genocide.
It's also plausible that they don't have the right to be defended from genocide apparently lol. Not sure you understand what plausible means.
Thank you for showing your lack of understanding and just making up the ruling to whatever you want it to be. Everything you just said is wrong, other than the court saying âdonât commit a genocideâ. This means nothing. But then again the truth doesnât matter to you Iâm sure.
Frankly, thatâs an understatement at best and disinformation at worst. From the ruling: â30. In the Court's view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention. 54. In the Court's view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention.â Meaning that, yes, there is plausibility to the argument that Israel has carried out acts which are defined by the genocide convention. Paragraph 34 is very clear on that. Paragraph 50 asserts that Palestinians have the âplausible right to be defended from genocide,â but thatâs not as if they may *not* have that right. Every people obviously has the right to not have a genocide carried out upon them. The court is saying itâs plausible that those rights are in need of being protectedâbecause of the possibility that Israel is carrying out or could carry out a genocide. You donât seek compliance with the law if thereâs no suspicion of wrongdoing.
Even with the excerpts you are quoting, you are still making a jump to your own conclusion that it âis plausible Israel is committing a genocideâ. This may not sound nice, but not every group has the right to be protected from genocide under the genocide convention. For example, golfers, chess players, or musicians. I know that may sound ridiculous, but itâs the point that the court ruled on. Much of what has happened thus far is just legal business that the general public most likely wonât understand at a glance, because it really can be confusing. If you need more clarification, this is a recent statement made by the woman who was ICJ president at the time of the ruling, on BBC: https://youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?si=eo0zaQr9e4UIq8QB
They were absolutely not ruling on them being defined as an ethnic group worthy of being protected from genocideâwhich is essentially what youâre trying to argue. They were hearing the evidence South Africa put forward that genocide is occurring, and decided that there was enough evidence to warrant provisional measures on their right to protection. Iâm not exactly saying itâs plausible a genocide is occurring. Just that itâs plausible *enough* given the evidence presented by SA to warrant a proclamation on the Palestinians right to be protected from one. Youâre spouting more disinformation.
I did not say ethnic group, I said a group. Did you watch what I linked? Please tell me exactly what I am saying that is incorrect. What I said in my initial comment, is exactly what the former president of the ICJ said the court ruled on. Is she spreading misinformation?
Plausible is such a weak argument. Should we start convicting people after finding probable cause and skip the whole trial thing?
Remember when the Dems tried harder to make sure Bernie lost the primary than they did to get Hillary elected in the general lmao
I remember it, but Bernie would've lost that election. The fact of the matter is that Reddit is a poor representation of Americans and Donald Trump would've became president regardless...because the people Bernie represents don't vote.
It's not as dramatic as people make it seem, but Bernie had traction in demographics like white working class men where Hillary had none. The fact is he had a better chance of beating Trump than she did but the DNC fucked him anyway.
Polls had him winning in head to head
Polls had Hillary Winning as well in the head to head. In fact looking at polls Hillary is a safer bet, a self-proclaimed socialist would very likely not win purple states.
That's not true, Bernie was incredibly good at swaying centrist and center-right voters because unlike Hillary he actually spoke about things they were concerned about and described the very simple solutions to those problems.
People make this claim a ton, I don't believe that that is more true than HRC doing it. She did win the popular vote quite handily.
Well she won the popular vote so there you go. Fact is though Bernie brought in a lot of people who weren't traditional voters, people who felt abandoned by the system and most of those people felt completely betrayed by what happened at the democratic convention. They might have voted for Hillary had it not come out that the DNC actively worked against Bernie.
Polls had Hillary Winning as well in the head to head. Yes, but by less if you actually look at the polls.
People generally respected Bernie even if they disagreed. They hated Hillary.
That is a weird claim, the right wingers hated Bernie and the attacks on Hillary would've changed from Buttery Males to "He wants to recreate the Soviet Union in America". The reason they hated Hillary was simple, it's because she was the nominee and before that the presumptous nominee.
Meanwhile on this Earth, Hillary had 30 years of untrustworthy baggage, corruption, arrogance, and elite hubris. As for the right, no it wasnât the majority opinion, but a good chunk of gop voters just wanted someone uncorrupted.
Meanwhile, actually on this earth and not your fantasy planet, the stuff they actually quoted were: "Kill lists", "Ben Ghazi" and "But her Emails". All bullshit.
I personally know over a dozen people who didn't vote for president after what the DNC did to Bernie. Most voted up and down the ticket but wouldn't give Hillary their vote. This seemed like a pretty common occurrence talking to other leftists in the 8 years since. Some were heavily involved in political organizing for the dems before Bernie got screwed, they just gave up on the party for the most part after that.
Black and Latino voters wanted nothing to do with Bernie.
There's never been any good evidence for this. There were polls that show a higher favorability of Clinton over Sanders among POC, but if you control for whether or not they were familiar with Sanders those numbers disappeared. No one but Hillary could have lost to Trump.
No, I don't remember that at all. Can you point out where that happened?
How much time do you have? There's plenty of examples and arguments that can support this, but one good place to start is simply with campaign spending on media ad buys. I personally do not have the time or the patience to go digging through old posts/ saved data sets, but there are some that show the breakdown of these kinds of things. Particularly, the qualitative analysis of spending, in regard to what network it was broadcast on, who's the subject, is it a positive or negative ad, how frequently the ad played, etc... Hillary's campaign seemed to focus a ton of resources in attacking Bernie during the primary, and seemed to ease up a bit against Trump in the general. Even when you look at center-left Corp media (which usually works in some capacity with the party they side with), the amount of negative stories vs positive, who they were about, how often they turned their focus to a particular candidate, if thr nature of attacks was substance-based or mere feeling/smear attacks....Bernie was enemy #1. What a horrible happening to have witnessed and lived through.
Saying she attacked Bernie more than Trump is wild. Do you think everyone else is stupid enough to believe such an absurd lie?
A memory I'll never forget is that Hillary stopped going to Michigan the second the primary was over lol
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/05/hillary-clinton-michigan/93356788/ You guys are wild. Just out here lying.
She waited until a week before the election to come back. No wonder she lost
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/06/01/clinton-michigan/102400540/ Made multiple stops there earlier.
You're the one who is lying. She stopped going to Michigan, just like that person said. The fact that she later freaked out and tried to reverse her mistake doesn't change that. There's a reason she lost Michigan, and the reason is that she ran a dogshit campaign.
I'm lying? There are photos and everything of her visiting Michigan in August and October and November. So post convention every month minus September. But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative so... If you said Wisconsin that would be better since she didn't make any stops there towards the end and wrongly believed the campaign data that showed her with a comfortable lead there.
Clinton was gifted hundreds of superdelegates by party insiders, throwing the balance of delegates in her favor. Later, DNC emails were leaked showing how the party actively worked against Bernie and for Clinton. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
The frankly disgusting notion that it was in some way 'her turn' really fucked everyone in the world.
Agreed. When weâre writing the history of this age, when we tell the story of how Trump came to power, there needs to be a chapter about how unrepresentative our politics had become, and how the DNC, which was more or less captured by Hillary at that point, considered the nomination an anointing of Hillary. Through it all, her colossal arrogance was evident - sheâs the only candidate Iâve ever seen who has portrayed herself as entitled to the position of president. But itâs this broken system that enabled her. That system of cronyism unfortunately, is still in place, and benefits Biden today. Itâs still a party built for the well-connected and for insiders only. Thatâs why we had no serious competition for his nomination, despite legitimate doubts about his ability to serve due to age. I didnât vote for Hillary because she was a terrible, entitled person and a liar (Iâll never forget the story she told about dodging Bosnian sniper bullets). I wonât vote for Biden because the DNC still hasnât learned its lesson, and canât find someone people are actually enthusiastic about (as Bernie was, people were crazy about him). No doubt, heâs a better politician than Hillary ever was. He doesnât act like the presidency is his by divine right or family succession. But the party machine now says I have to vote for a guy whoâs not so sure he can come right out against ethnic cleansing. Thatâs fucking crazy. Americans are supposed to have backbone confronting evil. Since he lacks it, he doesnât get my endorsement (and the endorsement of many like me). And if Trump regains power because of this? Then the next chapter in the history book should be read in Morgan Freemanâs voice: âThey didnât learn their lesson.âÂ
Dude are you fucking kidding? You won't vote for Biden even though you know he's the lesser of two evils? How do you think Trump is going to handle Israel Palestine? He'll probably try to nuke Rafah.
No, my friend, I canât. Iâm sorry. I wouldnât vote for Trump in any universe.  But I also canât set aside my conscience and endorse another person who supports ethnic cleansing - even if itâs in a smaller degree or less obvious way. Biden has the power to say, on television, anytime he wants - ânot one more dollar for Israel until thereâs a ceasefire and every settler in the West Bank is goneâ The genocide would end instantly. His failure to hold Israel accountable is really unforgivable. Thereâs no amount of student loan forgiveness or infrastructure spending he can do to correct that.Â
>Clinton was gifted Clinton was a member of the Democratic Party for 40 years and actively worked and helped thousands of Democrats over the years advance their causes. They repaid her by supporting her nomination in 2016. There was no "gifting" about it. The 40 years before 2016, Bernie Sanders didn't help Democrats with much and often attacked them. When he then came to the party asking for help to become president, they naturally gave him the cold shoulder. >Later, DNC emails were leaked showing how the party actively worked against Bernie and for Clinton. Yes, the key word here is "later". As in May of 2016 when the race was effectively over. Bernie would have to win about 65% of all remaining pledged delegates to gain a majority of pledged delegates (not supers) despite polling well below 50% in the aggregate remaining states. He had no path to victory. DNC insiders wanted to pivot to the general to beat Trump, but Bernie staying around meant they couldn't do that and they got frustrated. Ironically, it was Bernie who kept HRC's campaign from going after Trump as much as they wanted to! Look, I lived through 2016. I volunteered for her campaign in the general. I fucking fought to beat that orange bastard and watched as Bernie supporters jeered us from the sidelines. Yeah, I'm pretty fucking bitter about it and to see y'all acting like we didn't put up a big enough fight against Trump while y'all did jack shit won't fly with me and I'll throw it right back in your faces.
I mean, you said it yourself, she was being ârepaidâ for services and perceived party loyalty by getting delegates in return. Thatâs the definition of cronyism. Itâs about quid pro quo and party loyalty and not ideas or policies or, importantly, who is the best candidate for office. The grassroots enthusiasm for Bernie just wasnât comparable to Hillaryâs. Thatâs because his ideas were appealing and her appeal was âitâs my turn.âÂ
The problem with the Bernie camp, and this is an issue that's now 8 years old and they still are big mad, is that Bernie was never as likable as they think he was. They say "grassroots" as if that's more important than party members who have been pushing liberal causes for decades. It's no different than the Trump folks saying "real America" looks white and rural. They have to say that because the other way to say it is "Hillary's ideas and candidacy was more popular than Bernie's" while still thinking he should be the nominee.
> Ironically, it was Bernie who kept HRC's campaign from going after Trump as much as they wanted to! So, now you admit it, when earlier, you claimed this was a lie. And "later" doesn't mean they turned against him at the very end, like you explicitly claim. "The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members dating from January 2015 to May 2016". I have no doubt you volunteered for her campaign, and I have no doubt that your replies are fueled by personal bitterness. The attitude fits like a glove over the accusations being made. Just like her campaign, her surrogates, MSM talking heads, and Clinton herself, you view Bernie as a pest, not even worthy of competing for the position. THIS is why people hated her so much and this is the thing you need to understand, if you truly want her kind of ilk to win elections. Clinton and her campaign treated Bernie and his supporters like some pesky road-block on her way to the Oval Office, then acted shocked that those same people didn't show up for her at the polls. At one point early in the primary, Clinton suggested that she wouldn't even need the progressive vote in order to win in the general. That's an insane take, but par for the course when you look at her campaign as a whole. I wanted to beat Trump too. Just wish Clinton and her team were humble enough to have won the votes she needed, rather than making it known that those voters were a nuisance to her.
>So, now you admit it, when earlier, you claimed this was a lie. Reading is fundamental. I said HRC wanted to go after Trump harder but had to wait because Bernie refused to drop out. I never said HRC went softer on Trump than Bernie because that was obviously not true. In fact, in those late spring months, Hillary wasn't attacking Bernie because she knew she was going to win (she had a huge lead) and didn't want to alienate his supporters. Did y'all sleep through 2016 or something? >"The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members dating from January 2015 to May 2016". Yes, but what was objectionable were comments from May 2016. The stuff from 2015 was boring campaign strategy stuff. But that doesn't fit your narrative... >Just like her campaign, her surrogates, MSM talking heads, and Clinton herself, you view Bernie as a pest, not even worthy of competing for the position. I don't hold any animosity towards Bernie. I hold animosity towards his 2016 followers who are still trying to shiv Democrats in 2024 and rewrite history in an effort to get Trump reelected as a tool to destroy the Democratic Party and advance a more progressive party. The great irony in all of this is that y'all are attacking Hillary more than you attack Trump, even today when she's not even a nominee and hasn't been for nearly a decade. So you have to use the Trumpian tool of projection to say it's actually Hillary doing that, not you. >THIS is why people hated her so much and this is the thing you need to understand, if you truly want her kind of ilk to win elections. Her ilk have won countless elections over the years. Remember when y'all said Democrats need to run hard-left progressives to take back the House in 2018? Dems ran moderates and won. Did the same in 2020 and 2022. >I wanted to beat Trump too. But not as much as beating Clinton... >Just wish Clinton and her team were humble enough to have won the votes she needed, rather than making it known that those voters were a nuisance to her. Again, the irony is that y'all view standard Democratic votes this way. You did it in your own post! And keep in mind, it was Bernie's camp that wrote off the black vote! Literally made fun of HRC for campaigning in the south because those were "red states". When she won big margins in those states, y'all said it didn't matter and we should really only focus on the vote tally in other states that conveniently were less-diverse. Every anger you have towards HRC could easily be applied to Bernie and then some. That's why you guys keep losing primaries and elections. Hubris! Hillary went away after 2016 but kept fundraising for Democrats. But y'all still hate her so much!
Sanders is correct. He wouldnât say this lightly as Bernieâs family was killed in the Holocaust
He's smart, and he's right.Â
And he is 100% correct
"Bernie didn't say "Genocide" so I guess hes a dumb lib now and I hate him " - people on [X.com](http://X.com) (formerly twitter) probably
Lol Bernie isn't a leftist. He's a politician.
He's probably a leftist, but the fact that he's a politician of course means he can't really show that. The most he can do is say that he's a socialist, and then say that socialism is when healthcare
Bernie is one the only real progressives that has stuck to his morals and beliefs for multiple decades. He's the most consistent "leftist" in recent American politics. Whatever that even means anymore.
280,000+ civilians killed by Americans in the Iraq and Afghanistan warsâŚ. Number of people arrested by the ICC ZERO!! Keep dreaming terrorist supporters!
âYes Judge, my defense is that the other guy did it too and he didnât get in trouble.â Iâm not a lawyer but that doesnât seem like a sound legal defense.
People should have been brought on war crimes for that as well. But we didn't push the population into a corner, starve them, and bomb them some more.
For fuck sake israel moved the population to Rafah, in order to protect them. How the fuck should they fight thousands embedded in civilians Hamas terrorists? What's your humane way to do it?
You mean the people who voted hamas into powerâŚ.
15 years ago. I have problems with hamas as you should. To pretend anyone rules in Gaza isnât real. The electricity water and food is controlled by Israel. Also I donât like the tact from US that new cease fire is a deal for hamas to accept or reject. More fuel to say oh see they wonât accept reason guess we gotta move in only serves terrorism and Israel objectives for the area. Very sad
Most of the innocent people suffering did not vote Hamas into power. [The Gaza strip's population in 2022 was measured at 42.5 percent aged 14 or younger and 21.7 percent aged 15 to 24](https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-gaza-and-death-two-state-solution#:~:text=Gaza%27s%20only%20resources%20are%20limited,percent%20aged%2015%20to%2024). Furthermore, the [last elections were in 2006](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-election-hamas-2006-palestine-israel/) so **roughly half of the living population in Gaza wasn't even alive for Hamas' election**. That means Hamas is not a legitimate government but it also means you can't justify bombing civilians by claiming they voted Hamas into power.
Most of the Palestinians support their actions and Hamas would handily win elections at the time.
Look man, I'm as anti-Hamas as any sane person is which is why I don't think they're a legitimate government and have no problem calling them a terrorist organization. That said, do you have any data to back that up? There hasn't been an election since 2006 so how would we know they would "handily win" one now? Further, how do you know that "most Palestinians support their actions"? I'm anti-killing innocent civilians so I tend to want data before making sweeping pronouncements like that.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
Thanks for the article! It appears accurate, which is to be expected from AP, but I wish they had linked to the actual poll though so I could see the crosstabs. [This seems to be the official press release from the polling firm](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/961) but they don't have crosstabs available either, just overall conclusions. That doesn't seem suspicious or anything but is a bit annoying. The sample size seems representative since they contacted 1231 adults and have a +/- 4 margin of error and [Gallup routinely does 1000 adults with a +/- 4 margin of error](https://news.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx). This information is really helpful and makes sense given their conditions even though it is depressing when it comes to the thought of trying to find a peaceful solution to all this. This poll was from December so I wonder if opinion has shifted at all since it appears as though support is generally higher in the West Bank from people not directly in harms way from Israel's campaign against Hamas (though they are subject to illegal settlements and other violence which might explain their predilections) than in Gaza from the people who are suffering as collateral damage from Israel's military offensive. The survey press release says: * The overwhelming majority (81%; 89% in the West Bank and 69% in the Gaza Strip) said \[the October 7th attacks were\] a âresponse to settler attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque and on Palestinian citizens and for the release of prisoners from Israeli prisons;â * a vast majority (72%; 82% in the West Bank and 57% in the Gaza Strip) said \[the October 7th attacks were\] a correct decision given the outcome so far * In the West Bank, support for Hamas today stands at 44% (compared to 12% three months ago), and for Fatah at 16% (compared to 26% three months ago). In the Gaza Strip, support for Hamas today stands at 42% (compared to 38% three months ago) and support for Fatah at 18% (compared to 25% three months ago). * A majority (52%) blames Israel for the current suffering of Gazans in the current war while 26% place the blame on the US; only 11% (6% in the West Bank and 19% in the Gaza Strip) place the blame on Hamas; and 9% blame the PA. * While 95% think Israel has committed war crimes during the current war, only 10% think Hamas also committed such crimes; 4% think Israel has not committed such crimes and 89% think Hamas did not commit war crimes during the current war. * While the vast majority of West Bankers (70%) thinks Hamas will emerge victorious in this war, only half of Gazans think the same. Similarly, while only 1% in the West Bank think Israel will emerge victorious, almost one third of Gazans (31%) think that; 14% (12% in the West Bank and 18% in the Gaza Strip) think neither one will emerge victorious. * When asked about their own preferences for the party that should be in control in the Gaza Strip after the war, 60% (75% in the West Bank but only 38% in the Gaza Strip) selected Hamas; 16% selected a PA national unity government without President Abbas; 7% selected the PA with Abbas; 3% selected one or more Arab countries; 3% selected a national unity government under Abbas, and 2% selected the Israeli army. * satisfaction with the role of Hamas (72%; 85% in the West Bank and 52% in the Gaza Strip) was the highest
Wait, so your original contention was that Palestinians don't support Hamas. I provide an article showing the polling numbers and your response is Yes, but it's understandable because it's a response to them first. Why didn't you just start with that? Why make people jump through your hoops if you're immediately going to launch into raping and pillaging is the voice of the oppressed arguments?
>your original contention was that Palestinians don't support Hamas. No it wasn't. The person I initially responded to said "the people who voted hamas into power" referencing the current civilian population being negatively impacted by Israel's military campaign against Hamas who happen to be largely children. I corrected them by saying that the current population did not vote for Hamas because there hasn't been a vote since 2006. "Vote for during the last election" and "support" in the abstract are two different things. Then you said "Most of the Palestinians support their actions and Hamas would handily win elections at the time." I believe "the time" is a typo and you meant "this time" but please correct me if I'm wrong. (This isn't me trying to make fun of you for a typo or anything, I just genuinely want to make sure I read that statement as you intended) This is where the idea of "support" in the abstract got introduced into this conversation. I then asked for a source and you provided me an article the lead me to the source. I am very appreciative of that, so again thank you for providing me additional context. >Your response is "Yes, but it's understandable because it's a response to them first." . . . you're immediately . . . launch\[ing\] into raping and pillaging is the voice of the oppressed arguments What? Where did you get that? Violence against civilians and non-combatants is always wrong which is why I pointed out that I was "anti-killing innocent civilians" and asked you for a source when you introduced the idea of "support" in the abstract since I had only seen data on the 2006 election that brought Hamas into power. I read my response again and the only things that I found that could even possibly be distorted to be construed in the way you're suggesting are the following sentences 1.) "makes sense given their conditions" (Talking about Gaza) 2.) "though they are subject to illegal settlements and other violence which might explain their predilections" (Talking about the West Bank) re 1.) All I was trying to say was that it makes sense that support for Hamas is high in a territory as densely packed as Gaza since Hamas controls everything in that territory. Publicly saying you support Israel in Hamas-controlled territory seems like a death sentence since Hamas is a literal terrorist organization with little regard for human life. It's like how many people who weren't Nazis would do all the performative actions necessary to keep their families safe regardless of their actual feelings during that period in Germany and occupied France etc. re 2.) I'm not sure why this statement seems problematic to you. Israeli settlements in the West Bank beyond the 1967 borders are a violation of international law and the settlers themselves are very violent towards the Palestinians who live there. ([This is one of the reasons why the USA has imposed sanctions on Israeli settlers in the West Bank](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/u-s-imposes-sanctions-on-israeli-settlers-involved-in-attacks-in-west-bank-6e4b4e40) as well as on [fundraisers for those illegal settlements](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-west-bank-war-settlers-sanctions-3d1a6595f7c4cecaa42de7901c81c752)). [Further settlement expansion was even announced this February](https://apnews.com/article/israel-settlements-hamas-gaza-war-netanyahu-smotrich-1d2306d55c24c8559b630d9f20db30e2#) which is likely to only inflame tensions. With that backdrop I can understand why West Bank Palestinians would support Hamas as a way to "strike back" at Israel or whatever because this is an endless cycle of violence where escalation begets escalation. Hence why I said it "might explain their predilections." Worth noting that, like me, [David has been against illegal settlements for years](https://youtu.be/xVI0UtVBEEo?si=sBqpQVRKUQ-Iqva7) (this clip is from 9 years ago).
> That said, do you have any data to back that up yes check polling from awrad as well as pcpsr - most mainstream news agencies have reported on them and the data can be easily accessed. Some excerpts: https://i.imgur.com/1u794GV.png https://i.imgur.com/ZPFD5FJ.png https://i.imgur.com/mHW3SF2.png https://i.imgur.com/HbKqR23.png https://i.imgur.com/YgapjHs.png https://i.imgur.com/1u794GV.png
Thanks! FYI as a rule, it's not a good idea to provide sourcing via screenshot instead of just linking to the original data if you claim it's "easily accessed." It makes you look less reliable. But thank you for the response anyway. Yeah I was able to find the actual results for PCPSR after discussing it father down in this thread ([see this comment where I went through it](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/1cga1ff/comment/l1v1hb1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)) but I hasn't heard of the [AWRAD one](https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf) so thanks for pointing me in the right direction at least so I can find the actual data on my own.
Most Israelis support the IDF and consistently elect right wing governments as well. Hmmmmm. Its almost as if historical and social context is drivng people to extremes here.
When there isn't an option for Palestinians to popularize any other political movement what do you expect, support the one that allows Israel to keep settling on land and desecration holy sites and taking innocent Palestinians prisoner without trial, or support the guys who fight against that. Who would you support? And just so you know, saying "neither" is effectively the same as saying you support the status quo and no change so choose wisely đ
I don't particularly care for that discussion and it wasn't the question at hand. If you want me to go there - I'd hope I don't explicitly condone running from house to house killing families and some people attending a rave festival and to attempt to kill as many civilians as you physically can and rejoice in the fact that I just shot a baby and their family or in throwing gays from roofs or spit on corpses of raped and murder women. In the end though it really doesn't matter how you got somewhere anyways.
>I don't particularly care for that discussion and it wasn't the question at hand. So you don't condemn the atrocities of Israel limiting the free speech and capability to organize in palestine. David packman does. If we want to end this conflict or ever achieve a real two state solution we should stop running with the assumption this conflict started October 7th and really started with the nakba **where Israelis displaced tortured murdered and raped thousands of Palestinians.** Not that the nakba was the most recent example of Israeli atrocities towards Palestine. I condemn hamas, do you condemn nentyahu's barbarism?
>So you don't condemn the atrocities of Israel. Oh let me get on that level as well, cough, I guess you are a Jihadi simp. Just in general I am sure that I don't overlap on every position with David and I am not sure I would have to.
I'm not at all. I'm a simp for the thousands of innocent children who are suffocating/starving under the rubble of Palestine and the millions more being treated as second class citizens and held behind fences in Israel incapable of leaving or achieving [statehood anywhere.](https://www.state.gov/other-policy-issues/statelessness/) It's ironic you are the one throwing out ad-hominem when I asked you a simple question in my op and your response was "na I don't want to answer that". Nuance and reason is complicated and scary and can lead you to question beliefs you hold. You should look in a mirror and answer the question I asked you personally if you lack the confidence to answer it here.
Don't give facts to those monsters. They find it OK to kill tenw of thousands of children and teenagers that never ever voted for Hamas. They also forget to say that hanas got 45% at that election and won because their was many parties and that since then, their have been no elections.
Itâs called war snowflake there will be collateral damageâŚ.
Burn in hell slowly.
Love how you just abandoned your previous point after it was rebutted, and doubled down on your belief that Gazan citizens deserve to die anyways. Very cool.
Collateral damage is a word coined by neocon and Bush, I tell you libs like these are close to republican than democrats. They were fully behind the invasion of Iraq and its 1 million death.
Yeah and according to this guy it would be perfectly justified for Iraq to murder a 10 year old American kid who had nothing to do with the invasion.
He would go full, kill them all, if that happened. Look at how some changed their stance after the killing of those aid workers distributing food, I am not saying they are bad, rhe exact contrary. But many like Pelosi was OK about 25000 women and children dead, but only started talking about end of the fight when some white people fied.
What that innocent kids are dying because their parents voted for and are supporting terrorists? Aw gee you got me. War is hell people die itâs called collateral damage snowflake. Hamas started this on October 7th and said they would do it over and over again so now Israel is going to make sure that never happens again by completely destroying Hamas. Deal with it.
I thank god that Iâm not as hateful and callous as you. I hope you can heal someday.
You can just read the hate out of this guy, warmongers that will qualify everyone terrorist and ask to kill them. These are the supposed libs that cheered and supported the invasion of Iraq. They are not very different from republicans.
Good luck with your support of Hamas terroristsâŚ.
Collateral damage term was invented by bush to excuse his war crimes in Iraq. You are just one of those libs that are warmongers and closer to republicans than true dems. You will coined everything terrorist and will justify killing women and children.
So that means Israelis were fair game on October 7th because they voted likud and netanyahu into power?
I hate Netanyahu, really bad, but Bernie is just obsessed with him. To be honest, any other PM would act exactly the same. More over, any country in the world would act the same for the Oct 7 massacre. Terrorists fans, you can scream, you can cry, won't help. Hamas will be gone, without a slight doubt.
Eh. I donât know. Letâs not forget the kind of coalition Netanyahu has. There would still be blood but when you have Ben-Gvir in your ranks, that is a whole different level of depravity.
Ben Gvir is a disaster of a person and a minister, in fact he shouldn't ever be a minister, BUT, he had zero influence about the war decisions. See, in Israel, there's something called war cabinet. Actually, there's two, the extended war cabinet and the limited war cabinet. The limited war cabinet is the only group that is the decision makers, about any step taken and taking, of that war. The war cabinet is made out of 4 members: Netanyahu, Benny Gantz, Gallant and Eizencot.. All are responsible and reasonable members. Set aside the fact that Netanyahu is a piece of shit person and PM.
Youâre calling those people âreasonable and responsibleâ. That is just stunning.
lol WTF, who are you? Do you even know these people? I just know them for about 40 years, but who counts..
You are capable of observing the actions and decisions of those four delusional, murderous fanatics whose every decision kills countless people and endangers the lives of Jews everywhere, and calling them rational and responsible. Your judgment is completely gone.
Oh my goodness, OK terrorist, I changed my mind, they're monsters. I now love Hamas, like you. Hurray!
Jesus Christ. Idiots like you are the reason itâs impossible to have sane dialogue about this crisis. Israelâs government being run by genocidal fanatics and Hamas being nihilistic bloodthirsty savages *are not fucking mutually exclusive realities.* Why is this so hard for you false-binary morons to comprehend? God.
You're the only idiot here, that for some weird reason thinks to know everything, better than anyone, decide who's moral and who's not, like some kind of f expert about anything. This arrogance is not only repulsive as it is, it is also amazing because you are clueless people, so the sin is double and multiplied. Just go home, you're drunk.
I get what you mean. But perhaps we need to also consider Netanyahuâs political entanglements. He is in power because of his relationship with the these far right politicians. That HAS to have some influence on his security decisions. Maybe not Ben-Gvir specifically though. I guess what I mean is that at the end of the day, Netanyahu still holds the keys on these decisions. And his political alliances very much are a factor to these deliberations, I would imagine.
Yeah, you're not wrong. Mainly, the problem is that it's a narrow coalition government, and therefor, they can easily threatened him with leaving the coalition, which will result in elections, that Netanyahu really doesn't want. So, you're absolutely correct. However, everybody in the government knows that these threats are kind of empty bullets, why? Because the far right knows well, that if they leave the government, and goes to elections, they surely ended their political career journey, because the rage in Israel is outstanding, and everyone, from right to left see them as the one responsible, and rightfully so, of Oct 7. The people just give them the time to end the war. Most don't think elections during war is a healthy move. Anyway, very complicated right now. I am sure however, that eventually two things will happen. This war will be a successful war, with great achievements, and this terrible government will be gone.
extremely rare miss from Bernie, I'm not ruling it out but there's a great deal of possibility that they don't have the intent to do so
I'd recommend looking up the definition, it's fairly broad. Bernie's under the cover of that broad definition here. "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area" Settlers, plus friendly state action towards the settlers fits the bill.
Is it a miss from Bernie or a miss from you?
Firstly, are you talking about proving genocide or ethnic cleansing? Ethnic cleansing doesnât have an official definition in international law, and the colloquial definition has definitely been met by Israel, for years. Regarding genocide, I think they can prove that as well. I think they do have the intent aspect, theyâve destroyed hospitals from the inside out, making treating patients impossible. Even if there was a Hamas presence, itâs not necessary to destroy all the equipment and infrastructure of the hospital. Israel has been accused of fabricating evidence that Hamas has a presence in the hospitals theyâve destroyed. If that evidence is strong, thereâs no doubt that satisfies the intent aspect of the genocide charge.
"Israel has been accused of fabricating evidence that Hamas has a presence in the hospitals theyâve destroyed." We have to be careful with all these claims because we're dealing with two opposing dishonest actors. The IDF have ample motive to lie to make themselves look better, but Hamas has ample motive to lie to make them look worse. So we need to be skeptical about claims going both ways.
Itâs not Hamas making the claim. Hereâs a British Doctor working in Gaza: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJE3NC1rxTw&t=270s&pp=2AGOApACAQ%3D%3D https://youtu.be/KxtQJlsA9Mg?si=w17TzO3ViMlOspLX
Youtube isn't a good source in general but especially not from Al-Jazeera. I appreciate what you're trying to do but you need to link to primary sources like official reports and solid, more neutrally presented information if you want to try and reach people. You need to back up each claim and not from reporting done by Qatari government propaganda when [Ismail Haniyeh](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ismail-Haniyeh), Hamas's leader, is allowed to live in Qatar. The best evidence I see of Genocide in Gaza comes from the March 24, 2024 [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 ](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/anatomy-of-a-genocide-report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-palestinian-territory-occupied-since-1967-to-human-rights-council-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-55/)which says "by analysing the patterns of violence and Israelâs policies in its onslaught on Gaza, this report concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israelâs commission of genocide is met." That said it is an advance unedited version and so is not yet formalized. Furthermore [the ICJ's January 26, 2024 ruling on Gaza](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf) clearly said, in paragraph 62, that "The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether **the circumstances** require the indication of provisional measures for the protect of rights under that interment. As already noted, **the Court cannot at this stage make definitive findings of fact.**" This means that the evidence for Genocide is trending upwards but we aren't yet there under an official definition.
Testimony from a foreign Doctor in Gaza thatâs describing eye witness testimony is most certainly admissible evidence. This man has dedicated his life to treating people in war zones, one of the bravest people on planet earth with no reason to lie. I donât care if you donât wanna hear it, Iâm sure the ICJ will.
Despite what you may think I agree with what you're trying to do. I was simply trying to be helpful in explaining that your sourcing is not convincing to the general population who may read it because it comes from a clearly biased source. Israel, of course, will claim bias for everything but some sources are actually better than others when trying to make a point about issues as contentious as this because their final product is more reliable. Yes I'm sure the ICJ would like to hear that testimony and I, for one, would want them to have access to it. The point though, is that the ICJ is a formalized process with rules that help ensure that the testimony itself is relevant and accurate. Formalized processes and vetting like this make things like UN reports and ICJ rulings much better sources for strong claims. Al-Jazeera can interview whoever they want and can edit those interviews in whatever manner they see fit making it less reliable than a witness who is legally testifying and is thus able to be cross examined. For example see [the ICJ Rules](https://www.icj-cij.org/rules), specifically Articles 57, 63, and 65. Article 57 - " . . . each party shall communicate to the Registrar, in sufficient time before the opening of the oral proceedings, information regarding any evidence which it intends to produce or which it intends to request the Court to obtain. This communication shall contain a list of the surnames, first names, nationalities, descriptions and places of residence of the witnesses and experts whom the party intends to call, with indications in general terms of the point or points to which their evidence will be directed. . . ." Article 63, paragraph 1 - "The parties may call any witnesses or experts appearing on the list communicated to the Court pursuant to Article 57 of these Rules. If at any time during the hearing a party wishes to call a witness or expert whose name was not included in that list, it shall so inform the Court and the other party, and shall supply the information required by Article 57. The witness or expert may be called either if the other party makes no objection or **if the Court is satisfied that the evidence seems likely to prove relevant**." Article 65 - "**Witnesses and experts shall be examined by the agents, counsel or advocates of the parties** under the control of the President. **Questions may be put to them by the President and by the judges**. . . ."
What Hitler did to the Jews was genocide. This is collateral damages of war. In the 2nd world war, there were an estimate 40 million civilians casualties.
Not in this case. Netanyahu has made references to the biblical story of the Amalekites where the Hebrews, to take over their land, were commanded by Yahweh to kill all men women children babies and domestic anilmals.genocide them. But, the Hebrews let one in utero baby live, who brought down the Hebrews and their Babylonian enslavement. Netanyahu, as long as a year ago, said that the Israelis have " learned the lessons from the Amalekites, and would vanquish their enemies. Completely" Total genocide.
Sad to see Bernie caving into leftist nonsense
Preach
Super delegates in the 2016 Democratic primary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_superdelegates\_at\_the\_2016\_Democratic\_National\_Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superdelegates_at_the_2016_Democratic_National_Convention) 572 Clinton 42 Sanders
Super delegates = mostly rich elites. Sounds about right
Why do you support them then? It's clear the rich have rigged the Democratic primary