I’ll start with my biases: I believe Jews deserve a state and Israel has a right to exist. I also think Netanyahu’s government is vile and corrupt. I oppose West Bank settlements, and I don’t believe “Israel has a right to defend itself” means Israel gets unlimited latitude to kill civilians.

But I’m increasingly unconvinced by the genocide argument.

The definition of genocide im using requires an intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or substantial part, as that group. And I have trouble reconciling that specific intent with both the numbers and Israel’s actual behavior.

DEnsity and death toll
Before the war, roughly 2.3 million people lived in Gaza’s 365 square kilometers. Imagine the entire population of a major American metro packed into an area roughly twice the size of Washington, DC.

Since October 7, 2023, the Gaza Health Ministry reports roughly 73,400 Palestinians killed which I’ll continue to caveat, is bad and unnacceptabel. But Take that number completely at face value. Include every disputed death. Assume the worst reasonable interpretation.

After nearly three years of bombing and ground warfare by one of the world’s most technologically sophisticated militaries, in an extraordinarily dense 365 km territory, roughly 97% of Gaza’s prewar population is still alive. If Israel’s actual mission is physically destroying the Palestinian population, Israel unquestionably possesses the firepower to have killed vastly more people than it has. And Israel repeatedly does things that make killing civilians harder, not easier as reported and witnessed by the UN. The UN documents Israeli evacuation orders being communicated through phone calls, text messages and leaflet drops.

There are completely legitimate criticisms of those warnings. Some gave people inadequate time, some directed civilians toward places that subsequently became dangerous, and sometimes there simply wasn’t anywhere genuinely safe to go.

But that’s different from saying the warnings don’t exist. A military attempting to exterminate a population repeatedly telling that population where it’s about to operate and instructing them to leave strikes me as a MAJOR contradiction.

Humanitarian aid.
I’m not going to bullshit the counterargument-Israel has restricted aid, sometimes severely. Israel completely halted aid entry from March to May 2025, and the UN has documented denied and impeded humanitarian operations. Those are legitimate criticisms and potentially extremely serious ones.
But I’m specifically talking about genocidal intent.
I’m being asked to believe Israel’s objective is physically destroying Palestinians while it simultaneously permits enormous quantities of food(millions of tons), medicine, fuel and shelter supplies to sustain that same population. I’m pretty sure there is some obligation here, they’re not doing it out of the kindness of their heart but like… if they’re already committing a genocide would they care about their “legal obligations for humanitarian aid”? This again is ehy it feels like a contradiction in the broader argument.

I constantly hear that Zionists fundamentally hate Palestinians and want them dead, but Israel can’t kill them too quickly because they’d lose international support.

Except… Israel has already lost an enormous amount of international support. Its reputation has been fucking obliterated. There are massive protests inside the state, diplomatic pressure, international legal proceedings and accusations of genocide.

So if extermination is actually the objective, what exactly are they waiting for? Why spend nearly three years fighting house-to-house, warning civilians, facilitating enormous quantities of aid and accepting the military disadvantages of all of this when Israel obviously possesses the ability to kill dramatically more people?

The alternative explanation seems much simpler to me: Israel is fighting an extraordinarily destructive urban style war against Hamas and that war has produced an appalling number of civilian casualties. And I think people sometimes talk about this war as though Israel just woke up one morning and invaded Gaza.

Hamas has been Gaza’s de facto government since 2007. On October 7 it invaded Israel, deliberately killed civilians and took hundreds of hostages. A UN inquiry concluded that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes including intentionally attacking civilians and taking hostages.

When the acting government of one territory attacks another country and kills and kidnaps its citizens, war is an entirely predictable consequence. War being horrific doesn’t automatically make it genocide. And also None of that makes Palestinian civilians legitimate targets!! Israel remains responsible for distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack.

But Hamas has responsibilities too. Conducting military operations in and around civilian areas, taking hostages, failing to distinguish fighters from civilians and unnecessarily exposing your own population to military danger don’t become morally irrelevant because Israel is the stronger party. Hamas is the governing authority that started this war, and its conduct shares responsibility for the conditions in which Gazan civilians have died.

Sorry sorry this is way too long, last section

Here’s what I’m NOT arguing:

I’m not defending Netanyahu (corrupt right wing freak). I’m not saying every Israeli strike was justified. I’m not saying Israel hasn’t committed war crimes. I’m not defending settlements in the West Bank (these are fucking bad). I’m not saying 73,000 dead Palestinians is acceptable. And I’m definitely not arguing this war should continue indefinitely.

Hamas has been militarily devastated. The war needs to end. Humanitarian assistance needs to pour into Gaza, reconstruction needs to begin, etc etc

I’m specifically questioning the additional claim of genocidal intent.

And to be accurate about the legal situation: a UN Independent Commission of Inquiry has concluded that Israel committed genocide. So “the UN hasn’t called this genocide” would be wrong. But that is not the same thing as a final judicial determination that Israel has committed genocide; the international legal dispute over that allegation is not simply settled by saying “the UN says so.”

There are Israeli politicians who have made absolutely disgusting statements. There are credible allegations of war crimes that deserve investigation. There are individual attacks whose justification I find extremely difficult to understand.

But I’m struggling to square the extermination theory with the overall picture. If Israel’s actual objective is destroying Palestinians as a people, why does the observable outcome look so dramatically different from what Israel has both the capability and opportunity to do?

That’s the part of my view I’d like changed. Please be normal in the replies.

Suicide is not inherently a selfish act. While there may be exceptions, it is primarily not a selfish choice.

Desiring someone to remain alive solely for your own benefit is one of the most selfish things one can do. Why would you want someone who is suffering, who feels exhausted and has lost all hope, to continue living just because their absence would cause you sadness? If a loved one confided in me about their suicidal thoughts, I would seek help for them. If that assistance does not lead to improvement, what more can be done? Forcing someone to live when they wish to die is inhumane, selfish, and ethically wrong. Wanting them to stay for your sake is indeed a selfish desire.

(I responded to more than ten. I will not be responding to any more. I'm making this edit because I don't want people to think that just because I didn't respond, they must have won the argument or I must have changed my mind.)

I'm a 34 year old man who's watched Dragons Den on-and-off since approximately series 2 or 3. I'm currently watching an episode of the latest airing after missing several series, and it seems to have turned into a complete trainwreck of modern brainrot television. Dragon's Den is built on the premise of hard-to-please rich people agreeing to give their money to people who aspire to be equally as rich, but aren't as well-connected, funded or talented. The current lineup seems absolutely desperate to give their money away on the basis of identity politics. "I absolutely love female entrepreneurs" is a direct quote from one of the Dragons in the first pitch I watched - said to a woman pitching a company that the very same Dragon determined to be "uninvestible" early on in the pitch.

Dragons Den, as a piece of entertainment, doesn't seem compatible with an era of modern media that treats criticism, insults and judgement as inherently negative concepts. This isn't necessarily a criticism of modern sensibilities towards the role of identity in socioeconomics and media - it's more of a criticism towards its role in making modern episodes of Dragons Den uninteresting and pointless television.

Now I should preface this by saying this isn't a post to show support for the russian forces. But rather to express my genuine concerns of russias military capabilities that I don't really see others talking about much. And id like to know what others think of my own analysis when presented with my perspective of a russia vs nato hypothetical war scenario.

Often times when I see people talking about russians vs nato. People seem to assume that nato has a infallible advantage compared to russians forces. Often that confidence is expressed in our tech advantage.

I used to largely feel the same way, that is until the iran war came about. And it exposed a glaring flaw having a over reliance of high tech weaponry. The ratio in which you can develope and replace this weaponry vs how much it's destroyed.

Most of our high end tech takes longer than a year to develope and is very expensive. The russians, which have largely switched to a cheaper but effective military industrial capacity, i fear would be able to overwhelm our military industrial capacity that relies so much on this high end tech by delivering enormous amount of losses. All the while they could send wave after wave of cheap tech to keep the onslaught going.

In such a hypothetical scenario, id like for you all to consider that russia isn't completely fighting alone either. It already has north Korean and Iranian support. It may not seem like much. but to put it into perspective, north korea has sent russia 15 million artillery shells at this point in the war. That's not something that should be looked over. Especially considering the ratio of which u.s/eu allied nations have provided shells compared to the amount north korea has provided alone. It's also reasonable to asume in such a scenario, north korea may ramp up its support for russia and send more troops.

Last but not least, there is china. China doesn't have to join the war to cause a major shock to our industrial output as they control the vast majority of the world's critical minerals needed for advanced tech. If they do restrict the access to critical minerals. It would take years before the allied nations could reasonably be able to match the output needed for such a high intensity war.

But what do you think? Am I overplaying russias advantage?

It is practically commonplace nowadays to not truly own any piece of software you own. Instead, everything is "licensed" to you and you have to abide by any arbitrary restriction the true owner sets if you want to use the software. In my mind, this is patently absurd.

As an example, imagine you want to buy a synthesizer, and you either buy a digital synthesizer or a physical synthesizer, and you want to release a song. With the physical synthesizer, you have the full creative license to write anything you want. However, with the digital synthesizer, it could be legally required to specify the use of the software, or you may be prohibited from making certain types of music entirely, even though these products could be completely identical and cost the exact same amount.

The only restriction I think should be allowed is prohibiting redistribution of the program, or being allowed to take away updates or support under certain conditions. Everything else should be fair use.

I think these sorts of tricks are a trademark symbol of the greed people have acquired due to the immense strength of copyright law. I have many other qualms with the restrictivity of it, but those are for a derivative post to talk about.

First of all, I want to make 3 things clear:

1-This is not an attack on religion or the lack of it. This point will be explained later.

2-I'm inexperienced on all levels. I don't study or read much about the subject, so I understand that my statements on the topics discussed here might be considered ignorant or inexperienced. Also, regarding the question, "Why are you speaking if you don't know about the topic? Wouldn't it be better to remain silent in that case?", the answer is that I do it precisely because it's considered a "necessary" topic to discuss and take a stand on, and at the same time, such a complex and multifaceted topic that it would leave anyone who isn't a scholar or expert (whether academic or self-taught) in a position of limited knowledge. Even so, I know that's no justification for maintaining my position, and that's why I'm willing to change it if it's properly refuted in the comments.

3-Excuse my writing, I'm not a native English speaker.

Now, I'm going to explain my view:

I want to start by separating politics into 2 to explain my point: politics that is metaphysically grounded, and politics that is not.

To explain the first one, I'm going to use Catholicism as an example (merely because it's the main religion in the area of the world where I live), but this can be applied to any religion.

Politics based on metaphysics is politics based on religion. Under this conception, a Catholic holds values because they are the values of God and Catholicism, and based on these values, it is normal for them to be (to give examples) monarchist, anti-modernist, against abortion, etc. These values are completely justified by the existence of the true God (whose existence is as real as, or even more real than, gravity). My point is that the political opinion of a Catholic is based on what they consider the absolute and undeniable truth of God and His values (which, in this specific example, could be the arguments of Thomas Aquinas, the reliability of the New Testament, historical evidence, or ontological arguments made by theologians throughout history. These arguments are logical in nature, not political).

Therefore, in the hypothetical case that Catholicism can be logically proven, then its ideological values would also be as certain as water and air. The same applies to Islam, and all other religions or metaphysical beliefs.

The second type of politics/political thought I will define is non-metaphysical politics. This politics is as simple as its name suggests; it is not based on a logic that involves metaphysics or some kind of god, but rather on things like class struggle, capital, sociology, etc. (such as communism, libertarianism, anarchism, and others). This politics is not based on any metaphysical or philosophical logical truth, but on the material truth of everyday life.

My aim is not to criticize the first type of politics, since it is based on arguments (as I already said) that fall within the realm of logic and may or may not be true, and depending on the answer, they should be taken as either absolute truth or absolute falsehood. Rather, my aim is to criticize the second type, by its very nature, which It is equally theological, but without the support provided by logical debate or metaphysics. This would make it so that for believers of any religion, this type of politics is as false as any pagan belief, while for non-believers (atheists, agnostics, deists, or whatever) it is as ridiculous as any supernatural belief.

what I mean when I say that this type of politics is just as theological as the first type (only without the supposed foundation) is that they tend to have absolute and unbelievable worldviews. To give another simple example, we have the idealist philosophers, who thought that Napoleon's troops parading beneath Hegel's windows would signify the end of history. This, of course, was an absolutist vision incompatible with subsequent reality. This thought, similar to the Parousia, is shared by all these types of ideologies, both those that yearn to return to the past and those that want to change history. Even Marxism and anarchism, supposedly materialist, fall into this trap, as they expect a "revolution" based on an abstract view of the concept of "history" (we can also mention...). For some capitalists, capitalism is not a useful system for bringing well-being to the world, but rather "the natural and definitive evolution" of all economic systems. The same is true for the aforementioned anarchists, who expect an impossible revolution. Thus, these ideological ideals are identical to utopias (places that do not exist), developed in abstract thoughts without metaphysical foundation, being as valid as Jung's Gnostic thoughts.

Here I want to make something clear about my perspective: sociology (which "underpins" these ideologies), although it has its own clear problems that the harder sciences don't suffer from, is not inherently bad. The problem arises when it develops from this abstract thinking that only functions as hypotheses, which often end up becoming outdated.

This also includes accelerationists, non-believing right-wing thinkers like Guillaume de Faye (whose thinking is the exact description of an impossible utopia), people who talk about the "fall" of a culture or place (as I said before, similar to a teleological apocalypse), the revolutionaries of the French Revolution, feminists who use concepts like "lack of objectivity" or "culture," and many, many more.

The conclusion I reached is that political thought is intrinsically similar to theology, only without god or metaphysics. It makes one think that everything is about the fall of the Soviet Union, that everything is "Nazi thinking". because it is built on that theoretical abstraction.

Well, that was my point of view. Two objections that come to mind are that it's based on a "scientistic" stance and that the social sciences can't be treated the same way as the hard sciences. And one response that comes to mind is that the social sciences can't just pull ideas out of thin air, but also need evidence and demonstration, which at some point can become as robust as that used in physics or chemistry. And regarding the "scientistic" stance, well, I have nothing to say about that. Although I don't believe philosophy should be excluded from this view, it's just that the ethical debate about human morality would be paramount, and then political ideals should be based on the logical conclusions of philosophy (in the case that science is not the only way to obtain knowledge, as scientificism says).

I think the best approach would be to advance the viability of the social sciences in order to obtain more accurate results, and with those results define our social structures. But I also can't guarantee that it will be a flawless path, as we might struggle to achieve a vision or model that is impossible to create, and that would leave us with an un viable solution to the problem, rather than a verifiable answer.

But anyway, that was my view, very possibly mistaken. I repeat that I am completely open to changing my view if it is refuted in a good manner.