This is a very big deal, Germany never takes a side against Israel. Germany’s Merz blasts Israeli offensive in Gaza “To harm the civilian population to such an extent,” the German chancellor said, “can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism.” May 26, 2025 4:50 pm CET By Nette Nöstlinger BERLIN — Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticized Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip on Monday in unusually strong terms for a German leader. “Frankly speaking, I no longer understand what the goal of the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip is,” Merz said in an interview aired on public television. “To harm the civilian population to such an extent, as has increasingly been the case in recent days, can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism.” Germany is one of Israel’s closest European backers, and the country’s leaders, due to the Nazi past, consider Israel’s security to be a Staatsräson, or “reason of state.” German leaders, particularly Merz’s conservatives, have been reluctant to openly criticize Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. But Merz’s comments suggest his government’s position may have shifted amid Israel’s new military offensive in the Gaza Strip, with many Gazans at risk of starvation in the aftermath of an 11-week aid blockade, according to humanitarian groups. “Germany must exercise greater restraint than any other country in the world in giving public advice to Israel,” Merz said. “But when borders are crossed, when international humanitarian law is really being violated, the German chancellor must also say something about it.” ...... The German government’s commissioner for combatting antisemitism, Felix Klein, also sparked a debate in Germany in calling for a “more honest discussion” of how Germans interpret their Staatsräson with regard to Israel. “We must do everything in our power to preserve the security of Israel and Jews worldwide,” Klein said in an interview with Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily paper. “But we must also be clear that this is no justification for everything. Starving the Palestinians and deliberately making the humanitarian situation dramatically worse has nothing to do with safeguarding Israel’s right to exist. And it cannot be the German reason of state either.” https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-friedrich-merz-blasts-israeli-offensive-gaza-strip/
Religions that explicitly or symbolically describe hell as being out of the light or presence of God include: Christianity (esp. Catholic and Protestant views) Islam (denial of seeing God) Judaism (in mystical and some rabbinical views) Zoroastrianism (early, dualistic light/dark cosmology) Gnostic traditions (separation from the divine light/gnosis) These views tend to reflect a shared idea: that distance from the divine, from the light, presence, or love of God, is itself the worst possible fate. In most of the religions mentioned, asking for forgiveness or at least recognizing one's wrongdoing and turning toward the divine, is essential for reconciliation with God, and often crucial to avoid damnation or spiritual exile. If a man cannot admit he was wrong, in many theological systems, he risks damning himself, not necessarily because of God's unwillingness to forgive, but because he refuses the very condition for reconciliation. On a broader societal level, an unwillingness to admit error can hinder progress, perpetuate conflicts, and make genuine dialogue and resolution difficult, whether in personal relationships, politics, or other spheres. If people prioritize maintaining an illusion of infallibility over truth and reconciliation, it creates a climate of rigidity and unresponsiveness. There are forum members here, maybe half the USA who will be caught by a lifetime habit of never admitting to error in judgement. Paradoxically it is their belief that admitting mistakes is admitting flaws in your character will damn them. “The doors of hell are locked on the inside.” – C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Unlike some posters on ET, there are some students at universities who are smart enough to recognize that Israel is not committing "Genocide" in Gaza. Students drop claim of Israeli genocide in Gaza https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/25/manchester-students-drop-claim-of-israeli-genocide-gaza/ ------------- While the a war occurring in a densely populated urban area is tough and leads to civilian casualties -- especially when a terrorist group uses the population as human shields, it is not Genocide. The group attempting to commit Genocide in this situation is Hamas. How can we boldly state this? Well, it outlines their objective very directly in writing found in the terrorist's group charter. Their intent is to kill every single Jew in Israel and wipe them off the face of the earth. This is the very definition of Genocide. Should Israel be criticized by the international community for some of their actions such as withholding food aid from Gaza over the past couple of months? Yes, certainly. Has their policy changed due to international pressure? Yes, obviously. Hamas has had multiple opportunities to accept internationally-brokered ceasefire agreements with three step solutions for releasing hostages and re-building. Hamas has either not accepted or broken (in the middle of step 1) all of these agreements. As the Palestinian protestors in Gaza have been outlining recently -- their blood is on Hamas' hands. Hamas merely views all the dead civilians as a "price that must be paid". No country on the face of the earth is going to accept a terrorist group continuously launching missiles and directing attacks against their country that kills hundreds. Any country should quite rightfully launch an offense to put an end to the situation and eliminate the terrorist group. Israel is appropriately defending itself -- the only question is if they can reduce Palestinian civilian suffering while doing so. Likewise in the north, Israel has defended itself against Hezbollah by launching strikes in Lebanon. The terrorist group has been reduced to a level where they are much less of an internal threat to Lebanon and the government & military in Lebanon are demanding Hezbollah completely disarm -- which, of course, greatly displeases the Iranian-proxy terrorists.
A certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected in any military engagement of this magnitude. To dismiss it with such indifference as the Israeli government has done is unacceptable. To facilitate it withholding aid can easily be argued as a war crime. Hamas is guilty as well. Two things can be true at the same time.
Right, this thread is meant to be deeper but let's take your first link there. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/25/manchester-students-drop-claim-of-israeli-genocide-gaza/ "An accusation that Israel has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza has been dropped by students at the University of Manchester following a backlash." The Telegraph article frames the withdrawal of the University of Manchester students’ motion as a walk-back from accusing Israel of genocide. But the actual issue was the broad language, which accused Israel "in its entirety". That phrasing triggered objections, not necessarily the claim of genocide itself. They students union were objecting to a genocidal tone, similar to the video I opened with where Israeli commentators on main channels go full evil. The implication that students rejected the genocide accusation wholesale is a rhetorical sleight of hand. This kind of framing presents a strategic narrative twist rather than a neutral recounting. Whoever wrote is is deploying Israeli "Hasbara" techniques. Now I think we have established that you don't really play devil's advocate with yourself before throwing up links. You’d make a stronger argument if you actually interrogated the sources you throw up instead of lobbing them like smoke grenades.
Arguing that something isn’t genocide because it’s happening slowly is like insisting your house isn’t on fire because it started with just a smoldering curtain. By the time the flames are visible from the street, it’s too late to argue about definitions. Genocide doesn't always arrive with gas chambers, and "trail of tears" type forced displacement, it starts with policies, exclusions, dehumanizing language, and silence from bystanders who think ‘this isn’t quite it yet.’ The slow roll doesn't make it less deadly, just harder to stop. And if we’re going to practice hypervigilance for one group (as we rightly do for Jews, given history), it’s unreasonable and frankly immoral to deny that same urgency to Palestinians. Human dignity is not a zero-sum concern. Genocide isn’t a checkbox, it’s a process.
By "slow rolling", I mean very slow. Anyone care to date these? "Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach." "It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both peoples... The only solution is a Land of Israel... without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises... There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, and to transfer all of them, save perhaps a few." These aren’t the words of fringe radicals but central architects of Zionist land policy and ideology. The time between these statements and the present is not a departure from the original vision, it’s a patient execution. Buy1Sell2 can only dream of being as patient, overturning Roe in 50 years? lightweight. When slow-rolling intent takes nearly a century to unfold, it doesn't make it less intentional. It just makes it harder for outsiders to notice until it’s too late. And some of them will still be looking at the sky and saying, “But is it really genocide?”
Let's see you address the remainder of what I wrote. And this time let's get your feedback rather than some AI generated nonsense. Here it is again.... While the a war occurring in a densely populated urban area is tough and leads to civilian casualties -- especially when a terrorist group uses the population as human shields, it is not Genocide. The group attempting to commit Genocide in this situation is Hamas. How can we boldly state this? Well, it outlines their objective very directly in writing found in the terrorist's group charter. Their intent is to kill every single Jew in Israel and wipe them off the face of the earth. This is the very definition of Genocide. Should Israel be criticized by the international community for some of their actions such as withholding food aid from Gaza over the past couple of months? Yes, certainly. Has their policy changed due to international pressure? Yes, obviously. Hamas has had multiple opportunities to accept internationally-brokered ceasefire agreements with three step solutions for releasing hostages and re-building. Hamas has either not accepted or broken (in the middle of step 1) all of these agreements. As the Palestinian protestors in Gaza have been outlining recently -- their blood is on Hamas' hands. Hamas merely views all the dead civilians as a "price that must be paid". No country on the face of the earth is going to accept a terrorist group continuously launching missiles and directing attacks against their country that kills hundreds. Any country should quite rightfully launch an offense to put an end to the situation and eliminate the terrorist group. Israel is appropriately defending itself -- the only question is if they can reduce Palestinian civilian suffering while doing so. Likewise in the north, Israel has defended itself against Hezbollah by launching strikes in Lebanon. The terrorist group has been reduced to a level where they are much less of an internal threat to Lebanon and the government & military in Lebanon are demanding Hezbollah completely disarm -- which, of course, greatly displeases the Iranian-proxy terrorists.
I have not read past the first bit and won't. Respond to the first bit please. Then I'll evaluate more if you want.