National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president.

"He doesn't agree with my opinion. Must either not understand it or he is a Mossad mind control agent"

Are you a Mossad agent, or are you just one of their tools? Pro-Zionism is not an opinion, it's a state of psychological conditioning. They have weaved their way into every large organisation, to spread propaganda. Some people submit to it, others don't.

I define carpet bombing as the saturation of an area with munitions with the main goal being to maximise casualties and property damage, regardless of military significance. That is what the Palestinians do.

Malia Bouattia has expressed her support for current Palestinian carpet bombing tactics.

None of which is exclusive to Palestine. Nazis bombed London as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Europe for what they regarded as good motives. Britain bombed Dresden as an unfortunate by-product of a campaign to conquer Germany for what they regarded as good motives.

Either you have to accept reciprocity - in which case Israel wins the war in 5 minutes by using Palestinian carpet bombing and other brutal tactics - or you have to make an argument that the Palestinian cause is of superior moral worth to the Israelis, granting them the right to use more brutal tactics than the Israelis. This second one in fact is what Bouattia believes

I do not think this is right, as otherwise genocide boils down to a time limit. If the Nazis had set up death camps that killed people only 1/10th as quickly, would it have ceased to be genocide? 1/100th? The idea is the thing.

Now you later point out that the Palestinians would accept Israel's reconstitution as an Islamic State, in which of course Jews would have the right to live as supplicant Dhimmis in accordance with Islamic law. This is a much stronger argument that what the Palestinians are doing is not genocide. However it obviously still makes them look terrible, basically what the Germans planned to do to Britain, and makes more clear the Israel case for responding to Palestinian actions as Britain responded to German.

Saturation being the key word here. Carpet bombing is characterised by its (more or less) complete covering of a particular area in bombing damage, hence the carpet metaphor. Cities that have been carpet bombed don't look anything like Ashkelon does.



No, as I said above, she's expressed her support for "armed struggle" in a rather abstract way.



And we are capable of judging those motives, regardless of whether they regarded them as good.



I think your notion of reciprocity is questionable, but other than that, I accept there's a point here. And indeed, many have argue that the Palestinians are permitted to use more extreme tactics on account of it being a war of liberation akin to other such wars. Personally I think it more consistent to read this aspect of international law from the other end, i.e. it narrows what is permissible for Israel, rather than widening what is permissible for Palestinian movements.

It would cease to be genocide when it could no longer be regarded as an act with an intent to destroy a group, in whole or part. While a specific number is hard to place (it also depends, in large part, upon the size of the group targeted), the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals have broadly established that it must be "a considerable number" or "a substantial part of the group". While one could be convicted of attempt or conspiracy to commit genocide without being convicted of genocide itself, the former would generally still require some concerted and realistic effort to actually put it into practice. Merely having the idea is not sufficient, any more than having the idea to kill someone is in itself proof of attempted murder.

No, I said that's a more logical reading of the 1988 Hamas Charter. That's rather different to saying what "the Palestinians" in general believe, or even what Hamas believe now.

Then can I be clear whether you are making the Argument from Palestinian Ineptitude:

"Palestinians should be permitted to blow up children in their beds because they are too inept to blow up soldiers in battle, the poor dears!"

or the Argument from Palestinian Moral Superiority:

"Palestinians should be permitted to blow up children in their beds because it is more important that an Arab-Islamic state be established in Palestine than that children be able to sleep safely in their beds."

I believe that Bouattia accepts the second argument.

I still don't understand - speed of actual disposal has no bearing on the intent to eventually kill all of them. You might as well argue that the Holocaust wasn't an attempt at genocide because the Nazis were stopped before they achieved all their aims. In Yugoslavia a very small proportion of the total Muslim population was killed, yet many regard this as an attempted genocide.

The democratically elected government of Palestine.

These are nothing but emotional appeal strawmen.

Saturation being the key word here. Carpet bombing is characterised by its (more or less) complete covering of a particular area in bombing damage, hence the carpet metaphor. Cities that have been carpet bombed don't look anything like Ashkelon does.

And indeed, many have argue that the Palestinians are permitted to use more extreme tactics on account of it being a war of liberation akin to other such wars.

Attempted genocide is nominally on the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunal statutes, but no-one has ever been charged with it. In the Yugoslavia case, for the most part, only Srebrenica has been legally considered genocide, because there an entire section of the population - all the men - were massacred. It's true that many scholars still argue that the whole Serb nationalist campaign in Bosnia, particularly in the spring and summer of 1992, was genocidal, though this argument alsoe generally depends on the broader crimes committed against the Bosniak population as part of this - it includes the home burnings, mosque destructions, expulsions, tortures, rapes, etc. The Serb nationalists sought to not just remove the Bosniak population, but to destroy signs of its past existence and destroy any possibility of its future return.

Whether or not you accept this argument, it remains the case that it's about what Serb forces actually did do - not what they allegedly wanted to do.

I don't see where you're inferring the issue of speed from? I don't think I've mentioned it.

By that logic, we should conclude that "the British" collectively hold the views expresed in the 1987 Conservative Manifesto.

No they are not.

You have offered two justifications for the double standard of behaviour to which Israel and Palestine are held. First, you have suggested that what the Palestinians do is OK because, even though it's immoral in principle, it is not very effective:

I.e. killing civilians in small numbers is OK, but in large numbers is not; it is not intrinsically wrong to deliberately kill civilians.

Second, you have suggested that the Palestinians simply have a right to wage war more brutally than the Palestinians:

I.e. right wing causes are to be subjected to the laws of war, while left wing causes are to be exempt from them.

You have said that there is no such crime as "attempted genocide"; that success is required. Of course by this standard the Nazis never committed genocide either.

Held in 1988 - that would not be far from the truth.