Communism is inherently a political/economic ideology. Capitalism is primarily an economic ideology with political implications.

Sorry, by “persisted” I didn’t mean to imply that it’s the oldest. More that it is surviving where other systems have failed.

No, extreme is the further away an ideology is from centrist/moderate ideologies. At one end of the spectrum is fascism, at the other is communism.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read any of this stuff - do you have a reference for the claim about legal and de facto responsibility?

That being said, I would argue that they are not incompatible but rather that capitalism acts as a constraint on liberty. That being said, it is the economic system in which liberty is maximized relative to any other system. No doubt that’s why it has persisted.

Actually, it sounds more like you’re dismissing a standard political spectrum model to make communism sound less extreme than it is. Would you feel better if I used the word ‘radical’ rather than ‘extreme’?

No, it’s because communism is an extremist ideology. You literally can’t go farther left on the political spectrum than communism. That is the very definition of extremism.

By the way, capitalism is not a political ideology. It’s an economic one. I am a capitalist, but a centrist Libertarian one. I used to consider myself left of center, but the insanity of the left since Oct 7, 2023, has caused me to shift right of center.

I didn’t realize that was even open for debate…

We need less criminalization of speech, not more.

All forms of extremism are bad.

You can’t cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here’s a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it’s a vague term and international laws of war don’t exist?

Gaza isn’t a country, it’s a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.

Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.

They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It’s one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn’t respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.

Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same “international law” that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.

‘Strike’ is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.

Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don’t support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn’t, Israel’s enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.

One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>

No, it literally means nothing other than, “We, the ICJ, can hear this case.”

That’s because we’re discussing the definition of proportionality outside the broader context of the laws of warfare. It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law. So no, it doesn’t just license a group like Hamas to do what they did on the grounds that it helped them achieve their goals.

LOL, it is not the position of most of the world that Hamas is a resistance movement. It is only the position of radical Islamists and Western leftist anarchists.

They are an organization that formed for the purpose of committing genocide and they have been responsible for the barbaric murder of thousands of civilians. They are as terrorist as you can get.

By the way, there is mounting evidence that support among Gazans for peaceful coexistence with Israel is much higher than previously thought. Evidence, for example, that Hamas has been fudging the numbers on their surveys that show otherwise, recent surveys that show much more positive results, and with the death of Sinwar and damage to Hamas, Gazans are starting to speak out against them. If that is indeed true, it destroys the whole “resistance” and “decolonization” narrative since they wouldn’t actually represent the people for whom they claim to be resisting.

Newsflash: lots of these “experts” hate Israel. Same reason why they seem single-mindedly focused on such a tiny country with all the other atrocities and human rights abuses happening around the world. Did you know that just yesterday the Turkish military was bombing the Kurds?

And no, the ICJ did not rule that it is plausible Israel is committing genocide. This is a popular misconception. The former head of the ICJ clarified the ruling: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

“Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”

In other words, the court basically said the case can move forward. That’s it.

Unfortunately, there is no unbiased information about Israel. Even the so-called experts are biased. Israel is arguably the most divisive country on the planet (which seems odd for such a tiny country of only 9 million citizens) and anybody writing about it does so because they have strong opinions about it.

Most people are painfully ignorant about Israel and soak up the propaganda they see on TikTok.

An accusation of genocide is a pretty serious accusation and the onus is on people who make the accusation to prove the case. You don’t get to call it genocide just because you hate Israel.

First of all, he’s not my president. I’m not Israeli.

Second, comments made by certain people in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic terror attack aren’t proof of genocidal intent. He has clarified his position since then.

Also, have you ever wondered why South Africa of all countries brought the case to the ICJ? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that they entertained Hamas leaders as visiting dignitaries a month before they submitted the case?