Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Quote:Being a threat is always justification for self-defense. Otherwise no one would be able to defend themselves until it's too late. You're even ignorant of basic self-defense law. You're an ignorant antisemite.

LOL Attacking before you have even been attacked is not self-defense at all. It's called assault and is clearly offensive and never justified based on the assumed probability of an attack. Of course throwing out all the Geneva convention's rules of war is no problem when you are just trying to excuse everything Israel does, is it? That's the basic MAGA tactic---keep mindlessly defending immoral actions to the point that you have lost all sense of morality. Zombified sheep always cheering on the wolf's latest attack.

(Apr 25, 2026 04:04 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Being a threat is always justification for self-defense. Otherwise no one would be able to defend themselves until it's too late. You're even ignorant of basic self-defense law. You're an ignorant antisemite.

LOL Attacking before you have even been attacked is not self-defense at all. It's called assault and is clearly offensive and never justified based on the assumed probability of an attack. Of course throwing out all the Geneva convention's rules of war is no problem when you are just trying to excuse everything Israel does, is it? That's the basic MAGA tactic---keep mindlessly defending immoral actions to the point that you have lost all sense of morality. Zombified sheep always cheering on the wolf's latest attack.

As usual, you're legally illiterate.

Legal self-defense allows the use of reasonable, proportional force to protect oneself or others from imminent, unlawful harm. Key principles include an immediate threat, necessity of action, and proportional response.

Core Legal Principles

Imminence: The danger must be happening right now, not in the past or future.
Proportionality: The force used must match the threat level. Deadly force is only justified to prevent death or great bodily harm.
Reasonableness: A "reasonable person" in the same situation would believe force was necessary.
Initial Aggressor: You cannot claim self-defense if you initiated the confrontation.
- Gemini

You can be in danger, from an imminent threat of death or great harm, without waiting for an actual assault that may kill you outright... removing any possibility of self-defense. If someone is armed and threatening death or great harm and you reasonable believe they will act, you are justified using deadly force in self-defense.

As I said, Israel had already been attacked, in most cases, with the credible threat of more or new imminent attacks. When someone tells you they want to eradicate you, has the means to do so, and moves to position that means for an attack, you have a textbook definition of justified self-defense.

Again, 4 million Germans, including women, children, and civilian infrastructure were killed/destroyed in Germany. If none of those are war crimes, you're a hypocrite antisemite.


Zombie sheep never learn basic laws and just parrot what hateful antisemites tell them to think.

---

---

Quote:Imminence: The danger must be happening right now, not in the past or future.

So the mere possibility that there may be danger in the future is not a justification for bombing a country.

Quote:Proportionality: The force used must match the threat level. Deadly force is only justified to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Since the danger isn't even imminent, there is no proportionality in a pre-emptive bombing strike.

Quote:"Initial Aggressor: You cannot claim self-defense if you initiated the confrontation."

Oopsie.. IOW, you can't bomb a country just because you feel threatened.

(Apr 25, 2026 04:34 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Imminence: The danger must be happening right now, not in the past or future.

So the mere possibility that there may be danger in the future is not a justification for bombing a country.

Hamas rockets or Egyptian armies are not some future hypothetical danger. They are imminent threats.

Quote:

Quote:Proportionality: The force used must match the threat level. Deadly force is only justified to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Since the danger isn't even imminent, there is no proportionality in a pre-emptive bombing strike.

Since you're so ignorant, this point is moot.

Quote:

Quote:"Initial Aggressor: You cannot claim self-defense if you initiated the confrontation."

Oopsie.. IOW, you can't bomb a country just because you feel threatened.

Yes, you can. The initial aggressor is not the one who acts first, it's the one who makes the credible threat first.

Yes, a threat is considered a form of aggression. Aggression is defined as any verbal or physical action intended to cause harm, intimidate, or control others, which includes direct threats, intimidation, and hostile behavior meant to cause fear or damage. Threats serve as a precursor to or a component of violent behavior.
- Gemini

Quote:Yes, a threat is considered a form of aggression. Aggression is defined as any verbal or physical action intended to cause harm, intimidate, or control others, which includes direct threats, intimidation, and hostile behavior meant to cause fear or damage. Threats serve as a precursor to or a component of violent behavior.

But Israel themselves concede there are no "verbal threats" being made to attack them. People who are going to bomb you do not generally broadcast that they are going to that. So there's only a vague and non-specific possibility of being attacked called an "existential threat". Like the very existence of that country or group poses a threat, demanding that they be no longer allowed to exist. Which is the perfect rationale for unprovoked attacks and even long term genocide.

(Apr 25, 2026 11:15 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Yes, a threat is considered a form of aggression. Aggression is defined as any verbal or physical action intended to cause harm, intimidate, or control others, which includes direct threats, intimidation, and hostile behavior meant to cause fear or damage. Threats serve as a precursor to or a component of violent behavior.

But Israel themselves concede there are no "verbal threats" being made to attack them. People who are going to bomb you do not generally broadcast that they are going to that. So there's only a vague and non-specific possibility of being attacked called an "existential threat". Like the very existence of that country or group poses a threat, demanding that they be no longer allowed to exist. Which is the perfect rationale for unprovoked attacks and even long term genocide.

When and where did Israel concede that? Egypt made existential threats. Hamas, Iran, etc. constantly chanted "death to Israel." Even if not, amassing rockets only fired at Israel and armies at the Israel border are clear and present dangers. There's nothing vague about those actions.

Sounds like you're just lying again. Both about Israel conceding that there were no expressed threats and that Israel has ever attacked anyone for simply existing. Is the lying that pathological or are you just an average antisemite? @_@

If Palestinians merely being an existential threat is sufficient justification for unprovoked attacks by Israel,
why isn't Israel having nukes an existential threat for the Palestinians living in apartheid Israel since the past 75 years? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(Apr 26, 2026 12:28 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]If Palestinians merely being an existential threat is sufficient justification for unprovoked attacks by Israel,...

An existential threat (from Hamas, not Palestinians) and the means to do so justifies provoked attacks.

Quote:...why isn't Israel having nukes an existential threat for the Palestinians living in apartheid Israel since the past 75 years? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Because Israel has never threatened the existence of all Palestinians. They've only responded to threats and actual attacks on Israel. Israel has never attacked anyone for simply being Palestinian, yet Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. regularly attack Israel for simply being Jews.

Quote:Because Israel has never threatened the existence of all Palestinians. They've only responded to threats and actual attacks on Israel. Israel has never attacked anyone for simply being Palestinian, yet Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. regularly attack Israel for simply being Jews

Wrong..Israel and Arabs have been at each other's throats for over a century, with the Arab Palestinians being no exception. It seems you are overdue a little history lesson here:

"Since the declaration of Israel's establishment in 1948, conflict has existed between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, rooted in conflict over territory also claimed by Palestinian Arabs.[15] Zionists viewed the region of Palestine as the Jewish ancestral homeland, while Arabs saw it as Arab Palestinian land and an essential part of the Arab world. By 1920, sectarian conflict had begun with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the partition of Ottoman Syria by the 1916 Sykes–Picot treaty between Britain and France that became the basis for the Mandate for Palestine and the 1917 Balfour Declaration that expressed British support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

The intercommunal violence escalated into civil war in 1947 after the United Nations' adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine, and then into an international war in 1948 with the May 14 declaration of the establishment of Israel, the expiration of British Mandate at midnight, and the entry of Arab regular armies the following morning. The 1948 Palestine war ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established the Green Line. More wars followed in 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982.

Several peace treaties and other diplomatic and economic accords were signed over the subsequent half-century. In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative,[16] although diplomatic activity between Israel and individual Arab countries involved ceasefires and later formal relations with some. By 2020, the Abraham Accords further calmed relations.[17] Conflicts between Israel and various Palestinian factions ebbed and flowed, including the 1987–1993 First Intifada, Israel's intervention in the 1975–1990 Lebanese Civil War to oust the Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon, the 2000–2005 Second Intifada, the 2011–2024 Syrian civil war, and most recently the October 7 attacks in 2023 and ensuing Gaza war."--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80...i_conflict

As for the persecution and human rights violations of Israel on Palestinians, the history of that is clear:

AI Overview:

"Israeli authorities have been accused of committing crimes against humanity, including apartheid and persecution, against Palestinians through systematic oppression, illegal settlement expansion, and severe movement restrictions. Significant evidence points to unlawful killings, forced displacement, and destruction of property, particularly in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Apartheid System: Human Rights Watch reports that Israel maintains a system of domination over Palestinians through fragmented territory, unequal legal systems, and land confiscation.

Forced Displacement & Settlements: Israel continues to destroy Palestinian homes and villages to build illegal settlements, particularly in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, resulting in mass displacement.

Gaza Blockade & Military Operations: The blockade of Gaza is described as a form of collective punishment. Since October 2023, military campaigns have caused massive civilian displacement and destruction, with reports of war crimes including forced displacement and potential ethnic cleansing.

Detention & Violence: Thousands of Palestinians are held in administrative detention without charge.

Reports indicate torture, sexual violence, and inhumane treatment in detention facilities.
Historical Context: The United Nations defines the ongoing displacement and dispossession of Palestinians since the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe) as a continuous policy.

Recent Developments (2024–2026):

Expansion in West Bank: Settlement activity accelerated in 2025, with increased settler violence often backed by security forces, leading to a record number of displaced Palestinians.

Gaza Crisis: Since October 2023, Israeli forces have initiated severe military actions resulting in over 90% of Gaza's population being displaced and severe shortages of food and medical care.

Detention Crisis: As of 2026, over 11,000 Palestinians, including children, are reported to be in detention, with reports of numerous deaths in custody.

For comprehensive,, detailed, and regularly updated information on this topic, refer to the Wikipedia article "Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel"--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ..._by_Israel