- cross-posted to:
- world
- cross-posted to:
- world
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s antisemitic to notice Israel’s crimes against humanity.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
rguing about the October 7 attack being the biggest planned mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, when that’s just a fact…
It’s not (for now). October 7th was an attack against military targets, and we still don’t know how many Israelis IDF forces killed. We need that information before saying things like this.
Those were some very weak arguments by Israel. It is hard to see 1,700 as genocide and 23,000, ~10k being children, as “oopsies” or necessary and not genocide.
This might work. Compared to criticism of Apartheid, you can’t criticize the Israeli government. If you do you’re an antisemite that supports terrorism.
From the comfort of my home in the States, Israel’s response to being attacked is disproportionate af and is galvanizing the world against it. Which isn’t great for a nation surrounded by enemies. They need friends and sooner or later even for the US this will be beyond the pale.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While Israel’s lawyers made legal arguments that the genocide charges leveled against it are invalid, their primary strategy was to appeal to the court on jurisdictional and procedural matters, hoping that they could form the basis for the panel of international judges to dismiss South Africa’s case.
Israel’s representative Tal Becker opened his government’s rebuttal by telling the judges at the ICJ that South Africa’s case “profoundly distorted the factual and legal picture,” claiming it sought to erase Jewish history.
Becker neglected to mention the fact that Netanyahu himself long advocated for Hamas to retain power in Gaza and worked to ensure the flow of money to the group from Qatar continued over the years, believing it to be the best strategy to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Shaw called this characterization as “outrageous” and said the only relevant historical “context” were the events of October 7, which he termed “the real genocide in this situation.” Given the civilian death toll caused by Israel in Gaza — upward of 23,000 as of this week — it was a stunning statement.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” Shaw argued there was “no need here for a theological discussion.” South Africa, he charged, took Netanyahu’s words out of context and failed to include the portion of his statement where he emphasized that the IDF was the “most moral army in the world” and “does everything to avoid harming the uninvolved.” The implication of Shaw’s argument is that Netanyahu’s platitudes about the nobility of the IDF somehow nullified the significance of invoking a violent biblical edict to describe a military operation against people Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant described as “human animals.”
South Africa, in its argument on Thursday, contended that by refusing to cease its operations, Israel was ensuring that the pile of Palestinian corpses would continue to grow alongside the amputations of limbs without anesthesia and babies dying of treatable illnesses.
The original article contains 3,020 words, the summary contains 335 words. Saved 89%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
What does anyone expect either side to do here?
That’s easy. Stop occupying Palestine. That’s been Palestinians’ demand for more than 50 years. The idea that this conflict is hopeless is embedded in the notion that the status quo needs to stay, which tends to ignore the fact that the status quo puts Palestinians in an open-air concentration camp and a bunch of Bantustans.
Ya. This only ends one of two ways, either Israel succeeds in killing /displacing the people of Gaza (West Bank and Golem Heights next) and fills it with people loyal to them, or they stop the occupation. Terrorist groups don’t do well in stable, prosperous nations. If they really want Hamas and groups like them gone forever, they will have to take the winds out of their sails by letting the Palestinians have a real government with real control over itself. Even if they meet their stated goal of “destroying Hamas”, it (or another similar but even more extreme) group will take over.
Terrorist groups don’t do well in stable, prosperous nations.
take the winds out of their sails by letting the Palestinians have a real government with real control over itself
Now that’s the kinda hope I was looking for! Can’t see Israel going for that, but that’s a solid solution. Devil and details and all, but a prosperous Palestine would suck for the terrorists.
But keep in mind, the Arab world does not want a prosperous Palestine. For exactly the reasons you stated.
Well, whatever I had to say was removed by mod. Fine.
Israel will never agree to leaving Palestine alone. Never. Would you agree if you were an Israeli living in Israel? And it appears the western world will back them up, full stop, no holds barred.
So again, how does this end? It seems so hopeless.
(And having a perfectly sane comment deleted without comment kinda backs me up. A person can’t even question what’s going on, look for answers, without being deleted for… taking sides? Or NOT taking sides?)
Israel will never agree to leaving Palestine alone. Never.
Yeah. Which is why the resistance exists.
And it appears the western world will back them up, full stop, no holds barred.
It seems that’s been changing since October 7th. Supporting Israel is more controversial than ever before.
I see what you’re coming from, and while things are bad they’re not that hopeless. Hell, we might actually see something happen if BDS gains more momentum.
Sure was a lot more comments in here a minute ago. Hmmm…
Removed by mod
Wow, your quote is taken entirely out of context. Not even sure what you’re point is supposed to be…
Removed by mod
Still ignoring context. But that’s fine, because any article critical is Israel is obviously written in bad faith, huh?
Whatever. If suggest touching grass, but that’d probably be toxic for the grass, and the environment is already messed up enough already…
So then tell me about that context…
“I don’t want to hear it, so you most be toxic” isn’t context. That’s just you being part of the team “Cheerleading for terrorism”.
Says the guy cheerleading genocide committed by an authoritarian regime. Why do you even care that I, a complete stranger, an critical of their actions? If you’re so confident in “your” conclusions, why would you be threatened by somebody whose life as literally no chance of affecting you?
As much as I want to believe words exist to knock some sense into you, I give up. (Anyone else wanna bet how long he sits and fumes about my refusal to abandon my beliefs to replace them with the party line? Probably spent the entire day between my response and his angrily trying to come up with the perfect rebuttal.)
Go ahead buddy, scream into the wind. You ain’t got anything to say worth listening for…
Says the guy cheerleading genocide committed by an authoritarian regime.
Problem is I didn’t. I called out bad journalism. Because bullshit narratives and tribalism make any actual discussion meaningless.
But then your see something that is seemingly criticising “your team” and instantly your delusions get triggered and you hallucinate how I “cheerlead for genocide” when I did actually not say anything other than that this report is polemic low quality bullshit.
Murdering children by the thousands is not self defense.
Bombing hospitals and refugee camps is not self defense.
Shooting shirtless Israeli hostages is not self defense.
Is there a limit for you? Can Israel kill as many people as it wants, bury as many babies in rubble as it wants, and its justified? Is there a line? If there is, I want you to put a hard number on it. Because I don’t think there is. I think Israel can expel all of Gaza’s citizens into neighboring countries and annex the territory, and you’ll still say its justified. I don’t think you have a limit.
There is a very clear and limit and number. It’s zero. Zero people should be bombed. Zero people would be bombed without a despicable terror attack against Israel (oh, wait… as I just learned in this very thread here this never actually happened and it was a legitimate military attack against military targets somehow…). Zero people would be bombed without Hamas using the population as human shields. Also zero people should have been killed on October 7. Zero rockets should be fired each day at Israel. And zero neighbouring countries or factions should cheer for a newe excuse to attack Israel.
Do you want to know another relevance regarding that number? If you have no ability to argue without questioning the general right of Israel to exist, without questioning any right of self defense, without questionings if Israel was actually attacked, and without falling back to a “oh, the evil Jews are plotting together with corrupt world leaders again…”-narratives, then you have zero valid arguments, because you are a fucking anti-semite.
And then you have zero legitimacy to argue
So, again. Slowly this time because you -probably intentionally, but I’m an optimist by heart- seemed to have missed it: This pile of shit is not journalism. It would be low effort even for an opinion piece, which it isn’t. It’s full of polemics, lies and can’t even manage too stay internally consistent (a “litany” of arguments is at the same time not existing, facts become claims when mentioned by Israel, while claims become facts when it’s against them…) or free of anti-semite narratives.
I know… in this world where arguing about people killing each other has become a team sport and everything needs to be black and white it’s nearly inconceivable but… Pause for a moment, take a deep breath and try to imagine just for one moment the following -nowadays neartly heretical- thought: Israel’s government can be a clownshow of genocidal morons, Hamas is the exact same, and at the same time 70%+ of the people arguing against Israel are still doing so not based on facts but on anti-semitic narratives. And those people need to called out on their bullshit. Because not doing it devaluates the actual discussion. If I can’t call out bullshit arguments as bullshit without being attacked for supporting a genocide, how is this or any discussion (or any court case) legitimate, if we all see clearly that it’s not about the arguments but a popularity contest between two teams.
Which is what I did. I called this trashy piece of non-journalism out. And for this I now have been called insane, toxic and a supporter of genocide. Because you are brain-washed into believing this is a team sport, so you happily accept anti-semites on your team that is obviously better than the enemy… Guess what. It’s not. You are both wrong.
Sorry to tell you, but team “I accept anti-semitism, lies and bullshit and ignore Hamas, because I’m pro-Palestine” is just as insane as team “Every crticism is anti-semitism, “targeted area bombing” and deportation plans aren’t crazy”.
