4 ms·
They don’t offer exemptions on human rights if you have the right motive. Human rights are supposed to be kept regardless of past wrongs. So what happened to Is
by runarberg 3y ago
They don’t offer exemptions on human rights if you have the right motive. Human rights are supposed to be kept regardless of past wrongs. So what happened to Israel prior to their violations of international agreements is irrelevant. The double standard here is that both Russia and Israel are guilty of breaking human rights but instead of ordering sanctions against Israel, many nations offered them more weapons to double down on their atrocities. And in fact Israel’s crimes against humanity far exceed those of Russia. So the double standard is even amplified.
EDIT: Executive’s director of Human Rights Watch on the international double standard https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047 https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047
- tptacek 3y agoYou're rebutting an argument I didn't make. Not being like Russia doesn't excuse war crimes.
- runarberg 3y agoSorry, I’m not that good at making my argument clear. What I’m rebutting—or rather making a poor attempt to rebut—is your hinting that the international double standard doesn’t exist, or at the very least is understandable. The interviewee in the al-Jazeera interview makes a much better argument for the existence, the importance of recognizing, and the inexcusableness of this international double standard, better than I ever could.
- tptacek 3y agoThe international double standard does not in fact exist. The two situations are not comparable. That observation does not exonerate Israel.
- runarberg 3y agoThis particular criticism is not directed at Israel, but at countries supporting Israel, such as the USA and the UK. The point is that human rights violations are enabled and even supported by third countries when Israel is the perpetrator, but not when Russia is the perpetrator.
- tptacek 3y agoAgain: the situations are not comparable. Russia was unprovoked and has a stated objective of annexing a sovereign country. Israel is in fact under military threat (was, in fact, attacked, gravely), from territory it has occupied since 1967. It is unsurprising that the international responses are not equivalent. A short way to sum this up is: regardless of the distaste many in the west (myself included) have for the means by which Israel is pursuing it's goal, the west is unanimous in support of that actual goal: no western state believes Hamas should be left to govern Gaza, even as many probably do quietly hope to haul Netanyahu to the Hague (if the Israelis don't imprison him first). Meanwhile: every western state actively, viscerally opposes Russia's goal.
- runarberg 3y agoAgain: When it comes to crimes against humanity, that doesn’t matter. Signatories to the Geneva convention convention are expected to uphold international humanitarian laws even when greater crimes are committed against them. The same applies to the Genocide convention. The international community is supposed to punish signatories which violate these convention, and in the case of Israel, they routinely don’t.
- tptacek 3y agoIt in fact matters a great deal, as you can see.
- runarberg 3y ago[flagged]
- tptacek 3y agoNo, I'm saying that military aid to Ukraine and Israel are orthogonal to international criminal concerns about the way both conflicts are being prosecuted. Everything you wrote following the word "should" was abusive. Please don't write things like that; I've done nothing to merit incivility from you.