4 ms·

Just so everyone's clear "(In a Good Way)" means heavily biased against Israel. Not that there's any shortage of articles biased the other way. For example, "

Just so everyone's clear "(In a Good Way)" means heavily biased against Israel. Not that there's any shortage of articles biased the other way. For example, "While the court was in session, Germany has announced it will intervene in the substantial case to support Israel. They argue explicitly that, as the world’s greatest perpetrator of genocide, they are uniquely placed to judge. It is in effect a copyright claim. They are protecting Germany’s intellectual property in the art of genocide. Perhaps they might in future license genocide, or allow Israel to continue genocide on a franchise basis." This does not appear meant to be funny, but just to unceasingly insult anyone he considers to be supportive of Israel in this case. The rest of the article is more of the same. And, for example, the South African complaint is clearly rushed and contains literal Hamas propaganda, which this author sees no problem with.

botanical 3y ago
It is essentially that now isn't it? Germany has failed to see past their own atrocities and now fail to call out Apartheid Israel in their genocide in Palestine. 25 000+ people have been killed in Gaza, the majority women and children. That is 1% of the population, or in American terms 3 million people killed in 3 months. The Hamas rhetoric is a lazy excuse for their atrocities. Hamas didn't make them bomb indiscriminately. In fact, they even mistakenly killed their own hostages. This shows they don't care for any life in Gaza. They just want to depopulate Gaza through genocide or ethnic cleansing. Hamas wouldn't exist same as uMkhonto we Sizwe doesn't exist since Apartheid in South Africa was abolished.
PoignardAzur 3y ago
I meam, accusations of bias aside, he's making points about both parties' statements of facts, isn't he? On one side, you have one party citing thousands of dead children, countless civilian targets getting shelled, and ministers and soldiers making explicit statements that they want to wipe out the people of Gaza and take their lands. On the other, the Israeli state saying those children were child soldiers, and the numbers are probably fake (but we won't let journalists in to make any kind of estimate), and all those civilian targets were actually military, hospitals and journalists and all, and all the public officials calling for genocide didn't really mean it. Maybe Mr Murray's account is omitting some points or bending the truth or wrong about the truthfulness of some claims, in which case I'd appreciate factual rebuttals. But otherwise, I think he makes a pretty good point that the Israeli delegation is full of shit, and the SA delegation is right to call this the beginning of a genocide.

botanical 3y ago

It is essentially that now isn't it? Germany has failed to see past their own atrocities and now fail to call out Apartheid Israel in their genocide in Palestine. 25 000+ people have been killed in Gaza, the majority women and children. That is 1% of the population, or in American terms 3 million people killed in 3 months. The Hamas rhetoric is a lazy excuse for their atrocities. Hamas didn't make them bomb indiscriminately. In fact, they even mistakenly killed their own hostages. This shows they don't care for any life in Gaza. They just want to depopulate Gaza through genocide or ethnic cleansing. Hamas wouldn't exist same as uMkhonto we Sizwe doesn't exist since Apartheid in South Africa was abolished.

PoignardAzur 3y ago

I meam, accusations of bias aside, he's making points about both parties' statements of facts, isn't he? On one side, you have one party citing thousands of dead children, countless civilian targets getting shelled, and ministers and soldiers making explicit statements that they want to wipe out the people of Gaza and take their lands. On the other, the Israeli state saying those children were child soldiers, and the numbers are probably fake (but we won't let journalists in to make any kind of estimate), and all those civilian targets were actually military, hospitals and journalists and all, and all the public officials calling for genocide didn't really mean it. Maybe Mr Murray's account is omitting some points or bending the truth or wrong about the truthfulness of some claims, in which case I'd appreciate factual rebuttals. But otherwise, I think he makes a pretty good point that the Israeli delegation is full of shit, and the SA delegation is right to call this the beginning of a genocide.