11 ms·

[flagged]

raxxorraxor 2y ago
Israel has sat pretty quietly for 75 years next to people regularly firing rockets at them and attacking their people. People that don't accept its existence and have a charter that can describe pretty closely what a proper definition of genocide can look like. Something that is far away from the conduct of Israel, even if it isn't perfect.
- gaoryrt 2y ago
  Why did they start firing rockets 75 years ago? Did they just fire it to Israel for no reason?
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    There was Arab nationalism that was allied to Hitler, no even talking about the persecution before. Why do you think Jews fought for independence?
  - locallost 2y ago
    Whatever the reason is, it doesn't matter and you shouldn't bite on that hook. "They are evil and endangering our homeland so we are just in exterminating them" is Nazi rhetoric no matter who it comes from. For whatever reason most people don't get that. I came to live in Germany around 15 years ago during the economic crisis and was pretty shocked that it was normal to say in public that Greeks are lazy. I couldn't understand the difference between that and "Jews are evil" and similar rhetoric that led to the Holocaust. And that in the country that should've learned something from the past. This time around I am not surprised they are fully behind this genocide simply because it's more convenient to look the other way. Shame.
  - nolongerthere 2y ago
    > Did they just fire it to Israel for no reason? No, they had a very good reason: They hate Jews and do not believe Jews have any right to national sovereignty in their own land.
    - racional 2y ago
      They do not believe Jews have any right to national sovereignty in their own land. No - they just don't happen agree with them on the question of whose land it is. You don't have to agree with their historical reading of the situation, of course. But it's really quite straightforward and simple, really. And if people are firing rockets at you -- it's probably best not to invent outlandish and unreal explanations for why they're doing so. In any case -- pretending that the rest of the world obviously and unquestionably accepts the idea that this is all "Jewish land" (now or in 1947) -- or that if they don't, it's because the simply hate Jews, or won't accept the idea of Israel existing in any form -- definitely isn't helpful. (And no, I'm not justifying or "explaining" the firing of rockets at anyone - please don't go there).
      - nolongerthere 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - Beefin 2y ago
    justifying aggression? imagine the Paiute Indians started firing into the Vegas strip.
nolongerthere 2y ago
This is simply false: in their own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI The court ruled that South Africa had plausible standing to bring a case defending Gazans, not that there was plausible genocide. Bringing wikipedia as a source about a very hot topic doesn't lend any support to your argument.
- locallost 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nolongerthere 2y ago
    If you actually listened to what she said you'd know that's not at all what was decided, all they decided was that SA has plausible standing to bring a case. Not that the case itself has any standing. That was left for a future decision.
    - locallost 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - nolongerthere 2y ago
        She was very explicit in her words, there's no need to read into them, she meant exactly what she said. She very clearly stated, they didn't find or make any ruling on the plausibility of genocide, just that it was plausible that they might not be able to be protected in a case where a genocide were to happen. They couldn't honestly claim there was any merit to the claim of genocide, but people were screaming for blood so they did this doublespeak thing where if you squint you can claim they 100% claim genocide is happening to mollify the anti-semites while not actually saying anything. Essentially, she said, "we haven't found a genocide, but were a genocide to be attempted, it would be difficult to prevent" which is true in every single case of war, especially asymmetric warfare, where one side is much stronger than the other. If someone were to bring a case against the US back in 2004 following the invasion of Iraq a similar finding would be totally within reason... but does anyone claim NATO committed genocide? No, but it's plausible that that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Iraqi right to be protected from genocide.

[flagged]

Israel has sat pretty quietly for 75 years next to people regularly firing rockets at them and attacking their people. People that don't accept its existence and have a charter that can describe pretty closely what a proper definition of genocide can look like. Something that is far away from the conduct of Israel, even if it isn't perfect.

gaoryrt 2y ago
Why did they start firing rockets 75 years ago? Did they just fire it to Israel for no reason?
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  There was Arab nationalism that was allied to Hitler, no even talking about the persecution before. Why do you think Jews fought for independence?
- locallost 2y ago
  Whatever the reason is, it doesn't matter and you shouldn't bite on that hook. "They are evil and endangering our homeland so we are just in exterminating them" is Nazi rhetoric no matter who it comes from. For whatever reason most people don't get that. I came to live in Germany around 15 years ago during the economic crisis and was pretty shocked that it was normal to say in public that Greeks are lazy. I couldn't understand the difference between that and "Jews are evil" and similar rhetoric that led to the Holocaust. And that in the country that should've learned something from the past. This time around I am not surprised they are fully behind this genocide simply because it's more convenient to look the other way. Shame.
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  > Did they just fire it to Israel for no reason? No, they had a very good reason: They hate Jews and do not believe Jews have any right to national sovereignty in their own land.
  - racional 2y ago
    They do not believe Jews have any right to national sovereignty in their own land. No - they just don't happen agree with them on the question of whose land it is. You don't have to agree with their historical reading of the situation, of course. But it's really quite straightforward and simple, really. And if people are firing rockets at you -- it's probably best not to invent outlandish and unreal explanations for why they're doing so. In any case -- pretending that the rest of the world obviously and unquestionably accepts the idea that this is all "Jewish land" (now or in 1947) -- or that if they don't, it's because the simply hate Jews, or won't accept the idea of Israel existing in any form -- definitely isn't helpful. (And no, I'm not justifying or "explaining" the firing of rockets at anyone - please don't go there).
    - nolongerthere 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- Beefin 2y ago
  justifying aggression? imagine the Paiute Indians started firing into the Vegas strip.

nolongerthere 2y ago

This is simply false: in their own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI The court ruled that South Africa had plausible standing to bring a case defending Gazans, not that there was plausible genocide. Bringing wikipedia as a source about a very hot topic doesn't lend any support to your argument.

locallost 2y ago
[flagged]
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  If you actually listened to what she said you'd know that's not at all what was decided, all they decided was that SA has plausible standing to bring a case. Not that the case itself has any standing. That was left for a future decision.
  - locallost 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nolongerthere 2y ago
      She was very explicit in her words, there's no need to read into them, she meant exactly what she said. She very clearly stated, they didn't find or make any ruling on the plausibility of genocide, just that it was plausible that they might not be able to be protected in a case where a genocide were to happen. They couldn't honestly claim there was any merit to the claim of genocide, but people were screaming for blood so they did this doublespeak thing where if you squint you can claim they 100% claim genocide is happening to mollify the anti-semites while not actually saying anything. Essentially, she said, "we haven't found a genocide, but were a genocide to be attempted, it would be difficult to prevent" which is true in every single case of war, especially asymmetric warfare, where one side is much stronger than the other. If someone were to bring a case against the US back in 2004 following the invasion of Iraq a similar finding would be totally within reason... but does anyone claim NATO committed genocide? No, but it's plausible that that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Iraqi right to be protected from genocide.