3 ms·
In this purely hypothetical universe -- in which the Israeli government was acting in an at least arguably rational fashion in regard to securing a timely relea
by racional 2y ago
In this purely hypothetical universe -- in which the Israeli government was acting in an at least arguably rational fashion in regard to securing a timely release of the hostages, and protecting the security of citizens otherwise; in which it wasn't concurrently stepping up its rampage in the West Bank because it thinks the world will be distracted by the much greater number of bodies piling up in Gaza; in which there was no Dahiya Doctrine --
What we have here is the "They're just going to criticize / hate Israel no matter what it does" defense which has been raised as a blanket response to pretty much any robust criticism of what Israel does, for several decades. Or to paraphrase only slightly how you put it: "Israel's existence is the problem, serious criticisms about what it does are tools for its dismantling."
So to answer your question - of course no, I don't buy it. And yes, fundamentally the current response would be very different. There wouldn't be an ICJ case; there wouldn't be calls for sanctions against units like Netzah Yehuda for doing what they're currently doing out here in the real, actual world; etc.
If not, what is the mechanism by which the world could tell the difference? What trustworthy organization would impartially inform us all that there is no genocide in a way that you yourself would believe it?
The same organizations that are the obvious answer to this question (independent journalists and human rights groups in and outside of Israel; UN bodies; forensic analysis teams, etc).
In short, yes - in this science fiction universe, it would be a very different response. You're not going to agree of course, and that's fine.
Your other bullet points seem to be ancillary: no one is acting on what Hamas is claiming about the ongoing genocide, for example. And the Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a huge red herring (even Israeli military intelligence considers them to be generally reliable and uses them in their briefings; US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc).
- rendall 2y ago> Your other bullet points seem to be ancillary: no one is acting on what Hamas is claiming about the ongoing genocide, for example. And Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a huge red herring (even Israeli military intelligence considers them to be generally reliable and uses them in their briefings; US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc). Far from being "ancillary" or a "red herring", the Gaza Health Ministry statistics are central to the accusations against Israel of genocide. Weird you would even say that. And, no, neither Israel nor "Israeli intelligence" considers Gazan Health Ministry statistics accurate [1]. That's another weird thing to say. As for "US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc" I only found a single quote from a single US official, from one Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary of State, implying this [2]. I also found a quote from the same Voice of America article that "President Joe Biden has openly questioned figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas, which the U.S. classifies as a terrorist group" so... It's odd that you made so many hrm... exaggerations in such a short response. It's almost like you don't care about the accuracy of your statements? Surely that cannot be true. > etc Etc? What is the etc? You wouldn't have only two things to say and then write "etc" to imply there's more, would you? I refuse to believe it. [1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fat... [2] https://www.voanews.com/a/us-stands-firm-with-israel-amid-conflict-state-department-tells-voa/7348837.html https://www.voanews.com/a/us-stands-firm-with-israel-amid-co...
- racional 2y agoThe key part of Leaf's acknowledgment (which came some weeks after what Biden said) is where she added that the US has sources from a "variety of folks who are on the ground". Meaning they had independent confirmation that had been vetted by internal analysts.
- rendall 2y agoLol. Noo... you have no more context than I do. You're just making shit up.