Antisemitism is becoming a meaningless term, specially when they accuse Arabs of it.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32319 readers
816 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Can trees or weeds be "anti-semetic" because they might grow on some Jew's backyard? What about snow? Can snow be anti-semetic because said Jew dislikes having to shove snow? Can Nature iself be anti-semetic according to this Logic, argued by the Israeli government?
Pretty sure Israelis and Jewish people elsewhere don't like being called "Jews" these days.
See, the issue here is the fact you're using logic, that's not how Zionism rolls unfortunately.
The ruling did not instruct “ Israel to refrain from killing and harming Palestinians in the interim.”, as the article says, instead it only instructed to minimize civilian casualties as much as Israel can, according to the rules of war.
The rule also established that there are some characteristics of current situation described by SA that coincide with some characteristics of genocide, thus establishing disagreement between SA and Israel.
I see the current ruling as fair and actually favorable to Israel, since it does not call to stop war, nor calls the situation genocide.
But of course it does not prevent elements on both sides to claim some sort of victory and blame the other side for various sins and play victim at the same time.
Such world we live in.
south africa didn't get everything it wanted and the ruling was mostly a nothing burger since it was just a warning to israel that it is bound by the genocide convention, however you cannot say the ruling was in favor of israel as israel lost on almost all fronts. israel wanted this case to be thrown out on jurisdictional reasons which didn't happen, they claimed that no sensible actor could perceive actions of israel as genocidal which was refuted by court, and most important of all they used statements made by israeli officials as indication of genocidal intent, which israel claimed was solely aimed at hamas (it was not everyone with at least 3 brain cells could've recognized that). even if court ordered more immediate measures israel and its allies wouldn't follow them, so nothing really lost there.
all and all it was a medium sized propaganda win for the anti-zionist side since it questioned the absolute support western countries have thrown behind israel. human right watches and NGOs saying you may be doing genocide is one thing, an internationally recognized arbitration court saying it is a different thing. i doubt nothing will come out of it but still nice to have.
I will argue it is a good thing for Israel too, since it’s right wing government will behave more carefully.
ah yes behave more carefully so that they don't get caught committing a genocide lmao. since everyone cut funding to UNRWA after this ruling, i don't think so. are they gonna arrest people that prevented aid trucks from coming in? are they gonna fire people that made genocidal statements? is there any sort of investigation in the military as to prevent war crimes and possible genocidal conduct? i somehow doubt after almost 4 months of doing a genocide they are suddenly going to change course.
More carefully means have less civilian casualties, which is a good thing for everyone. As for firing people - they are elected officials, I do not think it is possible to fire them, but they will shut up. Nearly every democratically elected parliament/congress has extreme members. Israel is no different. The problem is that while they are still a fringe in Israel, they are powerful fringe. This ruling helps to reduce their power. Again, a good thing for everyone, including for Israel.
Part one...'killing members of the group... ' '... Causing serious bodily harm to members of the group '
The order then says to stop doing everything in part one.
The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in
accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza,
take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article
II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; ...
Please note that the court does not state that Israel did not take measures to ensure that.
The order was to stop genocide. The other option was to throw the case out.
The language is purposely broad for legal reasons, but apparently, people are taking it's broadness as a win for Israel.
This was definitely not a win for Israel.
No, the court did not recognize that there is genocide, thus it cannot give the order to stop. The court recognized that there might be a genocide, thus the case will proceed. The other two options were - there is no genocide (through the case away) and there is genocide. But none of these options were realized.
The court also reminded that there shouldn’t be genocide (but without stating that there is)
it's disgusting that those in charge in israel are using what was done to their people in the 30s and 40s as a universal shield for when they commit atrocities. you can't tell any israeli they're doing bad or else you get accused of being antisemitic. you can't negotiate anything that way unless israel gets everything they want.
You can speak up if you believe in monotheism or atheist. Then you’re not considered an anti-semite.
I mean, Hitler was Christian so I'm pretty sure that's not true.
That's not how that works
Funniest shit I've read all day