this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
180 points (97.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43963 readers
2225 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a yes or no question.
Are you willing to accept the ICJ's ruling when they ultimately reject your claim of genocide?
Not if the government in question is completely restricting access to food medicine and potable water to a population it considers problematic.
But, you certainly won't either. You certainly don't now that the ICJ has found Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
Plausible is what the recent case was about, if you actually read.
It was too determine if South Africa has standing, and if it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide for a full trial. As a result of its finding, it called on Israel to stop killing Palestinian civilians and to preserve evidence for the eventual trial.
Asking me if I will agree with their finding is pointless, as it will be years before the trial is finished.
So, now that you know that the ICJ has found it plausible, will you stop accusing people who claim Israel is committing genocide are antisemitic, or are you willing to admit that claim came solely from nationalism in bad faith?
You are using plausible to mean likely, i'm just wondering if the ICJ's quotes are using the word in the same way you are.
A problem I am having is whenever I ask for actual quotes and their context, i am either ghosted or bullied.
Do your own research. That was literally the point of the court hearing.
It's why they ordered Israel to preserve evidence.
Seriously, watch all three presentations. It's worth doing. Unless you don't want your obvious world view destroyed.
If you don't want to be `bullied' (although, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd use that word for people defending themselves from your accusations of antisemitism due to them pointing out a genocide), then don't attack people with the bad faith accusation of antisemitism.
You still haven't answered the question.
Come on, I answered yours. It's your turn.
What would it take for you to admit that recognizing a genocide isn't antisemitism?
If the ICJ stated genocide is likely happening, those quotes exist and would be used by you to bolster their case.
I think.you are essentially just makinf your argument on the vibe of your reading of the international.courts, and not what is documented. Am i correct?
I think you are refusing to do any research on something you aren't willing to change your mind about. I think nothing would change your mind, so you didn't even bother watching any of the three parts of the hearing because you already knew what you would believe.
Your method of doing that is to never state a clear opinion, not engage in any logic, and respond to everything with questions.
I'll follow suit. What do you think the purpose of that hearing was, and what do you think the conclusion was for the hearing?
But, as per my previous paragraph, I'd bet you didn't even watch it.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that I'm asking you questions regarding your claims instead of just arguing at you or outright accepting them without question. I imagine I can be frustrating when you are wanting one of those two options and I won't provide it.
But you are bringing forth accusations, millenia old accusations, and they should be examined.
As for what I think the conclusion of the hearings was, we have not concluded the proceedings whatsoever and anybody claiming determinations have been released is being dishonest.
I'm giving you every opportunity to discuss this without hyperbolism.
I got bored. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227397107/icj-finds-genocide-case-against-israel-plausible-orders-it-to-stop-violations That is literally the first hit from google. I know you won't read it, but you should.
You should also really watch South Africa's presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3
And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv
We do know the conclusion to the prelimenary hearing to determine if Israel is plausibly committing genocide, which is what has happened so far. Pretending that that hasn't happened is just bad faith arguing from a bigot.
Have fun justifying people starving to death with bellies full of grass caused by a government found by the ICJ to plausibly be committing genocide.
They have been. You're ignoring anything that gives an answer you don't like, and accusing the people who have paid attention of being antisemites, cheapening the word for actual antisemitism.
Last week the first children (cause children always die first from starvation) died from starvation.
Say it with me: Israel is committing genocide you bigoted fuck.
I got bored: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227397107/icj-finds-genocide-case-against-israel-plausible-orders-it-to-stop-violations
That is literally the first hit from google. I know you wonβt read it, but you should.
You should also really watch South Africaβs presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3
And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv