this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
18 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
112 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you supply someone with a weapon that you know will be used to kill their spouse, you will be charged with murder.
Unsurprisingly, this isn't true.
There's actually a much more accurate fleshing out of analogy that could be made -- helping a friend in a violent situation, and enabling them to do violent criminal things but still trying to stop them once it came to the point of killing, and what crime you'd get charged with for that -- but that construction would lead in the direction of nuance, so juicy doesn't want that.
US: Here's a bullet. Please don't use it to kill a child.
Israel: I'll do what I want.
Israel shoots a toddler.
US: Oh, why'd you do that?! Here's another bullet. This time, please only use it for legitimate self-defence.
Israel: That was self-defence.
Israel shoots a baby
Bystander: Stop that!
US: (to bystander) Mind your own business. (to Israel) Here's another bullet. Now please, no more kids.
Israel shoots pregnant mother
...
...
Is that nuanced enough for you?
This analysis, I pretty much exactly agree with. That all makes it notable that under Biden they put sanctions on settlers for the first time in history and didn't veto a security council attempt to reign in Israel for the first time I'm aware of.
Is that enough? No. Does it excuse 5 months of exactly what you're describing, is it any help to someone whose child starved to death while Biden was gradually coming around in his own time, does it guarantee that anything will happen in the future that isn't just more of the same grim neoliberal encouragement and funding for the slaughter of the browns? No, no, and no.
Are those still relevant facts, though? Yes. Are you posting all this out of any good well intentioned concern for the well being of the Palestinians, or with consideration of the fact that Trump explicitly wants to go in and finish the genocide instead of this limp-wristed-too-late opposition Biden is giving? That one, only you can answer.
I appreciate you taking the time/effort to do the fact checking on these accounts (here and in other threads). I try when I can, but my time is limited by 10,000 things vying for it.
FWIW, that account is ~~2~~ 3 weeks old and exists on an instance that has been springing up trolls left and right because it has wide-open registrations.
Just to play Devil's advocate here... The US takes that approach to guns inside its own borders, expecting that asking nicely is enough to stop people shooting up schools. So it would be kinda hypocritical for the US to hold Israel to different standards. Guns are America's real religion.