421
Two Israeli embassy staff shot dead near Washington DC Jewish museum
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
421 points (100.0% liked)
News
31312 readers
3116 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Genuinely awful for these two and their families, but the same can be said for ~53,000 dead Palestinians and the rest who are actively starving to death in a Israeli-made famine while aid rots onboard trucks across the border. Both acts are deliberate, and both were avoidable.
And while they were both working for the current extremists in power atm via the diplomatic service, they were a lot more moderate too:
I mean also.....
"In his final post on social media hours before the attack, Lischinsky had shared a post from the Israeli ambassador, Amir Weissbrod, accusing UN officials of engaging in “blood libel” over claims that 14,000 children faced starvation in Gaza."
Not saying they deserved any violence, but even once moderate Israelis have been driven pretty far right in the last couple years. Accusations of blood libel while the state is actively starving children doesn't exactly seem to be promoting any positive dialogue.
Yeeeesh, hadn’t seen that reporting…
It’s unbelievably disappointing to see over and over again that Israelis are broadly okay with the death and destruction in Gaza, when a little over a generation ago they were on the cusp of a genuine two-state solution. And now it’s an ethnostate that practices apartheid, and it’s okay because “Bibi keeps us safe”. Almost as if nothing else matters.
It was always an Apartheid state - their own laws from the very start separate Israeli Citizenship from Israeli Nationality, with only Jews being allowed to have the last (in addition to the former) which has additional rights over mere Citizenship - and it had a Genocide already pretty near the time of its formation called the Nakba, only that was "just" displacement and a few murders rather than mass murdering hundreds of thousands of people.
It's just that for a while their Propaganda was very successful and they might have even be genuinelly considering merelly not taking over the rest of Palestine as giving back that which they had already stolen was never on the table, nor was the return of the Palestinians or a genuinelly equal society for both Jews and Non-Jews.
Israel was always shit since it's formation (which by the way involved them commiting terrorist attacks), it's just that now they've gone extreme Genocidal on their way to commiting a XXI Century version of the Holocaust.
The context is important. A UN official said 14,000 children would die in 48 hours. As it turns out that was a grossly exaggerated claim.
Weissbrod called that out.
I don't think I would really consider it a grossly exaggerated claim, more of just a misinterpretation of a report.
"For now let me just say that we know for a fact that there are babies who are in urgent life-saving need of these supplements that need to come in because their mothers are unable to feed themselves."
"And if they do not get those, they will be in mortal danger," he said.
I definitely wouldn't claim that it was a claim based on antisemitism as Weissbrod is accusing. It's a fact that the Israeli state is starving tens of thousands of people for no justifiable reason. I don't think a misinterpretation of the timeline is really enough to claim someone is participating in blood libel.
Well, as long as 14,000 children die of starvation over a longer time period...
Yeah.
Stop. It's awful. Period!
A) One lone gunman goes off the rails and murders two people because they’re Jewish/affiliated with the state. That’s tragic and wrong, and I haven’t yet seen anyone claim that his actions were good and right.
B) An entire government and military decides that their course of action shall be wanton bombing with callous disregard for innocent civilian bystanders, whilst deliberately restricting food, fuel, and medical care to a blockaded nation. That’s willful evil, that is being either openly or implicitly supported by an overwhelming majority of Israelis.
The two scenarios are not the same, but they both are tragic.
But if two people are killed, you don't have to say: "Well, but what about..."
I mean context is always important. Pretty sure any murder investigation goes into the motivation of the person who killed the victims.
I think it's important to dispel the notion that the occupation of a neighboring country is somehow an act of protection, when it's pretty obvious that it's sparked a lot of provocation.
But they didn't just pointed out the context. They said: "Genuinely awful for these two and their families, but the same can be said for ~53,000 dead Palestinians [...]". That wording tends to whataboutism which is something I just want to point out. I may be overreacting but this sentence just sounds very adverse.
I mean, I don't think you get to decide what the scope of the context is.
For this not to be contextual you would have to claim that the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians had nothing to do with the gunman's motive. I think that would be hard to claim considering that the murders were politically motivated, considering that the two victims were diplomats.
I think people have gotten a little too comfortable with claiming anything that shares a sentence structure with a logical fallacy to be a logical fallacy. You have to remember that logical fallacies have to be illogical in the first place. It's not illogical to assume these two claims are associated.
Whataboutism have to equivocate two different scenarios that aren't logically associated with the events in the originating claim.
It's illogical to compare them from a moral perspective. You don't get to just shoot people because they have a different perspective than you, because they were raised differently or get their news from different places than you do. It's not exactly whataboutism though, it's more of a false equivalence. Whatever the case, the gunman is not morally justified in murdering these two people. If you think he is, then you are blinded by ideology and shouldn't be allowed to participate in democratic society.
The only person doing that is you.... Everyone else is trying to point out that the two events are logically connected.
Lol, I don't think his motivations were centered around where people get their news. There is a genocide happening in Palestine, it's not really a matter of perspective or debate. Violence begets violence, no one is claiming that's a good thing, it's just inescapable blowback.
No one is equivocating the two. People are just acknowledging that political violence against those who represent a state is to be expected when a state conducts a genocide.
Lol, I've started my statement claiming I didn't think people deserved to be murdered. You keep trying to connect my statements to moral grandstanding because you don't have any other kind of rebuttal.
Why are we like this online? Why does the inbox regularly receive with “well ahktually” replies compared to real discussion or comments?
Please don’t twist what I said to build a narrative where I’m some crypto-bigot trying to plant hatred. I wish the Israel apologists applied anywhere near that same level of effort towards the people who actually spew antisemitism…
This exact sentiment is why people don’t talk about Israel, but their reputation globally is in the gutter. Or how actual neo-nazis can pass fake Voltaire quotes that ‘Jews control the global media’ because criticism of Israel is verboten:
You aren't over reacting. It's a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals. The guy that got murdered isn't Israel. He's a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel. He's not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong, and there's no place in America for ideological murders. In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can't allow people to be murdered for their views. There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.
Thanks.
People aren't trying to equivocate the two, that would be insulting, not only to the people who were murdered, but to the tens of thousands of people being killed in Palestine.
I mean he's a representative of the state, which is why this is a politically motivated murder.
Explanations aren't justifications, just because people understand and even agree with the motivations of the killer doesn't mean the agree with how he acted upon them.
I find the cries for the sanctity of protecting civilians to be pretty meek considering the state these civilians represent have overwhelmingly killed more civilians than armed combatants.
This is the inherent problem with a state targeting civilian populations, it provokes violence upon your own civilians.
Another person misunderstanding the Constitution.....Free speech doesn't protect you from the public's reaction to your speech, it guarantees protection from the government targeting you for your speech.
This isn't an example of someone's free speech being violated. An actual example would be students being arrested for their protest about Israels actions in Gaza.
Again, understanding a motive isn't justifying. No one said they agreed that those people deserved to be murdered , you're just moralizing.
Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don't murder people you disagree with. Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government. But the government must also protect free speech, and that includes protecting people from others. There doesn't need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It's wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop. Otherwise you don't have a free country. You can't hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.
Moralizing once again, no one here advocated for murdering anyone.
The idea of freedom speech is a constitutional right, it's not a social mores. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you are just trying to erect a strawman argument.
Lol, kinda ironic someone who is whining about free speech is trying to get people to stop talking about someone's motive. We can discuss whatever we want, if you don't like it you can leave. Hypocrite.
Lol, free speech means stop talking about something I don't like because of freedoms......You are a moron.
Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it. Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society. This is not complicated...
According to whom? You can't just redefine legal terms to suit your argument. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, again this is just a strawman argument.
You are already legally protected from being murdered for what you say, last time I checked murder is still illegal.
First of all....who was expressing sympathy for the murderer? Understanding someone's motive isn't the same as being sympathetic towards something. The CIA has reported that 9/11 was the result of political blowback from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. By your logic the CIA is sympathetic towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11?
Secondly, you don't get to dictate what people get to feel or talk about. Especially while hypocritically accusing people of undermining the freedom of speech for their beliefs or statements.
Lastly you have no fucking clue what the freedom of speech clause of Constitution actually means, because as I have previously stated..... you are a moron.
I'm pretty sure tying shoe laces is complicated for you, this has obviously gone over your head.
I'm addressing the victim blaming apologists in this thread. If that isn't you then carry on.
You were the one making accusations about me specifically. Now that your argument completely fell apart, you were talking about someone else? What a fucking loser, go kick rocks.
It sounded like maybe you were secretly happy about the murders, or sympathized a little bit. If not, that's my mistake and I apologize.
Yes, you’re right, the two events are entirely unrelated. Clearly just another case of anti-semitism out of nowhere. No possible other reason or context exists as to why the gunman was shouting “Free Palestine” as he was arrested after committing double murder.
Whatabboutism is when you deflect from one action perpetrated by your group, towards another action perpetrated by an out-group. Me expressing remorse for their deaths alongside the people their government murdered is not “Well what about…”
I never said that and you don't have to put words in my mouth. Rest here, that's all I wanted to say.
E: Putting words im mouths by the way doesn't really help people to change their mind or discuss constructively, what I tried to do.
In a vacuum that makes sense, but this is going to be used to rationalize/justify some nasty shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to brace for that.