Those were some very weak arguments by Israel. It is hard to see 1,700 as genocide and 23,000, ~10k being children, as "oopsies" or necessary and not genocide.
This might work. Compared to criticism of Apartheid, you can't criticize the Israeli government. If you do you're an antisemite that supports terrorism.
As BadEmpanada put it: "They're trying to give the judges an out to throw the case on ideological lines before it even starts, they're not arguing the facts because if they did they would lose badly" Basically all they did was gesture to any countries built on genocide that "hey if this case is allowed to go to trial we'll lose and it will set precedent which will come after you next" giving them plausible deniability to stop the trial on a technicality. See they're not voting FOR genocide, they're voting AGAINST the trial.
Basically they're banking on the fact that enough nations are as fascist and corrupt enough as to stop the whole thing before the facts are put on the table, in which case they instantly lose because they literally bragged that they were intentionally doing a genocide. It's in the public record, completely indisputable. They thought they were untouchable and smugly ran their mouths thousands of times, now it's catching up to them.
"South Africa is Hamas, South Africa did not give Israel a chance to meet up and chat about Gaza before suing for genocide, and actually the Israel Defense Forces is the most moral entity on Earth."
Writing such polemic bullshit would be low for an opinion pice, but actually trying to pass this off as journalism devaluates any actual argument they are trying to make.
Why are people so afraid of actually arguing and dicussing facts and always resorting to parroting polarising bullshit that is an insult for journalism?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Because tribalism feels good and thinking can be exhausting...
Wow, your quote is taken entirely out of context. Not even sure what you're point is supposed to be...
That's a direct quote representing the start of a piece of trash that isn't even meeting basic standards of an opinion piece but isn't even one. So what other context is there?
It was preceded by an "Isreal's arguments were weak, South Afirca's are great!!!!"-statement (no details, reasons or anything given, because he's seemingly not a journalist but a cheerleader for his team) and followed by:
"Aware of the global audience, Israel also sought to reinforce its claims of righteousness and self-defense in fighting the war in Gaza."
So after a bullshit opinion without any agument, then some polemics we now escalate to questioning Isreal's right to defend against a terror attack (guess that happens when you are a Hamas fanboy...).
Is that enough context? Or should we continue up to one of the highlights of this piece of bullshit were all arguments of Israel's lawyers were called "supreme gaslighting"?
Or no, let's read until the end, where after pages and pages of listing Isreal's arguments (at one point calling the "a litany" even...) the author concludes that somewhow "during its presentation before the court, Israel made no arguments..."?
Yeah... I probably missed all context when I described it as "polarising bullshit and an insult to journalism". Oh, wait... No, that's actually a proper description of the whole article, not just that allegedly out-of-context quote.
Still ignoring context. But that's fine, because any article critical is Israel is obviously written in bad faith, huh?
Whatever. If suggest touching grass, but that'd probably be toxic for the grass, and the environment is already messed up enough already...
So then tell me about that context...
"I don't want to hear it, so you most be toxic" isn't context. That's just you being part of the team "Cheerleading for terrorism".
Says the guy cheerleading genocide committed by an authoritarian regime. Why do you even care that I, a complete stranger, an critical of their actions? If you're so confident in "your" conclusions, why would you be threatened by somebody whose life as literally no chance of affecting you?
As much as I want to believe words exist to knock some sense into you, I give up. (Anyone else wanna bet how long he sits and fumes about my refusal to abandon my beliefs to replace them with the party line? Probably spent the entire day between my response and his angrily trying to come up with the perfect rebuttal.)
Go ahead buddy, scream into the wind. You ain't got anything to say worth listening for...
Says the guy cheerleading genocide committed by an authoritarian regime.
Problem is I didn't. I called out bad journalism. Because bullshit narratives and tribalism make any actual discussion meaningless.
But then your see something that is seemingly criticising "your team" and instantly your delusions get triggered and you hallucinate how I "cheerlead for genocide" when I did actually not say anything other than that this report is polemic low quality bullshit.
Murdering children by the thousands is not self defense.
Bombing hospitals and refugee camps is not self defense.
Shooting shirtless Israeli hostages is not self defense.
Is there a limit for you? Can Israel kill as many people as it wants, bury as many babies in rubble as it wants, and its justified? Is there a line? If there is, I want you to put a hard number on it. Because I don't think there is. I think Israel can expel all of Gaza's citizens into neighboring countries and annex the territory, and you'll still say its justified. I don't think you have a limit.
There is a very clear and limit and number. It's zero. Zero people should be bombed. Zero people would be bombed without a despicable terror attack against Israel (oh, wait... as I just learned in this very thread here this never actually happened and it was a legitimate military attack against military targets somehow...). Zero people would be bombed without Hamas using the population as human shields. Also zero people should have been killed on October 7. Zero rockets should be fired each day at Israel. And zero neighbouring countries or factions should cheer for a newe excuse to attack Israel.
Do you want to know another relevance regarding that number? If you have no ability to argue without questioning the general right of Israel to exist, without questioning any right of self defense, without questionings if Israel was actually attacked, and without falling back to a "oh, the evil Jews are plotting together with corrupt world leaders again..."-narratives, then you have zero valid arguments, because you are a fucking anti-semite.
And then you have zero legitimacy to argue
So, again. Slowly this time because you -probably intentionally, but I'm an optimist by heart- seemed to have missed it: This pile of shit is not journalism. It would be low effort even for an opinion piece, which it isn't. It's full of polemics, lies and can't even manage too stay internally consistent (a "litany" of arguments is at the same time not existing, facts become claims when mentioned by Israel, while claims become facts when it's against them...) or free of anti-semite narratives.
I know... in this world where arguing about people killing each other has become a team sport and everything needs to be black and white it's nearly inconceivable but... Pause for a moment, take a deep breath and try to imagine just for one moment the following -nowadays neartly heretical- thought: Israel's government can be a clownshow of genocidal morons, Hamas is the exact same, and at the same time 70%+ of the people arguing against Israel are still doing so not based on facts but on anti-semitic narratives. And those people need to called out on their bullshit. Because not doing it devaluates the actual discussion. If I can't call out bullshit arguments as bullshit without being attacked for supporting a genocide, how is this or any discussion (or any court case) legitimate, if we all see clearly that it's not about the arguments but a popularity contest between two teams.
Which is what I did. I called this trashy piece of non-journalism out. And for this I now have been called insane, toxic and a supporter of genocide. Because you are brain-washed into believing this is a team sport, so you happily accept anti-semites on your team that is obviously better than the enemy.... Guess what. It's not. You are both wrong.
Sorry to tell you, but team "I accept anti-semitism, lies and bullshit and ignore Hamas, because I'm pro-Palestine" is just as insane as team "Every crticism is anti-semitism, "targeted area bombing" and deportation plans aren't crazy".
And here's Habeck pretending that Israel isn't committing a genocide. German regime is showing its true colors for all the world to see.
That's a personal statement, not an official one. And not even of the foreign minister or chancellor, but of the one for economy and climate change.
The official position of Germany is that statements done by Ben-Gvir etc. regarding "depopulating Gaza" are unacceptable, which shouldn't be too surprising that's been the German position regarding Israeli settlements etc. for aeons. Say what you want about our foreign policy but it's darn consistent.
Regarding the state calling what Israel is doing genocide: In my estimation, they're waiting for the ICJ judgement as it's a juridical, not political, matter. What is political is Germany being the good cop in regards to Israel, someone else needs to be the bad cop, South Africa is perfectly willing to do that, so what exactly are you complaining about.
Official Statement by Germany:
Den nun vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof gegen Israel erhobenen Vorwurf des Völkermords weist die Bundesregierung aber entschieden und ausdrücklich zurück. Dieser Vorwurf entbehrt jeder Grundlage.
Translation:
The German government firmly and explicitly rejects the allegation of genocide, brought before the ICJ against Israel. This allegation is completely baseless.
Also:
Die Bundesregierung intendiert, in der Hauptverhandlung als Drittpartei zu intervenieren.
The German federal government intends to intervene during the main trial as a third party.
So, the official line is the same as what Habeck said in the clip. They're also not waiting for a judgement, but supporting Israel directly before the court.
There's a lot more in that statement if you know how to read diplomatic statements. They're most of all interested in opposing political instrumentation while simultaneously acknowledging that different states have different evaluations [as to the legal situation] but they're intervening on behalf of Israel [to oppose political instrumentalisation]. They're saying that they reject the accusations, but not that they're false, only that they're baseless. Which is par for the course for defence attorneys, they always say that: "Prosecution, you don't have evidence and your line of argument doesn't make sense, no I don't care where my client was Sunday 12:30pm".
And truth be told if you hope that the ICJ will flat-out say that Israel is genocidal, no that won't happen. Not because they're partisan, but because the legal situation doesn't allow it, it is not clear enough of a case. Best we'll get is the court ruling that Israel shall put certain measures into place: Insist that the humanitarian aid Israel is giving is not close to enough to be, by itself, an argument against genocide, do more, your army is undisciplined AF, make sure that they actually follow the orders you give them.
The alternative to that kind of judgement would be saying "Israel is deliberately putting into place fig-leaf measures to evade prosecution" which is even harder to prove that genocide itself. You might've noticed that South Africa didn't go for that line of reasoning, it'd indeed be a hail mary.
But if the ICJ says that Israel is genocidal, Germany will follow.
And truth be told if you hope that the ICJ will flat-out say that Israel is genocidal, no that won’t happen. Not because they’re partisan, but because the legal situation doesn’t allow it, it is not clear enough of a case.
This case is so 100% crystal clear, you'd have to deliberately twist your brain into a pretzel to believe otherwise. And if you think the judges will not be pressured by the governments that sent them, your pretzel brain probably went soggy. Try putting it in the toaster for a minute.
Is it clear that Israel is killing a fuckton of people? Yes. Could that end with the complete eradication of Palestinians from Gaza? Also yes.
And if you ask me that's enough to call something a genocide. But my personal definition of the crime differs from that of the ICJ: In my mind, negligent genocide is genocide, while before the ICJ, you have to prove wilful intent, not mere negligence. And even if every Palestinian in Gaza gets killed and afterwards Israel sobers up, all Kahanites somehow emigrate to Mars or something and only mortally remorseful Labour Zionists are left -- they'd still argue self-defence excess, not intent, as it was the Hamas attacks which whipped the country into that kind of frenzy. Because yes the Kahanites are out for genocide, but that's not by far the majority of the Israeli population. That'd be even more wrong than claiming that Christo-Fascist Evangelicals are a majority in the US.
Attempting complete eradication is not necessary under UN definition, and in Srebrenica, 8000 people, far from all Bosnians, and not even the majority of people in Srebrenica, were killed, and that's still an official court-approved genocide. The convention says "in whole or in part", after all.
This is not negligence. This is obviously willful intent. They're starving two million people. They know what the result of that is. They repeatedly bomb civilians. And they know they're killing civilians. They know they're not bombing military targets. They do this over and over. Repeatedly doing genocidal acts implies genocidal intent, you don't have to go off of rhetoric.
The government of Israel are not liberal Zionists, so I don't know why you bring that up even. It's not genocide because not everyone in Israel wants genocide, just the far-right and the far-right government? What argument is that? That's pretzel-brain speaking.
Also, most Israelis know what's going on. Anyone who still supports this now after what has been going for over three months, while arguing self-defense, is either lying or completely delusional. Maybe they don't like to think of themselves as genocidal maniacs, but they're still supporting genocide and coming up with excuses why it's okay this time. Liberal Zionists that don't want this to stop immediately are still complicit. And again, that's irrelevant when the far-right is in power. That's still Israel, as a state, doing this and guilty of genocide.
The government of Israel are not liberal Zionists, so I don’t know why you bring that up even.
The government of Israel is not its administration. There's plenty of people in charge all over the place which hate Bibi's guts and Ben-Gvir thrice over.
This is not negligence. This is obviously willful intent. They’re starving two million people.
The argument will be that Hamas is stopping them from delivering more aid -- and that's not even false, Hamas is impeding aid. If Hamas wants Israel to get convicted of genocide they should not be the utter bastards to the civilian population that they are. OTOH, the argument "Then don't fight that war you'll just have to accept Hamas doing such stuff" doesn't fly because that would go against the right of nations to defend themselves which is not negotiable, it's a core pillar of international law.
Juridically this will all end in a headache of "what is proportional, what is not, and is us talking about proportionality even proportional to what Israel is doing". The ICJ won't be able solve this case for humanity, we gotta find that very thing on our own.
So some part of the government is genocidal and some other part isn't? So you can just ignore what the prime minister and other people in charge are saying, because they are not really in charge? This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and Israel didn't even make that argument in their defense. Instead they said: These are not the official orders, so that's just talk basically. Despite the actual fucking evidence of what their troops are doing confirming it isn't just talk.
Hamas is impeding aid.
Hamas is doing this all themselves! They're stopping the aid! They blew up Gaza themselves (they said that in the courtroom)! They probably also turned off the water and electricity!? It's easy to prove that Israel did all that stuff, and they said so. Here's the Israeli defense minister:
We are imposing a complete siege of Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything will be closed.
Must be one of those people not really in charge of anything and I must have imagined when they did that.
You're living in some alternate reality. Are you deliberately trying to mount the worst defense in order to make Israel look bad?
Instead they said: These are not the official orders, so that’s just talk basically.
And there are some people in the ranks which don't care that they're told not to commit genocide. That constitutes genocidal intent of those individuals, but not of the state, which is what the ICJ is asked to judge. Now if Israel fails to prosecute those individuals then that could indeed would strengthen the case against Israel quite a bit, but that's not what the case the ICJ is currently hearing is about.
Hamas is doing this all themselves!
Not everything, no, but they're taking cover behind civilians to a ridiculous degree. Which then allows Israel, or aforementioned individuals, to write memos "we can't drop stuff there that's too risky".
Wasn't there something about Israel not allowing aid organisations to buy food for Gaza in Israel? That's quite a bit more damning but I don't think SA put it forth as evidence. And as said with such things the ICJ would likely just say "yeah don't do that" not "that's genocidal".
You’re living in some alternate reality. Are you deliberately trying to mount the worst defense in order to make Israel look bad?
As said: I believe Israel is committing a genocide. Separately from that, I also believe that what they're doing is not enough for the ICJ to convict them of genocide because the ICJ and me have different standards.
Don't shoot the messenger.
The leadership is putting out genocidal statements, and then, to cover their asses, they put "do this in accordance with international law" is some official order, probably on the recommendation of some lawyer. The soldiers all through the ranks repeat the genocidal language, and commit genocidal acts,over and over, nobody stopping them, and almost all of them defended and rationalized by Israeli spokespeople. Your assessment: Just individuals doing individual war crimes. Are you joking?
The leadership is putting out genocidal statements, and then, to cover their asses, they put “do this in accordance with international law” is some official order, probably on the recommendation of some lawyer.
Can you prove that in court. Do you have recorded conversations or such that would back that up.
nobody stopping them
At least some are being dragged before disciplinary tribunals. Are they fall guys? It's a possibility but again you'd have to prove it. In dubio pro reo also applies to states.
Your assessment: Just individuals doing individual war crimes. Are you joking?
That's not what my assessment is. One of my assessments is that there's at the very least a group of ideologically connected individuals right-out enjoying committing those war crimes. I've been saying that the Kahanites are out for a genocide before the military operation even began. But the ICJ is there to convict states, not ideological minorities within a state that's Israel's responsibility and prerogative.
The other is that that the ICJ won't convict because even if the stuff can be proven, including all the fall-guy kind of stuff SA isn't even putting forth evidence towards that end.
Can you prove that in court.
Yes. They say that shit, and the lower ranks repeat it, and it gets done. Clearly the orders get relayed and implemented. What more proof do you need? It is nothing new that people lie when committing crimes to cover their asses. But you can actually look at what they're doing to figure which of these statements is actually true: "We do everything in accordance with international law!" or "We will starve and bomb them until they leave or die!".
Israel almost never punishes any of their own soldiers, or even admits any wrongdoing, even in pretty clear-cut cases. Arguing that Israeli courts are going to stop the genocide is completely delusional. They haven't done shit so far, and they have no track record of doing anything. That's because this is not about individual war crimes, this is a systemic policy implemented and supported throughout all institutions of the Israeli state, coming from the very top. You just do not want to see it.
What more proof do you need?
You don't have to prove it to me, but the ICJ. You'll have to prove that all that behaviour is intentional, and not negligent. You have to prove that they're evil as opposed to merely incompetent.
If you want to complain about the ICJ complain about the ICJ. Complain about the very nature of legal philosophy if you want. But keep me out of it, this has been the gazillionth time you shot the messenger.
From the comfort of my home in the States, Israel’s response to being attacked is disproportionate af and is galvanizing the world against it. Which isn’t great for a nation surrounded by enemies. They need friends and sooner or later even for the US this will be beyond the pale.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While Israel’s lawyers made legal arguments that the genocide charges leveled against it are invalid, their primary strategy was to appeal to the court on jurisdictional and procedural matters, hoping that they could form the basis for the panel of international judges to dismiss South Africa’s case.
Israel’s representative Tal Becker opened his government’s rebuttal by telling the judges at the ICJ that South Africa’s case “profoundly distorted the factual and legal picture,” claiming it sought to erase Jewish history.
Becker neglected to mention the fact that Netanyahu himself long advocated for Hamas to retain power in Gaza and worked to ensure the flow of money to the group from Qatar continued over the years, believing it to be the best strategy to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Shaw called this characterization as “outrageous” and said the only relevant historical “context” were the events of October 7, which he termed “the real genocide in this situation.” Given the civilian death toll caused by Israel in Gaza — upward of 23,000 as of this week — it was a stunning statement.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” Shaw argued there was “no need here for a theological discussion.” South Africa, he charged, took Netanyahu’s words out of context and failed to include the portion of his statement where he emphasized that the IDF was the “most moral army in the world” and “does everything to avoid harming the uninvolved.” The implication of Shaw’s argument is that Netanyahu’s platitudes about the nobility of the IDF somehow nullified the significance of invoking a violent biblical edict to describe a military operation against people Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant described as “human animals.”
South Africa, in its argument on Thursday, contended that by refusing to cease its operations, Israel was ensuring that the pile of Palestinian corpses would continue to grow alongside the amputations of limbs without anesthesia and babies dying of treatable illnesses.
The original article contains 3,020 words, the summary contains 335 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
