It’s a legal argument because South Africa is raising the case. Painting it as a silly conspiracy theory by saying that Israel identifies any criticism as Hamas is reductive - a common trend here. You may not agree with Lior but he is doing his job in defending Israel to the UN.
Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
If the court decides against Israel, it will make provisions which will make it more difficult for Israel to freely execute its military strategies against Hamas (because the argument is that all of the military operations so far have had the sole objective of wiping out Hamas)
South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
South Africa is assisting Hamas, indirectly.
I think that’s right?
So there are a few problems here, firstly the claim that South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas is clearly propagandising. It attempts to paint South Africa and Hamas as collaborators without evidence and it is a stretch to say this from the logic above.
Secondly, there is a fallacy present, it seems to me, in the assumption that if Israel were to be found guilty of genocide, then that would be aiding Hamas, which is unacceptable. This is a fundamentally flawed assumption: censuring Israel for genocide is a goal in itself regardless the consequences; crimes cannot be allowed even if they are perpetrated in pursuit of the goal of stopping other crime; Israel should be able to pursue Hamas without committing genocide.
It’s also an unsound tactic because it does fit so well with the narrative that Israel blames Hamas for everything. When interrogated about questionable Israeli military actions, on many occasions, their representatives have publicly blamed Hamas, often to the point of absurdity. This argument therefore seems like an extension of that tactic.
That this is his chosen, and presumably best available strategy belies the shakiness of the ground he is on, and does not bode well for Israel’s defence. The consensus among impartial academics is hat Israel is guilty of this crime, or is imperceptibly close to it.
It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold, and I stand ready to have my mind changed from my current interpretation of the facts on the ground and the legal definition of genocide which are pointing to Israel’s being guilty.
You misused the word belies, which really sums up the very issue with your argument - at its core is a fundamental misunderstanding of the courts, language and the nature of what’s at play here. South Africa is doing what its financiers want - to destabilise the region and in particular that of the US and its partners . They had the opportunity to arrest Putin for war crimes last year and bent over backwards to avoid doing so while also inviting a delegation of the some of the worst of Hamas to visit the country seeking funding. ZA cares about war crimes when it suits them to grab some distraction from their own political woes.
I’ll overlook what appears to be a baseless insult about me fundamentally misunderstanding language for the moment.
It is irrelevant that South Africa might have tried a different case, it’s irrelevant that they may care about some war crimes and not others, irrelevant where the funding might be coming from, what their motivation may be for trying this case and it’s irrelevant that may be experiencing political woe. None of these have any bearing on the credibility of the legal arguments being made. Discrediting the character of the source of an argument does not change the veracity of the argument; it stands or falls on its own merits. While you’ve raised a lot of interesting questions, they are separate and distinct from the question “is Israel committing/has Israel recently committed war crimes”, which is what the court is hearing.
P.s. his confident, yet flawed rhetoric belies the shaky legal ground he stands upon. I thought that would be implicit.
Hang on, were you misunderstanding my reference to “the court”? Had you forgotten that we’re discussing a court case? You did mention it in your reply.
Yet you thought I was referring to this forum as a court, is that what you were saying here?
Have another read of it, and take your time by all means.
and completely unfunny, never done anything in his entire career except gape at the camera in mock surprise-- you could throw a rock in Antarctica and hit someone with more talent
Thats not the definition of a genocide… Germany killed 1 % of the french population in WW2 and its wasn’t a genocide.
A genocide is characterized by the intention to annihilate a people. And while the far right in Israel is voicing support for a genocide, the current offensive is definitely not a genocide. This doesn’t mean that its not against international law or just. But it simply doesnt fit the definition of a genocide – no matter how often you call it that way.
That is what he says, it’s time to look into the intentions. And saying that it is just far right fringe figures that are making genocidal statements is a nice way to play with the facts, because the far right is currently in power in Israel. The SA case at the ICJ contains a long segment of quotes from Israeli officials and ministers making genocidal statements on the record.
To add to this, western governments are fully aware that Israel is breaking international law (and proud of it), because they refuse to answer any questions on this topic. For example David Cameron called on Israel to allow for fresh water to enter Gaza, implying that Israel is currently blocking this. Blocking access to drinking water is in violation of international law, when pressed on this Cameron said he was quote “not a lawyer”, and said he could not remember if he has been shown any evidence of violations of international law by Israel (as if that is something you would forget).
The west is showing that a rules based international order only applies for the global south, many people in the west might be too stupid or ignorant to see this but outside of the west this is doing irreparable damage to the credibility of the west.
The “journalism” about israel/gaza here in germany is a complete shame across the board. German media, even (or especially) the publicly funded media, literally try to hide the discussions that the rest of the world is having about this war. Things like these: nytimes.com/…/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.ht…
And of course they are failing. Also, whenever something happens that they can’t ignore, they use euphemisms to describe war crimes of the israli side instead of just stating the facts. Many journalists are literally scared to lose their jobs if they report to honestly about this conflict. It’s insane.
Journalists who are afraid of speaking truth to power are not doing their job. I would tell them “Get fired if you must, fuck your job - you’re a journalist, not a lobby boy.”
Some jobs are not a mere job, they are a societal need and a calling. Should we accept doctors who would prefer to keep their job if it meant giving substandard care?
That’s an extreme example maybe, but given the state of corporate news media and the effect it’s had on society, I’ll stand by it.
It does rather underpin the value of strong social safety nets, doesn’t it? When the only way to survive is to keep your job, it’s not essentially different than forced labor.
I agree. At the moment i am keeping my job, but would rather take a small timeout, like 3 months. Just relax and take my time to think things over. The pandemic took everything i had set aside and the inflation has me spending my whole salary for the month. I could only quit this job if i already have another starting the next day, there’s no way to spend even a week without income.
I’m sorry, why do you in particular have some keen insight or experience or knowledge which allows you to speak for these folks anymore than the other commenter?
EDIT: I should clarify, it would be very very easy to not do this; there, I did it now, there I didn’t do it again, I can keep this going. Can you specify why in-and-of-itself supporting an unambiguous apartheid regime and settler-colonial state engaged in documented genocide over decades is not, again, in-and-of-itself enough to not support or write on or for it??
Thats simply incorrect. For example ‘Deutschlandfunk Der Tag’ did a long series (~5 hours) about the impact of the war on Palestinians living under Hamas occupation during the war and their feelings towards Israel. They even did a Meta-report ‘How much attention does the dying in Gaza get in german media’ where they interviewed Salma Abuzaina, a Palestine activist in germany.
Maybe you just don’t consume public funded media if you haven’t heard any report about it. The conflict between reporting on Palestinian deaths and Isreali deaths without negating the suffering of any of the parties is a huge topic in german media.
See my other german comment for a reply to exactly that. I know that DLF is mostly doing a good job but that’s not my point. Sorry, but its to tedious for me to keep discussing this in english.
And I have no Idea what you are talking about, Deutschland Funk talks about the death in Palestine quite often. And how Israel is not tunening down their Attacks and how Shipments of Aid being blocked.
They report very neutral you could even say emotionless. Because they have no need for seeking attention or shock Images because they don’t need to sell their News and Articles.
Trust me, we are very well informed on what is going on in Gaza and how Israel is starving the Region while bombing it to shred. Our News network is pretty good only our politicians seem unwilling to talk about this
Man muss zwischen “innerem” und “äußerem” Mainstream unterscheiden. Der innere Mainstream sind z.B. viel verkaufte Tageszeitungen, sowie Fernsehnachrichten, “politische” Talkshows und vielleicht Nachrichten bei Unterhaltungsradiosendern. Deutschlandfunksendungen, sowie Investigativformate (Monitor, Frontal 21, Panorama,…) leisten oft sehr gute Arbeit, aber fliegen verhältnismäßig unter dem Radar. Ich finde es berechtigt, die quotenstarken öffentlichrechtlichen Abendnachrichten (Tagesthemen, Heute) im Fernsehen mit anderen Ländern zu vergleichen (z.B. BBC, PBS, CNN) und in diesem Vergleich zeigt sich sehr deutlich, wie das Thema in Deutschland komplett anders und sehr einseitig behandelt wird.
Ich gebe dir recht, was den DLF betrifft, der rettet die Öffentlichrechtlichen in der Hinsicht immer, dass die sagen können “guck, wurde doch berichtet” wenn jemand Kritik übt. Also wer sich informieren will, kann das hier auf jeden Fall auch in den Deutschen Medien, aber die quotenstärksten Formate, die die allgemeine Diskussion von Themen am meisten prägen sind in vielerlei Hinsicht beschämend schlecht.
(Ah Gott sei Dank du sprichst deutsch! Eine Diskussion auf englisch darüber ist etwas knifflig zumal es kaum Artikel über die deutsche Medienlandschaft auf englisch gibt 😂)
Bei mir ist es vielleicht genau deswegen umgekehrt 🤔 Ich schaue kein Fernsehen und somit auch nicht Tagesschau und bekomme daher meine Nachrichten eher vom DLF und deren Unterformaten. Daher bin ich und die meisten meiner Freunde sehr darüber informiert. Aber in der Tagesschau usw. kommt dazu nichts?
Geht mir genau so. Ich informiere mich hauptsächlich über Podcasts und höre auch gerne DLF Sendungen als Podcast (Nachrichten, Der Tag, Hintergrund, manchmal auch Kontrovers). Wenn ich mal Abendnachrichten oder auch politische Talkshows im Fernsehen sehe, platzt mir aber regelmäßig der Kragen.
wegen dem vielfach widerlegtem Schwachsinn, der dort faktenbasierten Argumenten scheinbar ebenbürtig gegenüber steht und
U.A. im Falle dieses Konfliktes, wegen der sehr einseitigigen Berichterstattung, welche sich immer in der gewählten Sprache und oft auch in der Auswahl und Gewichtung der Themen ganz klar zeigt. Wie gesagt, es ist, als würden die Versuchen, unvermeidbare Diskussionen, die sowieso auf der ganzen Welt geführt werden, sowie schwierige, ambivalente Bewertungen, von den Deutschen Zuschauer*innen fernzuhalte. Dadurch soll wohl ein möglichst geschlossenes Weltbild vermitteln und den Leuten (größtenteils im fortgeschrittenen Rentenalter) die Welt erklärt werden, anstatt ihnen die Möglichkeit zu geben, sich eine Meinung zu bilden und sich weiter zu informieren. Ich vermute, dass eine der Ursachen dafür ist, dass diese Art von Nachrichten höhere Einschaltquoten bringen, was auch die Öffis nicht ganz ignorieren können.
Ziemlich gut diskutiert und anhand von Clips gezeigt (auch im Vergleich zu internationalen anderen Medien), wurde das im Aufwachen!-Podcast, Folgen 456 und 457. Die Podcasts sind sehr lang, haben aber Kapitelmarken. Dazu sei noch erwähnt, dass diverse Redakteur*innen aus den Öffis, denen das selbst auffällt, die aber dagegen nichts ausrichten können, die Podcaster in ihrer Betrachtung bestärkt und ihnen für das Aufzeigen des Problems gedankt haben. Natürlich nicht öffentlich, denn das Thema ist in Deutschland einfach ein Minenfeld.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.