this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
99 points (96.3% liked)

Canada

7161 readers
432 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Regions

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
99
Government Of Canada Labels Palestine Solidarity Organization As A Terrorist Entity (thenorthstar.media)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.>

This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling.

Citation needed.

They only ruled that ... the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.

They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk,

Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?

They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that "we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?" I wouldn't normally associate "Geneva violations" language with "court has jurisdiction" verbiage.

Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel's interpretation of "wholly unfounded" and "morally repugnant" "false claims" was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.

And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel.

I mean, true in the sense that it sounded like there was almost a grand peace deal that would have made the Palestine Authority and Israel both happy, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/ until Hamas ruined it with their terrorist attack.

But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law. E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-military-human-shields.html

While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn't done what it did last year, that doesn't absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.

In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights.. Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it's strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).

No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.

Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.

On this, I think we're in complete agreement.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 "Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court."

But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law> Yes, that is true. But no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians. It's impossible. International law only requires that they take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide, nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.

The one thing that people can't seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don't want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, "Hmm, I guess Israel wasn't the bad guy after all."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.

But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law
Yes, that is true.

And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.

no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians

Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.

The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide,

Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.

nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.

I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn't establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they're morally in the wrong?

Logically that's correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to "take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties."

Israelis don’t want war.

When I see the headlines from articles like https://time.com/7016741/israel-protests-netanyahu-six-hostages-deaths/ - yes, I can easily believe that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.> I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law. I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.

Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war> It's figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for "carry out." But if you're implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that.

I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law.

In that case, allow me to provide some sources on this matter,

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-15/ty-article/.premium/idf-soldiers-attacked-military-police-at-gunpoint-for-arresting-comrades-at-sde-teiman/00000192-904d-d2db-ab97-dddd31dd0000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-04/ty-article/.premium/prosecution-seeks-extended-custody-of-five-israeli-soldiers-suspected-of-sde-teiman-abuse/00000191-1caf-db97-a7df-fcffecc00000

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4630363-us-israeli-military-violated-human-rights/ (though this last one is about accusations that predate the current conflict)

Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.”

Ok, clear on your meaning now.

But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.

No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they're failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 52 minutes ago

I don't disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That's pretty standard in war. But that wasn't what I have in mind when people say things like "Israel is committing war crimes." That has a much different connotation to it.

Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say 'prosecute' rather than 'perpetrate'. My bad.

The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.> That is absolutely a valid question. But most people don't pose it as a question. They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war based on photos of destroyed buildings or abstract death toll numbers. And let's face it, most people who are critical of the war are staunchly anti-Israel and don't think Israel should have responded at all. Many people also don't understand the big picture. They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn't. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.

The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that's it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can't be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it's about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn't do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn't a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.

This isn't even close to ethnic cleansing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don't see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn't because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It's just more often military targets and not civilian ones.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Are you serious?

Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm's way. That's why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That's why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.

Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won't do damage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens.

You just literally pointed out the distinction. Israel is privileged enough to have these kinds of systems. Palestine is not. And why is Palestine so poor, might you ask? What has happened to them for over 70 years where they can barely even defend themselves?

Also, the Hamas using the hospital as a base accusation has long been debunked.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You really are completely oblivious. Is this what happens when you become brainwashed by Marxist crap?

First of all, do you know how much money Hamas has received in foreign aid to help the people of Gaza? Billions. And that doesn't include the support they get from Iran in the form of weapons and money. How the hell do you think they could afford to build a tunnel network larger than the London Underground? It has nothing to do with privilege, it's about how a civilized society chooses to spend its money compared to how a genocidal Islamist terror organization decides to spend its money. Have you not seen the palaces that Hamas leaders have in Qatar? Did you know that Arafat died a billionaire?

Second, Israel built a thriving successful nation from nothing through hard work, innovation, and a shared commitment to building a future for the Jewish people. They fought off genocidal enemies and survived and thrived against all odds. If you could put aside your hateful ideology for a minute you might appreciate it for the incredible success story it is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

First of all, do you know how much money Hamas has received in foreign aid to help the people of Gaza?

I'm going to ask you to cite your sources here.

Second, Israel built a thriving successful nation from nothing through hard work, innovation, and a shared commitment to building a future for the Jewish people.

Yes, it totally had nothing to do with the tens of billions it receives in foreign aid, the extensive military support it also gets, and the land and resources they stole from the Palestinians. A lot of "hard work"there. Clearly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-foreign-aid-gaza-strip-611b2b90c3a211f21185d59f4fae6a90 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-plagued-poverty-hamas-no-shortage-cash-come-rcna121099 https://www.prio.org/publications/12927

Most of Israel's support from the US has come in the past several decades. Israel was founded in 1947, fought a war with virtually no support from anyone, and then spent about 20 years building up the country from nothing. It didn't develop major political alliances until after the Six-Day War in 1967, when countries like the US realized Israel could prove to be a mutually beneficial ally.

I know it's hard to admit that a few hundred thousand Jewish refugees could actually build a country through their own hard work, but that's what happened. There's a reason why the Jewish people have survived and thrived against all odds, and it ain't because of handouts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The article you provided literally talks about how Qatar is sending foreign aid to Gaza and Israel is allowing it since it bypassed Hamas. This just invalidates your point.

It absolutely was not thanks to hard work. Israel is a colonial settlement backed by billionaires and propped up by the American military, so they can use it as a proxy to exert their influence on the region. Pull this support away, and the country collapses.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Are you Muslim? You seem to be having a very difficult time with the idea of Jewish success.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 54 minutes ago* (last edited 53 minutes ago) (1 children)

Calling building a nation on the pile of millions of corpses of the native population and aided by the richest countries in the world a success is pretty disingenuous to put it politely. Israel's standing isn't the flex you think it is.

Israeli's are Zionist extremists. Many Jews around the world don't believe in this bullshit promised land the Zionists are using to commit unforgivable atrocities. I don't have a problem with Jews, I have a problem with Zionists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 43 minutes ago (1 children)

Jews are indigenous to the land. Do you know what's underneath the mosques in Israel? Jewish temples and artifacts dating back thousands of years.

And we didn't start any of the violence. None of it. Arabs rejected the presence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and have been trying (and failing) to destroy it for 100 years.

Once again, the Palestinian people have received billions in foreign aid. They are supported by Iran and Qatar, which are two pretty damn wealthy countries.

You clearly know nothing about Zionism. You are making generalizations about a movement and a people based on the behavior of a small number of extremists. Do you know what that's called? Bigotry.

And I hate to disappoint you, but anti-Zionist Jews are a very, very small fringe minority. So when you say, "I don't have a problem with Jews, I have a problem with Zionists," you're basically saying, "I don't have a problem with all Jews, just most of them."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 38 minutes ago

Jews are indigenous to the land. Do you know what’s underneath the mosques in Israel? Jewish temples and artifacts dating back thousands of years.

So are the Palestinians.

And we didn’t start any of the violence. None of it. Arabs rejected the presence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and have been trying (and failing) to destroy it for 100 years.

Yes you did.

Once again, the Palestinian people have received billions in foreign aid. They are supported by Iran and Qatar, which are two pretty damn wealthy countries.

And were being kept in the worlds largest open air prison. They were regularly killed and attacked by the Israeli's that makes the treatment of African-Americans by cops look like a joke.

You clearly know nothing about Zionism. You are making generalizations about a movement and a people based on the behavior of a small number of extremists. Do you know what that’s called? Bigotry.

This isn't some kind of fringe group. The whole country is based on this ideal and majority of the government follows it, including the higher ups.

And I hate to disappoint you, but anti-Zionist Jews are a very, very small fringe minority. So when you say, “I don’t have a problem with Jews, I have a problem with Zionists,” you’re basically saying, “I don’t have a problem with all Jews, just most of them.”

If they're Zionists, yes I have a problem with them.